Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on February 09, 2013, 06:24:PM
-
GDS documents:-
R E G I N A
V
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
ADDENDUM SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
PREVIOUS CASE REFERENCE NUMBER: 00381/1997
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +39 06 85203516
FAX +39 06 80692652
[email protected]
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com
REF: GDS/DM/DP
08 MARCH 2004
The Applicant relies upon DOCUMENTS PROVIDING SUBSTANCE FOR A
THIRD ALTERNATIVE a “Wireless Message Log with a timing of 05.25 stating as
follows:
“05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm.”
The CCRC are specifically requested to consider the meaning of the word
“CONVERSATION”.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines the word “conversation”
on page 311 as follows:
“an informal spoken exchange of news and ideas between
two or more people.”
It follows that by any interpretation at 05.25am, when the Applicant was outside White
House Farm in the company of the police, the Firearms team where in conversation
(informal exchange of news and ideas between two or more people) with a person from
inside the farm. There can be no misunderstanding of this vital piece of information
either in law, diction or language. Whilst this Applicant was with the police there existed
the clearest of evidence that there was someone, a person, inside the Farm. It follows the
conviction based upon the fact that whilst this Applicant had murdered his entire family
prior to attending the Farm with the police, with the existence of a person in conversation
from inside the Farm with the Police and such evidence not having been made available
for trial, the conviction is clearly unsafe and most unsatisfactory.
Studio Legale Internazionale
Rome, Italy
8 March 2004
--------------------------------------------------------
R E G I N A
V
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
PREVIOUS CASE REFERENCE NUMBER: 00381/1997
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +39 06 85203516
FAX +39 06 80692652
[email protected]
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com
REF: GDS/DM/DP
08 MARCH 2004
R. v JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
In drafting these further submissions, we have taken into consideration in a case of this nature and reminded the Applicant the fact that the Commission does not exist to provide a further appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal. Its function is to consider issues which were not apparent at the time of the trial and the appeal, such as new evidence which has come to light since the proceedings were concluded or material which has somehow been ignored or overlooked. If the Commission considers that there is a possibility that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, it is duty bound to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division for a further hearing by that court on both conviction and sentence.
THE LAW
The terms of reference of the Commission are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 section 13, which provides as follows :-
1. A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not be made under any of Sections 9 to 12, unless :-
(a) The Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) The Commission so consider :-
(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it, or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii) in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and
(iii) in the case of an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.
(2) Nothing in Sub Section 1 (b)(i) or (c) would prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.
In drafting this Application, we have considered the inevitable consequences of a referral. We are of the view that in the case of this Applicant, there are exceptional circumstances which justify making a referral.
STATE OF THE LAW AND THE ROLE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION POST A REFUSAL
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is a creature of statute and must carry out its duties accordingly. Section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act (1968), as amended, provides:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Court of Appeal -
(a) shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think the conviction is unsafe; and (b) shall dismiss an appeal in any other case."
Section 3 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1988 requires the court so far as possible to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with convention rights.
Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms confers on everyone the right to a fair trial.
There must be no difficulty in giving effect to the ‘right to a fair trial’ when discharging a duty to consider the safety of a conviction.
Although there are authorities which suggest that the safety of a conviction is to be considered irrespectively of the trial process by which it was procured (see R -v- Chalkley & Jeffries (1998) 2 Cr.App.R 79 and R -v- Clarke & Hewins (1999) (6 Archbold News 2 CA (9704882W3)), the approach taken by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in R -v- Mullen (1999) 2 Cr.App.R 143 CA and R -v- Smith (Patrick & Others), The Times May 31st 1999 must also be considered. In the latter case the court stated:
"Now that the test for allowing an appeal is simply the safety or otherwise of the conviction, is it competent for the court to consider evidence entertained after the wrongful rejection of a submission of no case to answer? Formerly the position was judged at the time of the submission (R -v- Cockley 79 Cr.App.R 181 CA). In R -v- Berry 98 Crim.L.R 487 (transcript 20th January 1998) this court seems to have considered that the approach remains unchanged following the amendments made to section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. However in Berry the point was not crucial. So it is still open and, once again, not altogether straightforward. What if a submission is wrongly rejected but the defendant is cross-examined into admitting his guilt? Should the conviction be said to be unsafe? We think it should. The defendant was entitled to be acquitted after the evidence against him had been heard. To allow the trial to continue beyond the end of the prosecution case would be an abuse of process and fundamentally unfair."
The CCRC may take comfort and remain fortified in the view by the decision in R v Weir, The Times, June 16th 2000. There, DNA evidence linked Weir to a murder by the profile extracted from an earlier saliva sample in a case which had been discontinued. The Crown accepted that the profile should not have remained on the database. Quashing the conviction, Swinton Thomas LJ said:
“This appellant was convicted of a brutal murder on the compelling evidence of the DNA sample.”
So, a material irregularity resulted in the quashing of a conviction when evidence as to guilt was overwhelming.
Prior to amendment in 1995 the Act required the court to allow an appeal where it considered the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, or there had been any wrong decision in law, or there had been a material irregularity in the course of the trial, save that the court might dismiss the appeal if it considered that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The approach was set out by Viscount Simon LC in Stirland v DPP (1944) AC 315 at p.321
“When the transcript [of the C of A] is examined it is evident that no reasonable jury, after a proper summing up, could have failed to convict the appellant on the rest of the evidence to which no objection could be taken. There was, therefore, no miscarriage of justice, and this is the proper test to determine whether the proviso to S4(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1907 should be applied. The passage in Woolmington v DPP (1) where Viscount Sankey LC observed that in that case if the jury had been properly directed it could not be affirmed that they would “inevitably” have come to the same conclusion should be understood as applying this test.”
It seems to be generally accepted that the 1995 amendment was not intended to disturb the previous practice of the Court. That was certainly the view of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (CM 2263 1993), which recommended the change, and of the then Secretary of State for Home Affairs and the Lord Chief Justice see Hansard (House of Commons) (6 March 1995) columns 53-55 and Hansard (House of Lords) (15 May 1995) columns 310-312. The reformulation was the subject of comment in R -v- Graham & Others (1997) 1 Cr.App.R 302. Giving the judgment of the court Lord Bingham LCJ stated at p.308:
"This new provision, the subject of a penetrating analysis by Sir John Smith QC in (1995) Crim.L.R 920, is plainly intended to concentrate attention on one question: whether in the light of any arguments raised or evidence adduced on appeal the Court of Appeal considers a conviction unsafe. If the court is satisfied despite any misdirection of law or any irregularity in the conduct of the trial or any fresh evidence, that the conviction is safe, the court will dismiss the appeal. But if, for whatever reason, the court concludes that the appellant was wrongly convicted of the offence charged or is left in doubt whether the appellant was rightly convicted of that offence or not, then it must of necessity consider the conviction unsafe. The court is then subject to a binding duty to allow the appeal."
As was stated by Roch LJ giving the judgment of the court in Hickey & Others CA 30/7/97:
"This court is not concerned with guilt or innocence of the appellants; but only with the safety of their convictions. This may, at first sight, appear an unsatisfactory state of affairs, until it is remembered that the integrity of the criminal process is the most important consideration for courts which have to hear appeals against conviction. Both the innocent and the guilty are entitled to fair trials. If the trial process is not fair; if it is distorted by deceit or by material breaches of the rules of evidence or procedure, then the liberties of all are threatened.
This court is a court of review. The court reviews the trial process to equip itself to answer the question “do we think that the conviction appealed is safe or do we think it unsafe?
The court is not a court of trial or re-trial. Persons accused of serious crimes are tried by juries in the Crown Court.”
In R v Martin [1998] 1 Cr App R 347, the House of Lords was considering the proposition that denial of the right to trial by jury in favour of Court Martial was an abuse of process. At p.353 Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:
“It could not possibly be said that the decision not to stay proceedings by Court Martial in Germany, where the crime was committed, was contrary to the rule of law, or that it deprived the appellant of any of his basic human rights. Nor could it be said to be “something so unfair and wrong” (see per Lord Lowry in Hui-Chi Ming v R (1992) 94 Cr App R 236) that the courts ought to intervene.”
And at p.355:
“Finally, I should also mention that even if the Courts-Martial Appeal Court has been satisfied that there was an abuse of process, it would still have been necessary for the court to dismiss the appeal, unless it was persuaded that the conviction was unsafe.”
At p.356 Lord Hope of Craighead said:
“In the ordinary case the Appeal Court exercises its jurisdiction by examining the effect of the point raised in the appeal on the course of the trial. Defects or insufficiency in the evidence and errors of law and procedure at the trial must be assessed in the context of the whole trial before the court can be satisfied the conviction is unsafe.
…….the Appeal Court……ha(s) power to declare a conviction to be unsafe and to quash the conviction if they find that the course of proceedings leading to what would otherwise have been a fair trial has been such as to threaten either basic human rights or the rule of law.”
In R v CCRC ex parte Pearson (2000) 1 Cr App R 141, at pps. 146-7 Lord Bingham LCJ said:
“The expression “unsafe” in s 2(1)(a) Criminal Appeal Act 1968 does not lend itself to precise definition. In some cases unsafety will be obvious, as (for example) where it appears that someone other than the appellant committed the crime and the appellant did not, or where the appellant has been convicted of an act that was not in law a crime, or where a conviction is shown to be vitiated by serious unfairness in the conduct of the trial or significant legal misdirection, …….Cases however arise in which unsafety is much less obvious: cases in which the Court, although by no means persuaded of an appellant’s innocence, is subject to some lurking doubt or uneasiness whether an injustice has been done……If, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case before it, the Court entertains real doubts whether the appellant was guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted, the Court will consider the conviction unsafe. In these less obvious cases the ultimate decision of the Court of Appeal will very much depend on its assessment of all the facts and circumstances.”
The following is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of the principles involved. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division is concerned with the safety of the conviction. A conviction can never be safe if there is doubt about guilt. However, the converse is not true. A conviction may be unsafe even where there is no doubt about guilt but the trial process has been “vitiated by serious unfairness or significant legal misdirection” as in Smith (Patrick and Others) and in Weir.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THESE SUBMISSIONS
This application is supported by a bundle with enclosures. The documents attached are as follows:
(a) Various letters from Paul Martin & Co to Essex Police Force Solicitors and vice versa
(b) Transcript from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dated 12 December 2002
(c) Major Incident Project document
(d) Radio Log
(e) Letter from Andrew Hunter MP member for Basingstoke
(f) Trail Summing Up by Mr Justice Drake
(g) Letter dated 3 March 2004 from Essex Police Solicitor to Paul Martin & Co Solicitors
(h) Letter dated 27 February 2004 from Glaysers Solicitors to Paul Martin &n Co Solicitors
THE POSITION ADOPTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE
Mr Justice Drake summarized the position of this Applicant on the 24 October 1986. The summing up is paginated in attachment (f) pages 6-109. For the purposes of these submissions the relevant sections are as follows:
“Secondly, I suggest to you that the question for you to consider is are you sure that Sheila did not do the killing? Well, in this case, the evidence---whichever way you accept it---goes to show that EITHER the defendant or Sheila carried out the killings. No-one suggests that there is anyone else who can conceivably have been the guilty party, and we are not concerned with any fanciful imaginations of some mysterious third party having appeared on the scene, and disappeared, with noone having the slightest idea of who it should be, or why it should be, and it has not been argued otherwise. On the facts of this case, the killer was either Sheila or Jeremy Bamber..” (Page 7 F-H) Summing Up
It follows that within the Trial and the Trial Judge having stated there was no other solution to the murders other than “either/or” and confirmed “it has not been argued otherwise” it is clear that neither Defence Counsel Mr. Rivlin QC or Prosecuting Counsel Mr Arlidge QC ever had sight of the Radio Logs or the Major Incident Report and this is indeed confirmed by a letter dated 3 March 2004 from the Essex Police Force Solicitor who is only able to “presume” the Radio Logs were made available to Glaysers Solicitors in 2002 and by a letter dated 27 February 2004 from Glaysers Solicitors who confirm the approximate date and circumstances of when the Radio Log was made available at West Hendon Police Station.
It is to the credit of the Essex Police Force Solicitor who, in the letter of 3 March 2004, discloses a further 18 pages of Radio Log and confirms the authenticity of the Radio Log with the entry at “05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm.”
It was common ground that this Applicant at that time was indeed with the police outside the farm-house. If indeed the firearms team were in “conversation” with a person from inside the house and if according to the Major Incident Report an unidentified male was seen at White House Farm these two documents make compelling testimony to a “third way.”
It is submitted, notwithstanding that those filing these submissions have not spoken to either Mr Arlidge QC or Mr Rivlin QC or indeed Mr Justice Drake (who gave a television interview after his retirement from the High Court Bench on this very case) it was considered that no English Counsel would have deliberately been aware of these documents and covertly hidden them from the Defence and as such there was no necessity to interview any of the dramatis personae from the Trial. The said ex-culpatory documents were simply not made available to the Court per se. It follows that as a consequence Mr Justice Drake continued his direction to the Jury in the following manner:
“..and therefore it follows that if you are sure that Sheila did not carry out the killings, it also follows that you must be sure the defendant did so, and equally, if you are not sure that Sheila did or did not carry out the killings, if you are either sure that she did, or are uncertain whether she did or not, then it follows that you have not been made sure that the defendant did so, and therefore he would be not guilty, so either way, that second issue I suggest to you—are you sure that Sheila did not carry out the killings—will lead you to a verdict in this case.” (Page 8 A-B) Summing Up
Mr Justice Drake did however, accentuate upon the responsibilities of the Prosecution and to his full credit as a Trial Judge gave the following warning which would be an indication, never heeded, for the following 20 years of this whole, unsafe and unsound, conviction:
“They do, however, have a very stringent obligation which is recognised in our criminal procedure. They have two duties which they have to perform and which in practise are zealously carried out. First, if in any of those statements there is something which would be of assistance to the Defendant who is on trial, then it is the duty of the Prosecution to make known that fact to the defence, because under our system of law, the Prosecution do not seek at all costs to secure a conviction. The duty of the Prosecution is to see that justice is done, and if they come across a witness who clearly would be of assistance to the Defence from something he had stated, they are under an obligation to make that fact known to the Defence and they do so.”(Page 37 A-C) Summing Up
The failure to disclose to the Defence the Radio Log, now very kindly disclosed by the Essex Police Solicitor in the proper format, and the discovery in papers at West Hendon Police of the Major Incident Report, at the time of trial was fatal to the Defence and whilst at that time The Human Rights Act was not enacted as Legislation, a conviction founded upon a grave violation of a human right within the current Legislation can never be deemed safe and must carry the label of “unsound, unsafe and wholly unsatisfactory”.
It is evidently clear the Learned Trial Judge, Mr Justice Drake, was of the clear opinion and view that all had indeed been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities. The Learned Trail Judge admonishes Defence Counsel in the following manner:
“Another matter which I must also refer to that cropped up in Mr. Rivlin’s closing speech, is one in which he did expressly make a complaint about the Prosecution handling of the case and a suggestion that the Defence had somehow been put at a disadvantage by the Prosecution….. Now I must tell you quite bluntly and straight, that he was wrong to make that criticism..” (Page 36 E-F) Summing Up
At all material times it is submitted that both Defence Counsel and Prosecuting Counsel and Mr Justice Drake were never availed by the Prosecuting Authorities, for reasons that are irrelevant for the purposes of these submissions, to the said documents which clearly call for a case to be argued as “the third way.”
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE
The history of the matter is best set out by para 1-2 of the Judgement dated 12 December 2002:
“On 28 October 1986 Jeremy Nevill Bamber was convicted of 5 counts of murder by a majority of 10-2 following a 19 day trial in the Crown Court at Chelmsford before Drake J and a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 25 years. Following his trial he sought leave to appeal against conviction. His application was refused on the papers by the single judge but was renewed to the full court. On 20 March 1989 the full court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, heard his renewed application for leave. The court dismissed his application.”
The matter proceeded upon the following short and brief facts surrounding what was, is and remains a high profile case requiring of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division extra attention both at the time of the first appeal and subsequent and as evidenced by the careful reasoned judgement behind the refusal and what was the careful attention of the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane. The facts are summarized as follows by Lord Justice Kay and no issue is taken by those making these submissions:
“The killings occurred in the early hours of 7 August 1985. All five of those who died met their deaths from gunshot wounds. They were the appellant’s parents, Ralph Nevill Bamber and June Bamber, his sister, Sheila Caffell, and his sister’s 6 year old twin sons, Nicholas and Daniel Caffell. There was no dispute at trial that four of the five had been murdered. In respect of the fifth, Sheila Caffell, there was an issue, which lay at the very heart of the case, as to whether she had been murdered as the prosecution alleged or whether she had taken her own life as the defence contended.”
It is important for the purpose of this application that both (1) The Trial Judge Mr Justice Drake, (2) Lord Chief Justice Lane at the first Appeal and (3) The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division sitting in December 2002 as well as both (a) Prosecuting Counsel at Trial and subsequent Appeals and (b) Defence Counsel at Trail and subsequent Appeals found the following common ground as a basis for a Prosecution/Defence and is accentuated by Lord Justice Kay in the Court’s Judgement in December 2002:
“Unusually in a case of this kind, it was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. The first, as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant had killed all five members of his family, shooting them with a .22 rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate. The second, the defence case, was that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide. The view realistically accepted by all at trial was that the facts that were common ground enabled any other possibility to be ruled out.”
The Applicant both at Trial and both Appeal Hearings faced the prejudicial situation that the Crown rather than as a matter of law to carry the onus and burden of proof upon the Applicant having murdered his family, the crown had simply to prove that Sheila Caffell was not the killer and as a consequence the jury were left with “no third way” alternative. Rather then than having to prove the Applicant guilty the Crown concentrated on proving that Sheila Caffell was innocent thus, as a result of “any other possibility ruled out” would force the jury to convict notwithstanding that the jury convicted by majority decision as opposed to unanimous.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division have made clear what, in accordance with these submissions vitiated any possibility of the Applicant having ever received a fair trial by stating that the common ground of “either Bamber or his sister and no other way” was “unusually in a case of this nature.”
“THE THIRD WAY” SUBMISSIONS FOR REFERAL
Submissions made to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in December 2002, and at Trial and first Appeal resulted in the following information as the foundation for refusing the Applicant the Appeal:
“The police were first alerted that something out of the ordinary had occurred when they received a telephone call from the appellant. The call was logged at 3.36 a.m. but there was evidence that made clear that it must have been at least 10 minutes earlier. The caller was the appellant and having given his name and address he said:
“You’ve got to help me. My father has rang me and said “Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun.” Then the line went dead.”
He went on to say that his sister had a history of psychiatric illness and he confirmed that there were guns at his father’s house, which was White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy in Essex. The telephonist contacted the Police Information Room and a police car was despatched to the father’s address. The appellant was asked to meet the police there.
When the police attended at the farm, they were joined by the appellant. There was no sound from the farm save for the barking of a dog and fearing that they might be in a hostage situation the police decided to wait until daylight. At about 7.45 a.m., armed officers entered the farm and found all 5 occupants dead from gunshot wounds. Mr. Bamber lay dead in the kitchen, his wife was dead on the floor in her bedroom, the boys were dead in their bed and Sheila Caffell was lying on the floor of the same room as her mother. Across her chest and pointing up at her neck, through which the wounds that had killed her had been fired, was the rifle used to shoot all five members of the family. Beside her body lay a Bible. The scene certainly gave the appearance that Sheila Caffell had shot herself, and the likelihood that this was the case was reinforced by information given to the police by the appellant.”
The police investigation is summarized as follows and the further basis for upholding the conviction:
“A police inquiry into the matter was at once initiated and it is clear that the senior police officers involved, and to some extent the pathologist who attended, readily accepted at that stage that they were dealing with five deaths for which Sheila Caffell was responsible. However there seem to have been some junior officers, who from an early stage believed that everything did not add up. This view was soon echoed by a number of members of the wider family. It was not though until early September that the real possibility that someone else might have killed all five was properly addressed and there was a change in the senior investigating officer. The appellant’s ex-girlfriend then came forward and gave information to the police. This caused the focus of attention to move to the appellant and another said to be connected to him. Further inquiries were made and as a result the appellant was charged with the five murders.”
The representations made to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division up to para 32 of the said Judgement accounted for occurrences between 03.26am on the day of the incident to the moment the Police entered the farmhouse.
It was however, missing vital information and documents that the Crown had not disclosed to the Defence at the Trial before Mr Justice Drake, at the first Appeal but which it is conceded may have been placed within the multitude of documents disclosed some 18 years post trial and prior to the Hearings in December 2002 before the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.
The said documents undermine what was the basis for a conviction “if it was not Sheila Caffell it must have been the Applicant because it provides a third alternative.
THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDING SUBSTANCE FOR A THIRD ALTERNATIVE
(1) MAJOR INCIDENT REPORT-: item 1 at 03.45 S11 Myall (police officer who attended scene with Applicant logs following) “UNIDENT MALE” at “White House Farm”. It is important to note that PC Myall is noting at 03.45 an unidentified male at White House Farm when the Applicant was clearly in his company.
(2) WIRELESS MESSAGE LOG:- penultimate items reading as follows- “05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm.”
There is further a failure on the part of the Crown to disclose the evidence of P.C. Mercer who that fateful evening was the dog handler and whose Alsatian dog was specially trained to “sniff” for explosives, firearms or signs from any person that had recently handled a firearm. The dog did indeed approach the Applicant and carry out his trained role without a positive result. Whilst per se this evidence would not necessarily in itself be sufficient to question a conviction it is indeed a strong inference, if it had been made available to the jury, that the Applicant had not recently handled a firearm and as such could not have been responsible for the killings which were carried out by a firearm.
There is further the evidence of a certain Steven Brian Smith of 23 Tollesbury Road, Tollshunt D’Arcy, Essex who heard “gunshot sounds” at a time when it was indeed conceded and common ground the Applicant was not at the Farm.
There is further all the witness statements and evidence of the Senior Police Officer Taff Jones (who died in somewhat strange and mysterious circumstances) just prior to the original trial and his notebooks. All could and should have been properly disclosed especially as he was the Officer who was in charge of the investigation and who did not believe the Applicant committed the said murders, invariable as he would have seen the radio logs (not disclosed) and the major incident report (not disclosed) spoken to PC Mercer and the result of the firearm test carried out by the Alsatian (negative) together with his own observations (not disclosed).
It is submitted thus that there was indeed a third alternative but that the substance to such was simply not disclosed so it became indeed “unusually common ground” that either the Applicant killed his family or they were killed by Sheila Caffell.
The Defence never had an opportunity at raising this potential defence. The evidence is quite powerful and overwhelming. At 03.45am PC Myall logs an unidentified male at White House Farm. No further information is given. Had this log been disclosed any Defence Counsel would have made further enquires with questions of the officer. Why a male? What did PC Myall see to make him include such in his log? At 05.25am the Firearms team “in conversation with a person from inside the house.” This is indeed perhaps the most powerful evidence that either (a) the real perpetrator was inside the house still or (b) someone of the family was still alive. Any of such hypotheses would be ex-culpatory evidence on the Applicant and should have been disclosed.
DID THE APPLICANT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL
The House of Lords declared in R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, 68, and recently repeated in Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 WLR 1, para 13, it is "axiomatic" "that a person charged with having committed a criminal offence should receive a fair trial and that, if he cannot be tried fairly for that offence, he should not be tried for it at all". Article 6 of the European Convention requires that the trial process, viewed as a whole, must be fair. Any answer given to the questions raised by these appeals must be governed by that cardinal and overriding requirement.
While the focus of article 6 of the Convention is on the right of a criminal defendant
to a fair trial, it is a right to be exercised within the framework of the administration of
the criminal law: as Lord Steyn pointed out in Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of
1999) [2001] 2 AC 91, 118,
"The purpose of the criminal law is to permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. And it is in the interests of everyone that serious crime should be effectively investigated and prosecuted. There must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case this requires the court to consider a triangulation of interests. It involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family, and the public".
The European Court has repeatedly recognised that individual rights should not be
treated as if enjoyed in a vacuum: Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR
35, 52, para 69; Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR 163, 191,
para 52. As Lord Hope of Craighead pointed out in Montgomery v HM Advocate
[2003] 1 AC 641, 673:
"the rule of law lies at the heart of the Convention. It is not the purpose of article 6 to make it impracticable to bring those who are accused of crime to justice. The approach which the Strasbourg court has taken to the question whether there are sufficient safeguards recognises this fact."
The institutions and procedures established to ensure that a criminal trial is fair vary
almost infinitely from one jurisdiction to another, the product of historical, cultural
and legal tradition.. Instead, the achievement of fairness in a trial on indictment rests
above all on the correct and conscientious performance of their roles by judge,
prosecuting counsel, defending counsel and jury. Save in defined circumstances (such
as when ruling on the voluntariness of a confession in a voir dire or, much more
rarely, a specific allegation of official misconduct) the judge is not a factual decision-
maker. His task is to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and even-handed way.
For this latter purpose he is entrusted with numerous discretions (see Rosemary
Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation, 2nd ed 1990). The duty of
prosecuting counsel, recently considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in Randall v The Queen [2002] UKPC 19, [2002] 1 WLR 2237, para 10, is
not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to act as a minister of justice. As Rand J put
it in the Supreme Court of Canada in Boucher v The Queen [1955] SCR 16, 24-25:
"Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly".
Defending counsel also are subject to clear professional rules: they may, in fact must
not invent a case for their client or pursue serious accusations in the absence of
material to support them: Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales,
paragraph 708(e).
It is submitted that this Applicant, by the clear absence and availability of the
Documents capable of being argued by Defence Counsel as ex-culpatory, defined
the trial as being clearly unfair with the Defendant seriously disadvantaged.
DISCLOSURE
At the time of trial there was a duty to disclose material information subject to certain exceptions which were contained in the Attorney General’s Guidelines (Disclosure of Information to the Defence Cases to be tried on Indictment) laid down in 1981 (74 Cr.App.R 302). Amongst the exceptions for example were cases where a statement disclosed the identity of an informant or there were reasons for fearing that disclosure of identity would put a family in danger. There can be no doubt in this case that there were no such fears that disclosure of the radio log and major incident report, evidence from the police dog handler, evidence from a deceased officer would place anyone in danger. In those days the decision perforce, had to be made without reference to the court. There was no provision for the Crown to have ex parte access to the trial judge and if sought it would almost certainly have been refused. If an application had been granted it would almost certainly have been viewed as a material irregularity.
It is also without question a serious violation of the Bar Counsel’s Code of Conduct if Counsel is aware of ex-culpatory material not placing such before the Court if not the defence.
Fairness ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence. Bitter experience shows that miscarriages of justice occur where such material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure of such material should be made.
Until December 1981, the prosecution duty was to make available, to the defence, witnesses whom the prosecution did not intend to call, and earlier inconsistent statements of witnesses whom the prosecution were to call: see Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases, 41st ed (1982), paras 4-178-4-179. Guidelines issued by the Attorney General in December 1981 ([1982] 1 All ER 734) extended the prosecution's duty of disclosure somewhat, but laid down no test other than one of relevance ("has some bearing on the offence(s) charged and the surrounding circumstances of the case") and left the decision on disclosure to the judgment of the prosecution and prosecuting counsel.
In R v Ward [1993] 1 WLR 619, 674 this limited approach to disclosure was held
to be inadequate:
"An incident of a defendant's right to a fair trial is a right to timely disclosure by the prosecution of all material matters which affect the scientific case relied on by the prosecution, that is, whether such matters strengthen or weaken the prosecution case or assist the defence case. This duty exists whether or not a specific request for disclosure of details of scientific evidence is made by the defence. Moreover, this duty is continuous: it applies not only in the pre-trial period but also throughout the trial".
The rule was stated with reference to scientific evidence, because that is what the
case concerned, but the authority was understood to be laying down a general test
based on relevance: see R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746, 752.
The problem of reconciling an individual defendant's right to a fair trial with secrecy as is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or the prevention or investigation of crime is inevitably difficult to resolve in a liberal society governed by the rule of law. Complaints of violation have been made against member states including the United Kingdom, some of which have exposed flaws in or malfunctioning of UK domestic procedures. The European Court has however long accepted that some operations must be conducted secretly if they are to be conducted effectively: Klass v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, 232, paragraph 48.
In Edwards v United Kingdom (1992) 15 EHRR 417 there was a prosecution failure to disclose relevant information, but no PII issue had been raised. The omission was held to have been rectified by the appeal process. The applicant in Bendenoun v France (1994) 18 EHRR 54 similarly complained of non-disclosure by the prosecution: his application failed because (paragraph 52) the undisclosed material had not been relied on by the prosecution and he had given no sufficiently specific reasons for requesting the material in question.
Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413 arose from protracted immigration proceedings and did not involve a complaint under article 6. But the case has proved very influential, since in it the Court held (paragraph 144) that the expedient of appointing security-cleared counsel, instructed by the court, who would cross-examine the witnesses and generally assist the court to test the strength of the State's case, served to illustrate (paragraph 131):
"that there are techniques which can be employed which both accommodate legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial measure of procedural justice".
Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 1 arose from the proceedings in
which an important ruling had been given by the Court of Appeal in England
(paragraph 20 above). Having reviewed the facts of the case and the development of
English practice, the Court found that the applicants' rights under article 6 had been
violated. In doing so, the Court recognised it (paragraph 60) as a
"fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 6(1) requires, as indeed does English law, that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused".
This had been the domestic law under the Attorney General's 1981 Guidelines, but
had ceased to be so in 1996. The Court continued:
“However, as the applicants recognised, the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or keep secret police methods of investigation of crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. However, only such measures restricting the rights of the defence which are strictly necessary are permissible under Article 6(1). Moreover, in order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities. In cases where evidence has been withheld from the defence on public interest grounds, it is not the role of this Court to decide whether or not such non-disclosure was strictly necessary since, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. Instead, the European Court's task is to ascertain whether the decision-making procedure applied in each case complied, as far as possible, with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused".
In PG and JH v United Kingdom (4 September 2001, unreported, appn no 44787/98)
the prosecution had sought to withhold on public interest grounds certain information
relating to the installation of a listening device. A police officer declined to answer
questions put to him in cross-examination by defence counsel because his answers
might reveal sensitive material. The judge then, with the consent of the defence, put
questions to the officer in the absence of the defendants and their lawyers and
concluded that the benefit of the answers to the defence was slight, if any, while the
damage to the public interest if the answers were made public would be great. The
Judge refused to exclude the evidence derived from the device. It was unanimously
held, partly on the same grounds as in Jasper and Fitt (paragraph 71), that the
withholding of the officer's report and the procedure adopted to examine him had not
violated article 6. The Court held (paragraph 71):
"The Court also notes that the material which was not disclosed in the present case formed no part of the prosecution case whatever, and was never put to the jury. The fact that the need for disclosure was at all times under assessment by the trial judge provided a further, important safeguard in that it was his duty to monitor throughout the trial the fairness or otherwise of the evidence being withheld. It has not been suggested that the judge was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 §1. He was fully versed in all the evidence and issues in the case and in a position to monitor the relevance to the defence of the withheld information both before and during the trial".
In both Atlan v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 833 and Dowsett v United Kingdom
(24 June 2003, unreported, appn no 39482/98) unanimous findings of violation of
Article 6(1) were made. In the first of these cases (paragraphs 44-45) the prosecution
repeatedly denied the existence of undisclosed material and had failed to inform
the judge of the true position, when it appeared that there had been undisclosed
material directly bearing on the defence advanced at trial. In the second case it was
held that the prosecution's failure to disclose material at the trial, although partly
cured in the Court of Appeal (paragraph 46), had not been wholly cured (paragraphs
47-49).
It is highly unlikely, in fact submitted as impossible, that Prosecuting Counsel, The Trial Judge Mr Justice Drake, Defence Counsel at three Hearings were made aware of the material and failed to disclose such or use such. What is evident however, is that the Court of Appeal sitting in December 2002 were also not made aware of such. The inference in such must be that the said documents were inadvertently “buried within myriads of documents” when finally disclosed in 2002 and since the basis of the previous CCRC Reference was upon forensic evidence, such ex-culpatory material in two simple pieces paper which provide a third alternative, were simply not considered.
These submissions lay or apportion no fault upon any party. No do these submissions form the basis of any accusatorial inquisition upon Prosecuting Counsel, Defence Counsel or any Members of the two diverse Court of Appeal justices who presided over the appeals of this Applicant.
The basis of the conviction was common ground that “either Sheila did it and if she did not Bamber did it” and was indeed noticed by Lord Justice May and noted as unusual. As stated previous the Court of Appeal is however, not a Court of Trail. It is a Court of Review. The Court has not established any precedent for acting on the Court’s own motion. The Court is bound by the submissions made by Defence and Prosecuting Counsel. The Court is specifically precluded from opening their own investigation into the facts of the case or documents. The Court of Appeal in December 2002 would not have been served all the papers made available to the defence by the CCRC and the main thrust of the argument was focused upon the forensic evidence and the DNA. The “third way” did not attract the appropriate consideration although the comment by Lord Justice Kay as the position being “unusually in a case of this nature” was judicial hindsight and wisdom at its highest. It was indeed so “unusual” that it was not the case owing to the failure to properly disclose the documents.
A failure to disclose need not necessarily be intentive. It may be inadvertent. What is important is the significance had the documents been disclosed, not so much during the appellate hearings, but at trial. As stated previously, those indicted of serious crimes are tried before a jury. There are no trials before the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. This Applicant was convicted by a majority decision of 10-2 on the basis that if Sheila Caffell did not murder her family then it was the Applicant. No alternatives were proposed albeit such being somewhat in unusual circumstances. The documents subsequently disclosed make a third way not only possible, probable, but open a line of defence which had such been available may well have altered the pendulum in favour of the Defence at Trial.
BASIS OF SUBMISSION FOR REFERAL
The test is whether the Court of Appeal in hearing the appeal of this Applicant had during the appeal hearings in December 2002 sufficient material before it to properly and fairly evaluate what would have been the inevitable, albeit regrettable, consequences of the failure to of the Crown to make certain disclosures to the Defence at Trial. It is submitted that such material would have persuaded the said Court by virtue of its mandatory requirement. It clearly was available at trail in first instance and not disclosed and as such not argued.
CONCLUSION
The test for a referral, it is submitted, is not whether there would be any likelihood of success by virtue of a referral per se. It is whether the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 s.9-12 can be properly applied. We have detailed the basis at the beginning of these submissions. We are of the view that all the facts and circumstances were not made available to the Court of Appeal for them to properly evaluate on the basis outlined and by the failure of the Crown to disclose at trial potentially ex-culpatory evidence which by virtue of precedent and statute necessarily make a fresh application to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division likely to succeed.
We therefore request this matter be referred to the Court of Appeal on the basis as outlined above and herein confirm our view that exceptional circumstances do arise for the Commission to depart from the constraints levied upon it and treat this matter, by virtue also of its inevitable consequences, as prioritive.
Studio Legale Internazionale
Roma, Italy
8 March 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
R E G I N A
V
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
ADDENDUM SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
CASE NO: 00162/2004
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652
[email protected]
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com
REF: DM/DP/GDS
17 MARCH 2004
R. v Jeremy Nevill Bamber
These further submissions should be in conjunction with the application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission filed on the 8 March 2004. In accordance with the instructions received from the Commission dated 10 March 2004 further information is in the form of these submissions. For the purposes of these addendum submissions it is necessary to recite the legislation and law in order that the Applicant is fully aware of the limitations and constraints levied upon any submissions made to the Commission.
THE LAW
The terms of reference of the Commission are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 section 13, which provides as follows :-
1. A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not be made under any of Sections 9 to 12, unless :-
(a) The Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) The Commission so consider :-
(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it, or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii) in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and
(1) in the case of an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.
(2) Nothing in Sub Section 1 (b)(i) or (c) would prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.
DISCLOSURE
We have already outlined in detail the legal submissions regarding disclosure and it is not necessary to recite such for the purposes of these submissions. We have already stated that disclosure is a matter of law regulated by procedure.
Clearly, the existence of the Radio Logs and Major Incident Report should have been disclosed by the CPS to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3(1)(a) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Any document which might reasonably found an application for a charge to be quashed, and/or to be stayed as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court, is a document which has a potential to “undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused”. Moreover, failure to disclose to the Applicant the existence of such document, is clearly contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General (whether pre- or post- the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, i.e. whether one has regard to the Guidelines issued 18th December 1981 or to the current Guidelines issued 29th November 2000).
Attached to these addendum submissions is a letter from the Essex Police Solicitor, Mr Adam Hunt to Paul Martin & Co Solicitors dated 8 March 2004. It is important to note two matters within the said correspondence:
(a) “ I am unable to confirm whether your client did or did not have disclosed to him the documents referred to as the radio log and Major Investigation Project. I suggest that this work is unnecessary since your client’s legal records, including the disclosure schedules, will confirm the point.”
(b) “I am unable to comment on what was accepted as common ground at the original trial but it is not, in my opinion, clear that this was common ground at the appeal.”
It is evidently clear that Mr. Hunt is clearly in error on the understanding of the basis of prosecution both at trial and appeal. It was at all material times common ground that this was a case of “either/or” without any basis for a third possibility. The correspondence from Mr. Edmund Lawson QC (then Junior Counsel at Trial) states as follows and is recited in its entirety:
“Slightly belated thanks for this and your supplementary e-mail. I was prompted to respond by the receipt here today - for which thanks - of the hard copy of your submission to the CCRC. My apologies for not responding earlier: usual excuses of distractions caused by other work etc..
For what it's worth, I've no recall of seeing the radio logs to which you refer. I do recall that we debated for along time and by reference to all available material whether we could sensibly advance the argument that a third party (i.e. not JB or his sister) could have committed the murders and concluded that we could not. Precisely what information/evidence we had before us to enable us to reach that negative conclusion, it is impossible to recall; and, as I said in connection with my giving evidence in the last and recent appeal, I no longer have any case papers.
I regret being unable to give you any more positive assistance. And I wish you - and JB - good luck in your application.
Regards - Edmund Lawson QC
16 March 2004 17.41
----- Original Message -----
From: Avv.Giovanni Di Stefano
To: [email protected]
Sent: 07 March 2004 20:29
Subject: JEREMY BAMBER
Dear Mr Lawson QC
We understand you acted as Junior Counsel to Mr. Rivlin QC (now HH Judge Rivlin) in the Trial of Mr Bamber. Please find attached a copy of draft submissions on behalf of Mr. Bamber to the CCRC.
With regard to the Radio Log and Major Incident Report our submissions are based on the fact that neither your goodself or Mr Rivlin QC ever had sight of these two documents which would have allowed you to consider "a third way" hypothesis.
Kindest regards
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com”
On the 16 March 2004 at 13.20 we received 34 boxes from Glaisyers Solicitors of all papers relating to the appeal of the Applicant. As we have previously stated to the Essex Police Solicitor disclosure is a matter of law. We attach for the Commission a copy of the letter from Paul Martin & Co Solicitors to Mr. Adam Hunt dated 9 March 2004 where it is stated that making available documents can hardly constitute proper disclosure.
In one of the 35 boxes we have examined, and in some detail, we attach a copy of a letter from Glaisyers Solicitors to Mr Mike Webster of the High Security Prison directorate dated 18 April 2002. It is important for the Commission to note the third paragraph:
“The Appeal itself is very substantial and could take up to 6 weeks to be heard, and a conservative estimate puts the number of pieces of paper at some 4 million.”
Some explanation and comfort may be taken by the Essex Police Solicitor, who did not conduct the Appellate Proceedings for the Crown, in a letter found within a file amongst the 35 boxes that we have examined which may well explain the “Sensitive Messages etc.”
We attach a copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Police Service addressed to Glaisyers Solicitors dated 17 June 2002. It is headed:
“ Re: Sensitive Messages and Actions Mistakenly Supplied to Defence.”
It is, frankly, self explanatory and one wonders the basis upon which the Radio Logs- which Mr Edmond Lawson QC Trial Counsel states: “I’ve no recall of seeing the radio logs to which you refer,” – appeared amongst the 4 million documents made available.
We are also able to answer the question posed by the Essex Police Solicitor with regard to the whole question of disclosure at Trial. Amongst one box within the 35 we examined a file and discovered a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service to Glaisyers Solicitors dated 17 July 2001 which very kindly listed the following:
“Documents served in trial process re: Bamber (taken from correspondence)”
and listed in chronological order from 18/01/1986 when the first documents were disclosed to the defence to the time of Trial.
These must be well considered within the context of the correspondence from Mr. Edmund Lawson QC who confirmed that consideration was indeed given by the defence to a possible third alternative namely, an assailant other than the Applicant or his sister. However, without any evidence (sight and disclosure of the Radio Logs) as we have already submitted no responsible Counsel could advance such a defence as it would be in clear breach of the Bar Council Code of Conduct.
We also attach with these addendum submissions a letter received from Glaisyers Solicitors to the Applicant dated 4 March 2004 with attached witness statements from Malcolm David Fletcher dated 13 November 1985. Whilst it is conceded Messrs. Glaisyers are trying to argue further the veracity of the witness statement-which was available both at trial and at the two appeals- the only relevant factor in our submission is what is contained in page 8 of the said witness statement:
“The nature of the bullets and bullet fragments (part of 46), (49) (50) and (52) to (72) inclusive prevents a conclusive association with the rifle (18) being made. Further more, I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator.”
Taken in isolation Defence Counsel at Trail would not have been able to deduce very much from the said statement. The evidence was that a number of bullets were fired at the five members of the family using the recovered rifle. However, ten bullets could not be associated with the said rifle. Had the defence been made aware of the Radio Log and the Major Incident Report evidencing that whilst the Applicant was with the police outside the farmhouse (a) an unidentified male was seen at White House Farm and (b) that at 05.25 the Firearms team were in conversation with someone inside the house, counsel could indeed have suggested to the jury that an unknown assailant entered the farmhouse (perhaps expecting to find the Applicant also there)-it was a point of issue at the trial the question of the bedroom occupied by the Applicant of which the bed had not been used-and carrying his/her own rifle shot members of the family save Mr. Ralph Bamber who was then forced at telephoning the Applicant to come to the farmhouse in the manner the Applicant explained to the jury. Ten bullets did not emanate from the rifle which the Crown alleged was the only firearm used for the murders by the Applicant. It could have been suggested to the jury by Defence Counsel that the assailant carried his/her own firearm which would appear to explain (or be one explanation) why ten bullets could not be linked with the fatal firearm.
Without the Radio Log and the Major Incident Project, no responsible Counsel would be able to make such suggestions. Mr Edmund Lawson QC confirms in his correspondence:
“I do recall we debated for a long time and by reference to all the available material whether we could sensibly advance the argument that a third party (i.e. not JB or his sister) could have committed the murders and concluded we could not.”
This epitomises the constraints levied upon Defence Counsel in not having had sight or having formal disclosure of what was in effect ex-culpatory material.
This matter has, as can be expected, attracted considerable attention of the media and the general public. The murder of five people of which two were minors was nothing, and remains per se, abominable and monstrous. On 13 March 2004 upon hearing the possibilities of this Applicant having a further referral to the Court of Appeal, a former police officer Chris Bews made his presence felt and heard to the media. We attach a copy of a news story in the East Anglian Daily News. Former Sgt. Bews acting without solicitation from any person and without the prior knowledge of the Essex Police Force Solicitor stated:
“ At first I was not sure whether there was anybody still in the house. The firearms team did shout in, as they always do.”….. They were shouting into the house but they definitely were not talking to anybody. There was no-one there. The person who would have made that log would have been 15 miles away at Force Headquarters in Chelmsford. My guess is whoever wrote that down substituted the word ‘conversation’ for ‘talking’ or something similar. There is absolutely no way they were ever talking to anybody in that house. I am 100 per cent certain of it.”
If any defence counsel were to consider with some care what Sgt. Bews has stated there are some serious inconsistencies. Defence Counsel would have required the person who made a note of the radio log “15 miles away” to give evidence. We have not found any witness statement within 35 boxes of files. Sgt. Bews states the person 15 miles away may have substituted the word ‘conversation’ for ‘talking’ or something and then ends his statement that there is ‘no way they were ever talking’. His evidence, if it were given in the same manner as his public spirited press comment would be based upon ‘my guess’ and that this Applicant would be convicted upon guesswork and conjecture.
We are very grateful to Sgt. Bews because his statement accentuates and exemplifies the pre-requisite and necessity for the radio log to have been properly disclosed allowing Mr. Rivlin QC ( now HH Judge Rivlin ), and Mr Edmund Lawson (now QC) a proper opportunity at considering all lines of defence including that the assailant was a third person other than what was an ‘either/or’ case. Defence Counsel mooted such at length but as responsible counsel, evidenced by their promotion and elevation, were simply in no position to put forward any such defence. Had the radio log and the major incident project been available it may have been a consideration for the defence to advance.
The Commission are asked to remember this was a majority verdict of 10-2. It was by no means so clear cut and simple.
The Commission are also requested to remember this Applicant- as evidenced by the attached:
“Report for Whole Life Tariff Review”
continues to protest his innocence. He has been denied a fair trial by virtue of having negated a defence open to him if proper disclosure of a single document amongst 4 million pieces of paper had been made in its proper form.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
(1) Letter from Essex Police Solicitor to Paul Martin & Co dated 8 March 2004
(2) Letter from Paul Martin & Co to Essex Police Solicitor dated 9 March 2004
(3) Letter from Glaisyers Solicitors to Mike Webster dated 19 April 2002
(4) E mail message from Edmund Lawson QC to Studio Legale Internazionale dated 16 March 2004 at 17.41
(5) Letter from Metropolitan Police Service to Glaisyers Solicitors dated 17 June 2002
(6) Letter from CPS to Glaisyers Solicitors dated 17 July 2001 with disclosure chronology
(7) Letter from Glaisyers Solicitors to Applicant dated 4 March 2004 with attached witness statement of Malcolm David Fletcher dated 13 November 1985
(8) EADT News Article dated 13 March 2004
(9) Report for Whole Life Tariff dated 14 December 2000
(10) Note to Registrar of Criminal Appeals by David Martin Sperry dated 14 March 2004
CONCLUSION
The test for a referral, it is submitted, is not whether there would be any likelihood of success by virtue of a referral per se. It is whether the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 s.9-12 can be properly applied. We have detailed the basis at the beginning of these submissions. We reiterate our views within the main submissions dated 8 March 2004. We take the view this is a matter which by virtue of the documentation within the submissions fulfils the criteria of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 for an urgent referral back to the Court of Appeal.
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652
17 MARCH 2004
-
For the record, I have retrieved copies of saved photographs, from the same hard drive......
-
For the record, I have retrieved copies of saved photographs, from the same hard drive......
here is one such photograph, inside the same album as the photograph of Sheila on the bed, before they moved her to the floor...
-
I refer to this bit, does this mean that a 3rd party was considered? :) :) :) :)
These must be well considered within the context of the correspondence from Mr. Edmund Lawson QC who confirmed that consideration was indeed given by the defence to a possible third alternative namely, an assailant other than the Applicant or his sister. However, without any evidence (sight and disclosure of the Radio Logs) as we have already submitted no responsible Counsel could advance such a defence as it would be in clear breach of the Bar Council Code of Conduct.
-
The entire GDS website disappeared recently, though some of it has been archived. I don't know whether its content has been moved to another site. Ask here if you want a specific document.
In addition, this forum had its domain name registration updated only yesterday (11th February 2013), more than a day after it had expired. It's now registered until 9th February 2018.
-
here is one such photograph, inside the same album as the photograph of Sheila on the bed, before they moved her to the floor...
This photograph is numbered 66, but it could not have formed part of the court album which only had 50 photographs, contained in it...
Linked to this...
(1) - Strips of negatives had 10 exposures...
(2) - Master copy album had only 223 photographs...
(3) - senior investigating officers album had 581 photographs...
(4) - 7/8 negatives are missing from the strip which relates to photoghraphs taken of Sheila, disclosed..
-
- numbered 66 by whom and when?
- Linked to this... how?
- photographs taken of Sheila, disclosed . . . disclosed when and to whom?
-
This photograph is numbered 66, but it could not have formed part of the court album which only had 50 photographs, contained in it...
Linked to this...
(1) - Strips of negatives had 10 exposures...
(2) - Master copy album had only 223 photographs...
(3) - senior investigating officers album had 581 photographs...
(4) - 7/8 negatives are missing from the strip which relates to photoghraphs taken of Sheila, disclosed..
There were several albums in court, as you know. You have provided an index to one of them which, as you say, contained 50 pictures. Clearly this photo was in one of the others.
-
There were several albums in court, as you know. You have provided an index to one of them which, as you say, contained 50 pictures. Clearly this photo was in one of the others.
What do you make of the prosecution withholding Mercer's statement , as outlined in above
document ? , i think i am correct in saying you have been skeptical it existed in the past .
-
What do you make of the prosecution withholding Mercer's statement , as outlined in above
document ? , i think i am correct in saying you have been skeptical it existed in the past .
I think you must be confusing me with someone else again, of course mercer will have given a statement if he attended whf.
-
here is one such photograph, inside the same album as the photograph of Sheila on the bed, before they moved her to the floor...
So if you have the one of Sheila on the bed Mike, why have you shown us the one where she's on the floor? I'm confused? :(
-
So if you have the one of Sheila on the bed Mike, why have you shown us the one where she's on the floor? I'm confused? :(
lol
-
It's not a laughing matter, actually - but a serious one...
-
According to the COURT album which consisted of only 50 photographs, this image was not part of that compilation, and so the jury which tried the matter, never got to see it...
-
This photograph was taken by me at Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham, at the same time I took a photograph of Sheila's body on the bed. The photograph of Sheila on the bed is prented in the same photograph album, as this image...
-
This photograph was taken by me at Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham, at the same time I took a photograph of Sheila's body on the bed. The photograph of Sheila on the bed is prented in the same photograph album, as this image...
Just so there is no mystery...
There were 10 images in this presentation, including the one which I have posted, the instant image was the 7th in the booklet, photographs 8, 9 and 10 are situated beneath this photograph, the previous six, numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, already viewed, and turned over before photograph 7...
I believe that the missing negatives, from the original strip of negatives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, have been edited, so that the origunal negatives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, no longer exist. It would be very easy for the defence to check to see if the negative for the posted image (photoghraph number 66) is one of the missing negatives from the original strip of negatives, which were taken when Sheila's body was being photographed whilst it was in the bedroom, in two separate locations...
-
I see non of you are trying to mock me now...
-
I see non of you are trying to mock me now...
Mock you? No..simply trying to point out the fact that the album which contained 50 photos was not the only album the jury saw, no matter how many times you say it.
-
I see non of you are trying to mock me now...
I'm not mocking you Mike. I just wondered why you chose to take a copy of this photo that is commonly known. But not the one of sheila on the bed?
-
It would be very easy for the defence to check to see if the negative for the posted image (photograph number 66) is one of the missing negatives from the original strip of negatives . . .
Precisely how could they do that?
-
Mock you? No..simply trying to point out the fact that the album which contained 50 photos was not the only album the jury saw, no matter how many times you say it.
The jury did not see another album, otherwise the additional album would have been made into a court exhibit - since there was no additional court exhibit for any other photographs other than the court album which consisted of 50 photographs, what you are saying can easily be proven to be a lie and very misleading. I do not need to convince anybody about that / this, because rules of evidence dictate that what I am saying has to be the truth...
Now, as far as the prosecution having access to additional photoghrahs during the trial which were not disclosed to the jury is concerned, then that is possible, but it does not mean or prove that the jury saw any of these additional ones...
-
The jury did not see another album, otherwise the additional album would have been made into a court exhibit - since there was no additional court exhibit for any other photographs other than the court album which consisted of 50 photographs, what you are saying can easily be proven to be a lie and very misleading. I do not need to convince anybody about that / this, because rules of evidence dictate that what I am saying has to be the truth...
Now, as far as the prosecution having access to additional photoghrahs during the trial which were not disclosed to the jury is concerned, then that is possible, but it does not mean or prove that the jury saw any of these additional ones...
They were, the album of PM photos is one which springs to mind.
-
I'm not mocking you Mike. I just wondered why you chose to take a copy of this photo that is commonly known. But not the one of sheila on the bed?
This photograph was not commonly available or known about at the time I took it at Ewen Smiths office. It has only become commonly known about since that occasion - the photographs I took at that time were taken to show that all of them were inside card folders, and the one in question was numbered 66, which was one of 10 inside that cardboard folder. It will be a very interesting exercise for the defence to carry out to check to see if one of the missing 7/8 negatives could be the negative for this photograph, that's all I am saying...
Sheila was photographed on the bed, I do not particularly care whether anybody believes or accepts this to be true, what is important to me, is that I know it exists, and that Sheila's body was on the bed...
-
They were, the album of PM photos is one which springs to mind.
Court exhibit reference for these albums, please...
-
Court exhibit reference for these albums, please...
We went over this a few months ago, go look at Bird's court transcript.
-
This photograph was not commonly available or known about at the time I took it at Ewen Smiths office. It has only become commonly known about since that occasion - the photographs I took at that time were taken to show that all of them were inside card folders, and the one in question was numbered 66, which was one of 10 inside that cardboard folder. It will be a very interesting exercise for the defence to carry out to check to see if one of the missing 7/8 negatives could be the negative for this photograph, that's all I am saying...
Sheila was photographed on the bed, I do not particularly care whether anybody believes or accepts this to be true, what is important to me, is that I know it exists, and that Sheila's body was on the bed...
Well someone had lain on top of the bed because of the indentation/impression left behind,,,,without having slept inside the covers.
-
Well someone had lain on top of the bed because of the indentation/impression left behind,,,,without having slept inside the covers.
Wasn't that the bed in Sheila's own room lookout and not the bed in the master bedroom?
-
Wasn't that the bed in Sheila's own room lookout and not the bed in the master bedroom?
It was where Sheila would have slept,,Steve,,,but didn't, as it happened.
-
This photograph was not commonly available or known about at the time I took it at Ewen Smiths office.
You took photographs using your own camera while in Ewen Smith's office? I don't recall your mentioning that in the past, even when you said that you had taken away a photograph and posted it to Jeremy.
-
You took photographs using your own camera while in Ewen Smith's office? I don't recall your mentioning that in the past, even when you said that you had taken away a photograph and posted it to Jeremy.
Mike did do that in 2002,I think.
-
You took photographs using your own camera while in Ewen Smith's office? I don't recall your mentioning that in the past, even when you said that you had taken away a photograph and posted it to Jeremy.
Well, there are many things I have not yet spoken about - so, for yours and everyone elses information, I took possession of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, whilst visiting Ewen Smiths office, and took photographs of the album it was presented in, which included photograph number 66, I am not under orders to report to anyone what I do, or what I did. I am not bothered whether you or anybody else accepts what I am now saying, it makes no difference to me, If you are interested in the truth, and you and anybody else wants to find out what took place, you can either believe what I am saying, or treat it all as made up like a story...
You choose what you want to do...
-
Hi Mike
you have worked so hard for this forum and without you it would not exist. For a comparative newcomer like myself you have provided me with so much information and for that I thank you.
-
Hi Mike
you have worked so hard for this forum and without you it would not exist. For a comparative newcomer like myself you have provided me with so much information and for that I thank you.
Your welcome...
-
Well, there are many things I have not yet spoken about - so, for yours and everyone elses information, I took possession of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, whilst visiting Ewen Smiths office, and took photographs of the album it was presented in, which included photograph number 66, I am not under orders to report to anyone what I do, or what I did. I am not bothered whether you or anybody else accepts what I am now saying, it makes no difference to me, If you are interested in the truth, and you and anybody else wants to find out what took place, you can either believe what I am saying, or treat it all as made up like a story...
You choose what you want to do...
I am with you Mike, you can take photos of any photo album as you wish, legal or not! I am not bothered!
But I am bothered when I get told, to stop interfering with the case, then told I do more harm then good from trying to obtain a photo from COLP, then the cheek to be told leave it to Bamber's lawyers they failed to obtain photos etc? Yeah what happen to one of Bamber's Lawyers?
-
I am with you Mike, you can take photos of any photo album as you wish, legal or not! I am not bothered!
But I am bothered when I get told, to stop interfering with the case, then told I do more harm then good from trying to obtain a photo from COLP, then the cheek to be told leave it to Bamber's lawyers they failed to obtain photos etc? Yeah what happen to one of Bamber's Lawyers?
It is very frustrating to be told by the authorities to leave it to Jeremy's solicitors to deal with, when all you are trying to do, is do what you have to do, to try and make sure that wrongs are righted. Why should we leave it to Bambers solicitors, who appear to have all failed him in the past by not getting these convictions overturned. I am sure each and every one of them, have good intentions and Jeremys best interests at heart, but in many other ways, their hands are tied, they can only do so much, and after a while, they all fall away from the cause...
-
It is very frustrating to be told by the authorities to leave it to Jeremy's solicitors to deal with, when all you are trying to do, is do what you have to do, to try and make sure that wrongs are righted. Why should we leave it to Bambers solicitors, who appear to have all failed him in the past by not getting these convictions overturned. I am sure each and every one of them, have good intentions and Jeremys best interests at heart, but in many other ways, their hands are tied, they can only do so much, and after a while, they all fall away from the cause...
That is true. I have met people like that. But you have been very consistent in all your efforts to help Bamber. Well done Mike.
-
yeah it sucks!! But it wasn't authorities, but another "supporter" But I feel they are trying to obstruct the case...? have you meet "supporters" that tries blocking to mislead you outright?
-
It is very frustrating to be told by the authorities to leave it to Jeremy's solicitors to deal with, when all you are trying to do, is do what you have to do, to try and make sure that wrongs are righted. Why should we leave it to Bambers solicitors, who appear to have all failed him in the past by not getting these convictions overturned. I am sure each and every one of them, have good intentions and Jeremys best interests at heart, but in many other ways, their hands are tied, they can only do so much, and after a while, they all fall away from the cause...
Solicitors, not helped by people such as yourself mike, who have crucial evidence but can't be bothered to send it to them!
-
Solicitors, not helped by people such as yourself mike, who have crucial evidence but can't be bothered to send it to them!
it's ok, I'll take the blame...
-
I took possession of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, whilst visiting Ewen Smith's office, and took photographs of the album it was presented in, . . .
Please clarify, mike tesko, did you take a photograph of the photograph (that you removed from Ewen Smith's office) of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If so, do you currently have that photograph of the photograph sent to Ewen Smith? If not, did you make a scan of the photograph of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If you made such a scan, have you retrieved it, or a copy of it, recently (i.e., within the last year)?
-
Please clarify, mike tesko, did you take a photograph of the photograph (that you removed from Ewen Smith's office) of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If so, do you currently have that photograph of the photograph sent to Ewen Smith? If not, did you make a scan of the photograph of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If you made such a scan, have you retrieved it, or a copy of it, recently (i.e., within the last year)?
These are good questions, which I will not refuse to answer - but before I do, I have to make additional posts so that no-one will be in any doubt about what took place involving the killing / death of Sheila Caffell, inside whf after the raid team entered the premises at about 7:30am...
-
Well done Mike.Bring it on. You're doing a fantastic job.
-
Well done Mike.Bring it on. You're doing a fantastic job.
The photograph I took of the album in Ewen Smiths office which also contained the photograph of Sheila on the bed, is an important piece of evidence, which no-one was supposed to see, or know about. Ewen Smith used his contacts at the CCRC to make Essex police send him all the photographic evidence which had previously been destroyed. He was able to do this and get co-operation from the CCRC and Essex police, because he had already applied to be a CCRC Commisioner, and was close to being appointed one. I am not mentioning this now to try and get Ewen or the CCRC into trouble, only to demonstrate the circumstances for hiow ewen ended up with all the photogr9oahs taken by Essex police as part of their investigation into this case. In particular, there was one album of photographs which contained all the photographs which police took at crucial stages of the investigation when Sheila;s body was on the bed, moved to the floor and her body stage managed by the police. There were 10 or so images contained in this particualr album, including the one I removed of Sheila on the bed. The image I have posted is one of the ten pictuires I am talking about contained in that album - the negatives for 7/8 of these 10 photoghr0ahs are missing, are being withheld under Pii, or have been destroyed and no longer exist or are available, for whatever reason. I want you all to look at the following images, and then hopefully you will all understand that what I have been talking about, and what I am saying about the police stage managing the body of Sheila Caffell in the bedro0om, is all true...
Look at the position of Sheila's right arm / hand, and the shape of the bloodstain on the top right hand side of her nightdress, in the black and white image, and compare this with the two coloured images, not only did police easily move and reposition Sheila's arm / hand, but if you look closely enough at all three images, it is possible to see that rigor mortis had not started to settle in, because the shape and position of her fingers is very different in each of the posted images...
-
Please clarify, mike tesko, did you take a photograph of the photograph (that you removed from Ewen Smith's office) of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If so, do you currently have that photograph of the photograph sent to Ewen Smith? If not, did you make a scan of the photograph of Sheila on the bed before sending it to Jeremy? If you made such a scan, have you retrieved it, or a copy of it, recently (i.e., within the last year)?
Any chance of an answer?
-
It is evident from the two pictures above that the police didn't only move the rifle. If you look at Sheila's nightdress you will see that it too has been moved.
-
These are good questions, which I will not refuse to answer - but before I do, I have to make additional posts so that no-one will be in any doubt about what took place involving the killing / death of Sheila Caffell, inside whf after the raid team entered the premises at about 7:30am...
My questions were posted over four months ago. Are you able to answer them now?
-
why is the bed linen straighter in the 1st image ?
-
It is evident from the two pictures above that the police didn't only move the rifle. If you look at Sheila's nightdress you will see that it too has been moved.
Yes because after Jeremy pulled Sheila's legs he left her private parts exposed to all and sundry so the Police had to cover them.
-
Yes because after Jeremy pulled Sheila's legs he left her private parts exposed to all and sundry so the Police had to cover them.
Who told you that one? Since the police are supposed to take pictures of a crime scene undesturbed. It wasn't meant to be viewed by the general public. I realy don't know where you get these half baked stories of yours from? ;D
-
These are good questions, which I will not refuse to answer - but before I do, I have to make additional posts so that no-one will be in any doubt about what took place involving the killing / death of Sheila Caffell, inside whf after the raid team entered the premises at about 7:30am...
Another four months have passed since I posted the questions. Are you able to answer them now?
-
Another four months have passed since I posted the questions. Are you able to answer them now?
Yes, very soon...
-
Yes, very soon...
Surely it's time you got bamber out of prison now mike?
Itemised billing? Photo on the bed?
-
Surely it's time you got bamber out of prison now mike?
Itemised billing? Photo on the bed?
Hi Vic, nice to see you back - where you been? :)
-
Hi Vic, nice to see you back - where you been? :)
Yes likewise. :)
-
Hi Vic, nice to see you back - where you been? :)
Nice to see you too Caroline & Grahame. If I promise to behave can I join in again?
-
Nice to see you too Caroline & Grahame. If I promise to behave can I join in again?
[/quote
Of course!! Welcome back - it's pretty quiet at the moment, we need a bit of life!! :)
-
Nice to see you too Caroline & Grahame. If I promise to behave can I join in again?
[/quote
Of course!! Welcome back - it's pretty quiet at the moment, we need a bit of life!! :)
Maybe I shouldn't behave then! Lol
-
Maybe I shouldn't behave then! Lol
Oh behaaave. ;D
-
Oh behaaave. ;D
Lol...
-
Surely it's time you got bamber out of prison now mike?
Itemised billing? Photo on the bed?
Not to mention the fact that the City of London police investigation uncovered evidence that ACC Simpson had possession of photographic material from the scene which was never part of the official photographic record disclosed to Bambers legal team, which Simpson used in training exercise lectures. These photographs included the ones of June Bamber and Sheila on the bed, and Ralph sprawled out on the kitchen floor, before police readjusted his body with his head in the coal bucket net to the aga...
-
Evidence of the two different phone calls (3.26am and 3.36am) which became merged into the same call, can be found here:-
First thing we need to do, is to establish on the reverse of which log was written the continuance sheet shown below...
-
Both logs were written by different people, at different times, relating to two separate incidents, firstly the Bonnet log (3.26am) was made in connection with Ralphs call to the police, whilst the second log (3.36am) is written in connection with Jeremys later call to the police...
How can this be proven?
Well, a part from the contents of both logs being different, where one (3.26am) refers to what the father told police, whilst the other (3.36am) deals with what Jeremy told police, what we have got is something unique mentioned on both logs, which is left unanswered, something which either applies to both logs, or one or other of them, and that is the disclosure of continuation log details on the reverse, linked to the key parts of the front page of one of the logs, the entry P.T.O.
Here is the key continuation sheet:-
-
Something is handwritten on the reverse of both page 1 log contents, where it could only have been written on one of them, this opens up the possibility that on the reverse of Bonnets 3.26am log, was recorded more details about the call made by Ralph to police on that occasion, as opposed to the continuation of PC Wests log on the reverse of his log dealing with the call from Jeremy at 3.36am...
-
Something is handwritten on the reverse of both page 1 log contents, where it could only have been written on one of them, this opens up the possibility that on the reverse of Bonnets 3.26am log, was recorded more details about the call made by Ralph to police on that occasion, as opposed to the continuation of PC Wests log on the reverse of his log dealing with the call from Jeremy at 3.36am...
What makes this interesting is that Bonnets log (3.26am) suggests that he (Bonnet) received the information he recorded from 1990 (PC West) in this log, but the contents which Bonnet records do not match that which PC West later records on page 1 of his log at 3.36am. The key feature which needs looking into now, is what was / is recorded on the reverse of the front page of each of both logs, since, as I have said, both logs were created by two different people, in different locations, at different times, and anything handwritten on the reverse of one, could not possibly match that which was written on the reverse of the other (unless photocopied onto the back of one or other later on). This leads me to conclude that written on the reverse of Bonnets original page 1 of his 3.26am log, are details relating to the call made by the father to the police, whilst Jeremy himself was or may have been speaking to the police himself...
If this proves to be the case, then of course, Jeremy would be vindicated, since if his father (Ralph) was speaking to police on one line, whilst part of Jeremys call to police was taking place on another, where both calls partly over lapped. There may be some evidence of this contained on the reverse of PC Wests log (3.36am) when you take into account reference to the GPO calling whf and declaring that the phone has been left off the hook. This is a remarkable piece of information considering that from 3.36am that Jeremy was speaking to the police. Jeremys call to police lasted about 10 / 11 minutes which puts the termination of his call at around 3.46 / 3.47am, some five minutes or so after West records the fact that at 3.42am the GPO had established the phone at the farmhouse had been left off the hook...
What this means, is that for a period of 5 or 6 minutes, there may have been an overlap of the call from the father to police, and Jeremys call to police, an overlap which spanned the period 3.36am to 3.42am, the details of which are recorded on the reverse of the original page 1 of Bonnets (3.26am) log...
If this proves to be the case, then of course, Jeremy is in the clear...
-
Jeremy's call to police lasted about 10 / 11 minutes, which puts the termination of his call at around 3.46 / 3.47am, . . .
That isn't established. You posted just hours later, "Worse case scenario - there was overlap of the line in usage (a) to (c) and (b) to (c) whilst Jeremy was speaking to police from his cottage for a period between 3.36am and 3.42am, a total of 6 minutes", and the two logs don't prove that Jeremy was still on the telephone to Pc West after 3.42am, or that the telephone line at the farmhouse was checked by the operator while Jeremy's call to Pc West was still in progress.
-
and......as he was passed by police at 3.48 in the lane running towards the farm, he must have got his jimjams off pretty quick and used warp speed in the Astra.....
-
and......as he was passed by police at 3.48 in the lane running towards the farm, he must have got his jimjams off pretty quick and used warp speed in the Astra.....
Running? I doubt a 25 year old man would be wearing PJ's ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Running? I doubt a 25 year old man would be wearing PJ's ;D ;D ;D ;D
lol......the lane running towards the farm, not Bamber.....silly girl.....lol...
-
lol......the lane running towards the farm, not Bamber.....silly girl.....lol...
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
and......as he was passed by police at 3.48 in the lane running towards the farm, he must have got his jimjams off pretty quick and used warp speed in the Astra.....
I don't think I've read that anywhere Vic? Have you got a reference or link to it? I remember the police commenting that as they passed him he was travelling very slowly? Are you talking about Pages Lane?
-
Pity the police hadn't got anything else to do other than see how fast/slow Jeremy was travelling. It would have been the normal 30mph,,and would have been " the big I ams " who'd have been belting along at break-neck speed,as usual.
Jeremy had already been done for speeding anyway,,so he didn't want another scenario.
-
Hi Grahame I also read that Jeremy was travelling very slowly and I do declare he was critized for it by a certain poster on our forum ;D
-
Pity the police hadn't got anything else to do other than see how fast/slow Jeremy was travelling. It would have been the normal 30mph,,and would have been " the big I ams " who'd have been belting along at break-neck speed,as usual.
Jeremy had already been done for speeding anyway,,so he didn't want another scenario.
how can YOU possibly know what he was thinking.?
-
I don't think I've read that anywhere Vic? Have you got a reference or link to it? I remember the police commenting that as they passed him he was travelling very slowly? Are you talking about Pages Lane?
I thought that he arrived at WHF at 3.50 and was passed on the Tollesbury road doing 25-30mph?
In my opinion, impossible to be on the phone at time Mike claims and still make it to the farm at 3.50, driving at 30mph or less. Also, in my opinion, not the actions of a man 'rushing' to the aid of his father.
-
Hi Grahame I also read that Jeremy was travelling very slowly and I do declare he was critized for it by a certain poster on our forum ;D
I find it completely unbelievable that he responded so slowly.
-
Vic,,I'm almost sure that murder wouldn't have been on Jeremys' mind at the time,,hence his slower speed while the cops were around. It would seem that whatever Jeremy did,or didn't do,,he couldn't do right for doing wrong.
-
Pity the police hadn't got anything else to do other than see how fast/slow Jeremy was travelling. It would have been the normal 30mph,,and would have been " the big I ams " who'd have been belting along at break-neck speed,as usual.
Jeremy had already been done for speeding anyway,,so he didn't want another scenario.
I don´t think a speeding ticket was on his mind that particular night, I think he was afraid of what lay ahead and didn´t want to arrive at the farm alone prior to the police.
I find that very understandable.
-
Vic,,I'm almost sure that murder wouldn't have been on Jeremys' mind at the time,,hence his slower speed while the cops were around. It would seem that whatever Jeremy did,or didn't do,,he couldn't do right for doing wrong.
"Sheila's got the gun......" - Nothing to worry him there! Phone Witham, phone Chelmsford, slow drive to the farm... all perfectly normal behaviour...
-
I don´t think a speeding ticket was on his mind that particular night, I think he was afraid of what lay ahead and didn´t want to arrive at the farm alone prior to the police.
I find that very understandable.
I agree Alias and contrary to what others think if you have ever been in a similar situation and I have but without the gun, fortunately with a different outcome you do actually drive slowly and carefully. When in a state of shock or fear we tend to do things in a slow and orderly fashion. I agree we always expect we would fly along, adrenaline coursing through our veins to the rescue but in my own experience that is not the way it happens.
-
"Sheila's got the gun......" - Nothing to worry him there! Phone Witham, phone Chelmsford, slow drive to the farm... all perfectly normal behaviour...
Vic,,it hadn't been the first time that Sheila had threatened with a gun ( so I read somewhere ) but that time,Neville was able to retrieve it,and there was no harm done. Not sure if Neville had rang that time,for help either.....I don't think he did,actually as there was no need.
-
Alias/Maggie I agree I think it is quite understandable that Jeremy would travel quite slowly apprehensive of what he was to find. Can't wait for Mason Doyle's book because we are going to get so many factual explanations and these will clear up many of the stories amd myths on this forum.
-
Alias/Maggie I agree I think it is quite understandable that Jeremy would travel quite slowly apprehensive of what he was to find. Can't wait for Mason Doyle's book because we are going to get so many factual explanations and these will clear up many of the stories amd myths on this forum.
I hope I can buy it on Amazon.
-
Alias/Maggie I agree I think it is quite understandable that Jeremy would travel quite slowly apprehensive of what he was to find. Can't wait for Mason Doyle's book because we are going to get so many factual explanations and these will clear up many of the stories amd myths on this forum.
It's true susan, we do go into a different mind set in such a situation. I had to drive 5 miles down country roads, no cars about but I was intent on concentrating on my speed and my driving, worried in case I was stopped for speeding or had an accident. There was no one but myself on the road as it was about 2am it was very strange. ;D
Yes, am very much looking forward to MDs book. I'm sure he will tell it from a different angle. Should be so interesting to here the truth behind the myths and legends. ;D ;D
-
I hope I can buy it on Amazon.
I'm sure you will be able to Alias but if not we can get it to you somehow. ;) ;) ;)
-
Maggie I have just had a thought think the book by Carol Ann Lee who I strongly suspect reads the forum but has not introduced herself to us like Mason Doyle did will be publishing an anti Jeremy Bamber book. Other little factors are making me think this as well. If I am wrong I will dance on hot coals after all she is a Yorkshire Lass ;D
-
Jeremy was told to speak to the police on arrival, not approach the farmhouse alone. We don't know his exact time of arrival as a logged time of 03:50 could be 03:50:05 or 03:50:55. Jeremy hasn't commented on his speed. The police considered he was driving relatively slowly as they passed him, but that's just an estimate by police in a car travelling at high speed, and Jeremy may have slowed to make it easier for their police car to pass his car. Jeremy could have averaged 25 mph and taken about 8 1/2 minutes in total, having departed at 3:42am. We know that is feasible as mike tesko has posted a video on youtube of himself driving the same journey in under 7 1/2 minutes, including a short stop while he talked to camera.
-
Maggie I have just had a thought think the book by Carol Ann Lee who I strongly suspect reads the forum but has not introduced herself to us like Mason Doyle did will be publishing an anti Jeremy Bamber book. Other little factors are making me think this as well. If I am wrong I will dance on hot coals after all she is a Yorkshire Lass ;D
At least it would warm up your toes Susie. A novel experience for someone in the frozen North. ;D ;D
It seems very possible this may be the case and Carol Ann Lee does read the forum. She has never introduced herself which is a shame and am not sure who she has spoken to about the facts and many myths about the crime. ??? ??? ???
-
Vic,,it hadn't been the first time that Sheila had threatened with a gun ( so I read somewhere ) but that time,Neville was able to retrieve it,and there was no harm done. Not sure if Neville had rang that time,for help either.....I don't think he did,actually as there was no need.
Are you trying to start another myth?
-
Alias/Maggie I agree I think it is quite understandable that Jeremy would travel quite slowly apprehensive of what he was to find. Can't wait for Mason Doyle's book because we are going to get so many factual explanations and these will clear up many of the stories amd myths on this forum.
What factual explanations??!! All the known facts are on this forum. I'm sure it will be well researched though.
-
At least it would warm up your toes Susie. A novel experience for someone in the frozen North. ;D ;D
It seems very possible this may be the case. She has never introduced herself which is a shame and am not sure who she has spoken to about the facts and many myths about the crime. ??? ??? ???
Maggie,,I'm not sure if it's her who's a friend of the relatives,,or Claire Powell,,but it's one of them,,and that being the case,,Carol Ann Lee is bound to write in the same biased style.
-
Jeremy was told to speak to the police on arrival, not approach the farmhouse alone. We don't know his exact time of arrival as a logged time of 03:50 could be 03:50:05 or 03:50:55. Jeremy hasn't commented on his speed. The police considered he was driving relatively slowly as they passed him, but that's just an estimate by police in a car travelling at high speed, and Jeremy may have slowed to make it easier for their police car to pass his car. Jeremy could have averaged 25 mph and taken about 8 1/2 minutes in total, having departed at 3:42am. We know that is feasible as mike tesko has posted a video on youtube of himself driving the same journey in under 7 1/2 minutes, including a short stop while he talked to camera.
According to mike he was still on the phone at 3.42. That's my original point. His latest theory ( proported to be supported by mysterious informants ) is impossible and incidentally, according to bamber's legal team, not true!
-
Maggie,,I'm not sure if it's her who's a friend of the relatives,,or Claire Powell,,but it's one of them,,and that being the case,,Carol Ann Lee is bound to write in the same biased style.
Haven't read Claire Powel's book,l lookout but have read enough of Steve's quotes to maybe leave it on the shelf. ;)
-
Hi lookout don't think Carol Ann Lee is friendly with the relatives could be. Maybe she has interviewed them for her wee book ;D
-
I'll go further....bamber's legal team (and I have no idea how) published publicly that they had information that showed "irrefutably" that bamber was on the phone to the police at 3.26. At that time Tesko was closely involved in that circle and is fully aware of this. This was AFTER this 'log' was first published. The defence team under all 'leaders' have never tried to suggest a second phone call, because they themselves have had the proof that there was only the one call. Tesko claims that this 'log' is a new find, but that is also not the case and is quite clearly marked from the original trial.
-
Maggie I shall leave all the Bamber books on the shelf other than Mason Doyle's ;) ;) ;) You do know Maggie I read the tea leaves ;D
-
Maggie,,I'm not sure if it's her who's a friend of the relatives,,or Claire Powell,,but it's one of them,,and that being the case,,Carol Ann Lee is bound to write in the same biased style.
I don't believe either know the relatives and if a book concludes that bamber is guilty, does not make it biased!! Lol.
-
Be patient and you will find out.
-
I don't believe either know the relatives and if a book concludes that bamber is guilty, does not make it biased!! Lol.
It does if he isn't,Vic. It's tantamount to spreading gossip and lies,,like Amaral did in the McCann case,,as he convinced a lot of people that they were guilty of disposing of Madeleines' body.
-
That isn't established. You posted just hours later, "Worse case scenario - there was overlap of the line in usage (a) to (c) and (b) to (c) whilst Jeremy was speaking to police from his cottage for a period between 3.36am and 3.42am, a total of 6 minutes", and the two logs don't prove that Jeremy was still on the telephone to Pc West after 3.42am, or that the telephone line at the farmhouse was checked by the operator while Jeremy's call to Pc West was still in progress.
Hi Reader,
If Jeremy's call to police took place at 3.36am, say it lasted 11 minutes, this would take the duration of his call to the point of termination as being 3.47am. Since the line from the scene (whf) was still in use and the GPO confirmed at 3.42am that the phone had been left off the hook, it must follow that there was overlap between Jeremy's call to police (3.36am to 3.47am), and the activation of the panic alarm from 3.29am to whenever, there must have been a period of overlap involving the line from Jeremy's cottage, and the open line from the scene (whf) between 3.36am and 3.42am, where police were dealing with the call from Jeremy, and the open line problem from the scene...
I describe the open line from the scene, (3.29am to 3.42am, and beyond) described as being problematic, because it was as a result of the panic alarm fitted at the scene being activated, but at some stage after this, someone at the scene, lifted the telephone handset thus creating an open line connection, and placed the handset onto the kitchen worktop, the latter was done at some stage between 3.29am and 3.42am...
Basically, what I am saying is that it would have been impossible for Jeremy Bamber, to be responsible for shooting and killing Ralph, for Jeremy to lift the telephone handset after the panic button was activated at 3.29am, for Jeremy to stage manage the scene as alleged by the prosecutions case at trial and since, then leave the crime scene without leaving any trace that he had been there at any stage of the shootings, got on June Bambers bicycle and ridden home to his cottage along the coastal footpath, in time for Jeremy to use the phone at his cottage, to make his call to police by 3.36am. It could not be done, not by Jeremy, not by anyone...
There was a basic difference between the call made by Ralph to police at 3.26am, and activation of the panic alarm at 3.29am, followed by someone at the scene lifting the telephone handset and leaving it off the hook whilst the alarm was still in progress. It created a loop in the system that the police could not deal with themselves, and required them to seek the help of the GPO, which took place at around 3.42am. All of this is consistent with someone still being very much alive inside whf after 3.29am when the panic alarm was activated, and the telephone handset was lifted and left off the hook...
I understand that if someone had been using the phone when an attempt to activate the alarm was undertaken, it would have failed, because the successful activation of the alarm from the scene (whf) required unrestricted use of the line. The alarm could not be successfully activated whilst the phone was in usage by someone at the scene - so police knew that after the panic alarm was activated that someone who was still alive inside the farmhouse lifted the phone and left it on the kitchen worktop, possibly in the mistaken belief that police would be able to eavesdrop on the developing situation...
-
I'll go further....bamber's legal team (and I have no idea how) published publicly that they had information that showed "irrefutably" that bamber was on the phone to the police at 3.26. At that time Tesko was closely involved in that circle and is fully aware of this. This was AFTER this 'log' was first published. The defence team under all 'leaders' have never tried to suggest a second phone call, because they themselves have had the proof that there was only the one call. Tesko claims that this 'log' is a new find, but that is also not the case and is quite clearly marked from the original trial.
I agree the log is far from conclusive imo.
-
There was definitely two different telephone calls, one from Ralph to police (3.26am), and the other from Jeremy to police (3.36am). Why are police refusing to release details hand written onto the reverse of the first page of Bonnets 3.26am, yet have disclosed photocopied handwritten notes on the reverse of PC Wests page one phone log timed at 3.36am?
As soon as the contents on the reverse of page 1 of Bonnets log are made available, it will confirm there were two different calls made to police, one from Ralph, the other from Jeremy...
-
There was definitely two different telephone calls, one from Ralph to police (3.26am), and the other from Jeremy to police (3.36am). Why are police refusing to release details hand written onto the reverse of the first page of Bonnets 3.26am, yet have disclosed photocopied handwritten notes on the reverse of PC Wests page one phone log timed at 3.36am?
As soon as the contents on the reverse of page 1 of Bonnets log are made available, it will confirm there were two different calls made to police, one from Ralph, the other from Jeremy...
Mike I am getting confused it was said at trial and in the appeals that it was excepted that Jeremy made his call at 3:26 A car was called out at 3:35 and according to the IR the raid team got a message at 3:33....therefore its impossible that Jeremy called at 3:36..... :) :) :) :)
-
It does if he isn't,Vic. It's tantamount to spreading gossip and lies,,like Amaral did in the McCann case,,as he convinced a lot of people that they were guilty of disposing of Madeleines' body.
Just like Tesko is about the mcCanns you mean?
Apparently maddie speaks to him from the clouds....
-
Just like Tesko is about the mcCanns you mean?
Apparently maddie speaks to him from the clouds....
It's quite possible,Vic. I've never doubted the McCanns,,and I don't doubt Jeremy either. I'm not always led by what the majority have to say.
-
Mike I am getting confused it was said at trial and in the appeals that it was excepted that Jeremy made his call at 3:26 A car was called out at 3:35 and according to the IR the raid team got a message at 3:33....therefore its impossible that Jeremy called at 3:36..... :) :) :) :)
The timings were played around with by police and the prosecuting authorities, to mislead people into thinking there was a problem of timings involving only one call, when all along, there were two different ones. An example of this, became self evident at the 2002 appeal when the judges in their judgment mentioned the anomaly surrounding the timing of 3.35am when the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the scene, a minute before Jeremy alerted police to events at whf during his call at 3.36am...
-
The timings were played around with by police and the prosecuting authorities, to mislead people into thinking there was a problem of timings involving only one call, when all along, there were two different ones. An example of this, became self evident at the 2002 appeal when the judges in their judgment mentioned the anomaly surrounding the timing of 3.35am when the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the scene, a minute before Jeremy alerted police to events at whf during his call at 3.36am...
The other way around. They pointed to the 3.35 call out as evidence that the call must have been prior to 3.36. You're playing with the facts.
-
The reason the defence said what they said about the timing of Jeremy's call to police, is because they were being misled into believing there had only ever been just the one call, not two different ones - the police and prosecuting authorities played around with the times of both calls, attempting to merge both into the same one...
But, if the contents of both logs had been made available, side by side, there is no way any defence counsel, would accept that both of these logs related to the self same telephone call, and in my opinion, no jury would have been persuaded to accept that these were records of the same call...
-
Jeremy did not know the exact timing he made the call to police, even though he did make such a call. Likewise, he did not know the time he arrived at the scene - this became self-evident to me whilst I spent a year or so talking to him about his case, whilst both of us were incarcerated on B wing at HMP Full Sutton, 1989 to 1990. I do not see how all these years later, that Jeremy can remember exactly the timings, of calls he made, on the night in question. He is basing the timings of calls based upon information provided by police in various records, which cannot all be accurate, because there are so many conflicting accounts in so far as timing of events are concerned...
-
Jeremy did not know the exact timing he made the call to police, even though he did make such a call. Likewise, he did not know the time he arrived at the scene - this became self-evident to me whilst I spent a year or so talking to him about his case, whilst both of us were incarcerated on B wing at HMP Full Sutton, 1989 to 1990. I do not see how all these years later, that Jeremy can remember exactly the timings, of calls he made, on the night in question. He is basing the timings of calls based upon information provided by police in various records, which cannot all be accurate, because there are so many conflicting accounts in so far as timing of events are concerned...
From appeal judgement....
7. The police were first alerted that something out of the ordinary had occurred when they received a telephone call from the appellant. The call was logged at 3.36 a.m. but there was evidence that made clear that it must have been at least 10 minutes earlier. The caller was the appellant and having given his name and address he said:
-
And further....
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.
-
Jeremy did not know the exact timing he made the call to police, even though he did make such a call. Likewise, he did not know the time he arrived at the scene - this became self-evident to me whilst I spent a year or so talking to him about his case, whilst both of us were incarcerated on B wing at HMP Full Sutton, 1989 to 1990. I do not see how all these years later, that Jeremy can remember exactly the timings, of calls he made, on the night in question. He is basing the timings of calls based upon information provided by police in various records, which cannot all be accurate, because there are so many conflicting accounts in so far as timing of events are concerned...
He never looked at his watch or a clock? Find that hard to believe. Also, when he was originally asked and right upto a couple of years ago he was quite insistant that the call from Nevill was at 3.10-3.15. He also spent a great deal of time at trial convincing everyone that he called Julie AFTER he called police, but in prison, he admitted to you that this was a lie. Making you the first campaigner I've ever known to show the person they're campaigning for, to be a liar!
-
Because Jeremy wasn't precise over times,tells me that if he'd planned this tragedy,,he'd have had everything worked out to the second.
-
From appeal judgement....
7. The police were first alerted that something out of the ordinary had occurred when they received a telephone call from the appellant. The call was logged at 3.36 a.m. but there was evidence that made clear that it must have been at least 10 minutes earlier. The caller was the appellant and having given his name and address he said:
Somebody told lies about the timing of the call, and the clock being wrong by 10 minutes, it certainly wasn't PC West during his testimony, so where did the judges of appeal get their facts from?
-
lookout my thoughts exactly if you plan to murder your entire family and you intend to give yourself an alibi (this never made sense to me) you would have the times worked out and would not be getting yourself in a state and mixing the times up. Had Jeremy Bamber murdered his family why was it necessary to make this story up about phone calls just go home get cleaned up and wait to be told of the tragedy the phones calls did not give him an albi but helped to convict him :'(
-
Because Jeremy wasn't precise over times,tells me that if he'd planned this tragedy,,he'd have had everything worked out to the second.
Actually lookout, the opposite is true. Bamber WAS precise with times, it's his supporters that change them for him!
-
And further....
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.
The judges of appeal misinterpreted what PC West had spoken about during his trial testimony, thus undermining the logic behind rejecting the appeal. It also becomes clear that according to the judgment (2002) that it was only the timing of the call which fell to be considered, not the contradictory nature of the content of both phone logs (3.26am and 3.36am)...
-
Actually lookout, the opposite is true. Bamber WAS precise with times, it's his supporters that change them for him!
Vic,,it rather sounds like the police who fluffed on the times.The one being questioned clearly didn't know if he was coming or going,or if the clock was ever right. Very poor observations for a cop given the enormity of the tragedy.
-
lookout my thoughts exactly if you plan to murder your entire family and you intend to give yourself an alibi (this never made sense to me) you would have the times worked out and would not be getting yourself in a state and mixing the times up. Had Jeremy Bamber murdered his family why was it necessary to make this story up about phone calls just go home get cleaned up and wait to be told of the tragedy the phones calls did not give him an albi but helped to convict him :'(
He had to 'place' himself away from the scene.
-
Vic,,it rather sounds like the police who fluffed on the times.The one being questioned clearly didn't know if he was coming or going,or if the clock was ever right. Very poor observations for a cop given the enormity of the tragedy.
Nope I disagree. I think it's quite clear.
-
And further....
27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head by posting this extract, bang on, because until very recently nobody picked up on the fact the the line at whf had been checked by the GPO 48 minutes earlier, and it was felt necessary to record at that earlier time (3.42am) that the phone had been left off the hook - the only way that could have been established at that early stage (3.42am) was if the panic alarm had been activated without the need or requirement to lift the handset, hence at 3.42am when the GPO checked the line it was possible to tell by voltage in the line, to determine that the phone was currently off the hook, not sat in its cradle, and that the transition in voltage from one state to another, helped to establish that there was somebody alive inside the farmhouse after 3.29am...
-
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head by posting this extract, bang on, because until very recently nobody picked up on the fact the the line at whf had been checked by the GPO 48 minutes earlier, and it was felt necessary to record at that earlier time (3.42am) that the phone had been left off the hook - the only way that could have been established at that early stage (3.42am) was if the panic alarm had been activated without the need or requirement to lift the handset, hence at 3.42am when the GPO checked the line it was possible to tell by voltage in the line, to determine that the phone was currently off the hook, not sat in its cradle, and that the transition in voltage from one state to another, helped to establish that there was somebody alive inside the farmhouse after 3.29am...
I'm sorry mike but this is absolute cobblers. Where is there any evidence whatsoever of a "change of voltage on the line at 3.42"?
-
I'm sorry mike but this is absolute cobblers. Where is there any evidence whatsoever of a "change of voltage on the line at 3.42"?
It also says 04.13 INFORMANT at scene. Not one of informantS, or son of informant or 2nd informant.....
-
Why did bamber lie in court about calling Julie after the police, having admitted to you that it was, as the prosecution rightly showed, BEFORE he called police? Why was that mike?
-
Where exactly ARE the itemised billings you claim to have from a telephone line physically incapable of giving that information? Why have you not produced it?
-
I'm sorry mike but this is absolute cobblers. Where is there any evidence whatsoever of a "change of voltage on the line at 3.42"?
Don't be sorry, Vidvic, it's standard knowledge that the GPO used to test phone lines using voltage readings, and that by adopting this approach they could detect faults, or if the phone was off the hook, or not - this was how the GPO knew that someone had left the phone off the hook by 3.42am, after the handset had previously been resting in its cradle when the panic button was activated at 3.29am, it all boiled down to voltage when the line was tested, the voltage being different in the line when the panic button was activated with the handset resting in its cradle, as opposed to a reduction in the voltage when the line was checked by the GPO at 3.42am, phone off the hook...
There is no need to apologize, you obviously were not aware of the equipment and technology available to the GPO to test phone connections and telephone lines, as was the case in this instance
-
What panic alarm? Prove it existed?
I have a complete confession from bamber, he sent it to Ann eaton last year. I've left it on a hard drive somewhere, I'm sure you all believe me... Don't you??!!
-
Why would Nevill call the police at 3.26 and THEN activate a panic alarm, knowing the police were on their way?
-
Why would Nevill call the police at 3.26 and THEN activate a panic alarm, knowing the police were on their way?
That is a good question. 8)
-
I thought that he arrived at WHF at 3.50 and was passed on the Tollesbury road doing 25-30mph?
In my opinion, impossible to be on the phone at time Mike claims and still make it to the farm at 3.50, driving at 30mph or less. Also, in my opinion, not the actions of a man 'rushing' to the aid of his father.
That's what I thought. But now you've thrown a spanner in the works by saying "he was passed by police at 3.48 in the lane running towards the farm"?
-
That's what I thought. But now you've thrown a spanner in the works by saying "he was passed by police at 3.48 in the lane running towards the farm"?
I should have been clearer Grahame, sorry. I meant tollesbury road.
-
Didn't JB make two calls to the Police though? He called Witham first and received no answer. He may have then called JM and then Chelmsford. This may be where the confusion is?
-
And West was quite sure in his court evidence that the Police station clock was showing the correct time.
-
Didn't JB make two calls to the Police though? He called Witham first and received no answer. He may have then called JM and then Chelmsford. This may be where the confusion is?
Obviously from my point of view I don't believe a word of it, I find the whole scenario farcical, but the only person that truly knows the sequence is Bamber. He used the phone book to look up the numbers for witham and then Chelmsford. I'm told the prosecution held up a copy of it and along the top it said in big bold letters, "in emergency call 999."
-
And West was quite sure in his court evidence that the Police station clock was showing the correct time.
Yes, I completely agree. He is quite clear that the clock was right, he was wrong.
-
I found this thread from long ago about the panic alarm. Thought perhaps members might be nterested?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,878.msg25650.html#msg25650
-
I'm coming to the conclusion that there is more spin off's about this case than I've had hot dinners.
I am in the belief that there is and was no panic button fitted in WHF at all and its an untruth. I also think the time of all the calls cannot be proved one way or the other. I except like the COA said the time was more likely to have been made at 3:26 and Bonnet had placed the call when it finished rather than when it was started and this could have easily been the case. I can't understand why spokes are being thrown into this case. The burglar alarm was fitted at 3:15 on the 7th August......
Not in one statement or document that have I seen mentions panic button. I think its time to get rid of the myths and tell the truth.... ???
-
I'm coming to the conclusion that there is more spin off's about this case than I've had hot dinners.
I am in the belief that there is and was no panic button fitted in WHF at all and its an untruth. I also think the time of all the calls cannot be proved one way or the other. I except like the COA said the time was more likely to have been made at 3:26 and Bonnet had placed the call when it finished rather than when it was started and this could have easily been the case. I can't understand why spokes are being thrown into this case. The burglar alarm was fitted at 3:15 on the 7th August......
Not in one statement or document that have I seen mentions panic button. I think its time to get rid of the myths and tell the truth.... ???
There are two types of forum members Patti, on both sides. Those interested in finding out the precise events of that night and those making things fit to further their chosen 'side'. There is a massive difference between the two.
-
There are two types of forum members Patti, on both sides. Those interested in finding out the precise events of that night and those making things fit to further their chosen 'side'. There is a massive difference between the two.
Hi Vic :)
Nice to see you back causing bother lol :P
The trouble is no one really knows what happened inside that farmhouse that night and I doubt anyone will ever discover the whole truth. As it stands Jeremy is convicted of the murders, but I have serious doubts that he pulled the trigger that night. I also have doubts that Sheila did....The truth is important because if Jeremy is not guilty then its the biggest mistake that our judicial system has ever made.
The only evidence stacked up against Jeremy is the silencer and some of that evidence has holds serious doubts and its too complex to give an honest answer as to whose DNA was in the silencer when it was last tested....The COA excepted it might not be Sheila's DNA...but from a mixture its difficult to tell whose DNA it was....It was argued that it was June's DNA and DNA from and unidentified male.
Having read that LCN DNA needs to meet 36 strands only 17 markers out of 20 so the DNA was not unique at all.....the complexity makes it impossible to say that the DNA belonged to June....You all might think I am talking out of my head, but believe me I'm not..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm coming to the conclusion that there is more spin off's about this case than I've had hot dinners.
I am in the belief that there is and was no panic button fitted in WHF at all and its an untruth. I also think the time of all the calls cannot be proved one way or the other. I except like the COA said the time was more likely to have been made at 3:26 and Bonnet had placed the call when it finished rather than when it was started and this could have easily been the case. I can't understand why spokes are being thrown into this case. The burglar alarm was fitted at 3:15 on the 7th August......
Not in one statement or document that have I seen mentions panic button I think its time to get
rid of the myths and tell the truth.... ???
Thought that myth had been busted Patti, can't believe it's back.
-
Thought that myth had been busted Patti, can't believe it's back.
Me neither ;) >:( ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I found this thread from long ago about the panic alarm. Thought perhaps members might be nterested?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,878.msg25650.html#msg25650
Interesting post and thread Grahame. Seems there's always been confusion over the Panic Button/Burglar alarm til Vic stated categorically that there was no alarm of any kind fitted til after the murders when the burglar alarm was fitted.
-
Hi Vic :)
Nice to see you back causing bother lol :P
The trouble is no one really knows what happened inside that farmhouse that night and I doubt anyone will ever discover the whole truth. As it stands Jeremy is convicted of the murders, but I have serious doubts that he pulled the trigger that night. I also have doubts that Sheila did....The truth is important because if Jeremy is not guilty then its the biggest mistake that our judicial system has ever made.
The only evidence stacked up against Jeremy is the silencer and some of that evidence has holds serious doubts and its too complex to give an honest answer as to whose DNA was in the silencer when it was last tested....The COA excepted it might not be Sheila's DNA...but from a mixture its difficult to tell whose DNA it was....It was argued that it was June's DNA and DNA from and unidentified male.
Having read that LCN DNA needs to meet 36 strands only 17 markers out of 20 so the DNA was not unique at all.....the complexity makes it impossible to say that the DNA belonged to June....You all might think I am talking out of my head, but believe me I'm not..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am no expert in DNA but this is how the findings for the 2002 were explained to me at the time.
Pam gave DNA as June's sister. The DNA found in the silencer was of sufficient a match as would be expected of ones sister and an extremely high probability that it was June's. I believe a statistic was given, which I'm sure is in the judgement, but all agreed that it WAS June's DNA in the silencer.
The match to Sheila's was statistically much lower. It was above average but not enough to say with any certainty. When the expert said that in her opinion there was a GOOD chance it WAS Sheila's, if I remember correctly, she was admonished by one of the judges as going too far....( I think I remeber it being a 'she' but again I could be mistaken.)
As for the evidence, I do not believe that the silencer is the only thing that convicted him.
The whole phone call scenario is vitally important and if Bamber is innocent then he is the unluckiest man that ever lived.
-
Morning Maggie
Don't forget Vic stated on this forum that the panic button was in situ before the murders and was quite adamant in this with Caroline who disagreed with him. He then was gracious enough to tell us he was mistaken and the panic button was installed after the murders. Maybe he is mistaken over other matters he posts and he seems very unsure about the DNA in the silencer as he states "if I remember correctly" I feel we are all entitled to what our own truth is including Mike.
-
Morning Patti hope you have not landed up in Halifax with the strong winds ;D I agree the panic button issue has been resolved and we should now forget about it 8)
-
Vic who was wrong don't understand your post on the clock issue.
-
Vic Jeremy's plan with regard to placing himself away from the scene did not work very well. He would have been better going to his bed and staying there but taking the silencer with him and not telling Julie of his plans then dumping her not a very clever thing to do. What forensic evidence linked him to the scene or the bike he used to transport him between his home and the farm and back. From what little I have read I have so far not read anything that would ever convince me of his guilt the Trial was a total shambles and the least he is owed is a new Trial with it presented to the Jury as it was not as they wanted it to be. You accuse posters who think Jeremy innocent of twisting the facts this could be the case but it is also the case of the Jeremy guilty posters.
-
Morning Maggie
Don't forget Vic stated on this forum that the panic button was in situ before the murders and was quite adamant in this with Caroline who disagreed with him. He then was gracious enough to tell us he was mistaken and the panic button was installed after the murders. Maybe he is mistaken over other matters he posts and he seems very unsure about the DNA in the silencer as he states "if I remember correctly" I feel we are all entitled to what our own truth is including Mike.
I have not forgotten susie and agree with you we are all entitled to our own opinions. My problem with the two phone calls is that as 'evidence' the wording is too ambiguous to prove one way or the other whether there were 2 phone calls or not imo
-
In due course, I will be posting the evidence relating to the threats to kill Ralph Bamber and his family (currently in my possession), including witness statements from other Maldon magistrates about the reasons why Ralph took compassionate leave, and police concerns about the safety of Ralph and his immediate family at whf. For anyone to believe that the police did not take the appropriate steps to look after the Bamber clan from this time onward would be insane, in my opinion, and since there was a family protection program in place, it must surely follow that as part of that program a panic button was fitted at the scene, and in operation at the time of the shootings. The information I have got shows that the panic button was located in the left hand side (as viewed from the foot of the bed) bedside cabinet, or in other words, the side of the bed where Ralph Bamber normally slept. Other people have previously suggested that the panic button was located downstairs in the region of the main kitchen, at one stage I myself had been under the impression that it could have been fitted there, but it has been confirmed to me that it was located in Ralph Bambers bedside cabinet...
With this being the case, it becomes possible to fathom out the potential sequence which led up to its activation at 3.29am...
I can give further details if anyone is remotely interested...
-
Hi Maggie I have not got a clue about the phone calls thus the reason why I avoid discussing it I just read and try and learn ;D
-
Information, documentation, and photographs which were originally present upon various hard drives from 2003 / 2004, on / in computers owned and used by myself, were transferred onto a portable device currently in my possession, before the hard drives in question were physically removed from the shells / casings of each of those computers...
Photograph of portable device produced:- (Image of relevant device temporarily suspended)...
-
Hi Mike would be really interested to read any info you have concerning threats to Nevill and the rest of the family and how it was dealt with by the police etc. Thanks for the offer :)
-
Hi Mike would be really interested to read any info you have concerning threats to Nevill and the rest of the family and how it was dealt with by the police etc. Thanks for the offer :)
Hi Maggie,
I will be posting the material in due course, once you read it you will be left in no doubt that the panic button was fitted in the bedside cabinet of the main bedroom, and dare I say it, that it was June Bamber who actually activated it. Bloodstains which originated from June were found upon the button on the device on that side of the bed...
Hence, why her blood was found on the bedroom carpet from the right hand side of the bed, around the foot of the bed, and to the left hand side of the bed - I believe it was June Bam,ber who actually activated the alarm, after being shot herself whilst in bed, and overhearing other shots downstairs whilst or shortly after Ralph made the call to Jeremy (3.25am), and the police at (3.36am)...
-
Hi Maggie,
I will be posting the material in due course, once you read it you will be left in no doubt that the panic button was fitted in the bedside cabinet of the main bedroom, and dare I say it, that it was June Bamber who actually activated it. Bloodstains which originated from June were found upon the button on the device on that side of the bed...
Hence, why her blood was found on the bedroom carpet from the right hand side of the bed, around the foot of the bed, and to the left hand side of the bed - I believe it was June Bam,ber who actually activated the alarm, after being shot herself whilst in bed, and overhearing other shots downstairs whilst or shortly after Ralph made the call to Jeremy (3.25am), and the police at (3.36am)...
I too will be very interested in reading that Mike.
-
Jeremy's defence team surely has all this information? ??? ??? ???
-
Morning Patti hope you have not landed up in Halifax with the strong winds ;D I agree the panic button issue has been resolved and we should now forget about it 8)
Morning Susie :)
Not yet, I have anchored my self to the dog's leg lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti knew you were a head banger ;D ;D ;D ;D it is so nice you have such a happy disposition and make us laugh :-*
-
Mike,,it sounds very much as though Jeremy wasn't aware it was there,,and may have been fitted latterly,after threats were made to the family.
That being the case,,had Jeremy known,,he wouldn't have taken any chances in entering the property,,nor would he have stayed behind,hiding anywhere,,instead of leaving at 10pm when he said.
The whole point in having a panic button installed,,is not to tell anyone,,so that if there was an appropriate time to use it,,then it's depressed.
Sheila may not even have been aware of it either,as word about its existance would soon spread,and it then defeats the object of its use.
I can fully understand Neville not having had a burglar alarm,,as they tend to advertise the fact that there are valuable items within.
-
I am no expert in DNA but this is how the findings for the 2002 were explained to me at the time.
Pam gave DNA as June's sister. The DNA found in the silencer was of sufficient a match as would be expected of ones sister and an extremely high probability that it was June's. I believe a statistic was given, which I'm sure is in the judgement, but all agreed that it WAS June's DNA in the silencer.
The match to Sheila's was statistically much lower. It was above average but not enough to say with any certainty. When the expert said that in her opinion there was a GOOD chance it WAS Sheila's, if I remember correctly, she was admonished by one of the judges as going too far....( I think I remeber it being a 'she' but again I could be mistaken.)
As for the evidence, I do not believe that the silencer is the only thing that convicted him.
The whole phone call scenario is vitally important and if Bamber is innocent then he is the unluckiest man that ever lived.
Vic good morning to you. :)
Are probabilities the same as a unique match? I don't think it is. The problem I have is that no one can say 100% that the DNA belonged to June....Likely and probable is not a good answer in my opinion.
The crowns case was that Sheila's blood was found in the silencer therefore she could not have shot herself and put the silencer back in the gun cupboard.
Now, we know that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer and that its probably June's DNA which was found. The COA excepted that it belonged to June. If this is so then it is also possible that Sheila could have put the silencer back into the cupboard before shooting herself..... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti knew you were a head banger ;D ;D ;D ;D it is so nice you have such a happy disposition and make us laugh :-*
Susie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti,,the burn marks on Nevilles' back weren't caused by a gun with a silencer fitted. It had to be the muzzle which would create the burns/marks like that.
So I believe that Sheila may have initially picked up the silencer,,with bloodied hand,, to either work out how,and if it was worth fitting,then put it back without using it.
-
Hi Patti,,the burn marks on Nevilles' back weren't caused by a gun with a silencer fitted. It had to be the muzzle which would create the burns/marks like that.
So I believe that Sheila may have initially picked up the silencer,,with bloodied hand,, to either work out how,and if it was worth fitting,then put it back without using it.
Hi Lookout,
That is a very interesting theory...
-
Hi Lookout,
That is a very interesting theory...
Mike,,if this indeed how it happened,,then it would prove that Jeremy had no part whatsoever in the killings. ( which I don't think he did,anyway.)
-
Mike,,if this indeed how it happened,,then it would prove that Jeremy had no part whatsoever in the killings. ( which I don't think he did,anyway.)
It would certainly blow other far-fetched theories out of the water.
-
Hi Patti,,the burn marks on Nevilles' back weren't caused by a gun with a silencer fitted. It had to be the muzzle which would create the burns/marks like that.
So I believe that Sheila may have initially picked up the silencer,,with bloodied hand,, to either work out how,and if it was worth fitting,then put it back without using it.
Hi Lookout :)
I was highlighting the crowns case...I have problems in believing the silencer was ever fitted to the rifle. Vanezes says quite clearly that the marks on Neville's arm was done by the muzzle of the rifle. Surely Vanzes would know the difference from finger gouges and that of the muzzle of the rifle.
The burn marks on NB'S was proved not to have come from the silencer fitted. But,it was said that more test were needed because the muzzle of the rifle did not get hot enough to have made the burn marks.
Who is to know that after June was shot the silencer was taken off....We just don't know....If only eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Vic good morning to you. :)
Are probabilities the same as a unique match? I don't think it is. The problem I have is that no one can say 100% that the DNA belonged to June....Likely and probable is not a good answer in my opinion.
The crowns case was that Sheila's blood was found in the silencer therefore she could not have shot herself and put the silencer back in the gun cupboard.
Now, we know that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer and that its probably June's DNA which was found. The COA excepted that it belonged to June. If this is so then it is also possible that Sheila could have put the silencer back into the cupboard before shooting herself..... :) :) :) :)
Morning Patti
I love you.
June's DNA could quite easily have been in the silencer as a result of contamination.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
"...meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint".
IMO the idea that the silencer left the cupboard that fateful night is nonsense.
Re SC's DNA profile garnered from her birth mother and "other sources". Any ideas about the "other sources" ;) ;) ;)
The DNA profile for June garnered from PB shows "That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, ie June Bamber compared to it being from an unrelated female".
Why no numerical comparison with SC's DNA profile garnered from SC's birth mother and "other sources"???!!!
What/who are the "other sources"???!!! Why does the appeal judgement not identify the "other sources"???!!!
;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Lookout :)
I was highlighting the crowns case...I have problems in believing the silencer was ever fitted to the rifle. Vanezes says quite clearly that the marks on Neville's arm was done by the muzzle of the rifle. Surely Vanzes would know the difference from finger gouges and that of the muzzle of the rifle.
The burn marks on NB'S was proved not to have come from the silencer fitted. But,it was said that more test were needed because the muzzle of the rifle did not get hot enough to have made the burn marks.
Who is to know that after June was shot the silencer was taken off....We just don't know....If only eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Patti,,the way in which the rifle was used,,,in a frenzied manner,,,the muzzle would certainly have got hot,,hot enough to burn flesh,,which to my mind it did.
Coupled with the " grab " marks on the arms of both June and Neville,,,it can only have been Sheila lashing out. The marks on the forearms can only be made by someone with finger nails above the ends of their fingers,,and not if you haven't got fingernails above the flesh of the fingers.
It was literally " a moment of madness ".
What's more,,nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise,,and I reckon that Sheila would then have changed her stance to reassure them,,in her own way.
Sadly,,she would have killed them at that juncture,,and then put the childs' thumb in his mouth,,afterwards.
-
Hi Patti,,the way in which the rifle was used,,,in a frenzied manner,,,the muzzle would certainly have got hot,,hot enough to burn flesh,,which to my mind it did.
Coupled with the " grab " marks on the arms of both June and Neville,,,it can only have been Sheila lashing out. The marks on the forearms can only be made by someone with finger nails above the ends of their fingers,,and not if you haven't got fingernails above the flesh of the fingers.
It was literally " a moment of madness ".
What's more,,nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise,,and I reckon that Sheila would then have changed her stance to reassure them,,in her own way.
Sadly,,she would have killed them at that juncture,,and then put the childs' thumb in his mouth,,afterwards.
Morning Lookout
Tests prove that the gun being fired alone would not create sufficient heat to cause the burn marks.
The children are unlikely to have woken by the gun as the sound without silencer is low level.
May I suggest you read some of NGB's posts re the above :). Than you.
-
Morning Patti
I love you.
June's DNA could quite easily have been in the silencer as a result of contamination.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
"...meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint".
IMO the idea that the silencer left the cupboard that fateful night is nonsense.
Re SC's DNA profile garnered from her birth mother and "other sources". Any ideas about the "other sources" ;) ;) ;)
The DNA profile for June garnered from PB shows "That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, ie June Bamber compared to it being from an unrelated female".
Why no numerical comparison with SC's DNA profile garnered from SC's birth mother and "other sources"???!!!
What/who are the "other sources"???!!! Why does the appeal judgement not identify the "other sources"???!!!
;) ;) ;)
Morning NN :)
No idea about the other sources.....
On the Madeline McCann thread I posted the results and finding of the LCN DNA from our Birmingham lab. The same process used in 2001 ready for the COA in 2002.
This technique was suspended in 2007 and reinstated in 2008 due to its intensive copying and lacked validation by the majority of highly trained scientists.
If you consider the 37 components 20 of those components have to be matched anything less than that means its not unique to that person and is too complex to give a proper interpretation.
Pam gave a sample of her blood. Pam would have 10 alleles from each of her parents making it 20 overall as would June. But, she would not share the same DNA as her sister. Only twins share the DNA profile. For a DNA profile to be unique it has to 20 alleles and the LCN DNA only shared 17 markers out of the 20 therefore making it unlikely that the DNA belonged to June. In all fairness this is not a unique match; simply because the DNA was not unique and was from a mixture, making it unsafe to say categorically that it was June's DNA....its too complex to read. The same happened in the McCann case and if you look at that result it mirrors the same results because it was from a mixture and DNA was taken from the family to identify who's DNA it was....It was deemed not unique to Madeline because the markers were 17 and not 20......even at 19 its not unique...
I love you too...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Morning Lookout
Tests prove that the gun being fired alone would not create sufficient heat to cause the burn marks.
The children are unlikely to have woken by the gun as the sound without silencer is low level.
May I suggest you read some of NGB's posts re the above :). Than you.
Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.
-
Suppose now that the winning combination of the lottery is: 4, 7, 12, 23, 38, 46. Lots of people have two, or three, or four of those numbers ("alleles") because those numbers are not unique to a particular person. But the combination ("profile") of the six numbers may be unique to a person, or maybe two, but no more. Or maybe no one has that combination. It's just an analogy, but I think it helps to understand the way in which DNA is matched. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.
The marks must have come from some heat source Lookout. Unless Vanezes is incorrect and those marks are not burn marks, but I can't see thats the case, really. More test are needed to prove this point, but the test did reveal that the burn marks were unlikely to have been made without the silencer fitted. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm now going to find out about " over-cooperation " in police investigations regarding crimes,,particularly murders.
-
Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.
Fine if you want to disbelieve NGB be my guest.
-
I am no expert in DNA but this is how the findings for the 2002 were explained to me at the time.
Pam gave DNA as June's sister. The DNA found in the silencer was of sufficient a match as would be expected of ones sister and an extremely high probability that it was June's. I believe a statistic was given, which I'm sure is in the judgement, but all agreed that it WAS June's DNA in the silencer.
The match to Sheila's was statistically much lower. It was above average but not enough to say with any certainty. When the expert said that in her opinion there was a GOOD chance it WAS Sheila's, if I remember correctly, she was admonished by one of the judges as going too far....( I think I remeber it being a 'she' but again I could be mistaken.)
As for the evidence, I do not believe that the silencer is the only thing that convicted him.
The whole phone call scenario is vitally important and if Bamber is innocent then he is the unluckiest man that ever lived.
Why do you think that all physical evidence in the case was destroyed in 1996?
-
Morning NN :)
No idea about the other sources.....
On the Madeline McCann thread I posted the results and finding of the LCN DNA from our Birmingham lab. The same process used in 2001 ready for the COA in 2002.
This technique was suspended in 2007 and reinstated in 2008 due to its intensive copying and lacked validation by the majority of highly trained scientists.
If you consider the 37 components 20 of those components have to be matched anything less than that means its not unique to that person and is too complex to give a proper interpretation.
Pam gave a sample of her blood. Pam would have 10 alleles from each of her parents making it 20 overall as would June. But, she would not share the same DNA as her sister. Only twins share the DNA profile. For a DNA profile to be unique it has to 20 alleles and the LCN DNA only shared 17 markers out of the 20 therefore making it unlikely that the DNA belonged to June. In all fairness this is not a unique match; simply because the DNA was not unique and was from a mixture, making it unsafe to say categorically that it was June's DNA....its too complex to read. The same happened in the McCann case and if you look at that result it mirrors the same results because it was from a mixture and DNA was taken from the family to identify who's DNA it was....It was deemed not unique to Madeline because the markers were 17 and not 20......even at 19 its not unique...
I love you too...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Patti
I don't know enough about the type of DNA profiling used in the McCann case to comment.
In the case of JB yes the appeal court judges ruled that June's DNA was in silencer but as LCN DNA profiling was not even envisaged in '85 exhibits were not protected against contamination. For example jurors handled various exhibits including the silencer therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination. You can see from the above link that microscopic cells are sufficient to provide a profile.
-
Hi Patti
I don't know enough about the type of DNA profiling used in the McCann case to comment.
In the case of JB yes the appeal court judges ruled that June's DNA was in silencer but as LCN DNA profiling was not even envisaged in '85 exhibits were not protected against contamination. For example jurors handled various exhibits including the silencer therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination. You can see from the above link that microscopic cells are sufficient to provide a profile.
I've no idea about DNA and how its tested lol I love to make things up as I go along....Do I sound convincing? Hahahahahahahaha
-
What LCN DNA does not do is determine how and when the DNA was put there. During the test process the lesser the amount of DNA there is, the more likely an innocent person could be picked up.
Its strange that DNA was found where there is no longer any blood visible to the naked eye...LCN DNA can't tell us if the source was from blood or whether it was contamination......
Read Krane v Hoey
http://www.bioforensics.com/statements/Krane_Hoey_statement.pdf
-
DNA in quantities at LCN levels can easily be transferred from one article to
another (e.g. from evidence sample, onto the analyst’s lab coat or gloves, then to another
evidence sample; or by having been stored together in a single package) – without the
contributor having any knowledge that the transfer(s) has occurred. No DNA tests are
currently able to distinguish between secondary transfer (such as the transfer of DNA
through contamination events) or DNA present due to direct contact with an object.
Similarly, DNA tests are not currently capable of distinguishing in any way between the
presence of DNA due to contamination (such as could very easily occur through storing
or opening the objects in the same location as items obtained from an individual) or direct
contact between an individual and the object. Given that LCN analyses can conceivably
generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be
confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to
demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely
possible.
-
Fine if you want to disbelieve NGB be my guest.
I did not say that,,NN. You did.
-
NN I am not getting involved in all of this and wont be taking sides either. I like to debate and be friendly to everyone. What others post is of no concern to me and I rarely complain unless I have a valid reason too. I am on no ones side....sorry. :) :) :) :)
Patti you have the good unbiased make-up of a great moderator. Keep on that track. Even though some may call you biased just because you do not hold their view of things. It is a pity that you are not still a mod. :)
-
Information, documentation, and photographs which were originally present upon various hard drives from 2003 / 2004, on / in computers owned and used by myself, were transferred onto a portable device currently in my possession, before the hard drives in question were physically removed from the shells / casings of each of those computers...
Photograph of portable device produced:- (Image of relevant device temporarily suspended)...
Hi everyone
I have now photographed the portable device, bar code and serial numbers on the device, upon which the relevant material, documentation, emails, letters and photographs have been / were transferred from other versions of hard drives from previous computers, owned and used by myself - I will be posting images of the device in question very soon, before I start to upload material contained upon it...
Please be patient...
-
However,,reading about interviewing suspects and their behaviour under interrogation is quite interesting,,and unless Jeremy is a raving psychopath,,then he's clearly innocent.
As according to the interviews,,those who are innocent feel confident that an investigation will clear them ( as in Jeremys' case,though it didn't unfortunately happen ) Also Jeremys' answers were direct without being evasive.
A guilty person will try and divert the interviewer from the questions in hand. So far as we know,,Jeremy answered all questions put to him,,arrogantly,,so we're told,,,but arrogance is usually confidence.
Use of some words during interrogation can be an indicator of guilt or innocence. If the word ( pronoun ) " I " is used,as opposed to " the " and " it ",,then usually a suspect is guilty. The other words are an indication that he isn't taking ownership. In other words---------innocent.
It's quite clear to me that psychology wasn't used in the interviewing/interrogation of Jeremy.
-
Hi everyone
I have now photographed the portable device, bar code and serial numbers on the device, upon which the relevant material, documentation, emails, letters and photographs have been / were transferred from other versions of hard drives from previous computers, owned and used by myself - I will be posting images of the device in question very soon, before I start to upload material contained upon it...
Please be patient...
Oh Mike,,that is a long and tedious task that you've set yourself. Well done to you,,as it shows your unending loyalty to see this case through.
-
I did not say that,,NN. You did.
My humble apologies Lookout I incorrectly interpreted your post #173 ::)
-
Who keeps removing my posts?
-
However,,reading about interviewing suspects and their behaviour under interrogation is quite interesting,,and unless Jeremy is a raving psychopath,,then he's clearly innocent.
As according to the interviews,,those who are innocent feel confident that an investigation will clear them ( as in Jeremys' case,though it didn't unfortunately happen ) Also Jeremys' answers were direct without being evasive.
A guilty person will try and divert the interviewer from the questions in hand. So far as we know,,Jeremy answered all questions put to him,,arrogantly,,so we're told,,,but arrogance is usually confidence.
Use of some words during interrogation can be an indicator of guilt or innocence. If the word ( pronoun ) " I " is used,as opposed to " the " and " it ",,then usually a suspect is guilty. The other words are an indication that he isn't taking ownership. In other words---------innocent.
It's quite clear to me that psychology wasn't used in the interviewing/interrogation of Jeremy.
I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.
-
Hi everyone
I have now photographed the portable device, bar code and serial numbers on the device, upon which the relevant material, documentation, emails, letters and photographs have been / were transferred from other versions of hard drives from previous computers, owned and used by myself - I will be posting images of the device in question very soon, before I start to upload material contained upon it...
Please be patient...
This must be the longest, most drawn out transfer of computer files in history.
-
I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.
Absolutely. Completely agree.
-
I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.
Jeremy was obviously bored and fed up hearing the same questions over and over,,a tactic used until the suspect cracks,,but because a confession was nowhere near coming forthwith,,I'd say it was when things started to heat up with the police. I'd love to hear those interview tapes and how Jeremy was interviewed. I bet the police didn't use their usual protocol,,as it's clear that nobody liked the man,,so it didn't sound to me as though the police were trying to build some kind of a rapport with him,,as is the key in interviewing a suspect,,so that Jeremy would have immediately felt defensive.
-
Oh Mike,,that is a long and tedious task that you've set yourself. Well done to you,,as it shows your unending loyalty to see this case through.
Nope, it's someone backed into a corner, stalling for time. This could have been done in hours, years ago.
-
I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.
Having never been in that situation, I don't know what I would do BUT I'd be pretty hacked off knowing that the police, members of my family and an ex were trying to pin it on me!!
-
Why do you think that all physical evidence in the case was destroyed in 1996?
It's a disgrace really. Works both ways though. Might have further proved his guilt.
-
Nope, it's someone backed into a corner, stalling for time. This could have been done in hours, years ago.
Ye Gods Vic,,how long do you think it takes sifting through years of condensed information on a hard drive.? Not one hard drive,,but a few.
-
It's a disgrace really. Works both ways though. Might have further proved his guilt.
Don't fret,Vic,,if anything that was destroyed proved Jeremys' guilt,,,,it wouldn't have been destroyed,would it.? Just logig really.
-
Ye Gods Vic,,how long do you think it takes sifting through years of condensed information on a hard drive.? Not one hard drive,,but a few.
Not very long. Just transferred 750gb in about 4 hours. Type "Sheila" into the search box and he'd find the pic in minutes.
-
Vidvic if EP had more evidence to prove Jeremy Bamber guilty of the murder of his family they would have used it at Trial. They had very little evidence a silencer which seems to be now brought into a doubt and testimony from a jilted girl friend with much to gain in testifying against her former lover big cash reward and no charges brought against her for her own criminal activities without her they would not have got a conviction so they would have used every bit of evidence they had. They did not get a majority verdict one more in his favour he would have walked. This is of course how I see the situation evidence destroyed is usually done for the benefit of the Police.
-
Don't fret,Vic,,if anything that was destroyed proved Jeremys' guilt,,,,it wouldn't have been destroyed,would it.? Just logig really.
As you don't believe in any tests, then it wouldn't make any difference either way!
-
Vidvic if EP had more evidence to prove Jeremy Bamber guilty of the murder of his family they would have used it at Trial. They had very little evidence a silencer which seems to be now brought into a doubt and testimony from a jilted girl friend with much to gain in testifying against her former lover big cash reward and no charges brought against her for her own criminal activities without her they would not have got a conviction so they would have used every bit of evidence they had. They did not get a majority verdict one more in his favour he would have walked. This is of course how I see the situation evidence destroyed is usually done for the benefit of the Police.
I don't agree Susan. Advances in criminal science could have made them more useful either now or in the future.
-
Hi everyone
I have now photographed the portable device, bar code and serial numbers on the device, upon which the relevant material, documentation, emails, letters and photographs have been / were transferred from other versions of hard drives from previous computers, owned and used by myself - I will be posting images of the device in question very soon, before I start to upload material contained upon it...
Please be patient...
Just take it to a computer shop Mike. They can sometimes recover data from damaged drives. Easiest way.
-
Who keeps removing my posts?
Not me. I promise.
-
I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.
How do you know that Jeremy did not do this. We only have the "written" police documentation as to how the interview was conducted. They do not record "passion" and "concern" in the interviewee.
In fact is appears to me that JB got bery angry with this contibued "interogation" by the police. The police could have written anything they wanted so as to make it "appear" that JB was uncooperative. And I suggest that they did conduct the so called interview in that way. For that is how police do things.
-
Hi Vidvic I have read that EP were told not to destroy evidence would this be the evidence destroyed in 1996 and why destroy evidence at all. I have been given to understand that evidence that has been held is now coming to light and could put some of the myths to bed I do hope so as it is a very confusing case. We shall just have to wait and see but I do appreciate your alternative take on this case it would be boring if we all thought the same and it is nice to see you back ;D
They did seem over keen to destroy things "on the button" so to speak, didn't they Susan?
-
As you don't believe in any tests, then it wouldn't make any difference either way!
But it would have made all the difference if any tests contained Jeremys' hair or blood.
-
Grahame I thought they were quick to destroy evidence and I cannot understand the reason for this as they had so little evidence and if Jeremy had won an Appeal and the silencer evidence challenged EP may have got something else to convict Jeremy of the murders. Very bizarre indeed one would think they were trying to cover something up. Surely not.
-
You´d think the EP would want to keep the physical evidence simply because they know that Jeremy keeps appealing his conviction. With the evidence intact they would be able to effectively put a stop to Jeremy´s constant appeals - or not?
Funny how it happened in 1996, exactly around the time DNA science gained massive ground and proved the innocence of a multitude of prisones who were released from prison - many of them from death row in the USA. Just a funny little detail that makes you wonder.
The people who destroyed the evidence made a conscious decision to go into whatever room, take the boxes containing the evidence, then destroy/discard it somehow. All the while knowing that what they were doing was ILLEGAL. They must have had REASON to take such a chance, you´d think.
-
Alias this was the point I was making they were in a hurry to get rid of evidence even though they had been told not to do and it must have been to their advantage to do this knowing they should not have destroyed evidence It would appear they were not answerable to anyone and it is a total disgrace but hey ho they did it and got away with it they must have something to hide IMO surely this is evident to all.
-
Alias this was the point I was making they were in a hurry to get rid of evidence even though they had been told not to do and it must have been to their advantage to do this knowing they should not have destroyed evidence It would appear they were not answerable to anyone and it is a total disgrace but hey ho they did it and got away with it they must have something to hide IMO surely this is evident to all.
I sometimes throw this question at the nons, but they never answer.... Why do you think all the physical evidence was destroyed by the Essex Police in 1996?
-
Alias they will always have an answer for you not always feasible but nevertheless they do not ignore you ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh Mike,,that is a long and tedious task that you've set yourself. Well done to you,,as it shows your unending loyalty to see this case through.
Hi Lookout,
I am now ready to post images of the device upon which all the 2003 / 2004 material was transferred to and stored from the individual hard drives used at the material time...
-
Alias they will always have an answer for you not always feasible but nevertheless they do not ignore you ;D ;D ;D
But Susie, I think this particular question has always been ignored.
-
Alias Vidvic responded to my post on this subject earlier this afternoon and to you earlier still. Maybe it flashed you by as you did not relate the answer to the question ;D ;D ;D
-
I sometimes throw this question at the nons, but they never answer.... Why do you think all the physical evidence was destroyed by the Essex Police in 1996?
It's a very good question Alias, I cannot believe they were allowed to get away with it.
-
Alias Vidvic responded to my post on this subject earlier this afternoon and to you earlier still. Maybe it flashed you by as you did not relate the answer to the question ;D ;D ;D
Oh, didn´t see that! :-[ Have to read back... :-[ :-[ ;D
-
Hello Maggie as I said in a previous post it would appear they were allowed to get away with anything and did not have to answer to anyone. Burn the evidence which could have helped to free Jeremy Bamber why else would they burn it when told not to do so. :'(
-
It's a disgrace really. Works both ways though. Might have further proved his guilt.
Now I see it...
Why do you think they chose to destroy it if it could have further proved his guilt?
Can you blame us for thinking that they destroyed it because they were afraid of (knew there would be?) the opposite outcome: his innocence proven?
-
Alias don't get too excited at the replies ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias don't get too excited at the replies ;D ;D ;D
Oh, I won´t!
-
Alias absolutely the evidence would not have been destroyed if it would have incriminated Jeremy it would have been produced at Trial as they had very little of anything other than silencer ? Julie jilted girl friend that is all they had and I guess the Judge's summing up which the Jury would have taken notice of but even then they did not get the unanimous vote did they :'(
-
Relevant information contained on the hard drives (images of which I have previously posted) was transferred at different stages onto the above portable device, covering the period 2003 / 2004...
The images posted relating to an impression / mark left upon the surface of the skin when the end of a sound moderator made contact, is duplicated around the lower non fatal wound upon Sheila's neck...
-
Hi Mike :)
Are you saying that the mark around the wound to Sheila was made with the silencer fitted? If so then are you saying that Jeremy is guilty? :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Mike :)
Are you saying that the mark around the wound to Sheila was made with the silencer fitted? If so then are you saying that Jeremy is guilty? :) :) :) :)
Mike has said this earlier, so yes, I think that is what he means, that one of the marks on Sheila´s neck was made with the moderator fittet....
-
Mike has said this earlier, so yes, I think that is what he means, that one of the marks on Sheila´s neck was made with the moderator fittet....
Hi Alias :)
What do you think the mark is around her wound? I thought it was residue :-\ :) :) :)
If that is a silencer mark then Jeremy is guilty surely. I don't and wont believe she shot her self in the kitchen, put the silencer away then managed to get upstairs, take a shower and then shot herself again....I can't go with that...Oh bloody hell!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
With reference to #210 and #221 if there is a silencer mark anywhere on Sheila's person and Jeremy is innocent then either we are back to Sheila returning the silencer to the gun cupboard after her first non-fatal neck wound or Mike's theory of the Police issue silencer on a weapon which accidentally discharged in the master bedroom.
-
I don't wish to sound deliberately contrary but what evidence might have been destroyed that could have assisted JB? Much evidence eg carpets were destroyed when EP thought the case was 4 murders/1 suicide.
As seen at the '02 appeal use of DNA (not available in '85/'86) would be difficult to apply and draw anything meaningful from as I don't think it would be possible to eliminate contamination :-\
-
Hi Alias :)
What do you think the mark is around her wound? I thought it was residue :-\ :) :) :)
If that is a silencer mark then Jeremy is guilty surely. I don't and wont believe she shot her self in the kitchen, put the silencer away then managed to get upstairs, take a shower and then shot herself again....I can't go with that...Oh bloody hell!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Neither can I.
I cannot determine whether it is a mark from the silencer or not, just can´t tell from this photo.
-
Neither can I.
I cannot determine whether it is a mark from the silencer or not, just can´t tell from this photo.
You would have thought the CPS would have noticed this and used it in court. I think you are right, one cannot determine what the mark is.... :) :) :) :)
-
I don't wish to sound deliberately contrary but what evidence might have been destroyed that could have assisted JB? Much evidence eg carpets were destroyed when EP thought the case was 4 murders/1 suicide.
As seen at the '02 appeal use of DNA (not available in '85/'86) would be difficult to apply and draw anything meaningful from as I don't think it would be possible to eliminate contamination :-\
The victims´ clothes for one. It would be highly interesting to examine Sheila´s nightgown. Was Jeremy´s DNA on June, Sheila and/or Nevill, with whom he allegedly fought in close combat?
Just from the top of my head. Why would they destroy such items?
-
I don't wish to sound deliberately contrary but what evidence might have been destroyed that could have assisted JB? Much evidence eg carpets were destroyed when EP thought the case was 4 murders/1 suicide.
As seen at the '02 appeal use of DNA (not available in '85/'86) would be difficult to apply and draw anything meaningful from as I don't think it would be possible to eliminate contamination :-\
Their clothing NN....for hairs, fibers and DNA.....It would tell us a great deal about who was where and who was with who at the time of the shooting.... :) :) :) :)
-
The victims´ clothes for one. It would be highly interesting to examine Sheila´s nightgown. Was Jeremy´s DNA on June, Sheila and/or Nevill, with whom he allegedly fought in close combat?
Just from the top of my head. Why would they destroy such items?
hahahaha Snap Alias ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Alias/Patti
Still not sure it would be possible to eliminate contamination. EP would know that the storage of exhibits would not meet the strict criteria required to draw anything meaningful? :-\. I believe the jurors handled the nightwear albeit they were told to wear protective gloves along with items JB had handled ? :-\
-
hahahaha Snap Alias ;) ;) ;) ;)
;)
The whole thing is a big mess, can´t believe you have a lifer with such a shaky and bungled inversigation in EVERY aspect. Just unbelievable!
-
Grahame I thought they were quick to destroy evidence and I cannot understand the reason for this as they had so little evidence and if Jeremy had won an Appeal and the silencer evidence challenged EP may have got something else to convict Jeremy of the murders. Very bizarre indeed one would think they were trying to cover something up. Surely not.
I suspect some little Hitler at the top of the pile authorised it? ;)
-
Alias/Patti
Still not sure it would be possible to eliminate contamination. EP would know that the storage of exhibits would not meet the strict criteria required to draw anything meaningful? :-\. I believe the jurors handled the nightwear albeit they were told to wear protective gloves along with items JB had handled ? :-\
The EP must have thought there was something there that would reveil something, why else destroy it, when they had strict instructions NOT to?
DNA, blood patterns, tranferred hairs, skincells, they all tell a "story".
-
Alias/Patti
Still not sure it would be possible to eliminate contamination. EP would know that the storage of exhibits would not meet the strict criteria required to draw anything meaningful? :-\. I believe the jurors handled the nightwear albeit they were told to wear protective gloves along with items JB had handled ? :-\
I'm not sure how exhibits are stored. I would think all exhibits are stored in a correct way as to not contaminate in there relevant packaging. I wouldn't think that all the nightware would have all been stored in one bag....
They would use a different method of DNA profiling and probably not the LCN... I'm not sure the jurors did handle the exhibits without them being protected? Maybe NGB can tell us....
If exhibits are not stored correctly then what happens in a cold case? :) :) :) :)
-
The EP must have thought there was something there that would reveil something, why else destroy it, when they had strict instructions NOT to?
DNA, blood patterns, tranferred hairs, skincells, they all tell a "story".
That they do Alias.... :) :) :) :) :)
-
I don't wish to sound deliberately contrary but what evidence might have been destroyed that could have assisted JB? Much evidence eg carpets were destroyed when EP thought the case was 4 murders/1 suicide.
As seen at the '02 appeal use of DNA (not available in '85/'86) would be difficult to apply and draw anything meaningful from as I don't think it would be possible to eliminate contamination :-\
I agree. Anything that old can be contaminated in many ways after so many years. Also I believe that it was originaly contaminated because of the many hands it passed through?
-
Neither can I.
I cannot determine whether it is a mark from the silencer or not, just can´t tell from this photo.
Unfortunately both the letter and the photo cannot be proved to be anything connected with Sheila at all. They both could have been forged by Mike? Heaven forbid. But that will probably be the stance of the opposition?
-
Unfortunately both the letter and the photo cannot be proved to be anything connected with Sheila at all. They both could have been forged by Mike? Heaven forbid. But that will probably be the stance of the opposition?
I think it the mark looks to wide to have been caused by a silencer? Possibly an abrasion ring due to the wound having been contact or near contact? If any expert believed this to have been a silencer mark,surely this would have been raised in court? Instead,none of them could assertain whether a silencer had been used or not in the murders,hence the prosecutions reliance on the blood from inside the silencer.
-
I'm not sure how exhibits are stored. I would think all exhibits are stored in a correct way as to not contaminate in there relevant packaging. I wouldn't think that all the nightware would have all been stored in one bag....
They would use a different method of DNA profiling and probably not the LCN... I'm not sure the jurors did handle the exhibits without them being protected? Maybe NGB can tell us....
If exhibits are not stored correctly then what happens in a cold case? :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti
See your post #178. LCN DNA was not even envisaged '85/'86 so the necessary precautions to prevent contamination would not have been taken.
Jurors were told to wear gloves but I believe this was for their own protection rather than protection of exhibits.
Maybe there are less sensitive ways of DNA profiling than LCN which might yield results. I believe LCN was used with silencer as the blood had been swabbed to death in '85/'86 for standard blood groupings.
Just think even if EP hadn't destroyed other exhibits defence and prosecution would have claimed contamination.
-
tyler good observation and I am inclined to agree with you. Susanxx
-
I think it the mark looks to wide to have been caused by a silencer? Possibly an abrasion ring due to the wound having been contact or near contact? If any expert believed this to have been a silencer mark,surely this would have been raised in court? Instead,none of them could assertain whether a silencer had been used or not in the murders,hence the prosecutions reliance on the blood from inside the silencer.
That's just what I said Tyler ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Mike :)
Are you saying that the mark around the wound to Sheila was made with the silencer fitted? If so then are you saying that Jeremy is guilty? :) :) :) :)
I am saying that after a lengthy investigation conducted on Jeremy's behalf, at the back end of 2003, and the beginning of 2004, tests / experiments were carried out at Birdwell armory, Barnsley, to try and establish if with the end of a silencer in contact with the surface of the skin, it would leave a distinctive mark there? Tests carried out at that stage confirmed that direct contact between the end of a sound moderator and the skin produced such a mark. Once this was confirmed, a check was made of all photographs showing the two bullet entry wounds upon Sheila Caffells throat, and it was noted that a circular mark existed around the lower non fatal wound, but was absent from around the upper wound, close by...
Discovery of this circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound, was inconsistent with the prosecutions ballistic expert's conclusions, which stated that the lower entry wound had been non contact in nature, whilst the upper wound was contact in nature. Between Mssrs, Smith, Mallinson and myself, we came to the conclusion that based on a presence or absence of such a circular mark around both of these two entry wounds, that the lower of the two wounds must have been contact in nature, whilst the upper wound had to have been non contact in nature (the opposite way round to the view expressed by Fletcher)...
We discovered that for some reason, the original bullet (PV/20) associated with the lower bullet entry wound, which had been removed during autopsy by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, on 7th August 1985, which had been badly fragmented, had by the 20th September 1985, mysteriously become transformed into a whole bullet, which Fletcher was able to associate to the semi-automatic anshulz rifle. It therefore became apparent that the police were guilty of tampering with the evidence as far as that lower wound to the victims neck is concerned, since, there was a distinctive circular mark upon the neck which had very similar characteristics to the end of a sound moderator, and how could a badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) grow into a whole bullet, in time for the police to prosecute Jeremy for the murders?
This made us think twice about what the trial judge said to the jury, where he told the jury that in so far as them coming to the conclusion that the blood found inside the silencer belonged or originated from a mixture of the parents bloods, he told them not to concern themselves with how the bloodstained silencer with the parents blood inside, had found its way back into the cupboard, before Sheila had gone on to take her own life. Well, if the presence of a corresponding circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound site was made by a sound moderator having been in a contact position with the surface of the neck, with no such mark around the upper fatal bullet wound beneath the chin becomes suggestive that at the time of that shot, there had been no such contact between the end of a sound moderator and the surface of the skin, it remained possible for the sound moderator to have been removed from the barrel of the gun in between both shots occurring, and on this basis in keeping with the judges directions about it not being necessary for the jury to establish how the silencer had found its way into the downstairs office cupboard, it provides a legitimate explanation for how Sheila's blood could have got into the sound moderator, before she was killed by the upper fatal shot under the chin...
-
Hi Patti
See your post #178. LCN DNA was not even envisaged '85/'86 so the necessary precautions to prevent contamination would not have been taken.
Jurors were told to wear gloves but I believe this was for their own protection rather than protection of exhibits.
Maybe there are less sensitive ways of DNA profiling than LCN which might yield results. I believe LCN was used with silencer as the blood had been swabbed to death in '85/'86 for standard blood groupings.
Just think even if EP hadn't destroyed other exhibits defence and prosecution would have claimed contamination.
yes and different methods.... :) :) :) :)
-
That's just what I said Tyler ;D ;D ;D ;D
sorry Patti,have only been skim reading :-[
-
sorry Patti,have only been skim reading :-[
Tis alright Tyler. I was in total agreement with you as I am at most of your posts.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
yes and different methods.... :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti
From my limited research it appears DNA profiling used to solve crimes came into being in 1985 :-\ Therefore I just don't know if contamination could be ruled out to the degree that would be required to render it admissible as evidence in a court of law. A bit ironic I know but there you go life's a bitch then you die.
-
I am saying that after a lengthy investigation conducted on Jeremy's behalf, at the back end of 2003, and the beginning of 2004, tests / experiments were carried out at Birdwell armory, Barnsley, to try and establish if with the end of a silencer in contact with the surface of the skin, it would leave a distinctive mark there? Tests carried out at that stage confirmed that direct contact between the end of a sound moderator and the skin produced such a mark. Once this was confirmed, a check was made of all photographs showing the two bullet entry wounds upon Sheila Caffells throat, and it was noted that a circular mark existed around the lower non fatal wound, but was absent from around the upper wound, close by...
Discovery of this circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound, was inconsistent with the prosecutions ballistic expert's conclusions, which stated that the lower entry wound had been non contact in nature, whilst the upper wound was contact in nature. Between Mssrs, Smith, Mallinson and myself, we came to the conclusion that based on a presence or absence of such a circular mark around both of these two entry wounds, that the lower of the two wounds must have been contact in nature, whilst the upper wound had to have been non contact in nature (the opposite way round to the view expressed by Fletcher)...
We discovered that for some reason, the original bullet (PV/20) associated with the lower bullet entry wound, which had been removed during autopsy by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, on 7th August 1985, which had been badly fragmented, had by the 20th September 1985, mysteriously become transformed into a whole bullet, which Fletcher was able to associate to the semi-automatic anshulz rifle. It therefore became apparent that the police were guilty of tampering with the evidence as far as that lower wound to the victims neck is concerned, since, there was a distinctive circular mark upon the neck which had very similar characteristics to the end of a sound moderator, and how could a badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) grow into a whole bullet, in time for the police to prosecute Jeremy for the murders?
This made us think twice about what the trial judge said to the jury, where he told the jury that in so far as them coming to the conclusion that the blood found inside the silencer belonged or originated from a mixture of the parents bloods, he told them not to concern themselves with how the bloodstained silencer with the parents blood inside, had found its way back into the cupboard, before Sheila had gone on to take her own life. Well, if the presence of a corresponding circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound site was made by a sound moderator having been in a contact position with the surface of the neck, with no such mark around the upper fatal bullet wound beneath the chin becomes suggestive that at the time of that shot, there had been no such contact between the end of a sound moderator and the surface of the skin, it remained possible for the sound moderator to have been removed from the barrel of the gun in between both shots occurring, and on this basis in keeping with the judges directions about it not being necessary for the jury to establish how the silencer had found its way into the downstairs office cupboard, it provides a legitimate explanation for how Sheila's blood could have got into the sound moderator, before she was killed by the upper fatal shot under the chin...
Thank you for this Mike. I understand about the fragmented bullet. I just can't get my head around the first wound being made with a silencer fitted. It does not make any sense to me at all. If Nevill's burn marks on his back and marks on his arm were done without the silencer,, then what you are saying is that after NB died Sheila put the silencer back on, then took it off again....Maybe I need to digest what you are saying ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
I am saying that after a lengthy investigation conducted on Jeremy's behalf, at the back end of 2003, and the beginning of 2004, tests / experiments were carried out at Birdwell armory, Barnsley, to try and establish if with the end of a silencer in contact with the surface of the skin, it would leave a distinctive mark there? Tests carried out at that stage confirmed that direct contact between the end of a sound moderator and the skin produced such a mark. Once this was confirmed, a check was made of all photographs showing the two bullet entry wounds upon Sheila Caffells throat, and it was noted that a circular mark existed around the lower non fatal wound, but was absent from around the upper wound, close by...
Discovery of this circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound, was inconsistent with the prosecutions ballistic expert's conclusions, which stated that the lower entry wound had been non contact in nature, whilst the upper wound was contact in nature. Between Mssrs, Smith, Mallinson and myself, we came to the conclusion that based on a presence or absence of such a circular mark around both of these two entry wounds, that the lower of the two wounds must have been contact in nature, whilst the upper wound had to have been non contact in nature (the opposite way round to the view expressed by Fletcher)...
We discovered that for some reason, the original bullet (PV/20) associated with the lower bullet entry wound, which had been removed during autopsy by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, on 7th August 1985, which had been badly fragmented, had by the 20th September 1985, mysteriously become transformed into a whole bullet, which Fletcher was able to associate to the semi-automatic anshulz rifle. It therefore became apparent that the police were guilty of tampering with the evidence as far as that lower wound to the victims neck is concerned, since, there was a distinctive circular mark upon the neck which had very similar characteristics to the end of a sound moderator, and how could a badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) grow into a whole bullet, in time for the police to prosecute Jeremy for the murders?
This made us think twice about what the trial judge said to the jury, where he told the jury that in so far as them coming to the conclusion that the blood found inside the silencer belonged or originated from a mixture of the parents bloods, he told them not to concern themselves with how the bloodstained silencer with the parents blood inside, had found its way back into the cupboard, before Sheila had gone on to take her own life. Well, if the presence of a corresponding circular mark around the lower bullet entry wound site was made by a sound moderator having been in a contact position with the surface of the neck, with no such mark around the upper fatal bullet wound beneath the chin becomes suggestive that at the time of that shot, there had been no such contact between the end of a sound moderator and the surface of the skin, it remained possible for the sound moderator to have been removed from the barrel of the gun in between both shots occurring, and on this basis in keeping with the judges directions about it not being necessary for the jury to establish how the silencer had found its way into the downstairs office cupboard, it provides a legitimate explanation for how Sheila's blood could have got into the sound moderator, before she was killed by the upper fatal shot under the chin...
But if Sheila could indeed manage to shoot herself once with the moderator on,then why would she remove it for the second shot?
-
Hi Girlies tyler/Patti great minds think alike ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Girlies tyler/Patti great minds think alike ;D ;D ;D ;D
I bet we're related lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At the beginning of 2004, Smith and myself went to Birmingham to see Ewen Smith in his office, about the markt around the lower bullet entry wound upon Sheila's neck, pointing out that it suggested in the strongest possible terms that a sound moderator had been in contact with the skin at the time the non fatal shot across the throat had been inflicted. When we spoke to Ewen Smith about this at his office in Birmingham, he said that if the mark we were referring to had been made by a sound moderator being in a contact position with the surface of Sheila's throat, then he said it was curtains for Jeremy having any chance of winning an appeal based on the silencer evidence, because that circular mark tended to show that a sound moderator had been used in her shootings...
I did not personally believe it meant what Ewen was saying, as far as I was concerned, it only tended to provide an explanation for how Sheila's blood may have got into the sound moderator, and more crucially, it provided a basis for undermining the evidence given during the trial by the prosecutions ballistic expert, who stated that there had only been one opportunity for Sheila's blood to get into the sound moderator, and that was at the time she was fatally shot beneath the chin, which caused death immediately, and that somebody else must have removed the sound moderator and hidden it away after Sheila was already dead...
This led us to look into the possibility of a delay between the infliction of both shots to Sheila's throat...
We found evidence in the form of logs, to suggest that at one stage, police had got Sheila as having been found dead, downstairs in the kitchen (7.37am / 7.38am), a request sent out from the scene at 7.42am, for the police surgeon and coroners officer to be notified regarding two bodies, followed by "Linda" in the control room contacting SOC at home asking them to come on duty because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide (7.45am)...
Of course, we now know that Sheila had blood stains on the soles of her feet, consistent with her having walked around after other victims had been shot...
-
In my opinion, if a sound moderator was used for the first shot and no sound moderator for the second, then I have to change sides to the guilty camp.
-
Thank you for this Mike. I understand about the fragmented bullet. I just can't get my head around the first wound being made with a silencer fitted. It does not make any sense to me at all. If Nevill's burn marks on his back and marks on his arm were done without the silencer,, then what you are saying is that after NB died Sheila put the silencer back on, then took it off again....Maybe I need to digest what you are saying ;) ;) ;) ;)
Hi Patti,
We considered this matter long and hard, and came to the inevitable conclusion that the sound moderator was not removed from the barrel of the gun it was fitted to, which caused us to think about the possible use of two different guns in the shootings, one fitted with a sound moderator, and the other without one...
-
In my opinion, if a sound moderator was used for the first shot and no sound moderator for the second, then I have to change sides to the guilty camp.
Me too Alias....I don't know what to believe anymore. I think I will go and lay down and think about this. No expert has provided us with any evidence to support that a silencer was used on Sheila and the mark could have easily come from the entry and not the silencer at all..... :(
-
At the beginning of 2004, Smith and myself went to Birmingham to see Ewen Smith in his office, about the markt around the lower bullet entry wound upon Sheila's neck, pointing out that it suggested in the strongest possible terms that a sound moderator had been in contact with the skin at the time the non fatal shot across the throat had been inflicted. When we spoke to Ewen Smith about this at his office in Birmingham, he said that if the mark we were referring to had been made by a sound moderator being in a contact position with the surface of Sheila's throat, then he said it was curtains for Jeremy having any chance of winning an appeal based on the silencer evidence, because that circular mark tended to show that a sound moderator had been used in her shootings...
I did not personally believe it meant what Ewen was saying, as far as I was concerned, it only tended to provide an explanation for how Sheila's blood may have got into the sound moderator, and more crucially, it provided a basis for undermining the evidence given during the trial by the prosecutions ballistic expert, who stated that there had only been one opportunity for Sheila's blood to get into the sound moderator, and that was at the time she was fatally shot beneath the chin, which caused death immediately, and that somebody else must have removed the sound moderator and hidden it away after Sheila was already dead...
This led us to look into the possibility of a delay between the infliction of both shots to Sheila's throat...
We found evidence in the form of logs, to suggest that at one stage, police had got Sheila as having been found dead, downstairs in the kitchen (7.37am / 7.38am), a request sent out from the scene at 7.42am, for the police surgeon and coroners officer to be notified regarding two bodies, followed by "Linda" in the control room contacting SOC at home asking them to come on duty because police at whf were dealing with a murder and a suicide (7.45am)...
Of course, we now know that Sheila had blood stains on the soles of her feet, consistent with her having walked around after other victims had been shot...
Personally,I'm more inclined to believe that a silencer WAS found at the scene (SBJ1), and that the silencer with the alleged blood found in it was contaminated....purposely or accidently.
-
Patti when Mason Doyle's book is published I am sure all will be revealed and explained. Hang in go and have a wee drink of wine ;D ;D ;D or cooking sherry ;D ;D ;D
-
Me too Alias....I don't know what to believe anymore. I think I will go and lay down and think about this. No expert has provided us with any evidence to support that a silencer was used on Sheila and the mark could have easily come from the entry and not the silencer at all..... :(
In my humble opinion the silencer was and still is a red herring. There was not silencer used in any of the killings. There quite simply was no need to whether it was Jeremy or Sheila. I think she knew more about guns than is made out to be? She was a farm girl all her young life. I have lived in Maldon and the surrounding countryside since the early 60's and I have yet to see anyone who was brought up on a farm who does not know something about guns.
-
Patti when Mason Doyle's book is published I am sure all will be revealed and explained. Hang in go and have a wee drink of wine ;D ;D ;D or cooking sherry ;D ;D ;D
LOL.........I have some cider vinegar, will that blow me head off ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Those are my views too,tyler. Contamination because of the many times the damn thing changed hands.
Contamination everywhere after 40 officers trampled around the place,,even using the phone. What a joke.
-
Personally,I'm more inclined to believe that a silencer WAS found at the scene (SBJ1), and that the silencer with the alleged blood found in it was contaminated....purposely or accidently.
If it was found Tyler I am inclined to believe that it was animal blood as the hair that was allegedly attached to it was probably a rabbit hair?
-
In my humble opinion the silencer was and still is a red herring. There was not silencer used in any of the killings. There quite simply was no need to whether it was Jeremy or Sheila. I think she knew more about guns than is made out to be? She was a farm girl all her young life. I have lived in Maldon and the surrounding countryside since the early 60's and I have yet to see anyone who was brought up on a farm who does not know something about guns.
I can go with that Grahame, well said. :) :) :) :) :)
-
Grahame/Patti I am with you both as usual ;D
-
See 18 mins in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Are we saying there's no merit in any of this now? Have the follow up tests been carried out?
-
In my opinion, if a sound moderator was used for the first shot and no sound moderator for the second, then I have to change sides to the guilty camp.
Hi Alias,
this was the approach taken by Ewen Smith back at the beginning of 2004, but I think it was a hasty decision, and one which needed more consideration, particularly if two or more guns had been used in the shootings, and police had been responsible for tampering with the bullets and bullet cases in order to make this into a one gun crime...
It was not a one gun crime, three different weapons were involved in the shootings, which changes everything. If this was a case where both of the bullets which wounded and killed Sheila had been fired from the same gun, I admit it would be difficult for anyone to favour Jeremy's innocence, on the basis that there had been a sound moderator fitted at the time of the first non fatal shot, but an absence of a sound moderator when she was killed by the shot under the chin. Particularly, if you accept the prosecution argument that both shots had been inflicted with little or no time at all between both shots, and that she was either laid down or sat slightly upright when shot, with no opportunity for Sheila to have walked around at all, not even for a little bit...
Of course, we know now that she had been walking around in other victims blood after they had already been shot, and that police officers responsible for bagging up her feet at the scene falsely stated that her feet were spotlessly clean you cannot say Bamber is guilty just because a sound moderator may have been used when she was shot once, but absent when the second shot was fired, unless you are convinced of it being a one gun crime. In my view, everything points to these killings being carried out by use of two guns or more, something which the police are desperately trying not to have to admit too, but it's true, at least three different guns were used in these shootings, and police are responsible for tampering with the ballistic evidence to get the conviction they got...
-
See 18 mins in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Are we saying there's no merit in any of this now? Have the follow up tests been carried out?
Unfortunately those tests were all based upon the theory that it was the gun barrel that was used to make the burn marks on Ralph's back.
-
Patti try it and see best mix a little sugar with it to make it forment and you could go into orbit ;D ;D ;D ;D Bye Bye Patti nice knowing you ;D
-
If it was found Tyler I am inclined to believe that it was animal blood as the hair that was allegedly attached to it was probably a rabbit hair?
Do animals share the same readings as follows?
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
The hair COULD have been caused by contamination eg sweep of carpet with sticky tape. Or a combe. Oh perish the thought did I really think/say such a thing :o. Seems most remarkable that there was no skin tissue present, normally associated with backspatter, and yet a hair was attached :-\
-
Hi Alias,
this was the approach taken by Ewen Smith back at the beginning of 2004, but I think it was a hasty decision, and one which needed more consideration, particularly if two or more guns had been used in the shootings, and police had been responsible for tampering with the bullets and bullet cases in order to make this into a one gun crime...
It was not a one gun crime, three different weapons were involved in the shootings, which changes everything. If this was a case where both of the bullets which wounded and killed Sheila had been fired from the same gun, I admit it would be difficult for anyone to favour Jeremy's innocence, on the basis that there had been a sound moderator fitted at the time of the first non fatal shot, but an absence of a sound moderator when she was killed by the shot under the chin. Particularly, if you accept the prosecution argument that both shots had been inflicted with little or no time at all between both shots, and that she was either laid down or sat slightly upright when shot, with no opportunity for Sheila to have walked around at all, not even for a little bit...
Of course, we know now that she had been walking around in other victims blood after they had already been shot, and that police officers responsible for bagging up her feet at the scene falsely stated that her feet were spotlessly clean you cannot say Bamber is guilty just because a sound moderator may have been used when she was shot once, but absent when the second shot was fired, unless you are convinced of it being a one gun crime. In my view, everything points to these killings being carried out by use of two guns or more, something which the police are desperately trying not to have to admit too, but it's true, at least three different guns were used in these shootings, and police are responsible for tampering with the ballistic evidence to get the conviction they got...
Hi Mike, thanks for your lengthy answer. It is my personal opinion that Sheila did not walk around after she was shot the first time. I am not saying it is impossible that people do that, because it DOES happen! BUT, I cannot see any blood pattern down Sheila´s nightgown from her walking around - even if holding her hand/arm up to the wound (as I am convinced she did between shots - that I interpret from the bloodpatterns on her right arm). I just cannot see this at all.
-
Unfortunately those tests were all based upon the theory that it was the gun barrel that was used to make the burn marks on Ralph's back.
Yes so no silencer attached or am I missing the point? :-\
-
Patti try it and see best mix a little sugar with it to make it forment and you could go into orbit ;D ;D ;D ;D Bye Bye Patti nice knowing you ;D
Its not the 5th of November yet.....I shall wait and bugger off on a rocket. Keep yer eyes peeled at the sky....I shall be wearing me birthday suit shaking a rattle and screaming me head off....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think it the mark looks to wide to have been caused by a silencer? Possibly an abrasion ring due to the wound having been contact or near contact? If any expert believed this to have been a silencer mark,surely this would have been raised in court? Instead,none of them could assertain whether a silencer had been used or not in the murders,hence the prosecutions reliance on the blood from inside the silencer.
Well said Tyler, totally agree - the mark looks nothing like a silencer mark.
-
Unfortunately those tests were all based upon the theory that it was the gun barrel that was used to make the burn marks on Ralph's back.
I thought the tests were also used to argue that a silencer had not been used based on photos of SC's wounds?
-
Ha Ha Patti you are so so funny and really brighten up my day. I shall be watching for you waving a Scottish Milk Thistle ;D ;D ;D ;D not a Yorkshire Rose ;D
-
I thought the tests were also used to argue that a silencer had not been used based on photos of SC's wounds?
They were.
-
I stand by what I said today about c-rap tests. I don't hold with most of them at all. Guesswork and suppositions.
-
I stand by what I said today about c-rap tests. I don't hold with most of them at all. Guesswork and suppositions.
What are c-rap tests?
-
They were.
Oh goody gum drops. Thanks LiR :)
-
What are c-rap tests?
Lol. I just googled "c-rap tests" and it came up with crap tests :D ;D ;D. Honestly. Yeah the penny has dropped ;D ;D ;D
-
Does anyone know the definitive answer as to whether animal blood produces readings as per table? Thanks.
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-
Lol. I just googled "c-rap tests" and it came up with crap tests :D ;D ;D. Honestly. Yeah the penny has dropped ;D ;D ;D
And I thought you were being snotty....
-
And I thought you were being snotty....
Me being snotty :o. You know me better than that surely ;)
-
Hi Alias,
this was the approach taken by Ewen Smith back at the beginning of 2004, but I think it was a hasty decision, and one which needed more consideration, particularly if two or more guns had been used in the shootings, and police had been responsible for tampering with the bullets and bullet cases in order to make this into a one gun crime...
It was not a one gun crime, three different weapons were involved in the shootings, which changes everything. If this was a case where both of the bullets which wounded and killed Sheila had been fired from the same gun, I admit it would be difficult for anyone to favour Jeremy's innocence, on the basis that there had been a sound moderator fitted at the time of the first non fatal shot, but an absence of a sound moderator when she was killed by the shot under the chin. Particularly, if you accept the prosecution argument that both shots had been inflicted with little or no time at all between both shots, and that she was either laid down or sat slightly upright when shot, with no opportunity for Sheila to have walked around at all, not even for a little bit...
Of course, we know now that she had been walking around in other victims blood after they had already been shot, and that police officers responsible for bagging up her feet at the scene falsely stated that her feet were spotlessly clean you cannot say Bamber is guilty just because a sound moderator may have been used when she was shot once, but absent when the second shot was fired, unless you are convinced of it being a one gun crime. In my view, everything points to these killings being carried out by use of two guns or more, something which the police are desperately trying not to have to admit too, but it's true, at least three different guns were used in these shootings, and police are responsible for tampering with the ballistic evidence to get the conviction they got...
There's a further theory discussed in Andrew Hunter's book draft that Sheila was shot whilst struggling with Ralph(Nevill) in the kitchen,whereupon the silencer left the mark under the mantlepiece. As for the possibility of two guns Dr Vanezis could only match 15 of the 25 bullets to the .22 anschutz. The Defence also need to explain why there were no fingerprints at all on any of the bullets if Jeremy had handled the Eley ammunition to load the rifle the previous evening.
-
There's a further theory discussed in Andrew Hunter's book draft that Sheila was shot whilst struggling with Ralph(Nevill) in the kitchen,whereupon the silencer left the mark under the mantlepiece. As for the possibility of two guns Dr Vanezis could only match 15 of the 25 bullets to the .22 anschutz. The Defence also need to explain why there were no fingerprints at all on any of the bullets if Jeremy had handled the Eley ammunition to load the rifle the previous evening.
Not to mention the numerous others who'd handled them. Good Evening Steve :)
-
april exactly so many would have handled the ammunition steve it does not make sense that a silencer was used at all. Firstly if Jeremy had used it he would not have been stupid enough to put it back in the box into the cupboard he would have disposed of it and secondly if Sheila had used it she would not have put it back in a box into a cupboard it would have been left where she had last used it.
-
Do animals share the same readings as follows?
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
The hair COULD have been caused by contamination eg sweep of carpet with sticky tape. Or a combe. Oh perish the thought did I really think/say such a thing :o. Seems most remarkable that there was no skin tissue present, normally associated with backspatter, and yet a hair was attached :-\
Yes rabbits do with AK1.
-
Yes so no silencer attached or am I missing the point? :-\
The point is that it has never been established that it was in fact a gun barrel that made the marks. It is one theory.
-
I thought the tests were also used to argue that a silencer had not been used based on photos of SC's wounds?
Yes they were. But that also assumed that the gun barrel was in fact used and not some other implement.
-
Lol. I just googled "c-rap tests" and it came up with crap tests :D ;D ;D. Honestly. Yeah the penny has dropped ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
Well I was trying to think of another explanation for the sudden appearance of a silencer mark in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office in 2004 noted by two gun enthusiasts when Dr. Ian Craig and Peter Vanezis had missed them,or is it me who has missed something?
-
april exactly so many would have handled the ammunition steve it does not make sense that a silencer was used at all. Firstly if Jeremy had used it he would not have been stupid enough to put it back in the box into the cupboard he would have disposed of it and secondly if Sheila had used it she would not have put it back in a box into a cupboard it would have been left where she had last used it.
If Jeremy had been apprehensive about carrying out the murders he might well have planned to use a silencer as the Defence has constantly reminded us he had three adults in the house to control. The more I think of the ammunution left out carelessly on the blue and white chequered worktop the more I think this was left by Jeremy for us to find. Andrew Hunter tells us that there were two types of ammunition used in the crimes anyway and it's unlikely that Sheila switches guns without leaving some kind of a trace. I also think had Nevill spotted this ammunition as he allegedly made the telephone call he would have neutralized it in some way.
-
If Jeremy had been apprehensive about carrying out the murders he might well have planned to use a silencer as the Defence has constantly reminded us he had three adults in the house to control. The more I think of the ammunution left out carelessly on the blue and white chequered worktop the more I think this was left by Jeremy for us to find. Andrew Hunter tells us that there were two types of ammunition used in the crimes anyway and it's unlikely that Sheila switches guns without leaving some kind of a trace. I also think had Nevill spotted this ammunition as he allegedly made the telephone call he would have neutralized it in some way.
Sonic screwdriver? ::)
-
Sonic screwdriver? ::)
No Caroline. 2 parts hydrogen peroxide, 1 part water and a squeeze of fairy liquid ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes rabbits do with AK1.
Thank you. What about ABO, EAP, and Hp?
-
No Caroline. 2 parts hydrogen peroxide, 1 part water and a squeeze of fairy liquid ;D ;D ;D
Ah, the old ammunition neutralising mixture!! Classic!! ;D
-
Well I was trying to think of another explanation for the sudden appearance of a silencer mark in Ewen Smith's Birmingham office in 2004 noted by two gun enthusiasts when Dr. Ian Craig and Peter Vanezis had missed them,or is it me who has missed something?
So you obviously can't see the circular bruise like mark around the lower bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck, that is visible, and like you say, neither could any of the prosecution expert's, or the police, which begs the question - why don't any of them comment upon it, and its relevance? What had they all got to hide?
-
So you obviously can't see the circular bruise like mark around the lower bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck, that is visible, and like you say, neither could any of the prosecution expert's, or the police, which begs the question - why don't any of them comment upon it, and its relevance? What had they all got to hide?
Oh Mike I thought those two gun enthusiasts mentioned by Andrew Hunter might have included yourself..
-
Oh Mike I thought those two gun enthusiasts mentioned by Andrew Hunter might have included yourself..
The two gun enthusiasts concerned were Mssrs Smith and Mallinson, both with vast experience in firearms and explosive devices. Some of the work they carried out was in the presence of home office firearms expert Graham Renshaw, and Bambers legal team, which at that time was Michael Turner, QC, and Ewen Smith (solicitor)...
-
I can see it..It's as plain as a pikestaff.
-
When discovery of the circular mark around the non fatal bullet wound on Sheila's throat was first mentioned to Jeremy by myself, and I reported to him what Ewen had said, Jeremy was fuming, he asked to see a copy of the image being referred to, and when the circular mark was pointed out to him, he said the circular bruise type mark could be bruising caused by impact of the bullet striking the fleshy part of the throat making the flesh stretch and retract - he called it an impact bruise, yet non of the other 24 wounds had similar marks around them...
-
When discovery of the circular mark around the non fatal bullet wound on Sheila's throat was first mentioned to Jeremy by myself, and I reported to him what Ewen had said, Jeremy was fuming, he asked to see a copy of the image being referred to, and when the circular mark was pointed out to him, he said the circular bruise type mark could be bruising cause by impact of the bullet striking the fleshy part of the throat making the flesh stretch and retract - he called it an impact bruise, yet non of the other 24 wounds had similar marks around them...
Well Mike, you are convincing me that Jeremy was behind this after all. That is, if I accept that that discoloration was caused by a sound moderator, which I am not sure I do. It looks too wide/large to be from a moderator, besides, why would such a mark stay on the skin for hours and hours?
-
I can see it..It's as plain as a pikestaff.
Hi Lookout,
the mark is there, and it took two gun enthusiasts named Mssrs Smith and Mallinson to draw attention to it, and its significance...
The police, the pathologist, the prosecution ballistic expert, the Prosecutor nor the trial judge commented upon it at all, it was if they were trying not to have to deal with its presence there on Sheila's neck...
-
Hi Lookout,
the mark is there, and it took two gun enthusiasts named Mssrs Smith and Mallinson to draw attention to it, and its significance...
The police, the pathologist, the prosecution ballistic expert, the Prosecutor nor the trial judge commented upon it at all, it was if they were trying not to have to deal with its presence there on Sheila's neck...
And another thing...
why did the police tamper with the badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) associated with the bullet entry wound around which existed the circular mark in question - on 7th August 1985, bullet PV/20 was badly fragmented, yet by 20th September 1985, it had grown into a whole bullet, that allowed the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle...
-
Establishing whether or not a sound moderator made the circular mark or not upon Sheila's throat around the non fatal bullet entry wound, is the key to solving the mystery surrounding Sheila Caffells death, (1) did she kill herself, (2) did Jeremy shoot her, (3) did police shoot her?
-
Establishing whether or not a sound moderator made the circular mark or not upon Sheila's throat around the non fatal bullet entry wound, is the key to solving the mystery surrounding Sheila Caffells death, (1) did she kill herself, (2) did Jeremy shoot her, (3) did police shoot her?
Careful consideration of the now known facts, shows that Sheila did not shoot herself, and that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot her, but the police did - once downstairs in the region of the main kitchen as the raid team entered the premises, and later on when she was shot upstairs in the main bedroom, shot under the chin in a bizarre training exercise...
-
Careful consideration of the now known facts, shows that Sheila did not shoot herself, and that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot her, but the police did - once downstairs in the region of the main kitchen as the raid team entered the premises, and later on when she was shot upstairs in the main bedroom, shot under the chin in a bizarre training exercise...
An experiment that went badly wrong,Mike.
-
I don't think even the Jeremy supporters accept that theory due to the patterns of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightie.
-
Careful consideration of the now known facts, shows that Sheila did not shoot herself, and that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot her, but the police did - once downstairs in the region of the main kitchen as the raid team entered the premises, and later on when she was shot upstairs in the main bedroom, shot under the chin in a bizarre training exercise...
I have to say that I do not believe that the police shot Sheila - why would they?! If this mark is indeed from a sound moderator, this was not a accidental shot, someone held the rifle firmly to her neck for that mark to be there. So what you are saying is that the EP shot Sheila not accidentally, but quite deliberately and TWICE!
-
Sheila was shot twice, once non fatally across the throat, and secondly shot fatally directly under the chin - it must mean that the first shot inflicted downstairs in the region of the kitchen was by use of a gun with a silencer fitted to its barrel. This gun could not have been the anshulz rifle, because at the precise time the raid team were forcing their way into the farmhouse the anshulz rifle was resting up against the main bedroom window (still loaded), where it had been spotted 15 minutes or so beforehand by a trained firearms instructor, WPC Julia Jeapes...
-
Careful consideration of the now known facts, shows that Sheila did not shoot herself, and that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot her, but the police did - once downstairs in the region of the main kitchen as the raid team entered the premises, and later on when she was shot upstairs in the main bedroom, shot under the chin in a bizarre training exercise...
I don't believe it Mike. I think the whole thing is made up and its ruining Jeremy's chance of ever proving his innocence if this talk is going to continue. If that mark is done by a silencer this means Jeremy is guilty of shooting two little boys and the rest of his family. Its outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.... :-\ :-\
-
An experiment that went badly wrong,Mike.
Yes, it went badly wrong, and it turned out to be a poor job of a cover up, the only reason the police have got away with it for so long, was / is because they withheld vital information and photographs from Bamber and his legal team, and altered the crime reference number of the case, from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85...
7.37am - the body of one dead male, and the body of one female found upon entry...
7.38am - one dead male, one dead female...
7.42am - can somebody contact the police surgeon and coroners officer regarding two bodies...
7.45am - can SOC come into office because police are dealing with an operation at whf involving a murder, and a suicide...
8.10am - after a thorough search of the premises a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total...
-
I don't believe it Mike. I think the whole thing is made up and its ruining Jeremy's chance of ever proving his innocence if this talk is going to continue. If that mark is done by a silencer this means Jeremy is guilty of shooting two little boys and the rest of his family. Its outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.... :-\ :-\
Yes, but if he did it, he is where he belongs, right? Not that I am convinced by this, I am just making my reaction clear to Mike. I am not the only one out there with the same reaction, surely! (Apart from you, Patti.)
I don´t believe for a second that the police shot Sheila!
-
Yes, but if he did it, he is where he belongs, right? Not that I am convinced by this, I am just making my reaction clear to Mike. I am not the only one out there with the same reaction, surely! (Apart from you, Patti.)
I don´t believe for a second that the police shot Sheila!
Thanks Alias because I thought I was alone with this. Its going to take some convincing, I am so confused now with it all. Too much untruths have been told and my mind can't cope with it. Sorry, but its the way I feel.....I thought this forum was to support Jeremy....I'm off to bed Alias, will catch up tomorrow..Night Night Alias/All....... :) :) :) :) :)
-
I don't believe it Mike. I think the whole thing is made up and its ruining Jeremy's chance of ever proving his innocence if this talk is going to continue. If that mark is done by a silencer this means Jeremy is guilty of shooting two little boys and the rest of his family. Its outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.... :-\ :-\
Hi Patti,
Why have police tampered with the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, by substituting it with a whole bullet, so that they could get their ballistic expert to link / associate that substitute bullet to a rifle photographed on top of Sheila's body. Why are there so many inconsistencies in the logs from the scene? What were the original pages of PS Woodcocks 13 page witness statement edited out, covering his actual entry into the kitchen at the time the original timed messages, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45 and 8.10am, were being passed? I believe I am right in saying that police shot Sheila lawfully during a struggle between PS Woodcock and Sheila when the former was squeezing through a restricted gap of the inner main kitchen door and was challenged by Sheila, a struggle which resulted in the rifle in Woodcocks possession going off, wounding her in the throat. Police thought she was dead, and had to search the remaining rooms of the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs...
This was what really happened...
-
Hi Patti,
Why have police tampered with the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, by substituting it with a whole bullet, so that they could get their ballistic expert to link / associate that substitute bullet to a rifle photographed on top of Sheila's body. Why are there so many inconsistencies in the logs from the scene? What were the original pages of PS Woodcocks 13 page witness statement edited out, covering his actual entry into the kitchen at the time the original timed messages, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45 and 8.10am, were being passed? I believe I am right in saying that police shot Sheila lawfully during a struggle between PS Woodcock and Sheila when the former was squeezing through a restricted gap of the inner main kitchen door and was challenged by Sheila, a struggle which resulted in the rifle in Woodcocks possession going off, wounding her in the throat. Police thought she was dead, and had to search the remaining rooms of the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs...
This was what really happened...
7.37am - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to kitchen...
7.38am - one dead male, one dead female...
7.42am - can someone contact the police surgeon and coroners officer regarding two bodies...
7.45am - SOC come into office because police are dealing with an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide...
-
Good night, Patti, sweet dreams!
-
At 11.45am, on 7th August 1985, DS "Stan" Jones left Jeremy's cottage to return to the scene, where he took possession of four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ,3 and SBJ/4 (SBJ/1 being a sound moderator) - this being true, David Boutflour could hardly find the same silencer in the back of the cupboard in the downstairs office on 10th August 1985...
What did DS Jones do with the silencer (SBJ/1) that he took possession of at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985? Where did he recover it from? Where did he take it, where was it stored and who did it belong to?
If the silencer (SBJ/1) found by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, was / is the same silencer recovered three days later by David Boutflour (DB/1), then how did it get into the gun cupboard to enable David Boutflour to find it there three days later? Four police officers who searched the gun cupboard in question continue to maintain that there was no silencer inside the gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings, so how could one materialize there three days later to permit David Boutflour to conveniently find it there, covered in blood?
If it was the same silencer on both occasions, found by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, somebody put the silencer back in the gun cupboard on some as yet unknown occasion prior to the 10th August, at a time when the silencer which was put back was bloodstained...
It has recently been brought to my attention, that upon his return to the scene by DS Jones, after 11.45am, and the recovery of the silencer from inside the downstairs toilet, that the bodies of the victims were still insitu at the scene, and being subject of disturbance by officers engaged in a training exercise, that the silencer in question (SBJ/1) had been used by officers in a bizarre exercise whilst carrying out a reconstruction of the raid, had wiped blood away from around the lower wound on Sheila's throat, and that a weapon with the sound moderator attached to its barrel was pushed up against the entry wound, with a view to establishing whether or not police could present a case for Sheila having shot herself, with that silencer on that gun, but this was discarded. Information given to me is that the silencer in question, was then handed to DS Jones after his arrival back at the scene, who proceeded to take it downstairs to the toilet and photograph the said silencer fitted to the barrel of the second rifle. The purpose of this being done, was to create a false impression that the silencer in question had not been brought into contact with Sheila's throat at all, but that it had always been present on the second guns barrel inside the downstairs toilet...
The photograph of the silencer fitted to the guns barrel, that was taken by DS Jones, on that occasion, was not part of the MASTER COPY ALBUM, or the COURT ALBUM...
Sheila's blood may have got into the silencer when it was offered into a contact position against the lower bullet entry wound by police during the training exercise, and this took place prior to Sheila being shot under the chin by an unsilenced rifle positioned onto her body under the chin, which discharged the fatal bullet when police were arranging the fingers of her hand upon the trigger mechanism - this came about because no-one had checked to see if the rifle leaning against the main bedroom window was still loaded or not. This fatal mistake by police led to the loss of Sheila Caffells life at the scene...
-
If the information I have been given is true, then it adequately explains why there is a circular mark around the lower non fatal bullet entry wound, and a blob of blood on the end cap, with Sheila's blood inside it - a presence of the mark there does not mean that Jeremy is responsible for shooting dead his sister, all it proves is that blood from Sheila got into the silencer from blood of the first non fatal wound, not the second fatal shot under the chin.,
-
If the information I have been given is true, then it adequately explains why there is a circular mark around the lower non fatal bullet entry wound, and a blob of blood on the end cap, with Sheila's blood inside it - a presence of the mark there does not mean that Jeremy is responsible for shooting dead his sister, all it proves is that blood from Sheila got into the silencer from blood of the first non fatal wound, not the second fatal shot under the chin.,
However, there are other things to take into account, which fall to be considered, regarding the ballistic experts opinion that the muzzle of the weapon was three inches above the surface of the skin when the non fatal bullet (PV/20) was fired...
Perhaps some of you might be interested in what I have got to say regarding this?
-
Hi Mike, Having just read this enlightening Topic in one fell swoop, to interrupt the apparent pervading silence to your latest question, I shall be more than interested to follow further revelations, which you may be about to elaborate on.
One small observation:- the sound moderator/silencer to which was given the reference SBJ/1, is there a possibility that it was damaged in the 'entry fracas', for a fragmented bullet to have been extracted from Sheila's neck during the autopsy conducted by the Pathologist?
-
Hi Mike, Having just read this enlightening Topic in one fell swoop, to interrupt the apparent pervading silence to your latest question, I shall be more than interested to follow further revelations, which you may be about to elaborate on.
One small observation:- the sound moderator/silencer to which was given the reference SBJ/1, is there a possibility that it was damaged in the 'entry fracas', for a fragmented bullet to have been extracted from Sheila's neck during the autopsy conducted by the Pathologist?
Yes, silencer SBJ/1, possibly damaged, or at least damaging test bullets fired through it at a later stage, for sure - was the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) fired through such a damaged sound moderator? Informant "Z" assures me it was...
-
As your external drive was a Maxtor (now defunct) one, I would not assume that it will work reliably.
According to mike he was still on the phone at 3.42. That's my original point. His latest theory ( proported to be supported by mysterious informants ) is impossible and incidentally, according to bamber's legal team, not true!
I was going by the times in the logs, which suggest that Jeremy set out at about 3:42 (perhaps 3:43 if he drove faster than my estimate of 25mph for most of the way).
I describe the open line from the scene, (3.29am to 3.42am, and beyond) as being problematic, because it was as a result of the panic alarm fitted at the scene being activated, but at some stage after this, someone at the scene, lifted the telephone handset thus creating an open line connection, and placed the handset onto the kitchen worktop, the latter was done at some stage between 3.29am and 3.42am...
That follows if the timing of 3:29am is correct (even if Jeremy's call lasted about six minutes rather than eleven minutes), but you seem to be relying on an informant for that (apparently without asking the informant how he knew this time), and there seems to be nothing in the publicly available evidence to corroborate it.
. . . it was said at trial and in the appeals that it was excepted that Jeremy made his call at 3:26 A car was called out at 3:35 and according to the IR the raid team got a message at 3:33....therefore it's impossible that Jeremy called at 3:36..... :) :) :) :)
It's not impossible at all if Nevill called at 3:26am prior to Jeremy's call at 3:36am, but this possibility was missed until Bonnett's log was found.
As vidvic has pointed out, the paragraphs numbered paragraphs 26 and 27 in the 2002 Appeal judgement respectively contain "The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m." and "At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm." How did the court know the times 3.26 and 3.35 were recorded by Mr Bonnett unless his log was available to them? That isn't clear, but there are no other references in the judgement to what Mr Bonnett recorded.
The one being questioned clearly didn't know if he was coming or going, or if the clock was ever right. Very poor observations for a cop given the enormity of the tragedy.
He stumbled occasionally, but he stated that the clock was accurate and specifically disagreed with the suggestion that it wasn't. Unfortunately, he wasn't asked whether he had taken a call from Ralph Nevill Bamber ten minutes earlier.
Why would Nevill call the police at 3.26 and THEN activate a panic alarm, knowing the police were on their way?
No reason, but mike tesko is suggesting it was June, not Nevill, who used the panic button.
. . . Ralph made the call to Jeremy (3.25am), and the police at (3.36am)...
Isn't that last time a typing error, intended to be 3.26am, not 3.36am?
. . . the way in which the rifle was used, in a frenzied manner, the muzzle would certainly have got hot, hot enough to burn flesh
Even after 25 shots, all within a short period, it isn't hot enough to cause severe burns. That is why the televised experiments resorted to heating the rifle with a blowtorch.
. . . nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise . . .
A child can easily remain asleep whilst being transferred from one bed to another, so sleeping through gunshots in a separate room is certainly possible.
Just take it to a computer shop Mike. They can sometimes recover data from damaged drives. Easiest way.
You gotta be kidding! Most shops know next to nothing about data recovery.
I think the mark looks too wide to have been caused by a silencer?
Based on what information about how large a mark would be caused by a silencer?
Well said Tyler, totally agree - the mark looks nothing like a silencer mark.
That's not what tyler wrote, which related to the size of the mark. What photographs of silencer marks are you basing your opinion on?
If this mark is indeed from a sound moderator, . . . someone held the rifle firmly to her neck for that mark to be there.
How do you know? What mark would be caused by a rifle not held firmly?
It's outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.
Why?
I don't believe for a second that the police shot Sheila!
That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
-
So you obviously can't see the circular bruise like mark around the lower bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck, that is visible, and like you say, neither could any of the prosecution expert's, or the police, which begs the question - why don't any of them comment upon it, and its relevance? What had they all got to hide?
I personally see no mark at all but IF there were a mark tying ANY wound to the silencer, wouldn't they have jumped all over it given that the silencer links Jeremy to the murders?
-
How does it link Jeremy to the killings?
-
Hi Reader,
As an adjunct to your last poser, :- If the last bullet in the breech of the Anschutz rifle (the presence of which had not been detected by those present in the bedroom when Sheila was instantaneously killed in the informatives scenario), was intended for Jeremy on his anticipated arrival at WHF on his 'Jack Jones', then who might be the enterprising policeman/relative who proposed the silencer/sound moderator theory in order
to put the culpability on Jeremy for the murder of his beloved family?
Who were the people photographed with the silencer on the rifle to exhibit the proposition that Sheila could not have shot herself and then returned the silencer to the 'Gun Cupboard', where it was allegedly found subsequently by DRB, to announce its finding to the gathering of people assembled to witness same.
One of the exhibitors was Peter Eaton, the other a PC from Witham PS, whose name escapes me.
Who was the person dubbed by DCI Taff Jones as Miss Marples? Can anyone put in the frame the person who may have proposed the solution to impending financial considerations?
-
Quote from: Patti on October 27, 2013, 10:16:PM
It's outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.
Why?
[/quote]
Hi Reader :)
For one the bullets and shell cases recovered from the scene....the size of the entry wounds and who would cover such a thing up? Someone somewhere would squeal eventually....Its to massive to cover a thing like that up...in my opinion... :) :) :) :)
-
. . . when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth . . .
-
I certainly don't think the idea is outrageous. There may only be a handful of people in the 'know' and these handful of people 'just aren't talkin'.
-
Quote from: Patti on October 27, 2013, 10:16:PM
It's outrageous to even contemplate that the police killed Sheila.
Why?
Hi Reader :)
For one the bullets and shell cases recovered from the scene....the size of the entry wounds and who would cover such a thing up? Someone somewhere would squeal eventually....Its to massive to cover a thing like that up...in my opinion... :) :) :) :)
With planning and penalties anything can be covered up patti, JFK, Roswell 1947, Savile, Hillsborough to name a few.
-
... the princes in the Tower, the murder of Lot's wife, ...