Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 02, 2013, 05:02:AM
-
Breaking news
New tests are to be carried out using the sound moderator (silencer) subject of DNA profiling in 2000. It is understood that part of the proposed tests, will include work which will establish that rounds fired through rifle 18 with and without a sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the rifle, produce significantly different features present upon bullet cases, fired and ejected via the rifle when configured differently. These features are linked to the differing amounts of back pressure present inside the breach of the weapon when a silencer is fitted and in use, as opposed to when one is not fitted. The additional level of back pressure produced when a silencer is in use, creates bulging at the base of cartridge cases ejected after firing, that are noticeably different to similar cartridge cases ejected when no silencer is fitted at the time of use...
Prosecution ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, has already gone on record as saying that he was unable to tell if any of the 25 bullets had been fired through a silencer, but the new work is expected to show that if any bullets had been fired through the silencer that it would have been noticeable...
Since, no differences were detected or present upon any of the crime scene cartridge cases, it strongly suggests that a silencer could not have been used in the shootings, and doubt is cast upon the presence of blood found on, and inside the silencer. Key examination of bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2 and a failure to detect any additional bulging on either of these, when examined by Fletcher in September 1985, will be relied upon to suggest that neither of the two bullet cases found on the bedroom floor next to Sheila's body had been fired and ejected through the rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel...
-
Additionally...
It will also be argued that in view of the substitution of the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20 (as of 7th August 1985), being substituted with a test fired whole bullet (by 20th September 1985), that the substituted whole bullet could not have been attached to either of the two bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) found on the bedroom floor next to where Sheila Caffells body was eventually photographed - unless one or other of the original bullet cases (DRH/1 and or DRH/2) had also been substituted...
-
In any event, tampering with the batch of crime scene ammunition, dramatically affected the prospect of the defense being able to show that at silencer had not been fitted to rifle 18 (DRH/15) at the time Sheila Caffell was shot and killed - one way or the other police / prosecutions ballistic expert, tampered with the batch of crime scene ammunition, which must render any convictions unsafe...
-
The ammunition was tampered with, so that the dodgy sound moderator introduced by relatives could be incorporated as the main plank of the prosecutions case. You cannot get away from the fact that the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet had to have been fired through the Bamber family owned silencer, but for some reason or other, police had to swap it for a test fired whole bullet, and calling this substituted bullet PV/20, so that Fletcher could accommodate the use of the silencer in the shootings, by declaring that it was not possible to tell if any of the bullets had been fired through the sound moderator, but at the same time bullets must have been fired through the silencer because of the blood found inside its baffles plate, which could only have got there if the silencer was attached to the barrel of the rifle at the time Sheila was shot...
For some reason, the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) would have prevented Fletcher from making out the argument that the Bamber family silencer had been used in the shootings, hence the reason for substitution of the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, for a whole test fired one...
-
Nobody can be allowed to tamper with crime scene ammunition and get away with it, surely...
These criminals who were all involved in this conspiracy to frame Jeremy Bamber should all be prosecuted and given lengthy jail terms, nay once they are sent to prison the keys should be thrown away - lets see how they will cope with being in prison for something they HAVE done...
Crooks, the lot of them, evil crooks...
-
Mike,
Guilters & authorities will simply point out that there was blood / DNA (to some extent) of victim/s in silencer. It wont matter that in reality, most case knowledgeable people are of the opinion that these findings are for the police / relatives to explain, rather than the defence.
You your self realised as much, in the aftermath of the CCRC's rejection of USA/UK ballistics experts reports.
-
Mike,
Guilters & authorities will simply point out that there was blood / DNA (to some extent) of victim/s in silencer. It wont matter that in reality, most case knowledgeable people are of the opinion that these findings are for the police / relatives to explain, rather than the defence.
You your self realised as much, in the aftermath of the CCRC's rejection of USA/UK ballistics experts reports.
Hi Roch,
I believe the new approach will render the blood and limited DNA found inside the sound moderator as being present there through contamination, in the same way the judgemnt of appeal, came to the conclusion that DNA got into the silencer by a process of mishandling and contamination...
There you have it then, Human DNA got into the silencer by contamination, but the blood got in by a process of backspatter - yet none of the DNA mixed with the blood...
Seems to me, that once it is shown, that the Bamber family owned sound moderator was never fitted to the rifle during the shootings, by a reliance on the original bullet (PV/20) being swapped over, it now seems likely that blood got into the silencer by a process of contamination, not backspatter...
-
When you present such news, can you let us know the source of your information? Also, what did you mean by "none of the DNA mixed with the blood"?
-
When you present such news, can you let us know the source of your information? Also, what did you mean by "none of the DNA mixed with the blood"?
Hi Reader,
Essex police have agreed to release the Bamber family owned sound moderator to experts so that it can be proven that by attaching a silencer to the barrel of a semi automatic rifle, that increased backpressure is generated inside the breech of the weapon, that is capable of altering the shape and form of bullet cases which are fired and ejected. It should be possible to produce measurement of the additional distortions that are created when a silencer is used, opposed to when one is not in use. These results will significantly undermine Fletchers testimony...
There is no evidence that any DNA was found in any specific area inside the baffles where blood was also present, otherwise, blood and DNA would have merged one to the other. The truth of the matter is that any human blood found inside the silencer would have had its own mixture of DNA, but we are brainwashed into thinking that all the blood was tested to destruction along with any DNA associated to it - which I find hard to accept, since traces of DNA must have been left in parts of the silencer where blood had originally been found. Furthermore, how odd that June Bambers DNA should be present inside the silencer, and that at trial the defense argued that the blood found in the silencer was a mixture of the parents bloods. More importantly, there were two types of blood in the silencer, (1) static, and (2) loose. It begs the question, that the loose flake (2) may have deposited June Bambers DNA in various places around the inside of the silencer, as it tumbled here, there and everywhere, during handling and movement between the occasion the blood got into the silencer, and much later when the flake was removed from the silencer by Fletcher around 12th September 1985...
The loose flake could easily be the reason why June Bambers DNA was found in different parts of the silencer, it was a small flek of dried blood, so small it could fall between the apertures of each of the 17 internal baffles and deposit June Bambers DNA in all the places it was later discovered - this process could not have happened with (1) all the static bloodstains...
-
Hi Reader,
Essex police have agreed to release the Bamber family owned sound moderator to experts so that it can be proven that by attaching a silencer to the barrel of a semi automatic rifle, that increased backpressure is generated inside the breech of the weapon, that is capable of altering the shape and form of bullet cases which are fired and ejected. It should be possible to produce measurement of the additional distortions that are created when a silencer is used, opposed to when one is not in use. These results will significantly undermine Fletchers testimony...
There is no evidence that any DNA was found in any specific area inside the baffles where blood was also present, otherwise, blood and DNA would have merged one to the other. The truth of the matter is that any human blood found inside the silencer would have had its own mixture of DNA, but we are brainwashed into thinking that all the blood was tested to destruction along with any DNA associated to it - which I find hard to accept, since traces of DNA must have been left in parts of the silencer where blood had originally been found. Furthermore, how odd that June Bambers DNA should be present inside the silencer, and that at trial the defense argued that the blood found in the silencer was a mixture of the parents bloods. More importantly, there were two types of blood in the silencer, (1) static, and (2) loose. It begs the question, that the loose flake (2) may have deposited June Bambers DNA in various places around the inside of the silencer, as it tumbled here, there and everywhere, during handling and movement between the occasion the blood got into the silencer, and much later when the flake was removed from the silencer by Fletcher around 12th September 1985...
The loose flake could easily be the reason why June Bambers DNA was found in different parts of the silencer, it was a small flek of dried blood, so small it could fall between the apertures of each of the 17 internal baffles and deposit June Bambers DNA in all the places it was later discovered - this process could not have happened with (1) all the static bloodstains...
It is also very interesting that full blood group results were not obtained from examination of any static bloodstain found inside the sound moderator, yet four blood group results were obtained from examination of the small loose flek which the prosecution attributed as blood that was unique to Sheila Caffell, whereas, the defense argued that it could be an intimate mixture of the parents bloods. Since, the loose flek of dried blood which produced the key blood group results was capable of having passed from one place to another inside the silencer, it seems highly probable that as this small flek of blood was being banged about from pillar to post within the silencer, that it left traces of DNA everywhere it landed, or touched, or was hurtled against inside the silencer (however small these DNA amounts might have been), and that traces of June Bambers DNA found inside the silencer in 2000, originated from mobility of the loose flake to anywhere and everywhere within the confines of the sound moderator, which had been occurring over a number of weeks before and until Fletcher discovered it there on or prior to 12th September 1985...
If the small flek of dried blood did originate from an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, how can anyone argue that as this loose flek was being thrown around inside the silencer, that it did not deposit traces of its DNA anywhere and everywhere it came into contact with - sure, if this is what did happen, it has to be said that June Bambers DNA had got into those remote parts of the silencer by a process of contamination, but rather than the significance of its presence inside the silencer simply be dismissed because someone has introduced the term, 'contamination', does it not strengthen defense arguments that the blood of the flek was an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, rather than be unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell?
-
The question I would be asking, regardless of which persons blood it was; is how did a dried fleck of blood get inside the silencer? Did it jump in there by itself? No, someone put it in there.
The fleck of blood on the outside of the silencer looks nothing like a backsplash from a close shot either and again, it appears to me that someone wiped the end of the silencer in a sticky residue of blood, probably after the main mess had been cleared up.
-
The question I would be asking, regardless of which persons blood it was; is how did a dried fleck of blood get inside the silencer? Did it jump in there by itself? No, someone put it in there.
The fleck of blood on the outside of the silencer looks nothing like a backsplash from a close shot either and again, it appears to me that someone wiped the end of the silencer in a sticky residue of blood, probably after the main mess had been cleared up.
So the question, which seems to be a natural follow on, would be as this action would appear to be deliberate, what was hoped to be achieved by it?
-
So the question, which seems to be a natural follow on, would be as this action would appear to be deliberate, what was hoped to be achieved by it?
To make absolutely certain that Sheila's blood (and possibly the other family members' blood) was on it togetherwith Jeremy's fingerprints.
Also to ensure it appeared there was no possibity of Sheila having shot herself because the silencer would have made it difficult, if not impossible.
In other words, to ensure the finger was pointed firmly at Jeremy.
-
To make absolutely certain that Sheila's blood (and possibly the other family members' blood) was on it togetherwith Jeremy's fingerprints.
Also to ensure it appeared there was no possibity of Sheila having shot herself because the silencer would have made it difficult, if not impossible.
In other words, to ensure the finger was pointed firmly at Jeremy.
I have RWB's diary entry ringing in my ears. "How I loathe that boy" would seem to suggest a very long held dislike of his nephew It seems to have been he who dripped every available drop of poison regarding Jeremy into Nevill's ear. Might it have been that there was acrimony between Bambers and Boutflowers that we know nothing of?
-
I have RWB's diary entry ringing in my ears. "How I loathe that boy" would seem to suggest a very long held dislike of his nephew It seems to have been he who dripped every available drop of poison regarding Jeremy into Nevill's ear. Might it have been that there was acrimony between Bambers and Boutflowers that we know nothing of?
And we are lead to believe that this family is unbiased. ::)
-
I have RWB's diary entry ringing in my ears. "How I loathe that boy" would seem to suggest a very long held dislike of his nephew It seems to have been he who dripped every available drop of poison regarding Jeremy into Nevill's ear. Might it have been that there was acrimony between Bambers and Boutflowers that we know nothing of?
Hi April. Oh I think so. Whatever's happened,had been smouldering/festering for a number of years,,and I would say that some of it boils down to a lot of jealousy when Jeremy came into the Bamber household,,as he'd be the natural heir to whatever the farming future had in store.
-
I agree April. RWB said that the Boutflours always used to go to whf for christmas,but this had stopped in the years leading up to the murders. It appears that it was only AE that visted whf...once a month for her horses hay. I don't believe for one minute that these families were close at all toward the end.
-
I agree April. RWB said that the Boutflours always used to go to whf for christmas,but this had stopped in the years leading up to the murders. It appears that it was only AE that visted whf...once a month for her horses hay. I don't believe for one minute that these families were close at all toward the end.
I agree, they seem to know very little about the Bamber's routine and personal lives e.t.c. Their relationship seems to have been centred on business.
-
I agree, they seem to know very little about the Bamber's routine and personal lives e.t.c. Their relationship seems to have been centred on business.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, so PLEASE don't all jump on me at once. If we consider that a third person pulled the trigger, MIGHT it be possible that Jeremy knew?
-
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, so PLEASE don't all jump on me at once. If we consider that a third person pulled the trigger, MIGHT it be possible that Jeremy knew?
Don't worry April,,I've mulled over that myself but can't think of an accomplice. Anyway,my mind won't believe it.
-
Don't worry April,,I've mulled over that myself but can't think of an accomplice. Anyway,my mind won't believe it.
I can.
Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?
-
I can.
Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?
David Boutflour found the silencer but there is really no possibility of him being an accomplice to Jeremy!
-
David Boutflour found the silencer but there is really no possibility of him being an accomplice to Jeremy!
Is that an absolute Caroline? Just askin' :)
-
Is that an absolute Caroline? Just askin' :)
You honestly think that Jeremy would languish in prison while DB had freedom? I think had that been the case he'd have grassed him up and made him take the same punishment and would probably be out now.
-
You honestly think that Jeremy would languish in prison while DB had freedom? I think had that been the case he'd have grassed him up and made him take the same punishment and would probably be out now.
Caroline, I'm just tossing this around, but having maintained innocence for so long it might be that it was too hard to tell the truth. He must have been in shock for a long time. All those dreadful trial photos make him look shocked as opposed to shifty.
-
Caroline, I'm just tossing this around, but having maintained innocence for so long it might be that it was too hard to tell the truth. He must have been in shock for a long time. All those dreadful trial photos make him look shocked as opposed to shifty.
DB certainly wouldn't have taken the chance - it's not the best theory I have ever heard and almost as far fetched as Sheila being lead to hear death 'passively'
-
I can.
Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?
I was thinking older,mrstiggywinkle.
-
You honestly think that Jeremy would languish in prison while DB had freedom? I think had that been the case he'd have grassed him up and made him take the same punishment and would probably be out now.
Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.
Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.
As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.
That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.
-
Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.
Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.
As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.
That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.
I cannot go with DB and Jeremy working together, that is surely beyond the realms of possibility even though I agree in theory anything is possible ... just!! :o :o :o :o
I do agree with you about the inheritance etc, it must be a frightening prospect for all concerned and that is what they are really scared about, not the prospect of Jeremy turning up with a gun again and shooting them. :(
-
Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.
Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.
As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.
That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.
Unless it could be PROVED that they conspired to have him locked up, then why would they have to give up anything? I'm not a fan of the relatives but I don't think we can simply make those kind of accusations with nothing to substantiate them. There is nothing to suggest that DB had anything to do with the murders and we need to be careful in what we might suggest. Another reason why I HATE scenarios!!
-
Its quite easy in some respects to try and make a scenario try and fit what happened except some illogical argument always crops up - for example I wondered if Sheila had some drug dealing friend in the house and a row had ensued and everything got out of hand and went horribly wrong - but then she would have fought to protect her children. Also I still can not believe 1) JB would have left the silencer ( if it had been involved) in a box in the house 2) and or told his girlfriend what he had done . However the one scenario that does fit totally is murder suicide by a poor girl that had not really been treated for her illness properly. Which strangely is what JB and the police believed in the beginning. The only problems with this scenario to me appear to be when people try and apply logic to her actions which because she was so ill can not be applied. I do believe JB is innocent .
-
Unless it could be PROVED that they conspired to have him locked up, then why would they have to give up anything? I'm not a fan of the relatives but I don't think we can simply make those kind of accusations with nothing to substantiate them. There is nothing to suggest that DB had anything to do with the murders and we need to be careful in what we might suggest. Another reason why I HATE scenarios!!
I can see them having to vacate property and give back land that would not rightfully be theirs and I could see JB getting compensation - but other than that I can see JB not wanting to waste the rest of his life on legal battles - I think that genuinely the family may have thought he did it in the beginning as they were the ones who pressurised the police. So It would be difficult to prove they conspired to put him in jail. It would probably take another 27 years to unravel all the connotations of his legal position when he is released >:(
-
With the wealth of factual information available on this forum, there really is no need for scenario's facts are far more interesting!!
-
I can see them having to vacate property and give back land that would not rightfully be theirs and I could see JB getting compensation - but other than that I can see JB not wanting to waste the rest of his life on legal battles - I think that genuinely the family may have thought he did it in the beginning as they were the ones who pressurised the police. So It would be difficult to prove they conspired to put him in jail. It would probably take another 27 years to unravel all the connotations of his legal position when he is released >:(
And then some! WHEN he gets out, he won't need anything from the relatives - and if there was a conspiracy, those involved have to live with it.
-
And then some! WHEN he gets out, he won't need anything from the relatives - and if there was a conspiracy, those involved have to live with it.
I doubt he will bother with the rellies, should think he will just want peace. 8) 8)
-
I doubt he will bother with the rellies, should think he will just want peace. 8) 8)
If he's got any sense,,he'll keep his distance from that lot.
-
Its quite easy in some respects to try and make a scenario try and fit what happened except some illogical argument always crops up - for example I wondered if Sheila had some drug dealing friend in the house and a row had ensued and everything got out of hand and went horribly wrong - but then she would have fought to protect her children. Also I still can not believe 1) JB would have left the silencer ( if it had been involved) in a box in the house 2) and or told his girlfriend what he had done . However the one scenario that does fit totally is murder suicide by a poor girl that had not really been treated for her illness properly. Which strangely is what JB and the police believed in the beginning. The only problems with this scenario to me appear to be when people try and apply logic to her actions which because she was so ill can not be applied. I do believe JB is innocent .
Jeremy Bamber put his nail in his own coffin when he concocted the telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill,who purportedly named Sheila as the person who had gained possession of one of his guns and was running amok. If you believe this story then you will deem Sheila as guilty in the legal sense but evidently not in a moral sense,as had she been apprehended after the slayings she would have ended up in Broadmoor for the rest of her days.
I'm afraid it's all too clear to me that the telephone call is a figment of Jeremy's imagination(some might say it was his worst mistake that morning among others)to grant himself an alibi with Police after cycling the short distance back to his Goldhanger cottage,which PC Wilkinson managed in six minutes on his run. The mystery in this case to my mind is not who the perpetrator is,but why Jeremy felt trapped in a situation whereby his only egress was through mass murder.There was no third person whom Jeremy could trust enough to execute the murders with him,though admittedly had Julie come down heavier on him during their hypothetical discussions he may have taken the hint and refrained from such a grisly course.
One is left with the conclusion that Jeremy had been harbouring a grudge for many years,that sense of thwarted ambition where Jeremy saw himself as leader of the pack instead of the hired hand,an experience which Nevill insisted he endure,though even here Jeremy was aware that there were trustees to convince before he gained the ultimate prize. As Jeremy moves the directional pad on his Gameboy,granting him the odd light relief in his prison cell he must regret the telephone call move,even if it seemed at that time a foolproof crime telephoning his answerphone,yet his gadgetry relieves the monotony of the protracted days as one merges into another amid those pervasive, frozen authority figures which to Jeremy's mind always were threatening, indecipherable and ultimately expendable.
-
Jeremy Bamber put his nail in his own coffin when he concocted the telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill,who purportedly named Sheila as the person who had gained possession of one of his guns and was running amok. If you believe this story then you will deem Sheila as guilty in the legal sense but evidently not in a moral sense,as had she been apprehended after the slayings she would have ended up in Broadmoor for the rest of her days.
I'm afraid it's all too clear to me that the telephone call is a figment of Jeremy's imagination(some might say it was his worst mistake that morning among others)to grant himself an alibi with Police after cycling the short distance back to his Goldhanger cottage,which PC Wilkinson managed in six minutes on his run. The mystery in this case to my mind is not who the perpetrator is,but why Jeremy felt trapped in a situation whereby his only egress was through mass murder.There was no third person whom Jeremy could trust enough to execute the murders with him,though admittedly had Julie come down heavier on him during their hypothetical discussions he may have taken the hint and refrained from such a grisly course.
One is left with the conclusion that Jeremy had been harbouring a grudge for many years,that sense of thwarted ambition where Jeremy saw himself as leader of the pack instead of the hired hand,an experience which Nevill insisted he endure,though even here Jeremy was aware that there were trustees to convince before he gained the ultimate prize. As Jeremy moves the directional pad on his Gameboy,granting him the odd light relief in his prison cell he must regret the telephone call move,even if it seemed at that time a foolproof crime telephoning his answerphone,yet his gadgetry relieves the monotony of the protracted days as one merges into another amid those pervasive, frozen authority figures which to Jeremy's mind always were threatening, indecipherable and ultimately expendable.
Except that it most probably is true? Since there is no earthly reason that he should put himself under the spotlight by concocting such a story?
-
Jeremy Bamber put his nail in his own coffin when he concocted the telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill,who purportedly named Sheila as the person who had gained possession of one of his guns and was running amok. If you believe this story then you will deem Sheila as guilty in the legal sense but evidently not in a moral sense,as had she been apprehended after the slayings she would have ended up in Broadmoor for the rest of her days.
I'm afraid it's all too clear to me that the telephone call is a figment of Jeremy's imagination(some might say it was his worst mistake that morning among others)to grant himself an alibi with Police after cycling the short distance back to his Goldhanger cottage,which PC Wilkinson managed in six minutes on his run. The mystery in this case to my mind is not who the perpetrator is,but why Jeremy felt trapped in a situation whereby his only egress was through mass murder.There was no third person whom Jeremy could trust enough to execute the murders with him,though admittedly had Julie come down heavier on him during their hypothetical discussions he may have taken the hint and refrained from such a grisly course.
One is left with the conclusion that Jeremy had been harbouring a grudge for many years,that sense of thwarted ambition where Jeremy saw himself as leader of the pack instead of the hired hand,an experience which Nevill insisted he endure,though even here Jeremy was aware that there were trustees to convince before he gained the ultimate prize. As Jeremy moves the directional pad on his Gameboy,granting him the odd light relief in his prison cell he must regret the telephone call move,even if it seemed at that time a foolproof crime telephoning his answerphone,yet his gadgetry relieves the monotony of the protracted days as one merges into another amid those pervasive, frozen authority figures which to Jeremy's mind always were threatening, indecipherable and ultimately expendable.
Dear Steve, if I may for a moment paraphrase those wonderful words of St Francis, and echoed with SUCH emotion by a certain Margaret Thatcher, when applied to yourself they would read "Where there is clarity, may we bring distortion" :)
-
Except that it most probably is true? Since there is no earthly reason that he should put himself under the spotlight by concocting such a story?
Yet Jeremy still wants to get one up on authority,he still wants to be the centre of attention in a world where heretofore he had received very little.Was his promiscuity a natural phenomenon,a reaction to June's prudish mores,or a desperate pathetic attempt to gain affection therefrom as the kisses and cuddles proved he was loved and a normal teenager in every sense.Yet Jeremy was only somebody because of his monied parents,whose yoke was becoming ever looser as the years progressed,which in one sense brought more freedom,yet in another heralded disaster as the parents' largesse evanesced as June no longer put her name to cheques and Nevill wrote off the holiday loan. In the process they both signed their own death warrant as Jeremy had no further use for them,the tragedy being that until that point they had co-existed symbiotically,their deaths meaning that Jeremy returned to being the mere cipher he had always been.
-
Yet Jeremy still wants to get one up on authority,he still wants to be the centre of attention in a world where heretofore he had received very little.Was his promiscuity a natural phenomenon,a reaction to June's prudish mores,or a desperate pathetic attempt to gain affection therefrom as the kisses and cuddles proved he was loved and a normal teenager in every sense.Yet Jeremy was only somebody because of his monied parents,whose yoke was becoming ever looser as the years progressed,which in one sense brought more freedom,yet in another heralded disaster as the parents' largesse evanesced as June no longer put her name to cheques and Nevill wrote off the holiday loan. In the process they both signed their own death warrant as Jeremy had no further use for them,the tragedy being that until that point they had co-existed symbiotically,their deaths meaning that Jeremy returned to being the mere cipher he had always been.
No,Steve,,what annoyed the police was that Jeremy was more intelligent than they were,so it wasn't a case of him getting one over on them,,as inside,he was probably laughing at them,,but sadly his confidence gave way to conviction. It's blatantly obvious that the case itself was built purely and simply on a personality clash with just about everyone. An utter disgrace that because Jeremy was an arrogant young man,he was jailed just for that reason,,because there was no other.
-
Yet Jeremy still wants to get one up on authority,he still wants to be the centre of attention in a world where heretofore he had received very little.Was his promiscuity a natural phenomenon,a reaction to June's prudish mores,or a desperate pathetic attempt to gain affection therefrom as the kisses and cuddles proved he was loved and a normal teenager in every sense.Yet Jeremy was only somebody because of his monied parents,whose yoke was becoming ever looser as the years progressed,which in one sense brought more freedom,yet in another heralded disaster as the parents' largesse evanesced as June no longer put her name to cheques and Nevill wrote off the holiday loan. In the process they both signed their own death warrant as Jeremy had no further use for them,the tragedy being that until that point they had co-existed symbiotically,their deaths meaning that Jeremy returned to being the mere cipher he had always been.
Even if what you say was true. Which I doubt very much? It still is no answer to my question. For as you quite rightly pointed out, It would have been the nail in his coffin to do so. But if Jeremy was at all as clever as he is so often claimed to have been, then he would have seen what a silly thing it would have been to do such a thing. So what would you have us believe. A clever Jereny? A foolish Jeremy? Or an honest Jeremy who could not have dreamed of the fact that he would be stitched up for owning that which was indeed true?
-
Even if what you say was true. Which I doubt very much? It still is no answer to my question. For as you quite rightly pointed out, It would have been the nail in his coffin to do so. But if Jeremy was at all as clever as he is so often claimed to have been, then he would have seen what a silly thing it would have been to do such a thing. So what would you have us believe. A clever Jereny? A foolish Jeremy? Or an honest Jeremy who could not have dreamed of the fact that he would be stitched up for owning that which was indeed true?
agree - and in amongst all this we forget how young he was .
-
David Boutflour found the silencer but there is really no possibility of him being an accomplice to Jeremy!
Bit strange what Pargeter says in his statement though... about DB and the police returning a silencer to DB.
-
Bit strange what Pargeter says in his statement though... about DB and the police returning a silencer to DB.
Yes but I think that's just because they hadn't got their stories straight re the silencer at that point!!
-
Yes but I think that's just because they hadn't got their stories straight re the silencer at that point!!
It's a sort of clue there was something dodgy going on. :)
-
With the wealth of factual information available on this forum, there really is no need for scenario's facts are far more interesting!!
Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.
In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.
-
Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.
In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.
I don't believe I said we did have the truth, I was talking about statements and evidence from the case. They aren't guesses or scenarios. They may or may not be true but that's surely the purpose of debate - to find the flaws in what was taken as fact at the time and used to convict. Not to dream up new scenarios which were never considered and can't be proven one way or another!!
-
I don't believe I said we did have the truth, I was talking about statements and evidence from the case. They aren't guesses or scenarios. They may or may not be true but that's surely the purpose of debate - to find the flaws in what was taken as fact at the time and used to convict. Not to dream up new scenarios which were never considered and can't be proven one way or another!!
Regardless of whether you have statements; test results; facts; evidence etc, none of it means anything unless it is used in a variety of scenarios.
Just because a scenario crops up which nobody else had previously thought about, doesn't mean it should be excluded just because it doesn't fit with prominent members thinking.
Face it, without scenarios, there would be no need for the forum.
-
Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.
In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.
Unfortunately those facts that we have do not point to Jeremy's guilt. There is no evidence apart from circumstantial evidence (which is what he was convicted on). There are far too many senarios (guesses) as you say on the part of those who think he's guilty for my liking and they "judge" Bamber on those guesses which sometimes enter into the world of fantasy, that they have concocted in their own minds. Yet as you say we do not have the truth. It all may have happened in a way that no one has even thought of, or any of us thoughty possible?
-
Regardless of whether you have statements; test results; facts; evidence etc, none of it means anything unless it is used in a variety of scenarios.
Just because a scenario crops up which nobody else had previously thought about, doesn't mean it should be excluded just because it doesn't fit with prominent members thinking.
Face it, without scenarios, there would be no need for the forum.
Well at the least we could discuss the facts that we have. And the evidence that we have. If discussed honestly all we can say is that there is no hard evidence apart from what certain people have claimed that could ever convict Bamber. Unfortunately he was convicted on a senario.
What we need to do on this forum is to discuss the evidence and the facts. For it is only evidence and facts that will free him or condemn him. Not our own ideas as to how it might have happened. After that silly poorly constructed documentary we all saw on tv the other day we had a good number of people join the forum to see if that documentary matched up to the facts. To the surprise of some it did not. Why? Because in the documentary all you had was a senario as to how it happened by Miller.
Therefore this forum and its archives is a very useful place if you need to check the facts and the evidence. That is the reason Mike set it up and that is the reason many intelligent posters reside on here. Not to read the load of bull***t senarios that some come up with. I don't like senarios. I think they are a waste of time and I think that the forum would be a far better place without them. Because we all end up discussing someone else's fantasy.
-
1) Therefore this forum and its archives is a very useful place if you need to check the facts and the evidence.
2) Because we all end up discussing someone else's fantasy.
1) Agreed - but then what do you actually do with the facts and evidence?
You cannot draw your own conclusion without a fabricating a scenario from the facts and evidence.
2) Yes, possibly; but because their fantasy (scenario) doesn't square with your own, you wish to dismiss it.
-
1) Agreed - but then what do you actually do with the facts and evidence?
You cannot draw your own conclusion without a fabricating a scenario from the facts and evidence.
2) Yes, possibly; but because their fantasy (scenario) doesn't square with your own, you wish to dismiss it.
As I said I don't do senarios. But if they do not square with the facts or the evidence I tell them so.
Why would I not draw my own conclusion if I do not fabricate a senarion? What a jury does is compare the facts and the evidence and then come to a conclusion. Unfortunately the Bamber jury did not do this. They unfortunately listened to the conclusions of the judge which according to the available evidence was wrong. You can draw conclusions without fantasising on how it could have happened. Because as you rightly point out any senario we concoct will inevitably be wrong.
-
As I said I don't do senarios. But if they do not square with the facts or the evidence I tell them so.
Why would I not draw my own conclusion if I do not fabricate a senarion? What a jury does is compare the facts and the evidence and then come to a conclusion. Unfortunately the Bamber jury did not do this. They unfortunately listened to the conclusions of the judge which according to the available evidence was wrong. You can draw conclusions without fantasising on how it could have happened. Because as you rightly point out any senario we concoct will inevitably be wrong.
That's because the jury were blinded by science involving guns,rifles,silencers/moderators,,which they knew eff all about. These were people " picked off the street,laymen " like myself wouldn't know one end from the other,,and so as Grahame mentioned,were following the judge and what he had to say,rather than their own thoughts on the case. Granted,,it was complex,,but only because it was made to sound that way.
-
All I am saying is that given a file containing evidence and facts (regardless of how correct or incorrect that material may be); nobody can judge that evidence or those facts without coming to a conclusion.
I trust nobody will disagree with that statement.
However, in the circumstances of any case including this one; given the evidence or facts (whether they are correct or fabricated) to enable one to reach a conclusion as to what happened based upon the evidence and facts, one must construct a mental scenario; a supposition; a speculation; (or if one wishes, a fantasy).
Bearing in mind the adversarial legal system this case would fall under, one barrister could well be right and one could well be wrong; who knows which is which; but both would have to lay before the jury a scenario of what each barrister thinks may have occurred.
It is all speculation until the truth is known, therefore many ideas should be given credence, not just a few.
-
Hello mrstiggywinkle
I agree with what you are saying we do all have our own theories of the events at WHF on the fateful night. You may or not be aware that Paul Harrison's (AKA Mason Doyle )book will be published early Spring and this book will be based on facts and not conjecture or hearsay so maybe we all we have a better idea what happened on and during the investigation connected with the murders at WHF and what is truth or otherwise.
-
Hello mrstiggywinkle
I agree with what you are saying we do all have our own theories of the events at WHF on the fateful night. You may or not be aware that Paul Harrison's (AKA Mason Doyle )book will be published early Spring and this book will be based on facts and not conjecture or hearsay so maybe we all we have a better idea what happened on and during the investigation connected with the murders at WHF and what is truth or otherwise.
But all the facts and evidence is not available because it is held by the police under PII so unfortunately there will still not be a full story unless the audio tapes etc are released.
-
Hello Jansus
You could be right but I am sure many documents held have now been released or uncovered. I am very excited about the book as it will give us answers to many unanswered questions and I eagerly await the publication.
-
yes me as well -there is a wealth of information on here so it is difficult to find sometimes . But as far as I know the information under the PII could hold the vital information that may prove innocence rather than a mis-trial .That is what is so frustrating.
I am still trying to keep an open mind - but so far I still have not been convinced he is guilty.
-
Hi susan, so nice to have you back!
-
Hello Alias nice to be back and thank you for the welcome :-*
-
jansus when all the information is in book form with stuff we have never read before I think it will be much easier to understand and we could well be surprised.
-
Hello Jansus
You could be right but I am sure many documents held have now been released or uncovered. I am very excited about the book as it will give us answers to many unanswered questions and I eagerly await the publication.
Hello Susan. Nice to see you again. Welcome back. This has made my day. :-* :)
-
Unless any of us, the police, the lawyers, film producers or book authors etc were actually there when the murders took place, regardless of the facts, evidence or audio tapes (whether correct or fabricated) the only conclusions any person draws can only be based upon speculation or supposition or a scenario, in other words.
If Sheila committed the murders, the truth of what really occurred will never be known.
If Jeremy committed the murders, the truth of what really happened will never be known, based upon his ability to have protested his innocence all this time and I doubt if he is that stupid to change his stance.
In either case, all one can do is speculate.
-
mrstiggywinkle
IMO the evidence etc when the police arrived at the scene would have indicated to the police who had committed the horrendous crimes that is why it was stated 4 murders one suicide at the onset of the investigation. What happened after that in my mind would be speculation and I would be drawing my own conclusions.
-
Hello Grahame nice to see you I hire myself at a very reasonable rate to make people happy usually singing to them or a little tap dance ;D ;D ;D
-
Unless any of us, the police, the lawyers, film producers or book authors etc were actually there when the murders took place, regardless of the facts, evidence or audio tapes (whether correct or fabricated) the only conclusions any person draws can only be based upon speculation or supposition or a scenario, in other words.
If Sheila committed the murders, the truth of what really occurred will never be known.
If Jeremy committed the murders, the truth of what really happened will never be known, based upon his ability to have protested his innocence all this time and I doubt if he is that stupid to change his stance.
In either case, all one can do is speculate.
Unfortunately what you say can be and must be applied to every murder case,
-
Unless any of us, the police, the lawyers, film producers or book authors etc were actually there when the murders took place, regardless of the facts, evidence or audio tapes (whether correct or fabricated) the only conclusions any person draws can only be based upon speculation or supposition or a scenario, in other words.
If Sheila committed the murders, the truth of what really occurred will never be known.
If Jeremy committed the murders, the truth of what really happened will never be known, based upon his ability to have protested his innocence all this time and I doubt if he is that stupid to change his stance.
In either case, all one can do is speculate.
I agree to a certain extent - however if there is an audio tape of what happened in the house through the open phone line - or recordings of the police talking to someone alive in the house whilst JB was outside then that would PROVE his innocence once and for all - so I don't understand why the retained evidence should not be viewed by JBs legal team and say a judge - so they can decide.whether the hidden evidence is relevant.
-
Bit strange what Pargeter says in his statement though... about DB and the police returning a silencer to DB.
I have changed my opinion on that subject. I admit that, at first, I had thought that Anthony Pargeter had let it slip that the silencer had been returned to the house by the police, and that the finding of it was a sham. I now rather think that it was just a case of the relatives giving false evidence in support of each other.
This is just a guess. I think it might have been the case that Pargeter did not completely understand the plan at first. Being aware that a blood stained silencer had been found at the scene of the crime by the police, he just thought that David Boutflour finding the silencer implied that the police must have returned it. For people to believe that Boutflour had found that silencer, they would need to be informed that the silencer had been returned, so he may have thought. Perhaps he just didn’t know that the plan was simply to retract the reports of a silencer being found altogether and to start from scratch as it were.
Just as there were, of course, witnesses present when David Boutflour allegedly found the silencer, as if to counter any suspicion that the finding of a silencer conforming to that description did not really take place, it was probably thought to be a good idea to add further circumstantial weight to Boutflour’s claim by adding the testimony of more witnesses. People would be inclined to say the finding of the silencer must be genuine, given the number of people who confirmed it.
It may have been as if somebody thought “And we’ll have Anthony say that he received a call from David saying he had found the silencer with blood and paint on it. People will hardly be likely to believe that all of us are lying.”
But we know they are lying, because a blood stained silencer was found by the police on the day of the killings and was sent to the laboratory and examined BEFORE the date when the Boutflour silencer was handed in.
Putting two and two together, I think what happened is that there was a silencer the relatives had in their possession that played no part in killings and this gave someone the idea of faking the silencer evidence to frame Jeremy. They deliberately contaminated the other silencer and later sent that to the laboratory, so then there were two and the two became merged together in the fraud which ensued.
Documentation proves that two different silencers were examined and there are differing descriptions of where the blood and paint are said to be on each one. The Jury were led to believe that there was only one silencer which David Boutflour had found three days after the killings. But the documentation proves he lied.
People who lie sometimes get the idea for the lie from incidents which really did occur. I suspect that the police got the idea of a silencer with blood and paint on it, which would be damning evidence against Bamber, from the blood stained silencer which they had already found and from a gun which was found which had red paint on the muzzle. Those two things gave those people the idea for the deception they performed.
Obviously, once that plan had been put into operation the police had to retract the real finding of a silencer which, from interviews with the police had gotten into the papers. I mean, the relatives couldn’t very well have found the silencer if the police had already had it in there posession and had sent it to the laboratory before the time when the relatives handed it in.
The date when that information was retracted is for me a definite indication of when the evil conspiracy involving Essex Police and Bamber’s relatives got into full swing.
An interesting question is could Sheila have used the gun with the silencer on it at first, but then removed it before shooting herself. The finding of June Bamber’s DNA in one silencer appears to support that view as does the opinion of the ballistics experts who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that the silencer was not on the gun when she was shot.
-
Excellent post,Martin,,and I've held the opinion of your last paragraph since coming onto the forum.
Well done.
-
Excellent post,Martin,,and I've held the opinion of your last paragraph since coming onto the forum.
Well done.
Thanks, Lookout
I generally agree with experts. If they say they can tell the silencer was not used, I am willing to accept that. Also, one specialist is quite definite in stating that June's DNA is in the silencer he examined and that Sheila's is not.
-
Thanks Lookout
I generally agree with experts. If they say they can tell the silencer was not used, I am willing to accept that. Also, one specialist is quite definite in stating that June's DNA is in the silencer he examined and that Sheila's is not.
It figures that it was Junes' DNA,Martin,,as she,poor thing received a volley of bullets,which had been fired with utter hatred. You could almost imagine that awful scene.
-
Great post Martin! And of course,one of the witnesses to the "finding of the silencer" (Basil Cock) complains in his statement of fingerprinting dust everywhere. And we know that whf was not fingerprinted until the September!
-
Great post Martin! And of course,one of the witnesses to the "finding of the silencer" (Basil Cock) complains in his statement of fingerprinting dust everywhere. And we know that whf was not fingerprinted until the September!
Hi tyler, yes agree another excellent post by Martin. The mention of the fingerprint dust
by Basil Cock is pretty much the final Cockup ;D of the 'discovery of the silencer'. I've seen better performances by 5 year olds than the pathetic attempt by them all to try to get their rediculous story straight. The silencer had to carry every clue which would convict JB because there was no other way to get a conviction. Noble Cause Corruption or Fabricating evidence and lying under oath????
-
Great post Martin! And of course,one of the witnesses to the "finding of the silencer" (Basil Cock) complains in his statement of fingerprinting dust everywhere. And we know that whf was not fingerprinted until the September!
Should be Basil Cockup.
-
lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Back at you,Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D x
-
I have changed my opinion on that subject. I admit that, at first, I had thought that Anthony Pargeter had let it slip that the silencer had been returned to the house by the police, and that the finding of it was a sham. I now rather think that it was just a case of the relatives giving false evidence in support of each other.
This is just a guess. I think it might have been the case that Pargeter did not completely understand the plan at first. Being aware that a blood stained silencer had been found at the scene of the crime by the police, he just thought that David Boutflour finding the silencer implied that the police must have returned it. For people to believe that Boutflour had found that silencer, they would need to be informed that the silencer had been returned, so he may have thought. Perhaps he just didn’t know that the plan was simply to retract the reports of a silencer being found altogether and to start from scratch as it were.
Just as there were, of course, witnesses present when David Boutflour allegedly found the silencer, as if to counter any suspicion that the finding of a silencer conforming to that description did not really take place, it was probably thought to be a good idea to add further circumstantial weight to Boutflour’s claim by adding the testimony of more witnesses. People would be inclined to say the finding of the silencer must be genuine, given the number of people who confirmed it.
It may have been as if somebody thought “And we’ll have Anthony say that he received a call from David saying he had found the silencer with blood and paint on it. People will hardly be likely to believe that all of us are lying.”
But we know they are lying, because a blood stained silencer was found by the police on the day of the killings and was sent to the laboratory and examined BEFORE the date when the Boutflour silencer was handed in.
Putting two and two together, I think what happened is that there was a silencer the relatives had in their possession that played no part in killings and this gave someone the idea of faking the silencer evidence to frame Jeremy. They deliberately contaminated the other silencer and later sent that to the laboratory, so then there were two and the two became merged together in the fraud which ensued.
Documentation proves that two different silencers were examined and there are differing descriptions of where the blood and paint are said to be on each one. The Jury were led to believe that there was only one silencer which David Boutflour had found three days after the killings. But the documentation proves he lied.
People who lie sometimes get the idea for the lie from incidents which really did occur. I suspect that the police got the idea of a silencer with blood and paint on it, which would be damning evidence against Bamber, from the blood stained silencer which they had already found and from a gun which was found which had red paint on the muzzle. Those two things gave those people the idea for the deception they performed.
Obviously, once that plan had been put into operation the police had to retract the real finding of a silencer which, from interviews with the police had gotten into the papers. I mean, the relatives couldn’t very well have found the silencer if the police had already had it in there posession and had sent it to the laboratory before the time when the relatives handed it in.
The date when that information was retracted is for me a definite indication of when the evil conspiracy involving Essex Police and Bamber’s relatives got into full swing.
An interesting question is could Sheila have used the gun with the silencer on it at first, but then removed it before shooting herself. The finding of June Bamber’s DNA in one silencer appears to support that view as does the opinion of the ballistics experts who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that the silencer was not on the gun when she was shot.
Hi Martin, great post and I agree with 'most' of it. However, I don't believe that a silencer was ever used as the DNA evidence is far too ambiguous and is most likely due to contamination from the lab. The police finding of a silencer in the early days might also explain the comment made by Hammersely of "I didn't find it" when he was later interviewed for disciplinary purposes.
-
The question I ask is:
"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?"
That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"
Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.
-
The question I ask is:
"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?"
That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"
Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.
Yes,,the last thing I'd have thought of doing in someone else's home. I didn't even go opening drawers and cupboards after my mother died. I felt it disrespectful so soon after.
It tells me what sort of people they are !
They'll all be losing their marbles if they're not careful,,as liars have to have good memories and unless ones' mind is clear,then they'll slip up somewhere along the line.
-
The question I ask is:
"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?"
That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"
Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.
Have you read David Boutflour and Ann Eaton's statement? The answers to your questions are there.
-
Hello mrs tiggywinkle
I have always been puzzled by this as well why would somebody go looking through cupboards in a house that was not theirs what were they expecting to find. Vidvic a poster on the forum who has knowledge of the extended family told me the gun cupboard is a really deep cupboard and the silencer was found right at the back with some bullets. ???
-
The question I ask is:
"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?"
That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"
Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.
Exactly. They were earnestly looking for anything that would incriminate Jeremy. How can a person be more transparent when allegedly finding the silencer. Words to the effect, "Ooh look! this must be the silencer to the gun. Ooh look! there's some blood on it. It must be Sheila's blood".
-
The question I ask is:
"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?"
That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"
Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.
Hiding a silencer bloodied with victims blood in a gun cupboard where it's bound to be found. Hmmm!!! Takes hiding in plain sight to a new level.
-
personal i dont think he did look in te cupboard.
-
Have you read David Boutflour and Ann Eaton's statement? The answers to your questions are there.
Although I have read many documents connected with this crime, including those you refer to; I'm afraid I am one of those people that cannot trust what people say what they do or say what they did and I prefer to see what actions they actually took and their manner / mannerisms.
Nothing they said about going to the house and the discovery of the silencer should be believed IMO.
Not even your own immediate family would go through personal possessions and property straight after a murder unless the police invited them to do so; let alone members of the extended family going through a house which they didn't own immediately after a bloodbath like this one. It certainly isn't British human nature.
IMO, that silencer was an object to be urgently retrieved from probably the normal place of keeping and at some stage, evidence collected upon it; then it was returned to be amazingly discovered.
The fact that they had access to the house indicates to me that they knew the house well, so did they have keys to be able to grab the silencer a day or so before it was found? Or (me being mischievous) was it already in their possession before the shootings?
-
mrstiggywinkle Jeremy gave them the keys to WHF after the murders is this the action of a guilty man I ask.
-
Although I have read many documents connected with this crime, including those you refer to; I'm afraid I am one of those people that cannot trust what people say what they do or say what they did and I prefer to see what actions they actually took and their manner / mannerisms.
Nothing they said about going to the house and the discovery of the silencer should be believed IMO.
Not even your own immediate family would go through personal possessions and property straight after a murder unless the police invited them to do so; let alone members of the extended family going through a house which they didn't own immediately after a bloodbath like this one. It certainly isn't British human nature.
IMO, that silencer was an object to be urgently retrieved from probably the normal place of keeping and at some stage, evidence collected upon it; then it was returned to be amazingly discovered.
The fact that they had access to the house indicates to me that they knew the house well, so did they have keys to be able to grab the silencer a day or so before it was found? Or (me being mischievous) was it already in their possession before the shootings?
But much of the point rests around that the police had SUPPOSEDLY searched the gun cupboard 3 times!!! Believe what you will of that one. When it was "found" all they could do was hold up their hands. If they's done the job properly they'd have known it was there, or not, as the case may be. I thought that Jeremy gave them the keys which I can't imagine any killer doing if they'd left behind evidence of what they'd done.
-
mrstiggywinkle Jeremy gave them the keys to WHF after the murders is this the action of a guilty man I ask.
Exactly. My thoughts as well.
-
also what were the relatives expecting to find in the cupboard when they looked.
-
nugnug maybe the rellies found exactly what they hoped to find ;)
-
yes maybe they did but why would they expect to find a blood stained silencer in the cupboard.
-
yes maybe they did but why would they expect to find a blood stained silencer in the cupboard.
Why was what they found accepted into evidence? They had it for several days, they say they didn´t tamper with it, but thing is, they COULD have, nobody knows. For that reason alone, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE, it is crazy!
How could an item overlooked by police, then found by relatives who had a lot to gain from a conviction of Jeremy. Boggles the mind!!!
-
Although I have read many documents connected with this crime, including those you refer to; I'm afraid I am one of those people that cannot trust what people say what they do or say what they did and I prefer to see what actions they actually took and their manner / mannerisms.
Nothing they said about going to the house and the discovery of the silencer should be believed IMO.
Not even your own immediate family would go through personal possessions and property straight after a murder unless the police invited them to do so; let alone members of the extended family going through a house which they didn't own immediately after a bloodbath like this one. It certainly isn't British human nature.
IMO, that silencer was an object to be urgently retrieved from probably the normal place of keeping and at some stage, evidence collected upon it; then it was returned to be amazingly discovered.
The fact that they had access to the house indicates to me that they knew the house well, so did they have keys to be able to grab the silencer a day or so before it was found? Or (me being mischievous) was it already in their possession before the shootings?
They had keys, Jeremy didn't want to go to WHF after the murders and he gave permission for Anne Eaton to basically be the trustee. They used this as an opportunity to search the house having already formed the opinion that Jeremy was lying. I don't believe they found the silencer either - they don't tell the same story and David Boutflour neglects to even mention his fathers presence whereas Robert Boutflour more or less claims he played a significant role. Plus that silencer was like a forensic magnet - blood, DNA, paint from the fire surround? The only thing it didnt have was fibres from Jeremy's wetsuit!! ::) ::)
-
Why was what they found accepted into evidence? They had it for several days, they say they didn´t tamper with it, but thing is, they COULD have, nobody knows. For that reason alone, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE, it is crazy!
How could an item overlooked by police, then found by relatives who had a lot to gain from a conviction of Jeremy. Boggles the mind!!!
this is also a cupboard that they knew the police had already checked why did they feel the need to check it agian.
-
They had keys, Jeremy didn't want to go to WHF after the murders and he gave permission for Anne Eaton to basically be the trustee. They used this as an opportunity to search the house having already formed the opinion that Jeremy was lying. I don't believe they found the silencer either - they don't tell the same story and David Boutflour neglects to even mention his fathers presence whereas Robert Boutflour more or less claims he played a significant role. Plus that silencer was like a forensic magnet - blood, DNA, paint from the fire surround? The only thing it didnt have was fibres from Jeremy's wetsuit!! ::) ::)
But it DID have a long white hair which clearly wasn't Sheila's.
-
But it DID have a long white hair which clearly wasn't Sheila's.
April,,would you think that hair was from Nevilles' arm,after the prodding ? Neville appeared to have had hairy arms. What do you think ?
-
But it DID have a long white hair which clearly wasn't Sheila's.
Maybe it was Santa's.
But that aside, so what if Jeremy gave them the keys?
It doesn't mean that they had not already got a set of keys.
-
mrstiggywinkle it would appear a shortage of keys existed for WHF since a new door was fitted this is why Jeremy and others would access the house via a window from time to time.
-
Maybe it was Santa's.
But that aside, so what if Jeremy gave them the keys?
It doesn't mean that they had not already got a set of keys.
Well, I'd need to look at that one hard. I'd need to know how good was the relationship between the Bambers and Boutflowers. I imagine Nevill would have been aware of how RWB felt about Jeremy. Would there have been enough trust between them for RWB to have a set of keys? On the other hand I think it more than probable that Barbara Willson would be a keyholder so they may have "borrowed" hers..................before plucking one of Santa's hairs :)
-
If the house was, is as it appears to have been; a farm / house that had been within the extended family for many years, who is to say how many sets of keys existed? Although of course, it only takes one key.
I'm pretty sure the Bamber parents wouldn't come and go via a window either, despite how Jeremy may (or may not) have gone in and out.
-
If the house was, is as it appears to have been; a farm / house that had been within the extended family for many years, who is to say how many sets of keys existed? Although of course, it only takes one key.
I'm pretty sure the Bamber parents wouldn't come and go via a window either, despite how Jeremy may (or may not) have gone in and out.
Well within the bounds of possibility providing doors/locks hadn't been changed, but who took responsibility for keeping that information hidden?
-
mrstiggywinkle I agree don't think June and Ralph Bamber would enter the farm house through any window as they had keys. A new door was fitted and I am sure Barbara Wilson would have had a key but don't think any other family member would have keys why would they it was not their home. I suspect Jeremy did not have a key either as it was not his home anymore.
-
If the house was, is as it appears to have been; a farm / house that had been within the extended family for many years, who is to say how many sets of keys existed? Although of course, it only takes one key.
I'm pretty sure the Bamber parents wouldn't come and go via a window either, despite how Jeremy may (or may not) have gone in and out.
You are correct Mrs Tiggywinkle, of course they didn't climb through the window, no one ever said they did. The fact was there was only one key to the door so no one had a spare. If June and Nevill went out they locked the door behind them as people usually do, if Jeremy or any other close family who were up to it wanted to get in they used to climb through a window. There were a couple of windows which were used, one of which was a lounge window and the other the same one Jeremy used when he was seen entering after the murders when he had forgotten his key for the new door..
-
They had keys, Jeremy didn't want to go to WHF after the murders and he gave permission for Anne Eaton to basically be the trustee. They used this as an opportunity to search the house having already formed the opinion that Jeremy was lying. I don't believe they found the silencer either - they don't tell the same story and David Boutflour neglects to even mention his fathers presence whereas Robert Boutflour more or less claims he played a significant role. Plus that silencer was like a forensic magnet - blood, DNA, paint from the fire surround? The only thing it didnt have was fibres from Jeremy's wetsuit!! ::) ::)
Or a note saying Jeremy Dunnit. ;) ;)
-
But it DID have a long white hair which clearly wasn't Sheila's.
Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!
-
If the house was, is as it appears to have been; a farm / house that had been within the extended family for many years, who is to say how many sets of keys existed? Although of course, it only takes one key.
I'm pretty sure the Bamber parents wouldn't come and go via a window either, despite how Jeremy may (or may not) have gone in and out.
WHF wasn't owned by either the Bambers or the extended family.
-
Post 96 from me. Possibly a hair from Nevilles' arm where he was prodded and it would have stuck to blood and skin.
-
Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!
Wonder whose hair that was, could have been any ones, highly unlikley it was Nevill's imo.
-
Yeah, forgot about the hair - which suddenly went missing but was still mentioned in evidence!!
Could have come from anywhere. Even from the carpet. I get problems with my daughter's hair on my flannel sometimes. Wish she'd comb her hair somewhere else. >:(
-
Post 96 from me. Possibly a hair from Nevilles' arm where he was prodded and it would have stuck to blood and skin.
Lookout, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you. I think we may have differing ideas of what constitutes "long" and body hair has a slightly different composition to head hair which comprises sheath, cortex and medulla. Arm hair certainly lacks medulla making it very much "downier" than head hair, it also has a shorter anogen cycle meaning it will never grow to great lengths.
-
WHF wasn't owned by either the Bambers or the extended family.
Where did I say it was owned by them?
Maybe I should have said 'used'.
Still, it just goes to show that people don't read things properly and its better to look at actions and mannerisms.
-
Where did I say it was owned by them?
Maybe I should have said 'used'.
Still, it just goes to show that people don't read things properly and its better to look at actions and mannerisms.
I would agree with that 100% but from this distance it's impossible to say. You're painting this picture in a way that suggests furtiveness behind certain actions, but IS this what it was or is it that it's the way you see it and this is transference in action?
-
I would agree with that 100% but from this distance it's impossible to say. You're painting this picture in a way that suggests furtiveness behind certain actions, but IS this what it was or is it that it's the way you see it and this is transference in action?
What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.
We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.
Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.
What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.
There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.
-
What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.
We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.
Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.
What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.
There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.
You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything.
-
What I am pointing out (but either I'm not doing it very well, which surprises me; or people are blind to it for whatever reason) is that none of us know jacksh*t about what really happened.
We can have as much evidence guaranteed to be correct or simply a load of rubbish; but whatever there is in existence will prove very little to any of us, other than the police investigation was seriously flawed and nothing else.
Yes, I definitely opine furtiveness is an intruder throughout the incident and thereafter; but we can do no more that have our own opinions, some of which are possibly credible; some maybe; and some pure idiocy.
What disturbs me the most is that instead of ideas and conclusions being considered; they are all too readily shot down by those that have already made their minds up that their conclusion (scenario) is the only one and thus can't be wrong.
There needs to be a much less dogmatic attitude to ideas of what may have taken place.
You're doing just fine in the pointing out stakes AND you're correct in saying that none of us know what happened. We don't even know if the evidence we have is correct. I suspect much of it isn't. Long held beliefs, be they credible or idiocy will be harder to shift for some, than others, but by all means, throw any amount of new thoughts into the mix and open out the debate.
-
mrstiggywinkle I agree with you we all have our own ideas of what happened at WHF and we should respect each others views and not dismiss them as ridiculous as you rightly stated nobody knows exactly what happened think the police are the ones who will have the the best case scenario they were at the scene shortly after the dreadful events and could piece things together by the evidence evident to them position of the bodies rifle and the bible and slippers/canvas shoes and much much more I feel here lies the answers.
-
You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything.
Once again - something misread.
Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?
-
Once again - something misread.
Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?
Mrs T,,if I remember rightly,,it was me who made such a remark about DB,possibly yesterday or the day before.
-
Once again - something misread.
Where did I accuse David Boutflour of anything untoward?
In a response to a post by Lookout's in which she said she couldn't think of an accomplice you posted "I can. Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?" I then said that David Boutflour found the silencer, to which you replied "Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.
Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.
As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.
That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.
Fair enough, you did say 'suppose' but 'we' do need to be careful about accusations
-
In a response to a post by Lookout's in which she said she couldn't think of an accomplice you posted "I can. Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?" I then said that David Boutflour found the silencer, to which you replied "Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.
Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.
As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.
That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.
Fair enough, you did say 'suppose' but 'we' do need to be careful about accusations
Exactly, so please don't apparently keep trying to twist what I say. My profession involves many aspects, one of which is to ensure I don't libel or slander any person.
-
You're doing just fine in the pointing out stakes AND you're correct in saying that none of us know what happened. We don't even know if the evidence we have is correct. I suspect much of it isn't. Long held beliefs, be they credible or idiocy will be harder to shift for some, than others, but by all means, throw any amount of new thoughts into the mix and open out the debate.
I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.
-
I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.
What new stuff is that?
-
I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.
I said ..... WE ..... as in ALL need to be careful and I said it for a reason.
-
I said ..... WE ..... as in ALL need to be careful and I said it for a reason.
If you want to try and split hairs, this is what you said, directed at me.
"You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything"
You were saying that if I accuse someone of something (I will add, 'if I am wrong') I could get the whole forum into trouble and attempted to intimidate me by quoting 'certain laws'. Why you put 'within reason' in apostrophes is beyond my comprehension.
Now you are saying it wasn't directed at me, when it clearly was.
That is what I take offence to.
-
What new stuff is that?
I suggested that an extended family member may have been involved together with Jeremy if it was him.
Note 'May' and note 'If' before Caroline accuses me of libelling someone.
-
If you want to try and split hairs, this is what you said, directed at me.
"You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything"
You were saying that if I accuse someone of something (I will add, 'if I am wrong') I could get the whole forum into trouble and attempted to intimidate me by quoting 'certain laws'.
Now you are saying it wasn't directed at me, when it clearly was.
That is what I take offence to.
Intimidate you? That's ridiculous!! Tell you what - you go ahead and mention who you like and accuse them of whatever you want and I won't say jack!! There is a reason why I am suggesting caution but never mind - you carry on!!
-
Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's better to err on the side of caution
-
Intimidate you? That's ridiculous!! Tell you what - you go ahead and mention who you like and accuse them of whatever you want and I won't say jack!! There is a reason why I am suggesting caution but never mind - you carry on!!
So your use of 'certain laws' wasn't to put me in my place?
Why use it then?
And which laws did you mean exactly?
-
Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's better to err on the side of caution
Frankly if you read my posts properly you have no reason to try and bring me to heel. The reason why this has developed is either because it seems people can't read properly or it appears they simply cannot stand the idea that I may have a different interpretation to theirs.
-
Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's better to err on the side of caution
Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. ;)
-
Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. ;)
If you had properly read what I have said, you wouldn't have need to try to forewarn.
Sorry if you felt you needed to, but all you had to do is ask me to explain if you didn't understand what I was saying.
However, I do take offence when people improperly quote me.
NB! There are probably plenty of potentially libellous posts on this forum without anything I may post.
-
Frankly if you read my posts properly you have no reason to try and bring me to heel. The reason why this has developed is either because it seems people can't read properly or it appears they simply cannot stand the idea that I may have a different interpretation to theirs.
I've got no problem with you having a different opinion. Mods have to try and take the edge off of some of the more unpalatable theories. And also be seen to do so. It's the nature of the beast.
-
Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. ;)
You're doing a great job. Long may it continue.
-
There are probably plenty of potentially libellous posts on this forum without anything I may post.
I bet there's been a good few that sail close to the wind. Sometimes I think 'fuck 'em... They deserve it' (all things taken in to account).
-
i don't think anybody's going to be suing anytime soon
-
Morning mrstiggywinkle
I have responded to your posts and agreed with the contents but you have never replied to me to debate the issues contained therein :'(
-
I bet there's been a good few that sail close to the wind. Sometimes I think 'fuck 'em... They deserve it' (all things taken in to account).
Morning Roch,,I know that I've sailed close to the wind at times with one or two posts,but------------------as long as they're deleted that's fine.It's part of my impetuous nature,,although for the most part I try to be as diplomatic as is humanely possible. ;D
-
I've got no problem with you having a different opinion. Mods have to try and take the edge off of some of the more unpalatable theories. And also be seen to do so. It's the nature of the beast.
It is a pity that someone appeared to, then.
-
Morning mrstiggywinkle
I have responded to your posts and agreed with the contents but you have never replied to me to debate the issues contained therein :'(
I have just flicked through some of your posts that relate to some of mine. Sorry, but they don't appear to demand an answer or a debate from me.
-
mrstiggywinkle sorry to hear that will have to try harder.
-
I have just flicked through some of your posts that relate to some of mine. Sorry, but they don't appear to demand an answer or a debate from me.
You are not here to make friends apparently, LOL, fine with me! ;D
-
Ha Ha Alias don't worry many just "flick" through my posts in passing ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Alias don't worry many just "flick" through my posts in passing ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don´t susie, never! I read every word you say, and sometimes you put a smile on my face, because you are such a funny, nice lady! It is Tiggy´s loss, not yours.
-
Alias you are a very kind young lady and many nice posters on this forum read my posts for a laugh if nothing more. I try what more can a gal do xxx
-
Alias you are a very kind young lady and many nice posters on this forum read my posts for a laugh if nothing more. I try what more can a gal do xxx
I'm another fan,Susan. Can't resist your wit and little innuendos'. xx
-
Susie, you have fans and you have people who just flick through your posts. The latter are grumpy, sour people.
-
Alias it makes me laugh being flicked as they must read before the actual flick to know whether or not my post is worthy of a reply. Maybe flicked is better than being ignored Ha Ha Ha. I have had worse things happen to me in my life Alias ;D ;D ;D Like loosing a £5 note once took me weeks to get over that one.
-
lookout you are very kind think I am winning Adam round then I will have three fans ;D ;D ;D
-
It is a pity that someone appeared to, then.
I think the reason for that was that we beileve that the police "may be" watching the forum on another matter. I think Caroline was a bit worried that you may say something that you may regret later? I don't think it was anything personal. But you may have been sailing a bit near the edge for comfort, as the relatives have been successful in getting forums shut down before.
-
why would the police be watching this forum have they got nothing better to do.
-
why would the police be watching this forum have got nothing better to do.
They might learn something from it,nugs.
-
what that there a bunch of corrupt bastards in the pay of news international.
surely they know that already.
-
The fact was there was only one key to the door so no one had a spare.
New locks come with at least two keys. What proof is there that a key was lost at some point?
-
Morning Reader I agree new locks do come with two keys. I was under the impression that the Bambers had one and Barbara Wilson had the other not sure about keys to the back door never here that mentioned I suspect one was left inside in the lock and the other was lost.