Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: marchend on February 16, 2014, 04:07:PM
-
It seems to me,beyond a reasonable doubt,that bamber would not of been convicted,beyond a reasonable doubt, if he went before a jury today,as opposed to 27 years ago. I would of thought that the silencer would be excluded due to the way it was discovered / stored / retained by relatives. Blood evidence would be accurately investigated to beyond reasonable doubt either way. I'm sure the way evidence is collected would differ greatly. I'm sure there would be a record of phone calls,or not from both properties.
All the above matters however not one jot.
Sad but true. It seems its all to late,or is it? Mike tesko states the proof of the telephone call from WHF is in the public domain? As evidence? As speculation? As myth? I've asked but Mike Tesko hasn't replied. Can anyone else point me in the direction of the evidence that's in the public domain? I only hope this isn't the handwritten log with the time discrepancy.
Any how. On an aside, how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?
-
It seems to me,beyond a reasonable doubt,that bamber would not of been convicted,beyond a reasonable doubt, if he went before a jury today,as opposed to 27 years ago. I would of thought that the silencer would be excluded due to the way it was discovered / stored / retained by relatives. Blood evidence would be accurately investigated to beyond reasonable doubt either way. I'm sure the way evidence is collected would differ greatly. I'm sure there would be a record of phone calls,or not from both properties.
All the above matters however not one jot.
Sad but true. It seems its all to late,or is it? Mike tesko states the proof of the telephone call from WHF is in the public domain? As evidence? As speculation? As myth? I've asked but Mike Tesko hasn't replied. Can anyone else point me in the direction of the evidence that's in the public domain? I only hope this isn't the handwritten log with the time discrepancy.
Any how. On an aside, how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?
Marchend HELLO :) I, like you have heard, from the same source, that the information regarding the phone call is in the public domain. Whilst I obviously can't categorically say that it ISN'T, I CAN say that I, personally have seen no proof that it is.....................................which was much easier to answer than saying how one manages to get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't have been found guilty. I have done my bit and have had some success even with those who were friends of the Bambers. SOME have admitted now that the trial had never seemed right but they had been influenced by what the rellies were saying and whilst none is prepared to say that Jeremy was an angel, they're intelligent to know that it doesn't necessarily make him a murderer.
-
how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?
There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
-
Roch very well said ;D
-
Roch, it would only take one. I think that numerous would follow but it does need a figurehead.
-
There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
well said. take out the hearsay evidence of him being a monster and what are you left with?
A crime scene that you cant rely on. Contradictory logs and timings from the police and with held evidence .Witnesses that even the judge said were unreliable . I agree with modern day forensics there would have been no case to answer.
-
There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few. 7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.
-
Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few. 7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.
Doing this has loosely been discussed previously. Is there a gagging order on jury members, and if so, for how long? It would prove easier if they were still all in the same area that they were at time of trial.
-
I agree Roch, think Jeremy needs someone to take the fight to the public but who would be willing to do it?
-
Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few. 7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.
My suggestion involves a critical mass scenario. These docus get aired over and over on different channels for a number of years. There has never been a substantial defence based docu over a 60 minute slot. Does your suggestion imply media coverage regarding their opinion? Is there any legal bar to ex-jurors being sought in such a manner and publicly offering up their opinion?
-
Roch, it would only take one. I think that numerous would follow but it does need a figurehead.
Bellieve if JB had a relative on his side, someone totally loyal to him he may have been out years ago. The fact is a family member is often more likely to attract attention, get an argument in the public arena than other people. Unfortunately the only 'family' Jeremy has appear to have conspired against him or disowned him.
-
Maggie maybe Mason Doyle's book will do that we don't know the contents but he did say on the forum he had approached the book from a different angle. So excited and cannot wait for publication maybe just what Jeremy needs a new approach to his case. We will have to wait and see. ;D
-
Bellieve if JB had a relative on his side, someone totally loyal to him he may have been out years ago. The fact is a family member is often more likely to attract attention, get an argument in the public arena than other people. Unfortunately the only 'family' Jeremy has appear to have conspired against him or disowned him.
Maggie, I've been sitting here for ages wondering how to respond because I wouldn't want to look as if I'm trying to pull heartstrings. However, the fact HAS to be acknowledged that Jeremy has NO family support and there are very few, including myself, who can lay claim to, much less understand, how it feels. I, at least can lay claim to an adopted cousin who would never, EVER do to me what Jeremy's cousins, IMO, conspired in, to do to him primarily, I feel because he hadn't fitted in and they's never seen him as one of them. If we lived in a perfect world, now may be the time for his biological mother to step forward to support him. Sadly, we don't so he and we will have to make do with what we've got.
-
My suggestion involves a critical mass scenario. These docus get aired over and over on different channels for a number of years. There has never been a substantial defence based docu over a 60 minute slot. Does your suggestion imply media coverage regarding their opinion? Is there any legal bar to ex-jurors being sought in such a manner and publicly offering up their opinion?
Does it matter? Find the jurors, ask the questions, defend the consequences of the original jurors saying " you know,if they'd of explained that silencer had been in the relatives hands for a month and could of been contaminated, and mugford did have a deal with the NOW we didn't know about and I didn't realise the relatives would gain by his conviction"..... So if you only find three of the twelve, and they all doubt the verdict, I would think that's your story. ORIGINAL JURY. " BAMBER'S NOT GUILTY" there is the headline. None of the bullshit I'm finding.
You've got to understand Bamber is guilty. The jurors found him guilty on the evidence before them. Only they can find him not guilty now. That's my opinion. Find the jury. It can't be difficult. I organised a 70 th party for my Dad. We found people he hadn't seen for over 50 years. True we had some names,which helps,but people were all over the country. I don't see the names as difficult to find.
-
If you have no faith in due process to rectify a wrong, what's the merit in holding back to cross the t's and dot the i's of due process?
The silencer is a bogus exhibit and anyone with case knowledge and any common sense / lack of bias should be able to see that.
Now ask your selves this....
In a case with withheld police logs that describe displacement of bodies; outright lies in prosecution witness statements, never disclosed audio logs, crossed out exhibit labels; withheld bloodied palm prints and bible, handwritten pathology notes that contradict the typed report and prosecution's case; attempts to interfere in defence media projects; police pocket books with altered dates... and a star prosecution witness first arrested then given immunity from prosecution and portrayed as a voluntary witness...
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE SILENCER WAS CONTAMINATED BY ACCIDENT?
Due process will never free Bamber in a million years. So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?
-
I have asked the question before - if there was an immunity offered for those people in the know to come forward and let the truth out - do you think it would happen?
-
I have asked the question before - if there was an immunity offered for those people in the know to come forward and let the truth out - do you think it would happen?
Some people allege that an immunity is already in place. So maybe there's no incentive for any individuals to break up the cabal?
-
jansus I think if people were offered immunity and a guarantee their pensions would not be affected they may do but then again don't think they would do it voluntary as too many involved now and what an effect it would have on the Justice system think evidence to incriminate people would have to be found. We all know most of it was burnt but some will have got away and waiting to be found. Let us hope so.
-
The jurors found him guilty on the evidence before them. Only they can find him not guilty now.
That's not how our legal system works. However, the jurors are allowed to give their current opinions. They are not allowed, except in special circumstances, to disclose the details of what went on in the jury room.
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE SILENCER WAS CONTAMINATED BY ACCIDENT?
LCN DNA analysis is extremely sensitive - it can obtain a DNA profile using a minute quantity of human tissue (such as skin cell dust).
-
If the silencer had been found on the day and still at the scene then of course it should have been considered. But it was removed from the scene - and we are not sure of the true trail or environment it ( or multiple silencers ) followed .
The people who found it also were at the time cleaning the crime scene and apparently transported some of SC bloodied clothes away from the scene ( not sure what day that was) and yet they did not hand those over?
Cross contamination was a distinct possibility. Did not Barry George get let off on a similar scenario?
-
Due process will never free Bamber in a million years. So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?
Well,I would suggest a change of mindset,looking from a different angle,may not be a bad idea? What can possibly be the worst outcome?
So the jurors can give their opinion based on their current views, as long as they don't discuss jury room discussions. Perfect for the requirements I forwarded. Now. How do you find the jury? Asking the court, " can you tell me the names of the bamber jury won't work,IMO,you've got to find them through other means.
What are the other means?
-
Due process will never free Bamber in a million years. So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?
Well,I would suggest a change of mindset,looking from a different angle,may not be a bad idea? What can possibly be the worst outcome?
So the jurors can give their opinion based on their current views, as long as they don't discuss jury room discussions. Perfect for the requirements I forwarded. Now. How do you find the jury? Asking the court, " can you tell me the names of the bamber jury won't work,IMO,you've got to find them through other means.
What are the other means?
Under these circumstances we can't afford to be proud, so will you tell us, please :)
-
April Patti would be excellent at finding them she is great at that type of thing must get her on the case. Come back Pattl we need you but you will have to be cheap as we have no funds ;D ;D ;D
-
Due process will never free Bamber in a million years. So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?
Well,I would suggest a change of mindset,looking from a different angle,may not be a bad idea? What can possibly be the worst outcome?
So the jurors can give their opinion based on their current views, as long as they don't discuss jury room discussions. Perfect for the requirements I forwarded. Now. How do you find the jury? Asking the court, " can you tell me the names of the bamber jury won't work,IMO,you've got to find them through other means.
What are the other means?
You get the rope. I'll get the 4x4. We'll sping him tomorrow. ;D
-
April Patti would be excellent at finding them she is great at that type of thing must get her on the case. Come back Pattl we need you but you will have to be cheap as we have no funds ;D ;D ;D
BRILLIANT idea. Well done you, Susan ;D ;D ;D
-
There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!
Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.
Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.
To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out
You can prove actual innocence.
Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:
1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.
2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot
3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.
There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as
1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement?
2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.
3 That two bodies were found on entry
4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police
I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.
Treat the case as a historical subject.
Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .
What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.
Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.
My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.
People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.
Here’s an example of what I think is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9Tc
There can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.
Not everyone is stupid.
-
Martin, MANY thanks for your, as usual, BRILLIANT post. Your input is invaluable. The challenge you've set us, whilst daunting, might not be beyond the realms of possibility once it's broken down into doable components. You've certainly provided food for thought.
-
Martin, MANY thanks for your, as usual, BRILLIANT post. Your input is invaluable. The challenge you've set us, whilst daunting, might not be beyond the realms of possibility once it's broken down into doable components. You've certainly provided food for thought.
Thanks, April. It will be interesting to see what ideas people have. Incidentally, I'm not really finding fault with the lawyers. What I am saying is that you can't really expect lawyers to do otherwise. If evidence is rejected at Appeal it can't be used again, so the lawyers can only try to find something else. But a historian need not bother with that consideration.
I think Bamber needs to go straight to the public via the scientific community. The legal position is never the last word.
-
If the silencer had been found on the day and still at the scene then of course it should have been considered. But it was removed from the scene - and we are not sure of the true trail or environment it ( or multiple silencers ) followed .
The people who found it also were at the time cleaning the crime scene and apparently transported some of SC bloodied clothes away from the scene ( not sure what day that was) and yet they did not hand those over?
Cross contamination was a distinct possibility. Did not Barry George get let off on a similar scenario?
They were actually looking for clues to see how Bamber did the crime. In fact I believe I read somewhere that the police asked them to keep an eye out for anything out of the ordinary. But I can't be sure of that?
-
If the silencer had been found on the day and still at the scene then of course it should have been considered. But it was removed from the scene - and we are not sure of the true trail or environment it ( or multiple silencers ) followed .
The people who found it also were at the time cleaning the crime scene and apparently transported some of SC bloodied clothes away from the scene ( not sure what day that was) and yet they did not hand those over?
Cross contamination was a distinct possibility. Did not Barry George get let off on a similar scenario?
The very fact that it had been removed from the scene, no matter how carefully it may have been handled it should have been counted as being contaminated. This is one reason why I say that Bamber did not have a fair trial and that was down to the judge personally. He was wrong. What on earth was he thinking?
-
The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!
Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.
Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.
To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out
You can prove actual innocence.
Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:
1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.
2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot
3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.
There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as
1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement?
2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.
3 That two bodies were found on entry
4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police
I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.
Treat the case as a historical subject.
Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .
What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.
Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.
My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.
People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.
Here’s an example of what I think is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9Tc
There can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.
Not everyone is stupid.
In fact that is what happened at the first appeal. They ruled that the police testimonies were the greater evidence than the photos. So in fact they say one thing one day and another thing another day. Our appeal system is a sham and a lie. A lie because of the effect their decisions have on the public mind. Joe public has such blind faith in these numpties that they believe every word they say, even if they are wrong.
-
Great post Martin. Grabbing the imagination of the publicbl is so important imo. The stablishment always works within itself and it grinds slowly.
-
hooray i just got my passport through this morning.but back to the case how of what you are all saying can be proven like time of death.of sheila being hours after the rest.im not saying there are not indescrepincies.i beleive he never got a fair trial.and with hinssight wich we never had then.he would be found innocent.but hes guilty.how do you get a retrial.
-
In fact that is what happened at the first appeal. They ruled that the police testimonies were the greater evidence than the photos. So in fact they say one thing one day and another thing another day. Our appeal system is a sham and a lie. A lie because of the effect their decisions have on the public mind. Joe public has such blind faith in these numpties that they believe every word they say, even if they are wrong.
Hi Grahame, it's hard to believe that such rulings are acceptable and that no one within the system speaks up against it.
-
There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
What difficult questions would the relatives have ?
The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was found while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.
-
I agree Roch, think Jeremy needs someone to take the fight to the public but who would be willing to do it?
He has Mike & a team managing his OS, accusing everyone connected to the case of lying.
-
well you can do that when you have proof beyound doubt that they were lying.
-
The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!
Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.
Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.
To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out
You can prove actual innocence.
Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:
1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.
2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot
3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.
There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as
1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement?
2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.
3 That two bodies were found on entry
4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police
I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.
Treat the case as a historical subject.
Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .
What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.
Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.
My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.
People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.
Here’s an example of what I think is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9Tc
There can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.
Not everyone is stupid.
Really well thought out post Martin (as always)!! However, are there enough people in the scientific community who have doubts about his conviction or who would be willing to go on record and challenge the evidence? I think the idea in principle is a good one but; I'm not convinced the program makers are that interested in Jeremy as a victim and they would need to buy into that concept - at the end of the day, their only concern is ratings. If Jeremy doesn't attract wide public sympathy and the consensus is that he's guilty anyway, who will want to make such a program? You could try pitching your idea and see if anyone is interested?
-
What difficult questions would the relatives have ?
The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was gound while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.
Yeah ::)
-
If you have no faith in due process to rectify a wrong, what's the merit in holding back to cross the t's and dot the i's of due process?
The silencer is a bogus exhibit and anyone with case knowledge and any common sense / lack of bias should be able to see that.
Now ask your selves this....
In a case with withheld police logs that describe displacement of bodies; outright lies in prosecution witness statements, never disclosed audio logs, crossed out exhibit labels; withheld bloodied palm prints and bible, handwritten pathology notes that contradict the typed report and prosecution's case; attempts to interfere in defence media projects; police pocket books with altered dates... and a star prosecution witness first arrested then given immunity from prosecution and portrayed as a voluntary witness...
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE SILENCER WAS CONTAMINATED BY ACCIDENT?
Due process will never free Bamber in a million years. So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?
The courts, COA & CCRC will have had evidence that the public have not seen. Both for & against Jeremy. Result, 29 years & counting.
How could the silencer be contamined with Sheila's or a combination of June & Nevilles blood ?
-
Thanks, April. It will be interesting to see what ideas people have. Incidentally, I'm not really finding fault with the lawyers. What I am saying is that you can't really expect lawyers to do otherwise. If evidence is rejected at Appeal it can't be used again, so the lawyers can only try to find something else. But a historian need not bother with that consideration.
I think Bamber needs to go straight to the public via the scientific community. The legal position is never the last word.
Interesting that evidence rejected at an appeal cannot be used again.
Have always thought the latest silencer serial number article was weak. Must find better proof of innocence.
-
The courts, COA & CCRC will have had evidence that the public have not seen. Both for & against Jeremy. Result, 29 years & counting.
How could the silencer be contamined with Sheila's or a combination of June & Nevilles blood ?
The blood was only of Sheila's TYPE the SAME TYPE and RWB!! However, the crime labs in 1985 were NOT independent and if 'someone' wanted to make sure there was 'solid evidence' to convict someone they could easily have done so. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time!!
-
What difficult questions would the relatives have ?
The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was found while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.
Your thinking is so simplistic it's unbelievable. You cannot be for real.
-
hooray i just got my passport through this morning.but back to the case how of what you are all saying can be proven like time of death.of sheila being hours after the rest.im not saying there are not indescrepincies.i beleive he never got a fair trial.and with hinssight wich we never had then.he would be found innocent.but hes guilty.how do you get a retrial.
Fair trial. It was 19 days. The police had to get the case through the DPP who would have asked questions.
Jeremy testified for 8 hours. The defence were highly paid & at the top of their field. The judge was a respected high court judge. Anything the prosecution or defence request, must be supplied.
-
Interesting that evidence rejected at an appeal cannot be used again.
Have always thought the latest silencer serial number article was weak. Must find better proof of innocence.
Errr, if it could be proven that serial numbers didn't match and this evidence had not previously been presented before, then it could be used. Just because the word 'silencer' has been mentioned before, doesn't mean that it can't be used again!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Fair trial. It was 19 days. The police had to get the case through the DPP who would have asked questions.
Jeremy testified for 8 hours. The defence were highly paid & at the top of their field. The judge was a respected high court judge. Anything the request or prosecution request, must be supplied.
Oh the naivety!!
-
Your thinking is so simplistic it's unbelievable. You cannot be for real.
What difficult questions would they be asked ?
As far as I know they have not been called up to any appeal hearings by Jeremys team. Similar to Mugford, they must know it is a dead end. That does not stop Jeremys OS making continuous digs at them.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html
-
There was no suggestion in the 1986 trial of the relations trying to frame Jeremy. It was mainly focusing on Mugford. Jeremy claiming she was committing serious perjury because according to Jeremy, she was jilted.
-
There was no suggestion in the 1986 trial of the relations trying to frame Jeremy. It was mainly focusing on Mugford. Jeremy claiming she was committing serious perjury because according to Jeremy, she was jilted.
Hmmmmm, so why was Ann Eaton concerned that the defense might think she has contaminated the silencer with blood from Sheila's underwear?
-
Julie apparently having the £800.00 cheque book fraud crime expunged by the police was negated by the fact that the jury were informed of this crime.
The caravan break in, a crime which Julie informed the police about, (without being asked to) the jury were also informed about.
A not guilty verdict would have resulted in public humiliation & a reputation ruined from being branded a petty criminal, liar & jealous lover. Jeremy would have no doubt accused her of perjury in his 40k NOTW deal.
-
Julie apparently having the £800.00 cheque book fraud crime expunged by the police was negated by the fact that the jury were informed of this crime.
The caravan break in, a crime which Julie informed the police about, (without being asked to) the jury were also informed about.
A not guilty verdict would have resulted in public humiliation & a reputation ruined from being branded a petty criminal, liar & jealous lover. Jeremy would have no doubt accused her of perjury in his 40k NOTW deal.
There you go again - ignoring comments put to you and flooding the board with uninformed 'opinion'
-
hooray i just got my passport through this morning.but back to the case how of what you are all saying can be proven like time of death.of sheila being hours after the rest.im not saying there are not indescrepincies.i beleive he never got a fair trial.and with hinssight wich we never had then.he would be found innocent.but hes guilty.how do you get a retrial.
The plain fact is this. Dr. Craig timed all the deaths at 8am (approx) Now bearing in mind that that certainly was not true, nevertheless as it is recorded as official, then Bamber could not possibly have been the murderer. Logic will tell you that if that were the time of deaths then Bamber was still with the police.
I personally believe that he timed the deaths at that time because it was near the death of Sheila the last victim and so because it was obvious that all the others had been long dead then all that mattered was the death of the last one, which was Sheila who probably died when the police were outside?
-
Julie apparently having the £800.00 cheque book fraud crime expunged by the police was negated by the fact that the jury were informed of this crime.
The caravan break in, a crime which Julie informed the police about, (without being asked to) the jury were also informed about.
A not guilty verdict would have resulted in public humiliation & a reputation ruined from being branded a petty criminal, liar & jealous lover. Jeremy would have no doubt accused her of perjury in his 40k NOTW deal.
So there are two crimes committed by her. Aren't you the least bit curious that she was not charged for these serious crimes? Could it possibly have been a deal between her and the police that if she testified for the prosecution then no charges would be made against her?
Also I notice that Mugford committed these two serious crimes and you don't say much about her. But Bamber committed only one crime a burglary of the caravan park and you said on many occasions that this means that he was capable of murder.
-
Hi Grahame I agree Sheila died much later than the rest of the family probably around 8 a.m. so time of deaths was recorded as 8 a.m. Do the Defence have this document if so why was it not presented in Court or at the later Appeals the fact that Jeremy was with the police outside the farmhouse when Sheila was still alive is proof beyond any doubt that he was not responsible.
-
Grahame According to the anti's Julie's crimes are nothing and Jeremy's fault anyway he would have put her upto it and she was just the lookout at the caravan park as if that means she was not as bad as Jeremy and don't forget she was frightened of him and this is why she did not report his intentions to murder his family to the police or Ralph Bamber ha ha as if :'(
-
So there are two crimes committed by her. Aren't you the least bit curious that she was not charged for these serious crimes? Could it possibly have been a deal between her and the police that if she testified for the prosecution then no charges would be made against her?
Also I notice that Mugford committed these two serious crimes and you don't say much about her. But Bamber committed only one crime a burglary of the caravan park and you said on many occasions that this means that he was capable of murder.
Totally agree with you Graham. Julie committed fraud, she was no angel in fact she was far more of a proven criminal than Jeremy.
-
So there are two crimes committed by her. Aren't you the least bit curious that she was not charged for these serious crimes? Could it possibly have been a deal between her and the police that if she testified for the prosecution then no charges would be made against her?
Also I notice that Mugford committed these two serious crimes and you don't say much about her. But Bamber committed only one crime a burglary of the caravan park and you said on many occasions that this means that he was capable of murder.
Julie was a lookout after Jeremy decided to rob his own family. Showing his utter contempt for them. Staging the scene to look like a break in. BW said Neville & June knew it was Jeremy but decided not to prosecute. Knowing Jeremy & his obsession with money, it would not have been hard to work out it was him. So both Jeremy & Julie had got away with it. However Julie decided to tell the police, although she had no need to.
The caravan break in was mentioned in court. The judge said that Jeremy trusted Julie enough to involve her. So he may have trusted her enough to tell her about the murders. Jeremy certainly rang Julie three times on the murder night.
-
Totally agree with you Graham. Julie committed fraud, she was no angel in fact she was far more of a proven criminal than Jeremy.
Julie & a friend committed £800.00 worth of fraud. Which involved no breaking & entering, and no stage setting. They also paid all the money back quickly.
Thought Mike said Jeremy was under surveillance ? Didn't he get in trouble abroad & grow drugs.
-
Julie was a lookout after Jeremy decided to rob his own family. Showing his utter contempt for them. Staging the scene to look like a break in. BW said Neville & June knew it was Jeremy but decided not to prosecute. Knowing Jeremy & his obsession with money, it would not have been hard to work out it was him. So both Jeremy & Julie had got away with it. However Julie decided to tell the police, although she had no need to.
The caravan break in was mentioned in court. The judge said that Jeremy trusted Julie enough to involve her. So he may have trusted her enough to tell her about the murders. Jeremy certainly rang Julie three times on the murder night.
And the serious bank fraud? Why was she not prosecuted for that either?
-
The plain fact is this. Dr. Craig timed all the deaths at 8am (approx) Now bearing in mind that that certainly was not true, nevertheless as it is recorded as official, then Bamber could not possibly have been the murderer. Logic will tell you that if that were the time of deaths then Bamber was still with the police.
I personally believe that he timed the deaths at that time because it was near the death of Sheila the last victim and so because it was obvious that all the others had been long dead then all that mattered was the death of the last one, which was Sheila who probably died when the police were outside?
Jeremy said Sheila was alive and in the kitchen when the police broke in. She regained conciousness & went upstairs. Shooting herself again.
-
Julie & a friend committed £800.00 worth of fraud. Which involved no breaking & entering, and no stage setting. They also paid all the money back quickly.
Thought Mike said Jeremy was under surveillance ? Didn't he get in trouble abroad & grow drugs.
A crime was committed even if the money was paid back. Police do not usually work like that. They will prosecute under normal circumstanced. But as I said, a deal was struck between her and the police. Her crime was wiped from the records so it made it appear that she had no criminal record. So if any employer searched for any there would be nothing to find.
-
We are all aware that there exists refuges for women who have been victims of male violence. Fewer of us know that there exists refuges for men who have suffered violence at the hand of females. Men are far less likely to come forward to ask for help, prevented by embarrassment, seeing it as a slur on their masculinity, an admission of weakness. No one meeting these men, either socially or in the work place would suspect. In public they appear to be a loving and together couple.
We know that Julie was possessed of a temper that on occasions got the better of her in public. From her WS we learn that she is a strong woman very much into the "ME" syndrome. Some women "get off" on danger. She showed herself capable of independent crimes when she committed fraud and sold drugs at college. We don't know for certain that Jeremy instigated the caravan park robbery and it occurs to me to wonder if he was dared to do it to prove himself to her. He would NEVER admit to being in thrall to her.
-
Grahame am I right in thinking that Julie imported drugs for resale in this Country that is a serious offence no prosecution I wonder why.
-
Jeremy said Sheila was alive and in the kitchen when the police broke in. She regained conciousness & went upstairs. Shooting herself again.
Adam it doesn't matter what Jeremy said or didn't say. The facts speak for themselves. If Dr. Craig pronounced the time of death as 8am then that is enough to free Jeremy. Because he was with the police at that time. So in fact the courts of law are holding him in prison when by their own records they admit that he could not possibly have committed the crime. They are in fact in breach of his human rights and are holding him prisoner unlawfully and should release him immediately. Why can't people see this?
-
April I do think that Julie was the leader of the two she was much more "street wise" than Jeremy Bamber and she probably dared him to rob the caravan park and he had to try and prove himself to her if he was to be accepted into the Bonnie & Clyde scenario.
-
Adam it doesn't matter what Jeremy said or didn't say. The facts speak for themselves. If Dr. Craig pronounced the time of death as 8am then that is enough to free Jeremy. Because he was with the police at that time. So in fact the courts of law are holding him in prison when by their own records they admit that he could not possibly have committed the crime. They are in fact in breach of his human rights and are holding him prisoner unlawfully and should release him immediately. Why can't people see this?
Time of death or deaths ? 8.00am was probably when Dr Graig arrived at WHF. The raid team had entered the house beforehand.
-
Jeremy said Sheila was alive and in the kitchen when the police broke in. She regained conciousness & went upstairs. Shooting herself again.
Adam you obviously don't believe that - its unbecoming of an experienced poster like you to have to resort to sarcasm to get at other posters.
-
Adam you obviously don't believe that - its unbecoming of an experienced poster like you to have to resort to sarcasm to get at other posters.
Just saying what Jeremy said. The raid team did not see Sheila walk upstairs. They were so embarrassed they refused to say this had happened. Resulting in Jeremy spending 29 years in prison.
-
Grahame am I right in thinking that Julie imported drugs for resale in this Country that is a serious offence no prosecution I wonder why.
Exactly. The reason that she was not prosecuted was because she was the prosecution's prize witness. Nothing more. In actual fact the police were committing a crime in not prosecuting her.
-
Time of death or deaths ? 8.00am was probably when Dr Graig arrived at WHF. The raid team had entered the house beforehand.
It doesn't matter what any of us think. The facts are that the time of deaths were recorded to be 8am. That time was accepted by the court. Therefore it should have been obvious to all present that if that was the time and according to Dr. Craig it was. Then Bamber was convicted illegally.
-
It doesn't matter what any of us think. The facts are that the time of deaths were recorded to be 8am. That time was accepted by the court. Therefore it should have been obvious to all present that if that was the time and according to Dr. Craig it was. Then Bamber was convicted illegally.
Exactly Grahame what a disgrace it all is but the likes of Adam don't worry about such boring descrepancies because they KNOW he did it. :o
-
Just saying what Jeremy said. The raid team did not see Sheila walk upstairs. They were so embarrassed they refused to say this had happened. Resulting in Jeremy spending 29 years in prison.
this does not even make sense - Embarrassed -what for? - telling relatives that SC was found on the bed?/sorry floor . Reporting two bodies in the kitchen? sorry one. burning all the evidence for a supposed murder ? ( even if it was murder suicide that should not have happened) . confusing evidence about the silencer - what happened to it before going to the lab and changing numbers ? Not finding the silencer even though the house had been searched? Carrying out a police exercise whilst the childrens bodies were still in the house?
Embarrased - no I don't think so - because in the beginning they were quite accepting of murder suicide and argued with the relatives when they kept pushing.Because none of the above would have been bought to the publics attention would it?
-
Grahame it is unbelievable that they got away with it I find myself speechless at times at what actually happened if she knew as she said about Jeremy's intentions a year previous she should have been charged as an accessory then they would have had no witness for the prosecution.
-
Exactly Grahame what a disgrace it all is but the likes of Adam don't worry about such boring descrepancies because they KNOW he did it. :o
Perhaps they were all alive when Dr Craig arrived. The police shot them all at exactly 8.00am in front of Dr Craig.
-
Perhaps they were all alive when Dr Craig arrived. The police shot them all at exactly 8.00am in front of Dr Craig.
most sensible post I have seen you do for a long time -at least it is different,
-
Perhaps they were all alive when Dr Craig arrived. The police shot them all at exactly 8.00am in front of Dr Craig.
As I said, it doesn't matter what we say or what are our scenarios. It is the facts alone that must decide. If it is recorded that they all died at 8am, then Bamber is being held illegally against his will. In fact I will go further and say that this evidence alone negates all other evidence from the prosecution. This is a legal matter and should be presented to the courts of appeal directly and should completely bypass the CCRC and their fat arses.
-
As I said, it doesn't matter what we say or what are our scenarios. It is the facts alone that must decide. If it is recorded that they all died at 8am, then Bamber is being held illegally against his will. In fact I will go further and say that this evidence alone negates all other evidence from the prosecution. This is a legal matter and should be presented to the courts of appeal directly and should completely bypass the CCRC and their fat arses.
In fact I even dare to go further and say that the CCRC is an illegal body as it was not appointed at the consent of the people. What is wrong with the British public these days. Are we prepared for this government and their law lords to continually run rough shod over us? Each of us would want justice for ourselves wouldn't we? So what if it were you who were imprisoned for a crime you did not commit? Then be prepared to not only doubt Bambers guilt. But every judgment made by our so called courts of law which depend not on real concrete evidence collected, but rather upon the skills of the counsels to win or lose your case for you.
The CCRC is a white elephant that nobody needs. The sooner this unjust body is disbanded the better it will be for England.
-
Recording that someone is dead at 8am doesn't imply they died at 8am.
-
Recording that someone is dead at 8am doesn't imply they died at 8am.
No it states quite clearly that they did and because it states that they did and was accepted by the court then that time is by default the only time that can be legally accepted. There is no other time given to challenged that time.
-
What are you referring to as "it" and what were the words used?
-
Morning Reader
A recorded time of death can be approximate but is pretty near the mark.
-
hi susan.i suppose in most cases but not allways.what time did raid team enter the house.
-
Morning Bigdave Not sure think the raid team entered about 7.30 but others on the forum this morning have better knowledge than me. It is obvious Sheila died after the rest of the family a calculated guess was 8 a.m. so they put that as the time of death for all the victims (shoddy work again) and Jeremy was with the police outside at that time but hey ho nobody seems to take any notice of these matters only ones that incriminate Jeremy Bamber.
-
What are you referring to as "it" and what were the words used?
Here is the statement of Dr. Craig so you can examine it for yourself and the words used. He certified Ralph's death at 8.40am. June's death at 8.44am. Sheila's death at 8.44am and the boys' deaths at 8.50am.
Now of course I can see the obvious. He certified the deaths at the time he examined them. I can see that. But legally as a matter of technicality that may free Bamber they are the only record of deaths that we have. Since it is the only record we have they must be taken as being the official times of deaths.
Now as far as we know the police were the first people there at around 7am say. They could only say that the victims were dead when they found them. They could not tell at what time they died. So they had to get the good dpctor in so that the times could be recorded legally.
Unfortunately their deaths were all recorded after 8am. As no one was in the house when the raid team broke in no one can say when they actually died. So if Bamber was with the police at the time of the raid teams' break in and still with them when the doctor recorded the deaths as being after 8am Then technically he is innocent no matter what he or anyone else said. There is your technicallity that must free Bamber.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
-
crikey. how things degenerate.
Under these circumstances we can't afford to be proud, so will you tell us, please :)
April, the question I pose is how? cant people exercise their brains in a more productive manner than argueing over an 8 am time of death certificate. im shaking my head here at that.
so,any suggestions?
-
crikey. how things degenerate.
Under these circumstances we can't afford to be proud, so will you tell us, please :)
April, the question I pose is how? cant people exercise their brains in a more productive manner than argueing over an 8 am time of death certificate. im shaking my head here at that.
so,any suggestions?
So what time do you estimate the times of deaths?
-
So what time do you estimate the times of deaths?
grahame,i know your not an idiot,so you to must agree that the time the doc states time of death,is not the actual time of death.
am I not correct in my assumption that a doctor must legaly declare someone dead? therefore the doctor cant speculate as to who died when,he just looked at them, decided they were in fact deceased when he viewed them, and looked at his watch to declare a time he was satisfied they were dead. that seems quite logical to me. I will agree,the time of death as per dr craig is obviously not the time that death actually occurred.
sorry back to the question. im fairly happy all were dead prior to police arriving on scene.
however, time of deaths cannot be proven now so is a spurious debate imo.
its been done to death,with all sorts of red herrings,misinformation and lies.
Time of death. the last thing i'll say about it.
-
grahame,i know your not an idiot,so you to must agree that the time the doc states time of death,is not the actual time of death.
am I not correct in my assumption that a doctor must legaly declare someone dead? therefore the doctor cant speculate as to who died when,he just looked at them, decided they were in fact deceased when he viewed them, and looked at his watch to declare a time he was satisfied they were dead. that seems quite logical to me. I will agree,the time of death as per dr craig is obviously not the time that death actually occurred.
sorry back to the question. im fairly happy all were dead prior to police arriving on scene.
however, time of deaths cannot be proven now so is a spurious debate imo.
its been done to death,with all sorts of red herrings,misinformation and lies.
Time of death. the last thing i'll say about it.
Well work it out. What other witness or witnesses who can honestly prove what time the deaths took place? If you accept Jeremy's statement that his father phoned at 3.30 or whatever, then you must accept that they weren't at that time. If you don't accept his testimony, then again you cannot tell what time they died. It would be speculation.
So all we have to go on are the police testimonies and Dr. Craig's testimony. Logical conclusion. Bamber is innocent as he was with the police at both times.
-
Well work it out. What other witness or witnesses who can honestly prove what time the deaths took place? If you accept Jeremy's statement that his father phoned at 3.30 or whatever, then you must accept that they weren't at that time. If you don't accept his testimony, then again you cannot tell what time they died. It would be speculation.
So all we have to go on are the police testimonies and Dr. Craig's testimony. Logical conclusion. Bamber is innocent as he was with the police at both times.
Grahame, maybe marchend is suggesting that whatever the time of death, we can't do ANYTHING about it this far down the line, so perhaps we should start exploring other avenues. If PROOF can never be found, even if it exists, the next best thing HAS to be a technicality.
-
Grahame, maybe marchend is suggesting that whatever the time of death, we can't do ANYTHING about it this far down the line, so perhaps we should start exploring other avenues. If PROOF can never be found, even if it exists, the next best thing HAS to be a technicality.
Why ignore it just because it's a technicality? Legally it's a sound argument. For instance why did not Dr. Craig give the true estimates of death? He was quite capable of doing so.
-
Why ignore it just because it's a technicality? Legally it's a sound argument. For instance why did not Dr. Craig give the true estimates of death? He was quite capable of doing so.
Grahame, asking that question is absolutely fine, but I don't believe it's one we'll get an answer to EVER although there may be a priest or counsellor somewhere who does have the answer.
-
Grahame I think as it was 4 murders and one suicide the correct procedures were not followed as I said earlier "Shoddy" and lazy IMO
-
Why ignore it just because it's a technicality? Legally it's a sound argument. For instance why did not Dr. Craig give the true estimates of death? He was quite capable of doing so.
I agree Grahame, it's totally frustrating that there were no times of death. Just adds to the total chaos of the police investigation.
-
Maggie a total shambolic disgrace that times of death were not given. Sheer incompetence of the investigation :'(
-
That should have been in the reports when the bodies were examined later I would have thought - not by the doctor confirming death . However I would have thought it his duty to make sure his statements were clear - especially as the bodies were not moved immediately.
-
Why ignore it just because it's a technicality? Legally it's a sound argument. For instance why did not Dr. Craig give the true estimates of death? He was quite capable of doing so.
Hi Grahame, didn't you say Dr Craig drank and was incompetent? Hard to believe there were so many incompetents in one house. :o
-
Maggie as I said shoddy and lazy and rushing off probably. :'(
-
Slightly off topic ;D http://4freedoms.com/group/infiltration/forum/topics/uk-barrister-76-leaves-partner-for-25-year-old-oxford-graduate
-
Slightly off topic ;D http://4freedoms.com/group/infiltration/forum/topics/uk-barrister-76-leaves-partner-for-25-year-old-oxford-graduate
Oh my goodness!!! :o
-
Maggie was I right or was I right ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie was I right or was I right ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You were right susie. :o
-
Hi Grahame, didn't you say Dr Craig drank and was incompetent? Hard to believe there were so many incompetents in one house. :o
He was our doctor. I didn't find him all that great. He was a miserable git at the best of times. It is reported, but I cannot confirm that he was an alcoholic?
-
What are the actual facts that could prove his innocence without release on a technicality?
1) proof that the call from RNB actually took place - so not just the logs but a witness statement from the two officers who took the calls ? I don't think there is any other proof because we don't think there would have been records or itemised calls at that time?
2) If the silencer evidence is dis-credited then would that prove him innocent? Not necessarily as some people would say he did it without the silencer attached?
3) Evidence from Photos that some of the deaths had taken place only just before the police entered . Well they do seem to have that - but somehow that's not good enough.
4) Evidence that the bodies had been moved / staged ? that does appear to be there in photos and statements - but again even if the police did that, it does not prove his innocence - just incompetence in the way the crime scene was handled.
5) Something that could place Jeremy at home for the whole evening - witness - or confirmation of the call he received from RNB
6) Statements about what actually was the situation in the house whilst the police were outside ? again there is evidence there and proof that the police changed their stories ( logs and subsequent interviews) but that does not seem to be good enough - but perhaps there are other logs or statements that we have not seen.
7) some more positive forensics that showed SC at various points in the crime scene etc ( evidence burnt!)
8) If she was wearing other clothes evidence on those clothes?
9) Proof that the house was so secure that JB could not have committed the crime - escaped and then left the house in the locked state the police found it?
Any others people can think of ?
Adam if you reply with some sarcastic remarks that you have posted before - please be warned I will ignore you . I am looking for genuine comments on what I have posted.
-
What are the actual facts that could prove his innocence without release on a technicality?
1) proof that the call from RNB actually took place - so not just the logs but a witness statement from the two officers who took the calls ? I don't think there is any other proof because we don't think there would have been records or itemised calls at that time?
2) If the silencer evidence is dis-credited then would that prove him innocent? Not necessarily as some people would say he did it without the silencer attached?
3) Evidence from Photos that some of the deaths had taken place only just before the police entered . Well they do seem to have that - but somehow that's not good enough.
4) Evidence that the bodies had been moved / staged ? that does appear to be there in photos and statements - but again even if the police did that, it does not prove his innocence - just incompetence in the way the crime scene was handled.
5) Something that could place Jeremy at home for the whole evening - witness - or confirmation of the call he received from RNB
6) Statements about what actually was the situation in the house whilst the police were outside ? again there is evidence there and proof that the police changed their stories ( logs and subsequent interviews) but that does not seem to be good enough - but perhaps there are other logs or statements that we have not seen.
7) some more positive forensics that showed SC at various points in the crime scene etc ( evidence burnt!)
8) If she was wearing other clothes evidence on those clothes?
9) Proof that the house was so secure that JB could not have committed the crime - escaped and then left the house in the locked state the police found it?
Any others people can think of ?
Adam if you reply with some sarcastic remarks that you have posted before - please be warned I will ignore you . I am looking for genuine comments on what I have posted.
If the phone call could be proven, it would be enough for an appeal - however, police were already looking to discredit such evidence when they worked out the shortest route back to Goldhanger - the premise being that Jeremy made the call and had his answerphone pick it up.
If it was proven that the silencer evidence was fabricated, that would also be enough for an appeal. It wouldn't PROVE that Jeremy didn't do it BUT it means Sheila could also have been responsible and it might allow for the evidence gathered during the early investigation (when Sheila was the suspect), to be heard at such an appeal - or at a retrial.
-
yes I agree about the silencer and if it is discredited then the trial was definitely a mis-carriage of justice - I believe that is the case anyway.
If JM admitted she lied? Again because the case was based partly on her evidence not proof - the above would apply.
Recordings of police conversations on the night? Would these exist?
The Ambulances who attended - wonder if the medics who attended were privy to any information?
Suicide note?( not the one in the bible ) forgot about that possibility ? If there was one and it was proved to be written by SC ? that would be proof. Could that be in the PII info? But if there was one I guess the police would have shown that to the relatives in the beginning to stop them in their tracks when they suggested JB had done it.
Another gun was also involved and there was forensic evidence on that gun?
The bible that disappeared - if that was SC palm print and her blood ? Would that prove that she or someone else had cleaned her hands?
Just thinking out loud really.
-
is there any proof that the house was secure???
-
What are the actual facts that could prove his innocence without release on a technicality?
1) proof that the call from RNB actually took place - so not just the logs but a witness statement from the two officers who took the calls ? I don't think there is any other proof because we don't think there would have been records or itemised calls at that time?
2) If the silencer evidence is dis-credited then would that prove him innocent? Not necessarily as some people would say he did it without the silencer attached?
3) Evidence from Photos that some of the deaths had taken place only just before the police entered . Well they do seem to have that - but somehow that's not good enough.
4) Evidence that the bodies had been moved / staged ? that does appear to be there in photos and statements - but again even if the police did that, it does not prove his innocence - just incompetence in the way the crime scene was handled.
5) Something that could place Jeremy at home for the whole evening - witness - or confirmation of the call he received from RNB
6) Statements about what actually was the situation in the house whilst the police were outside ? again there is evidence there and proof that the police changed their stories ( logs and subsequent interviews) but that does not seem to be good enough - but perhaps there are other logs or statements that we have not seen.
7) some more positive forensics that showed SC at various points in the crime scene etc ( evidence burnt!)
8) If she was wearing other clothes evidence on those clothes?
9) Proof that the house was so secure that JB could not have committed the crime - escaped and then left the house in the locked state the police found it?
Any others people can think of ?
Adam if you reply with some sarcastic remarks that you have posted before - please be warned I will ignore you . I am looking for genuine comments on what I have posted.
Jansus, it looks to me that what is out there and capable of being proved can also be Adamized, ie BENT!
-
hi april.
-
hi april.
Hello Dave.
-
is there any proof that the house was secure???
I have always been told that the house was secure , locked from the inside. Proof that no-one else was involved.That is why they had to prove that JB knew how to get out of the house but make it look like no-one had broken in.
-
is there any proof that the house was secure???
The police stated they checked all the windows and doors were secured when they entered WHF. Don't let that bother you though because everyone knows Jeremy Bamber's middle name was Houdini and Sheila didn't know which end of a gun the bullets came out of and anyway, 6months ago she couldn't put beans on toast ..... to coin a phrase. :o :o
-
Hello jansus Jeremy volunteered this information to EP that he could lift the catch from outside open window then when leaving shut window and catch fell into place. Patti put up a super post but we need her back about the lock on the window was tested after the murders and not scratched then again later on and would you believe it scratched she had all the dates and documents. Patti where are you. Perhaps one of the others on the forum can remember better than me.
-
Hello jansus Jeremy volunteered this information to EP that he could lift the catch from outside open window then when leaving shut window and catch fell into place. Patti put up a super post but we need her back about the lock on the window was tested after the murders and not scratched then again later on and would you believe it scratched she had all the dates and documents. Patti where are you. Perhaps one of the others on the forum can remember better than me.
so he volunteered information that incriminated him. If that window did not operate in that way he would have been proven innocent as it would have to have been someone still in the house. :(
-
bit quiete tonight jansus.
-
bit quiete tonight jansus.
they might wake up later :)
I was not expecting many answers anyway - my brain sometimes goes into overdrive and I just have to write things down. I am sure that JB has thoroughly investigated every bit of evidence he has seen - although it is obvious he has not seen everything that is out there. And I am sure his legal team will have tried the human rights angle to get at that evidence under the PII.
There are people out there who know the truth who could with just a couple of words get him out I am sure . I just wish they would come forward. Or someone who knows there is a piece of evidence and exactly where it is held.I am sure it is out there somewhere.
-
they might wake up later :)
I was not expecting many answers anyway - my brain sometimes goes into overdrive and I just have to write things down. I am sure that JB has thoroughly investigated every bit of evidence he has seen - although it is obvious he has not seen everything that is out there. And I am sure his legal team will have tried the human rights angle to get at that evidence under the PII.
There are people out there who know the truth who could with just a couple of words get him out I am sure . I just wish they would come forward. Or someone who knows there is a piece of evidence and exactly where it is held.I am sure it is out there somewhere.
Sadly Jansus, those out there who know what and where that evidence might be, and like you, I feel certain it's there, are one very secure step ahead of those of us who DON'T know where it is and they can probably take further steps to make certain it never sees the light of day.
-
Hello jansus Jeremy volunteered this information to EP that he could lift the catch from outside open window then when leaving shut window and catch fell into place. Patti put up a super post but we need her back about the lock on the window was tested after the murders and not scratched then again later on and would you believe it scratched she had all the dates and documents. Patti where are you. Perhaps one of the others on the forum can remember better than me.
Hi susie I remember all Patti's info she went into great detail. As usual there was question marks over dates and EPs strange behaviour. PATTI!!! WE NEED YOU!!!! Xxx
-
Hi susie I remember all Patties info she went into great detail. As usual there was question marks over dates and EPs strange behaviour. PATTIE!!! WE NEED YOU!!!! Xxx
I guess that the police just used the assumption that because he could get out of that window that was what happened?
Otherwise they would have been a bit stuck wouldn't they.
-
found the thread - will have a read.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2971.msg160717.html#msg160717
-
so he volunteered information that incriminated him. If that window did not operate in that way he would have been proven innocent as it would have to have been someone still in the house. :(
I am not sure Jeremy said he could lock the window again did he? I thought that info came from AE and the police tried it and couldn't manage it. But oh well never mind, the judge said that it didn't matter how he got in and out just that he could have ...... that's our justice system aparrently. The fact is if he could have got in and out by the window so could anyone else. It was never a secret in the family that the younger members climbed through the window when the door was locked.
-
found the thread - will have a read.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2971.msg160717.html#msg160717
Is this the window that Adam insists Jeremy took a hack saw to several days prior to the murder? One wonder what explanation he'd have given to one of the many people who could have seen him doing it AND how he managed entrance and exit without getting some kind of print on the bottom ledge which was said to be clean.
-
i went into the u justice forum.most of them are very anti jeremy.
-
Is this the window that Adam insists Jeremy took a hack saw to several days prior to the murder? One wonder what explanation he'd have given to one of the many people who could have seen him doing it AND how he managed entrance and exit without getting some kind of print on the bottom ledge which was said to be clean.
I know April and the hacksaw was found ages after - end Sept begining October wasn't it? Also I think found by a rellie. The windows had already been checked by forensics and nothing found then after finding hacksaw windows were checked again and marks found. ...... strange that, very, very strange. :o
-
So basically the answer is because they knew at some time he had exited that kitchen window before ,- they did not have to prove that is what happened on that night >:( So unless the catch to that window he supposedly had exited from had been changed before the murders and he was not aware of that - then that is going no-where. So they did not even have to find recent foot prints or finger prints to show why the police were sure the house was fully secured from the inside in their original reports, but changed their minds when they though JB was responsible >:( >:(
-
Maggie/april the windows had been freshly painted white just prior to the murders and no marks on the window cills after the murders then of course much later they appeared they changed the case number or something I remember Patti really digging into it wish she was here. :'(
-
So basically the answer is because they knew at some time he had exited that kitchen window before ,- they did not have to prove that is what happened on that night >:( So unless the catch to that window he supposedly had exited from had been changed before the murders and he was not aware of that - then that is going no-where. So they did not even have to find recent foot prints or finger prints to show why the police were sure the house was fully secured from the inside in their original reports, but changed their minds when they though JB was responsible >:( >:(
Jansus, I may be wrong but I have a feeling that they were actually TOLD that they didn't have to PROVE that he did it (get in through the window) only that it was POSSIBLE that he did. Why the HELL could the same noot have applied to Sheila?
-
jansus the house was secure on the night of the murders and as I said above the windows recently painted and no marks of the rusty old hacksaw blade had been used nobody entered or left the farm on that fateful evening through any door or window :'(
-
this was a quote from Patti
"Yet, they knew Jeremy had entered the farm via a window on the 16th of September after the first 2 forensic examinations....So, on the 3rd examination it was established that the downstairs bathroom window had been used. Of course it had been used, Jeremy left a note on the 16th to BW to ask her to secure the window....The police knew he had gained entry, because at this point he was being watched."
So if JB left a note for BW to secure a window - why are we accepting that the window would " lock itself " when banged shut? ( I think they said he got in through the bathroom and left through the kitchen on the actual night)
If the windows were painted I don't suppose they did change any locks? And does anyone know why the door was replaced just before the murders?
-
Jansus if the windows did not bang shut how :'(come all the windows were secure when the police arrived at the farm how this case ever got to Court I will never know. Think they just needed a new door which had TWO SETS of keys Bambers kept one and the housekeeper I think had the others or Barbara Wilson.
-
So - I can only see one apparent not very clear picture of the kitchen window he is supposed to have climbed out of and then banged shut from the outside so it locked itself - and it looks as if there are objects in the window. So how did he climb over those without disturbing them with his big clod hoppers? Pity its not a very good photo.
-
i went into the u justice forum.most of them are very anti jeremy.
I think you'll find they are mostly anti justice as well. The owner of the forum is a convicted criminal as well.
-
I am not sure Jeremy said he could lock the window again did he? I thought that info came from AE and the police tried it and couldn't manage it. But oh well never mind, the judge said that it didn't matter how he got in and out just that he could have ...... that's our justice system aparrently. The fact is if he could have got in and out by the window so could anyone else. It was never a secret in the family that the younger members climbed through the window when the door was locked.
you are right just checked his statement - he admitted you could get into the house - but said there were no windows that you could bang shut and they would then look as if they were locked from the inside. He said JM had lied about that.
-
So - I can only see one apparent not very clear picture of the kitchen window he is supposed to have climbed out of and then banged shut from the outside so it locked itself - and it looks as if there are objects in the window. So how did he climb over those without disturbing them with his big clod hoppers? Pity its not a very good photo.
And how did those same clod-hoppers get in and out without leaving traces of themselves. The bottom of the frame was said to be clean.
-
So - I can only see one apparent not very clear picture of the kitchen window he is supposed to have climbed out of and then banged shut from the outside so it locked itself - and it looks as if there are objects in the window. So how did he climb over those without disturbing them with his big clod hoppers? Pity its not a very good photo.
Well jansus, think it was Barbara Wilson who noticed the washing up liquid etc had been moved but then it was realised these things were probably moved by the police or their cleaners. There were also blood splashes on the same window but again confirmed the police cleanerz emptied their buckets with bloodied water and splashed the windows.. don't ask me is my answer followed by .... he didn't climb out of the window because he wasn't there.
-
I have not seen all court transcripts so I wonder how the police got round the fact that their own inspection stated house was fully secured from the inside.
Is there any evidence at all that they tested the window to see if it could mysteriously lock itself? Because if it could not then it must have been someone inside who carried out the crime .
-
Jansus, I may be wrong but I have a feeling that they were actually TOLD that they didn't have to PROVE that he did it (get in through the window) only that it was POSSIBLE that he did. Why the HELL could the same noot have applied to Sheila?
Well, it could but she didn't need to get in, she was already in. ;D ;D ;D ;D (Sorry April ;D)
-
april that is what I read it did not have to be proved only that it could have happened :'( :'( :'( did Jeremy have a defence team :'(
-
Well jansus, think it was Barbara Wilson who noticed the washing up liquid etc had been moved but then it was realised these things were probably moved by the police or their cleaners. There were also blood splashes on the same window but again confirmed the police cleanerz emptied their buckets with bloodied water and splashed the windows.. don't ask me is my answer followed by .... he didn't climb out of the window because he wasn't there.
Depends when the crime scene photo was taken of the window and what it shows before the cleaners were in . Also SC could have moved things -she could have helped clear up after supper or something . It is such an unclear picture I cant really see tbh.
-
Well, it could but she didn't need to get in, she was already in. ;D ;D ;D ;D (Sorry April ;D)
Silly me. I asked for that one, didn't I ;D ;D ;D
-
Depends when the crime scene photo was taken of the window and what it shows before the cleaners were in . Also SC could have moved things -she could have helped clear up after supper or something . It is such an unclear picture I cant really see tbh.
As far as BW was concerned the washing up stuff was always in the same place til it was moved by the cleaners.
-
As far as BW was concerned the washing up stuff was always in the same place til it was moved by the cleaners.
Who would notice something like that?? ::) ::)
-
Who would notice something like that?? ::) ::)
Someone who was a housework/control freak :D
-
Someone who was a housework/control freak :D
It might have even been her that told Anne Eaton about the shower head! . But considering the rest of the kitchen did not look like a tidy sort of place I somehow doubt there was a place for everything and everything in its place .
-
I have not seen all court transcripts so I wonder how the police got round the fact that their own inspection stated house was fully secured from the inside.
Is there any evidence at all that they tested the window to see if it could mysteriously lock itself? Because if it could not then it must have been someone inside who carried out the crime .
Seem to remember the police tried it but didn't succeed but as I said the judge stated it didn't matter. The mind boggles!!!
-
april a proper housekeeper would have the washing up liquid where it is meant to be in the cupboard under the sink that is what it is for ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It might have even been her that told Anne Eaton about the shower head! . But considering the rest of the kitchen did not look like a tidy sort of place I somehow doubt there was a place for everything and everything in its place .
That's a very valid point Jansus. I'm surprised that anybody could find anything in it.
-
don't suppose anyone else has seen another crime scene photo of kitchen window ?
-
Who would notice something like that?? ::) ::)
I know it's hard to believe Caroline!! A place for everything and everything in it's place .... wierd!!
-
It might have even been her that told Anne Eaton about the shower head! . But considering the rest of the kitchen did not look like a tidy sort of place I somehow doubt there was a place for everything and everything in its place .
Haha jansus very true but it seems the washing up liquid knew it's place??
-
I know it's hard to believe Caroline!! A place for everything and everything in it's place .... wierd!!
Yeah but it wasn't even in her house!!
-
Yeah but it wasn't even in her house!!
Bet she thought it sort of was. ;D
-
Bet she thought it sort of was. ;D
I kind of see where you're coming from with that, Maggie :)