Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on September 24, 2014, 04:20:PM
-
first of all is it fact that special branch were involved in this case or myth.
if they were why did they become involved.
-
Some of the cops later became special branch members and some have either made the mistake of assuming that means special branch was involved or have dishonestly used such as an opportunity to allege it.
-
Wasn't a DI Soames from SB responsible for destroying the exhibits?
-
thats certanly what i heard yes.
-
Some of the cops later became special branch members and some have either made the mistake of assuming that means special branch was involved or have dishonestly used such as an opportunity to allege it.
I seem to recall, that at various times, it has been said that SB were involved because of 1. Neville's war time activities 2. (Legal) drug farming 3. Jeremy's natural parentage laying in VERY high places.
-
ive got somthing here.
http://t.co/KcFcVVX7XV
-
I seem to recall, that at various times, it has been said that SB were involved because of 1. Neville's war time activities 2. (Legal) drug farming 3. Jeremy's natural parentage laying in VERY high places.
well i don't think drugs are normally a matter for special branch and i dont think jeremy was that high born as to warrent there involvement and i dont think what ralph did in the war would be of that much concern 40 years later.
could there be any other reason.
-
well i don't think drugs are normally a matter for special branch and i dont think jeremy was that high born as to warrent there involvement and i dont think what ralph did in the war be of that much concern 40 years later.
could there be any other reason.
I agree with ALL the above. What other reason do you think there MIGHT be?
-
for the life of me i cant i mean guilty or innocent it doesn't strike me as a matter of nationel security matter but then again you do have the pii certificates.
-
for the life of me i cant i mean guilty or innocent it doesn't strike me as a matter of nationel security matter but then again you do have the pii certificates.
Nor I Nugs. As far as I'm concerned, rather like someone being innocent until proved guilty, SB were NOT present until/UNLESS proved otherwise, which thinking about it, is probably how they'd want it to be.
-
There was a John Soanes, who was a Chief Inspector. Maybe the same person? :-\
-
There was a John Soanes, who was a Chief Inspector. Maybe the same person? :-\
He was a PC in Basildon in 1973.
-
Nor I Nugs. As far as I'm concerned, rather like someone being innocent until proved guilty, SB were NOT present until/UNLESS proved otherwise, which thinking about it, is probably how they'd want it to be.
from what i can gather the suggestion seems to be they became involved a fair few years after jeremy was convicted.
-
In some instances is seems Special Branch officers end up in charge of evidence, particuarly older evidence. They for some reason had the Jack the Ripper files for instance.
That doesn't demonstrate Special Branch was at any time involve din the prosecution aspect of the case though jsut that files coudl have ended up in an area under their control or perhaps they wanted room made for evidence of htier own and ordered old evidenc ethey thought worthless gone to make room for such.
It is unclear whether the CCRC got an answer. The Appeal Court didn't explore it because the destruction of June and Nevill's blood samples ended up not mattering. Relatives of each provided samples and the court concluded that close matches their blood would be construed as definite matches. That is why at the end of the day the destruction of such evidence didn't matter anyway.
I still have not seen any evidence that the items referenced in that letter as having been destroyed were anything other than blood samples of the victims.
"It is, however, against this background that ground 15 is raised by the appellant and reads:
"Fresh DNA evidence, not available at trial, and now available supports the contention that blood in the silencer, said to be that of Sheila Caffell was in fact a mixture of the blood of Ralph and June Bamber. The appellant has been denied the opportunity of strengthening this ground by the deliberate destruction of exhibits by the police in February 1996 in breach of their own guidelines as to the destruction of such exhibits."
A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case."
For all we know the CCRC fund out more about the destruction but Jerey's advocates don't want to release such because it would reveal their conspiracy claims to be bunk. Instead we jsut seem to get documents tha timply there is more out there and they fill in the blanks themselves trather than filling in the blanks with the follow up letters the CCRC should have received.
-
from what i can gather the suggestion seems to be they became involved a fair few years after jeremy was convicted.
Or is that, they were SAID to have become involved?
-
i can think of a reason now but its a bit more mundane than the explantions that have ben offered.
-
i can think of a reason now but its a bit more mundane than the explantions that have ben offered.
SO!!!! Doesn't mean it isn't valid. Let's hear it :)
-
ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers
-
ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers
Blood samples of victims were destroyed though. How would blood samples being destoryed hide wrongdoing of Woodcock (the only known person involved in the original case to become SB)? Woodcock's invovlement was limited to the initial day where he just took part in the raid and then stayed to make sure weapons were empty.
-
ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers
Nugs, I would have thought that background checks would have been carried out before they were accepted into SB but even if one or two had slipped through the net, it doesn't explain SB's involvement, part of which was that they were supposed to have been around/in the area/keeping watch!!!!! BEFORE anything happened.
-
ive got somthing here.
http://t.co/KcFcVVX7XV
It appears that Soames of special branch gave the authority to destroy specific exhibits in 1996. :) :) :) :)
-
Why were MI5 present in Tolleshunt D'Arcy a week before the murders,then a week after the murders. ?
-
Why were MI5 present in Tolleshunt D'Arcy a week before the murders,then a week after the murders. ?
Perhaps they were sailing their corporate yacht out of Tollesbury.
-
Perhaps they were sailing their corporate yacht out of Tollesbury.
They were up to something that's for sure. I shall write a reminder to myself to ask bro.when he calls next week.
-
They were up to something that's for sure. I shall write a reminder to myself to ask bro.when he calls next week.
Is there actual proof of them being there?
-
Is there actual proof of them being there?
From someone who knew back in 2010.
-
well there wouldn't be would there. so it could never be proved ethere way.
with a case thats allready complicated i think its best not to make it worse by bringing mi5 into it.
i mean at least with special branch things can be proved or disproved.
-
It appears that Soames of special branch gave the authority to destroy specific exhibits in 1996. :) :) :) :)
Which could mean:
1) Special Branch is in charge of old evidence and has to sign off before any destruction can take place and thus peopel have to request permission from them
2) Soames requested the blood samples be destroyed for some reason such as to make room for Special Branch evidence.
It is unclear whether that means Soames just signed off or requested it be destroyed.
The letter asks for information that would explain which is the case and why but those documents have not been posted to leave a vaccuum in which unsupported conspiracy claims can be alleged and the actual evidence to refute those claims kept secret.
-
From someone who knew back in 2010.
I'm sure you'll forgive my cynicism, but since joining this forum there have been innumerable claims made by those who genuinely believe that there are equally innumerable people out there who KNOW Jeremy is innocent. I can't believe that there are that many people who are happy to live with being responsible for keeping an innocent man in prison when an anonymous phonecall to the media, revealing just enough to spike national interest, could reverse that situation.
-
Which could mean:
1) Special Branch is in charge of old evidence and has to sign off before any destruction can take place and thus peopel have to request permission from them
2) Soames requested the blood samples be destroyed for some reason such as to make room for Special Branch evidence.
It is unclear whether that means Soames just signed off or requested it be destroyed.
The letter asks for information that would explain which is the case and why but those documents have not been posted to leave a vaccuum in which unsupported conspiracy claims can be alleged and the actual evidence to refute those claims kept secret.
Which could mean: is not set in stone you either know or you don't know and I don't mean you I mean whoever.....
One must still ask the question as why items were destroyed when Jeremy was still claiming his innocence and why blood samples were destroyed just about the same time as new science evolved such as DNA profiling. It would be rude not to ask those questions, like it would be rude to refuse a glass of wine.... ;)
-
It appears that Soames of special branch gave the authority to destroy specific exhibits in 1996. :) :) :) :)
I find it intriguing as to why Special branch would be interested in the ordinary everyday running of a police station?
-
I find it intriguing as to why Special branch would be interested in the ordinary everyday running of a police station?
Me too, can't get my head round it really. Is it because they are part of the home office? Not sure. I wish I had all the answers to my questions. It might be a good idea to put such questions on a thread....Scip will know lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
gave athurity i notice not ordered.
-
gave athurity i notice not ordered.
Ower I shall go back to look at that Nugs. Well spotted. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Me too, can't get my head round it really. Is it because they are part of the home office? Not sure. I wish I had all the answers to my questions. It might be a good idea to put such questions on a thread....Scip will know lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Tell you the truth I have no answer as to why the case is so popular with people here? Especially an American? Type Jeremy Bamber into google. You get no answers until you get to Bam. So the case is really not that well known. No one but no one in America has ever heard of Jeremy Bamber and I doubt very much if most of this country has either.
Indeed in any large American city there are murders like this one and worse happening on a daily basis so I doubt that they would even batt an eyelid at the Bamber case.
So why on earth does this case interest Special Branch?
-
gave athurity i notice not ordered.
Does that not say that authority had been requested? If so, the question is, by whom.
-
gave athurity i notice not ordered.
I think it says "On the authority"?
-
I think it says "On the authority"?
Was it giving an order or granting a request?
-
Was it giving an order or granting a request?
Possibly granting a request. But why would the person who was asking go to Special Branch to get authority? Surely there must be a chief constable or a commissioner in the police station? With Special Branch taking an interest though it does prompt one to ask why?
-
It would have depended what was in those documents ?
When my bro.was on business,he invariably and surreptitiously had his briefcase handcuffed to his wrist,and always kept a " note " on his person that in case of an accident the police were to take that briefcase,etc etc. if he wasn't able to hand it in to the nearest police station himself.
I always remember years ago wanting to visit Russia to see the beautiful architecture,but bro. had said " I'd rather you didn't go ",but didn't say any more ?
-
lookout I do the same when I am in Tesco always have my bag handcuffed to my arm. Sorry just kidding your bro must have been important to have such valuable documents. I do it to keep my Tesco Loyalty Card safe lookout you know me well enough to know I am kidding you.
-
Yes,I'm the same with my purse. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It was worrying at times with bro. because he couldn't say where he was going,who he was meeting or anything. All I knew was that MI5 had had to go back 10 years into the backgrounds of our families,including my husbands' families and also his wifes' families.
Bro.took his life in his hands at times,I'm sure,and I'll never know what it was all about,though I don't wish to know.This was what it was like back in 1985. I don't expect things have changed.
-
Possibly granting a request. But why would the person who was asking go to Special Branch to get authority? Surely there must be a chief constable or a commissioner in the police station? With Special Branch taking an interest though it does prompt one to ask why?
i would of thought they would of asked the chief constable or the home office not special branch.
it strikes me that they asked somone who they knew would say yes.
-
i would of thought they would of asked the chief constable or the home office not special branch.
I, too, would have thought that any request pertaining to the case would have had to be addressed to the Home Office.
-
but then the homeoficce would of asked why they wanted it destroyed.
-
lookout was your bro with Special Branch? it must have been such a worrying time not knowing where he was and who he was with.
-
but then the homeoficce would of asked why they wanted it destroyed.
Perhaps permission was sought, and granted, to get rid of stuff no longer applicable or relevant.
-
lookout was your bro with Special Branch? it must have been such a worrying time not knowing where he was and who he was with.
No,he was working for the government,but visited GCHQ on a regular basis when he wasn't away on business.
-
Perhaps permission was sought, and granted, to get rid of stuff no longer applicable or relevant.
There is still a lot of material kept in storage (200 boxes, thereabout). The EP say they don´t have the manpower or money to go through them - we saw that in an answer to Bambergate.
How could they determine what was relevant or not, if they haven´t been through the material?
-
If EP have nothing to hide,then they'll produce the goods,yes ?
-
Perhaps permission was sought, and granted, to get rid of stuff no longer applicable or relevant.
i think they went to someone who wouldn't ask to many questions as to why they wanted it destroyed.
-
Tell you the truth I have no answer as to why the case is so popular with people here? Especially an American? Type Jeremy Bamber into google. You get no answers until you get to Bam. So the case is really not that well known. No one but no one in America has ever heard of Jeremy Bamber and I doubt very much if most of this country has either.
Indeed in any large American city there are murders like this one and worse happening on a daily basis so I doubt that they would even batt an eyelid at the Bamber case.
So why on earth does this case interest Special Branch?
Grahame there is nothing normal about this case
Think about it
1) special branch involved
2) ewen smith who believed JB to be innocent offered a job at the ccrc
3)as soon as the media savvy Simon McKay takes over the case and all of a sudden a deadline for submissions is announced
Very very sinister and JB keeps plodding on fighting the case
If you look at the death of Princess Diana it's not difficult to believe what can be covered up
-
So,Special Branch became involved,by destroying the exhibits whilst the Home Office was undertaking a review of the Bamber case? It is now common knowledge to those who are interested enough to delve,that Special Branch were heavily used,especially in the 80's,as a 'clean up' operation for the government.
-
Perhaps permission was sought, and granted, to get rid of stuff no longer applicable or relevant.
The only thing that seems to have been destroyed were blood samples. So far no one has been able to produce evidence of anything besides blood sample as being what the letter in question was referring to.
-
Of course it must be remembered that Ralph was in the secret service during the second world war or similar. Perhaps that was the reason for Special Branch's involvement? Just a guess.
-
Grahame there is nothing normal about this case
Think about it
1) special branch involved
2) ewen smith who believed JB to be innocent offered a job at the ccrc
3)as soon as the media savvy Simon McKay takes over the case and all of a sudden a deadline for submissions is announced
Very very sinister and JB keeps plodding on fighting the case
If you look at the death of Princess Diana it's not difficult to believe what can be covered up
Actually Jackie this is one of the reasons that I am interested in this case. The fact that there are these anomalies. They may mean nothing at all, But me being of a suspicious disposition I rather think they do?
-
i doubt if it would of much intrest to them 40 years later.
-
The only thing that seems to have been destroyed were blood samples. So far no one has been able to produce evidence of anything besides blood sample as being what the letter in question was referring to.
I thought it was bits of bloodied clothing as well?
-
Only blood samples destroyed. That is very, very strange. And skippy, before you become fresh with me: GOOD NIGHT, won´t be reading your post! ;D
-
I thought it was bits of bloodied clothing as well?
All documentary references have indicated only blood samples. Whether there are other things that the CCRC had been seeking that were destroyed has not been established by any documents. People speculate but the CCRC and Court of Appeal decisions only mention blood samples.
Testing their clothing would have been futile since cross contamination of DNA in general on heir clothing would be expected and the chance of the blood on the victim clothing being blood of other victims or that of the killer nonexistent since Jeremy would have worn gloves and thus not cut his hand and thus would not have bled on any victims and Sheila had no wounds other than the gunshots so can't have bled on any victims and the only blood on her clothing was clearly her own none could have been spatter from any victims. So DNA testing the clothing would serve no purpose.
-
So,Special Branch became involved,by destroying the exhibits whilst the Home Office was undertaking a review of the Bamber case? It is now common knowledge to those who are interested enough to delve,that Special Branch were heavily used,especially in the 80's,as a 'clean up' operation for the government.
well that explians why they asked specail branch and not the home office.
they can hardly go to the home ofice and say you know that case you ordered a review into could we destroy the evedence please.
-
Only blood samples destroyed. That is very, very strange. And skippy, before you become fresh with me: GOOD NIGHT, won´t be reading your post! ;D
Perfect :)
-
so the office order a review of the case. someone in essex police requests persmission from special branch to destroy evedence. the special branch officer who autherises it happens to be a former essex officer and also a bit player in the case himself.
-
well that explians why they asked specail branch and not the home office.
they can hardly go to the home ofice and say you know that case you ordered a review into could we destroy the evedence please.
Could the home office not have had SB destroy the items?
-
Could the home office not have had SB destroy the items?
Who Is SB Tyler...My memory is going.... ;)
-
Who Is SB Tyler...My memory is going.... ;)
Sorry Patti - Special Branch
-
Could the home office not have had SB destroy the items?
well they could of done but i cant see any evedence they did and i cant see a reason why they would.
-
Sorry Patti - Special Branch
Oh yeah! :-[
-
Oh yeah! :-[
lol....bless ya :-*
-
There is still a lot of material kept in storage (200 boxes, thereabout). The EP say they don´t have the manpower or money to go through them - we saw that in an answer to Bambergate.
How could they determine what was relevant or not, if they haven´t been through the material?
I suspect since it is obvious that Special Branch was involved in the case in some way that there are indeed certain things they are not telling us?
-
All documentary references have indicated only blood samples. Whether there are other things that the CCRC had been seeking that were destroyed has not been established by any documents. People speculate but the CCRC and Court of Appeal decisions only mention blood samples.
Testing their clothing would have been futile since cross contamination of DNA in general on heir clothing would be expected and the chance of the blood on the victim clothing being blood of other victims or that of the killer nonexistent since Jeremy would have worn gloves and thus not cut his hand and thus would not have bled on any victims and Sheila had no wounds other than the gunshots so can't have bled on any victims and the only blood on her clothing was clearly her own none could have been spatter from any victims. So DNA testing the clothing would serve no purpose.
Didn't you mention in another post that Sheila's nightdress and Ralph's pygamas were among the things destroyed?
-
Didn't you mention in another post that Sheila's nightdress and Ralph's pygamas were among the things destroyed?
Someone else claimed they were along with the bible but presented no evidence. I merely noted that they would not be of any value for DNA testing so even if true would not mean much. Obviously they are not stored in the same location as blood samples. So it is possible they were not destroyed and just the blood samples were to make room for more blood samples.
It is alswyas possible they were also destroyed though around the same time or a different time. We have no evidence to tell us one way or the other.
-
Who Is SB Tyler...My memory is going.... ;)
I was thinking who is S.B. Tyler as well. ;D
-
Someone else claimed they were along with the bible but presented no evidence. I merely noted that they would not be of any value for DNA testing so even if true would not mean much. Obviously they are not stored in the same location as blood samples. So it is possible they were not destroyed and just the blood samples were to make room for more blood samples.
It is alswyas possible they were also destroyed though around the same time or a different time. We have no evidence to tell us one way or the other.
No I know they wouldn't be any use for dna testing. But if Shiela's nightdress was available they could do other tests such as examining the blood spatter patters etc. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I saw posted a list of the items that were destroyed?
-
Junes' nightie would have been of interest !
-
Junes' nightie would have been of interest !
And also the blood pattern on the Bible? But I seem to remember reading that the Bible was returned to the relatives, I wonder if that was correct?
-
And also the blood pattern on the Bible? But I seem to remember reading that the Bible was returned to the relatives, I wonder if that was correct?
The Bible seems to be a mystery,as it wasn't the only one in the vicinity,with one being comparatively newer and less dog-eared.
I had heard that the relatives took" it",but I hardly would have thought it would have been the blood-stained one. Saying that,they managed to live with a bloody lampshade and spatters on the wallpaper,to say nothing of blood on a cobweb years later,FGS ! To think that was reported to the police ::)
-
esex police knew they had a friend in special branch who would agrea to the destruction of those items i think.
-
No I know they wouldn't be any use for dna testing. But if Shiela's nightdress was available they could do other tests such as examining the blood spatter patters etc. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I saw posted a list of the items that were destroyed?
There was no spatter on Sheila's gown. There was the blood that ran down her shoulder/arm and then the stain where her hand was. The lack of spatter is how we know she wasn't even near the victims when they were killed.
Spatter from the victims would indicate she had been present as they were killed so either she was a witness to their deaths or she was the one killing them. There was none though. She especially would have had medium velocity impact spatter of Nevill's blood had she been the one who was beating him. The blood splashed all over the killer and weapon. The parents were shot so close that the killer also most likely had high velocity impact spatter. There wasn't any on Sheila's gown.
If there had been spatter on her gown the defense would have had a better foundation to suggest Sheila could have been the killer. If there were spatter and the defense made the arument but the prosecution had contended it wasn't blood of the victims then that spatter could have been DNA tested to try to establish who was right. But was no spatter to DNA test. They merely could have DNA tested the shoulder blood and blood that leaked down her arm to her wrist and was then transferred from her wrist to her gown. Quite obviously this blood was her own though so would accomplish nothing.
-
There was no spatter on Sheila's gown. There was the blood that ran down her shoulder/arm and then the stain where her hand was. The lack of spatter is how we know she wasn't even near the victims when they were killed.
Spatter from the victims would indicate she had been present as they were killed so either she was a witness to their deaths or she was the one killing them. There was none though. She especially would have had medium velocity impact spatter of Nevill's blood had she been the one who was beating him. The blood splashed all over the killer and weapon. The parents were shot so close that the killer also most likely had high velocity impact spatter. There wasn't any on Sheila's gown.
If there had been spatter on her gown the defense would have had a better foundation to suggest Sheila could have been the killer. If there were spatter and the defense made the arument but the prosecution had contended it wasn't blood of the victims then that spatter could have been DNA tested to try to establish who was right. But was no spatter to DNA test. They merely could have DNA tested the shoulder blood and blood that leaked down her arm to her wrist and was then transferred from her wrist to her gown. Quite obviously this blood was her own though so would accomplish nothing.
Well we shall never know now will we? But it does surprise me that there was not bloodspatter on her nighty as blood spatter would be a common thing I would have thought if someone was shot with a rifle? I'm no an expert of course, but I would have thought that there would also be negligable bloodspatter on the shooter as well as it was a long gun and not a handgun.
But having said that I still think it might have yielded some interesting things? It is always better to see the actual item rather than reading a report that someone else has compiled.
-
Well we shall never know now will we? But it does surprise me that there was not bloodspatter on her nighty as blood spatter would be a common thing I would have thought if someone was shot with a rifle? I'm no an expert of course, but I would have thought that there would also be negligable bloodspatter on the shooter as well as it was a long gun and not a handgun.
But having said that I still think it might have yielded some interesting things? It is always better to see the actual item rather than reading a report that someone else has compiled.
A contact wound features the spatter going inside the muzzle instead of away from the victim onto those around the victim. A non-contact would will result in spatter going towards the shooter and others who are nearby.
So the spatter will only hit others in non-contact wound situations and only if the shooter or someone else is standing close to the victim. Since the blood shoots away from the victim it will not usually get on the victim. A drop or 2 maybe but not any discernable pattern really.
That is why spatter is so valuable. Spatter means you were near the victim so you either are a witness or perpetrator if you have spatter present on you.
The closeness of some of the shots to the parents says the shooter would have had spatter and the lack of any to Sheila's gown is a good indication she didn't fire the shots. High velocity spatter is small so distant photos are unlikely to capture it we really need the expert testimony for such. The prosecution and defense experts of course found nothing. Medium velocity spatter stains are larger those we would be likely to see in photos. So if she had beaten Neville we should see spatter on her gown from such. The blood is only the giant stain on her shoulder and then the hand stain though.
The only blood to DNA test was from the hand stain area and the shoulder. They already tested such and it was determien dot be her blood. The chance of it coming up as someone else's DNA is astronomical there simply is no explanation of how someone else's blood could get there because it was not spatter but blood that flowed down her shoulder and arm to her wrist that she transferred.
The chance that the real killer cut his hand and got his blood on her wrist and his blood was then transferred to the gown is so remote it is not even worth considering and obviously would not help the defense anyway unless the killer were some thrid party no one even thought about. If it is Jeremy it would confirm his guilt instead of helping the defense.
If there were a realistic possibility of someone else from outside the house having killed everyone other than Jeremy then DNA testing of all the evidence could be far more useful to the defense.
-
A contact wound features the spatter going inside the muzzle instead of away from the victim onto those around the victim. A non-contact would will result in spatter going towards the shooter and others who are nearby.
So the spatter will only hit others in non-contact wound situations and only if the shooter or someone else is standing close to the victim. Since the blood shoots away from the victim it will not usually get on the victim. A drop or 2 maybe but not any discernable pattern really.
That is why spatter is so valuable. Spatter means you were near the victim so you either are a witness or perpetrator if you have spatter present on you.
The closeness of some of the shots to the parents says the shooter would have had spatter and the lack of any to Sheila's gown is a good indication she didn't fire the shots. High velocity spatter is small so distant photos are unlikely to capture it we really need the expert testimony for such. The prosecution and defense experts of course found nothing. Medium velocity spatter stains are larger those we would be likely to see in photos. So if she had beaten Neville we should see spatter on her gown from such. The blood is only the giant stain on her shoulder and then the hand stain though.
The only blood to DNA test was from the hand stain area and the shoulder. They already tested such and it was determien dot be her blood. The chance of it coming up as someone else's DNA is astronomical there simply is no explanation of how someone else's blood could get there because it was not spatter but blood that flowed down her shoulder and arm to her wrist that she transferred.
The chance that the real killer cut his hand and got his blood on her wrist and his blood was then transferred to the gown is so remote it is not even worth considering and obviously would not help the defense anyway unless the killer were some thrid party no one even thought about. If it is Jeremy it would confirm his guilt instead of helping the defense.
If there were a realistic possibility of someone else from outside the house having killed everyone other than Jeremy then DNA testing of all the evidence could be far more useful to the defense.
But if as you say the killer had bloodspatter on him from his victims, if he got out of a window wouldn't there have been a very real chance that he would have transfered some of that bloodspatter onto the window or the sill?
-
There would have been specks everywhere which wouldn't be seen with the naked eye,particularly under cover of darkness as it was,but only under microscopic investigation.
It would be great to hear the taped interview of Jeremy when he was questioned. Sometimes,the " accused " can unwittingly talk/ be tricked into a conviction,depending on the questions,subjects and attitude of the officer asking the questions. The last thing you do is implicate others.
-
There would have been specks everywhere which wouldn't be seen with the naked eye,particularly under cover of darkness as it was,but only under microscopic investigation.
It would be great to hear the taped interview of Jeremy when he was questioned. Sometimes,the " accused " can unwittingly talk/ be tricked into a conviction,depending on the questions,subjects and attitude of the officer asking the questions. The last thing you do is implicate others.
Yes and sometimes there is a continual hounding of the suspect which causes a reaction. The reaction is noted down, but the hounding is not. I know for a fact that this does still take place.
-
Yes and sometimes there is a continual hounding of the suspect which causes a reaction. The reaction is noted down, but the hounding is not. I know for a fact that this does still take place.
Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche ::) which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.
-
Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche ::) which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.
That is not true at all
-
Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche ::) which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.
When my son was in trouble with the police when he was 17 years old (he is 29 now) I went to the police station and he had been filling out a form. When I looked at it I saw that he had ticked a box relinquishing his right to a duty solicitor. I immediaely advised him to have one.
The duty solicitor is there to advise the accused and see that there is fair play. In other words he/she represents the accused. He was very good and informed us of the court procedures and advised my son on various things that would be to his benefit. As far as I know the duty solicitors are not connected with the police in any way, but they call on them whenever a person who has been arrested wants one. I would advise anyone, if they haven't a lawyer of their own to ask for one if they are in trouble with the police and are arrested.
-
That is not true at all
It certainly does happen this way.
-
It certainly does happen this way.
Sometimes a solicitor will advise someone to go to Crown Court as opposed to a majistrates court. I remember the judge tearing defence counsel off a strip for taking his minor case into his Crown Court. But if a case does get to Crown Court and the defendant loses the penalties can be higher than if dealt with in a majistrates court.
-
a duty solicter is better than no solicter if you don't know what your doing.
and most people dont.
-
It is far worse when a person doesn't know or understand how the system works. When I think of this sort of thing,I always think back at that poor man Stefan Kizshko when he was being questioned whether the police knew or realised that the man was a bit " backward ",poor soul.
What an easy catch he was ! That was criminal.
-
But if as you say the killer had bloodspatter on him from his victims, if he got out of a window wouldn't there have been a very real chance that he would have transfered some of that bloodspatter onto the window or the sill?
Only if the blood was on his hands and wet. Blood doesn't transfer from clothing to objects unless there is a considerable amount of wet blood. Spater is droplets that soakes into the clothing and it dries fairly quickly.
I don't believe Jeremy would go home with blood on his body. He washed any blood off his body. How would it look if someone happened to be outside as he was walking into his house and saw blood on his body? It also would have been wise to bring a change of clothing and dispose of the clothing on the way home but whether he did we have no way to know. Even if he didn't though his clothing would not be likely to drip blood onto anything.
Most if not all spatter would have been from the first 2 victims. Jeremy didn't just bolt out the door after killing everyone, he staged the bullets, bible and other things. Both of these gave time for the blood to dry before he left.
I personally think Jeremy was stupid and kept a spatter stained jacket and just tried to wash it but at the same time was very lucky that it was tested so late that the blood had already deteriorated too much. Police found a jacket that has red marks that looked like spatter when they searched his house. He calime dit wa spaint. When you paint you get a couple of drops not a ton of hem closeby unless you flick your fingers through the bristles of a brush in a direction way from your body so that as the bristles snap ack they fling a lot of drops in close proximity. Why would anyone do that though? It is much more likely given the circumstances that it was spatter than that he did the aforementioned with a paint brush. He washed it and that combined with the time was enough to prevent them from getting any test results. With today's technology he would not have been as lucky.
If police had been wiser and searched his house close to the time of the murders he would have been busted over this if it was indeed spatter.
I honestly wonder why so many criminals keep spatter stained clothing with the intention of washing it. It makes no sense to me and yet it is a common occurrence.
-
a duty solicter is better than no solicter if you don't know what your doing.
and most people dont.
Very true.
-
It is far worse when a person doesn't know or understand how the system works. When I think of this sort of thing,I always think back at that poor man Stefan Kizshko when he was being questioned whether the police knew or realised that the man was a bit " backward ",poor soul.
What an easy catch he was ! That was criminal.
they knew that perfectly well they also knew he was innocent they just dident care.
-
they knew that perfectly well they also knew he was innocent they just dident care.
Bless the poor man and his mother,nugs.The strain and worry killed them both.
-
It certainly does happen this way.
It simply is not true that duty solicitors are in 'cahoots' with the police. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
-
I heard you first time !
-
I heard you first time !
How about respecting my answer then instead of querying it?!
Obviously unless u have expert inside knowledge of the relationship between duty solicitors and the police!
-
How about respecting my answer then instead of querying it?!
Obviously unless u have expert inside knowledge of the relationship between duty solicitors and the police!
I have no knowledge of the inside of a police station let alone knowledge of any relationship between duty solicitors and the police,,but it goes to show that one shouldn't believe everything one reads in links/newspapers and the like,and I mean EVERYTHING ! It was actually written by a solicitor,so do I disbelieve everything they say ?
Maybe it was sour grapes on his part that he didn't get the case,I don't know.
-
:(
It simply is not true that duty solicitors are in 'cahoots' with the police. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Not all of them you mean.
-
Only if the blood was on his hands and wet. Blood doesn't transfer from clothing to objects unless there is a considerable amount of wet blood. Spater is droplets that soakes into the clothing and it dries fairly quickly.
I don't believe Jeremy would go home with blood on his body. He washed any blood off his body. How would it look if someone happened to be outside as he was walking into his house and saw blood on his body? It also would have been wise to bring a change of clothing and dispose of the clothing on the way home but whether he did we have no way to know. Even if he didn't though his clothing would not be likely to drip blood onto anything.
Most if not all spatter would have been from the first 2 victims. Jeremy didn't just bolt out the door after killing everyone, he staged the bullets, bible and other things. Both of these gave time for the blood to dry before he left.
I personally think Jeremy was stupid and kept a spatter stained jacket and just tried to wash it but at the same time was very lucky that it was tested so late that the blood had already deteriorated too much. Police found a jacket that has red marks that looked like spatter when they searched his house. He calime dit wa spaint. When you paint you get a couple of drops not a ton of hem closeby unless you flick your fingers through the bristles of a brush in a direction way from your body so that as the bristles snap ack they fling a lot of drops in close proximity. Why would anyone do that though? It is much more likely given the circumstances that it was spatter than that he did the aforementioned with a paint brush. He washed it and that combined with the time was enough to prevent them from getting any test results. With today's technology he would not have been as lucky.
If police had been wiser and searched his house close to the time of the murders he would have been busted over this if it was indeed spatter.
I honestly wonder why so many criminals keep spatter stained clothing with the intention of washing it. It makes no sense to me and yet it is a common occurrence.
I wasn't aware of that? If they were eager enough to get him convicted surely they would have taken the jacket? Don't they test for blood with ultra violet light?
-
:(
Not all of them you mean.
None are. Quite the reverse is true as duty solicitors make it much harder for the police.
-
None are. Quite the reverse is true as duty solicitors make it much harder for the police.
As I explained, they are their to represent their client and to help them. They are not connected with the police or employed by them.
-
None are. Quite the reverse is true as duty solicitors make it much harder for the police.
You cannot say 'none are' without facts to back this up!
-
As I explained, they are their to represent their client and to help them. They are not connected with the police or employed by them.
I am well aware of the role of a duty solicitor!
That's why I have corrected lookout and steph
-
I am well aware of the role of a duty solicitor!
That's why I have corrected lookout and steph
It was not for your information Petey it was for lookout and Steph. I think they also are aware of the role of the duty solicitor, but it appears that possible one of them or noth have experienced some anomaly in regard to this service that is provided free of charge by the police?
-
I am well aware of the role of a duty solicitor!
That's why I have corrected lookout and steph
No profession is without its bad egg !
-
It was not for your information Petey it was for lookout and Steph. I think they also are aware of the role of the duty solicitor, but it appears that possible one of them or noth have experienced some anomaly in regard to this service that is provided free of charge by the police?
With respect, duty solicitors are not provided by the police!
The right to a duty solicitor is a legal right, granted on arrest, save in extreme circumstances.
Duty solicitors are managed by the legal aid agency (Part of m of j), NOT the police.
-
With respect, duty solicitors are not provided by the police!
The right to a duty solicitor is a legal right, granted on arrest, save in extreme circumstances.
Duty solicitors are managed by the legal aid agency (Part of m of j), NOT the police.
Ok I stand corrected Petey.