Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 25, 2014, 07:53:PM
-
Hartley's recent post of the post trial police interview says Jeremy's fingerprints were on the silencer.
Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he went to shoot rabbits.
Wasn't the rifle quite new ? Are there any witnesses that saw Jeremy ever use the rifle with the silencer on ?
He was not really into guns as far as I know. He also did not have access to WHF unless let in by Neville or June. Neville being very wary of Jeremy and worried about dying in a shooting accident. So unlikely to leave guns lying around for him.
Why would Jeremy want a gun with a silencer on prior to the massacre? He was a farm labourer. There were plenty of other guns around anyway.
It seems that using a silencer was not an important factor for Jeremy. After all he went out to shoot rabbits without it on.
If he did ever use the rifle with the silencer on, he would no doubt not bother taking it off. He was very lazy and there is not much point in taking it off. The rifle was used for shooting vermin, and needs a silencer to be more effective.
So funny how the silencer with Jeremy's fingerprints on, ended up in a box. Behind and underneath boxes, guns and dartboards at the back of the gun cupboard.
The same silencer with his fingerprints on also had Sheila's, Neville's and June's blood in. And June's DNA. And paint marks.
The police never said Sheila's fingerprints were on the silencer.
-
Everyones' prints were on the silencer---------depending which one of the 5 you mean.
-
Everyones' prints were on the silencer---------depending which one of the 5 you mean.
The silencer I am talking about is the one with Sheila's, June's and Neville's blood on. And June's DNA. And paint marks. Oh and Jeremy's fingerprints.
Five silencers fitting that specific rifle ? Were there five of the same rifle at WHF ? Or just one rifle and five silencers ?
The rifle and silencer were quite new. So who is everyone ?
And please provide sources.
-
As I said-----------there were 5 silencers.
-
Why not find out about the two rifles which were handed in by a relative from someone who didn't wish to be named ?
-
I have not seen evidence regarding his prints being on the moderator but unless his prints were in blood it doesn't mean much because he touched it in the past and his print could have gotten on it at that time. If it were in blood that would be proof that he touched it at the time of the murders as opposed to just some time in the future that makes no difference.
-
Why would Neville take the silencer off. Then put it in a box. Then put it behind and underneath other boxes, guns and even a dartboard at the back of the gun cupboard ?
The silencer was essential for the rifles main purpose of shooting vermin. So would need to be in constant use and available.
-
Kick a man when he's down why don't you ?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,728.0.html
This is the link that says Jeremy's prints were on the silencer.
The thread post is asking at what time would he have touched the silencer which the prosecution say was attached to a new rifle ?
Not when he shot rabbits.
Not in his everyday life as a farmer.
Not when at WHF alone. He did not have a key.
Not when Neville was around as he was wary of Jeremy.
Not when he did actually use the rifle. As it seems he would use it without a silencer. So would not bother putting one on.
-
Why would Neville take the silencer off. Then put it in a box. Then put it behind and underneath other boxes, guns and even a dartboard at the back of the gun cupboard ?
The silencer was essential for the rifles main purpose of shooting vermin. So would need to be in constant use and available.
Nevill wouldn't but that is a different question than fingerprints on the moderator.
-
If the silencer was already on the rifle when he ever used it, there is no reason to touch the silencer. Unless he was taking it off. But there is no way he would bother doing that. It was not his rifle or house and it still fitted in the gun cupboard.
If Jeremy did take the silencer off, he would not put it where it was found. Unless he had an ulterior motive.
-
I have not seen evidence regarding his prints being on the moderator but unless his prints were in blood it doesn't mean much because he touched it in the past and his print could have gotten on it at that time. If it were in blood that would be proof that he touched it at the time of the murders as opposed to just some time in the future that makes no difference.
Me either.
-
Me either.
I just posted a link on this thread.
The post verdict police interview, the police said Jeremy's fingerprints were on the silencer.
-
If the silencer was already on the rifle when he ever used it, there is no reason to touch the silencer. Unless he was taking it off. But there is no way he would bother doing that. It was not his rifle or house and it still fitted in the gun cupboard.
If Jeremy did take the silencer off, he would not put it where it was found. Unless he had an ulterior motive.
He could have picked up the gun at various times by holding the moderator. The notion that he would never ever touch the moderator except to remove it or attach it is false.
If they never ever used the gun with the moderator then in that case he would have no cause to touch it at all and you might have some point.
-
He could have picked up the gun at various times by holding the moderator. The notion that he would never ever touch the moderator except to remove it or attach it is false.
If they never ever used the gun with the moderator then in that case he would have no cause to touch it at all and you might have some point.
Yeah I suppose he could have put his fingerprints on it prior to the massacre. My thread post is giving lots of reasons why he wouldn't.
If there were no fingerprints of Jeremy's on the silencer, he would be making a big fuss on his OS claiming he never touched it.
But he can't.
-
Why would Neville take the silencer off. Then put it in a box. Then put it behind and underneath other boxes, guns and even a dartboard at the back of the gun cupboard ?
The silencer was essential for the rifles main purpose of shooting vermin. So would need to be in constant use and available.
My friend uses a .22 airgun to shoot vermin. But each to his own I suppose. Me I won't allow any weapons in my home at all. One of my friends was manager of the Co-Op funeral directors in Chelmsford and told me a very tragic story of to boys playing with their father's shotgun and it went off blowing his friend's head off. So this is a gun free house. I can't understand the fascination that some Americans have with guns?
-
My friend uses a .22 airgun to shoot vermin. But each to his own I suppose. Me I won't allow any weapons in my home at all. One of my friends was manager of the Co-Op funeral directors in Chelmsford and told me a very tragic story of to boys playing with their father's shotgun and it went off blowing his friend's head off. So this is a gun free house. I can't understand the fascination that some Americans have with guns?
1) teaching kids to respect guns and letting them touch them can prevent unauthorized/unsupervised access because then they don't need to sneak around to play with them
2) keeping a gun loaded where children or even adults can access them is just stupid. Just because some gun owners are stupid doesn't mean all of us are and doesn't mean that I should lose my right just because of idiots who are less responsible.
My weapons have snapcaps in them to prevent damage to the firing pins if they are dry fired.
-
1) teaching kids to respect guns and letting them touch them can prevent unauthorized/unsupervised access because then they don't need to sneak around to play with them
2) keeping a gun loaded where children or even adults can access them is just stupid. Just because some gun owners are stupid doesn't mean all of us are and doesn't mean that I should lose my right just because of idiots who are less responsible.
My weapons have snapcaps in them to prevent damage to the firing pins if they are dry fired.
No I'm not saying that all gun users are stupid. I used to play with capguns when I was little and later on I bought a .177 slug gun. Over here because of our strict gun laws you don't normally get kids sneeking off to play with firearms, because they just aren't available. Of course if they get mixed up with gangs they can get hold of firearms. But in most places it isn't an issue. But then again it may just be me. I'm like that with knives as well and make sure they are always in the right place, especially as my grandson is beginning to find his feet now.
-
There's no getting away from it.Jeremys' conviction IS unsafe !!
-
There's no getting away from it.Jeremys' conviction IS unsafe !!
That is your unsupported opinion merely and you have demonstrated you are woefully ignorant of the facts of this case and too biased to care about them.
You asserted yesterday that Nevill or June killed Sheila which means one of them then had to commit suicide. Either of them committing suicide and then while dead marching the gun to Sheila's body is no more possible than a dead Sheila putting the moderator away.
You just don't want to face that Jeremy is guilty and will invent any narrative it takes to pretend that it was someone else.
This doesn't establish his conviction unsafe it just proves that you choose to live in denial.
-
I'm telling you,whether he be guilty or not,that his conviction WAS/IS unsafe ! I thought you were a lawyer.
In view of ALL the anomalies,in which we wouldn't be discussing on here if there weren't, a re-trial would be the least that could be offered to this man.
-
I'm telling you,whether he be guilty or not,that his conviction WAS/IS unsafe ! I thought you were a lawyer.
In view of ALL the anomalies,in which we wouldn't be discussing on here if there weren't, a re-trial would be the least that could be offered to this man.
There are no anomalies in the trial that would warrant a retrial. There are no instances of legal error that have been pointed out. The claims that evidence wa swithheld from the defense such as Bonnett's are all untrue claims.
If we totally set aside the issue of his guilt and just look at the trial procedure I have yet to see anyone present any errors that warrant a new trial.
If you have evidence of any be my guest to point them out but the ones discussed to date all flopped upon being scrutinized.
The most common grounds for a new trial are that the trial juge committed legal error by admitting evidence that should not have been admitted or gave improper jury instructions. The direct appeal found no error.
-
God,you're incorrigible. There were anomalies--------lots of them.
Why do you think that someone is prepared to fight this case ? Would you not have thought that word would get around to steer clear of it if it wasn't worth looking into ?
-
God,you're incorrigible. There were anomalies--------lots of them.
Why do you think that someone is prepared to fight this case ? Would you not have thought that word would get around to steer clear of it if it wasn't worth looking into ?
This is a good illustration of how different we operate.
Lookout's thought process- the case had to be unsound because people are willing to try to help him appeal and because people allege it is unsound. The simple fact people make arguments must mean the arguments are sound.
Scipio- the people making the arguments have to provide evidence to prove their claims and such evidence must survive scrutiny for the arguments to be proven sound. The mere making of an allegation means nothing at all.
A court requires proof not unsupported allegations so my thought process involves being able to actually support a claim in a court and to get a court to rule for a new trial. I attack things in a practical fashion.
-
Then WHERE is this proof that you keep banging on about ? Was he caught red-handed ? No,he wasn't !
-
Then WHERE is this proof that you keep banging on about ? Was he caught red-handed ? No,he wasn't !
I already posted such proof. The proof I posted that Sheila did not kill herself was sufficient for you to say that Nevill or June killed her which naturally requires whoever did to have subsequently committed suicide.
Whenever I post it in full you complain it is too long to bother reading.
On occasion you just shift blame though to the parents in an effort to blame anyone except Jeremy. You just want Jeremy to be innocent you don't care who in the house is blamed instead.
-
I already posted such proof. The proof I posted that Sheila did not kill herself was sufficient for you to say that Nevill or June killed her which naturally requires whoever did to have subsequently committed suicide.
Whenever I post it in full you complain it is too long to bother reading.
On occasion you just shift blame though to the parents in an effort to blame anyone except Jeremy. You just want Jeremy to be innocent you don't care who in the house is blamed instead.
I don't want proof that Sheila didn't kill herself,I want proof that Jeremy did it. Concrete Proof please.