Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 08, 2014, 12:56:PM
-
Correct me if I am wrong.
My understanding is the tests were to check the marks on Neville. To determine what they were.
Jeremy's camp claimed in a TV documentary that the marks were more consistent with burn marks from the rifle with the silencer off.
That does not mean anything. The rifle was found on Sheila with the silencer off. The silencer found in a box days later. So the burn marks could have been made after the killer put the silencer away.
There is no concrete evidence the burn marks were from the rifle. Or were made on the massacre night.
Seems a lot of time and money spent for nothing.
-
Seems a lot of time and money spent for nothing.
Agreed.
The tastes were strange. Even if they had conclusively proved the point they set out to make (which they didn't) the results weren't useful since as you say the silencer was OFF the fun when found on Sheila, so no one is saying thwe silencer on on throughout the ENTIRE murder.
If I had donated money to pay for these tests, I'd have a lot of questions about the neccesity for them.
-
Agreed.
The tastes were strange. Even if they had conclusively proved the point they set out to make (which they didn't) the results weren't useful since as you say the silencer was OFF the fun when found on Sheila, so no one is saying thwe silencer on on throughout the ENTIRE murder.
If I had donated money to pay for these tests, I'd have a lot of questions about the neccesity for them.
The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds. Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage.
-
What would have been a lot more productive was if they could prove the contact shots were made without the silencer on.
But that would not be possible as the gun end/silencer would not leave a mark on the flesh. Anyway I have never read that there was blood on the rifle end.
Maybe the tests were just a way to keep Jeremy in the public eye.
-
The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds. Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage.
I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.
The ITV documentary didn't feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing.
CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision. I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.
-
The professionals in America DID prove that the silencer wasn't fitted. There's been enough threads/diagrams about them.
If you read ALL posts instead of those who are very much anti,then you wouldn't " selectively miss " these other posts.
-
The professionals in America DID prove that the silencer wasn't fitted. There's been enough threads/diagrams about them.
If you read ALL posts instead of those who are very much anti,then you wouldn't " selectively miss " these other posts.
That's just not true, Lookout. It's believing things like this that aren't true that give you a firm belief in Bambers innocence.
-
I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.
The ITV documentary didn't feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing.
CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision. I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.
The problem was that time ran out and further work which was required and which could have strengthened considerably the conclusions of the experts was not possible. The experts instructed were world leaders in their respective fields and their reports were peer reviewed.
-
The problem was that time ran out and further work which was required and which could have strengthened considerably the conclusions of the experts was not possible. The experts instructed were world leaders in their respective fields and their reports were peer reviewed.
I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all. How could time have run out? Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed? Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports?
-
The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds. Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage.
Are any of the pathologists conclusions in the public domain? I don't remember much from the documentary.
-
That's just not true, Lookout. It's believing things like this that aren't true that give you a firm belief in Bambers innocence.
Naturally,that's the idea. My belief in his innocence.
-
I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all. How could time have run out? Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed? Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports?
The CCRC set a final deadline which was very difficult as Simon McKay had not long been instructed. If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.
-
The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.
-
If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.
You'd think that this would be happening, if the tests were begining to prove the kind of things they are made out to have been you'd think they would now be being completed.
-
I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all. How could time have run out? Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed? Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports?
The reports have not been published so they are not in the public domain, but they were referred to in the High Court judgement in the Judicial Review application. Personally I would favour putting the final submissions and the supporting reports in the public domain as I do not believe any harm could result from it. However, it is not my decision and I feel bound by a duty of confidentiality not to post the material here.
-
I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.
The ITV documentary didn't feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing.
CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision. I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.
Hi Mat
I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce. The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.
The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.
Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.
He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.
I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. :)
-
You'd think that this would be happening, if the tests were begining to prove the kind of things they are made out to have been you'd think they would now be being completed.
I agree that ideally the additional tests should have been completed and further reports prepared. There are also other areas where expert evidence could and should be obtained. However, the situation is not simple and there are serious financial implications.
-
Jeremy was never questioned in any police interview about use of a silencer in the shootings, and Julie Mugford never suggested that a silencer played any role whatsoever in a variety of different scenarios she may have invenred to help the prodecutinf aurhofities convict Jeremy as the killer...
-
Hi Mat
I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce. The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.
The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.
Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.
He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.
I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. :)
Yes they were Patti.
-
The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.
That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion. Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded.
-
The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.
They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little. Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.
-
Hi Mat
I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce. The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.
The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.
Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.
He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.
I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. :)
Hi Patti - not confused. Adam's posts talks about the Arizona tests and the ITV documentary. Arizona tests were part of the submissions Patti. I'm certainly not confused.
I agree that ideally the additional tests should have been completed and further reports prepared. There are also other areas where expert evidence could and should be obtained. However, the situation is not simple and there are serious financial implications.
Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.
That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion. Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded.
There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.
They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little. Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.
I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.
-
That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion. Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded.
My own opinion is that the CCRC were generally hostile towards Jeremy Bamber. They wanted to get the case out of the way and were predisposed to reject the application.
-
My own opinion is that the CCRC were generally hostile towards Jeremy Bamber. They wanted to get the case out of the way and were predisposed to reject the application.
Is this a figment of my imagination, or did I hear a CCRC spokesperson say, on the morning the decision was announced, that this was "the end of the road" for Bamber? If so, that sounds like quite an extraordinary thing to say.
-
Is this a figment of my imagination, or did I hear a CCRC spokesperson say, on the morning the decision was announced, that this was "the end of the road" for Bamber? If so, that sounds like quite an extraordinary thing to say.
I don't remember that being said, but it certainly reflects their view I believe.
-
They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little. Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.
Did Simon McKay have a 'difficult' relationship with the CCRC ? Could this have influenced their decision to give such little extra time, or is it all far more professionally and ethically run, than that?
-
Hi Patti - not confused. Adam's posts talks about the Arizona tests and the ITV documentary. Arizona tests were part of the submissions Patti. I'm certainly not confused.
I never mentioned the word confused Mat. I thought you might be connecting the two test together and not separately. For both are different, that's all....
Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.
There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.
I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.
-
Did Simon McKay have a 'difficult' relationship with the CCRC ? Could this have influenced their decision to give such little extra time, or is it all far more professionally and ethically run, than that?
I do not believe there was any personal animosity between the CCRC and Simon McKay before he took on this case. Relations certainly became a bit fractious later. I think the animosity and resultant awkward attitude of the CCRC towards requests for more time was directed at Jeremy Bamber himself, not his legal team.
-
Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.
How do you know they are not?
There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.
Why?
I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.
It was an unnecessary problem for Jeremy Bamber, caused by the CCRC.
-
Confused/mixed up - same thing, Patti? :)
As for NGB.
Are you saying the tests are being further carried out? A couple of posts ago you said that you agree they should be. With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.
As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?
-
Are you saying the tests are being further carried out?
I am not saying that. It has certainly been discussed.
With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.
As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?
It is reasonable to set a timetable, but if the defence presents a proper reason for needing more time, as happened in this case, it is unreasonable for the CCRC to set such a tight deadline. The interests of justice are not served by this attitude.
-
Confused/mixed up - same thing, Patti? :)
As for NGB.
Are you saying the tests are being further carried out? A couple of posts ago you said that you agree they should be. With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.
As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?
I don't see why there should be a deadline. This case has 'dragged on' for nearly 30 years. The CCRC should consider each point, as and when raised by the defence.
-
I don't see why there should be a deadline. This case has 'dragged on' for nearly 30 years. The CCRC should consider each point, as and when raised by the defence.
Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.
-
It is reasonable to set a timetable, but if the defence presents a proper reason for needing more time, as happened in this case, it is unreasonable for the CCRC to set such a tight deadline. The interests of justice are not served by this attitude.
When Bamber applied to have his case heard and was accepted by the CCRC I am sure he knew the deadline and the rules for his application, he was given an extension - he then waned d further extension - that's attempting to change the rules halfway through a match.
Perhaps the CCRC didn't agree that it was a "proper reason". They didn't have to grant the first extension but they did I don't think it's fair to criticise them when they followed their rules and acted lawfully.
Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.
That's a good point.
With all the cases the CCRC is backed up with it's not viable to think a case can be given as much time as they want.
-
When Bamber applied to have his case heard and was accepted by the CCRC I am sure he knew the deadline and the rules for his application, he was given an extension - he then waned d further extension - that's attempting to change the rules halfway through a match.
Perhaps the CCRC didn't agree that it was a "proper reason". They didn't have to grant the first extension but they did I don't think it's fair to criticise them when they followed their rules and acted lawfully.
That's a good point.
With all the cases the CCRC is backed up with it's not viable to think a case can be given as much time as they want.
We will have to agree to differ on this Mat. I think the arguments have all been made and members here can make their own conclusions. Perhaps we should have a poll?
-
Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.
Just my poor grammar!
What I really meant to say was, they should readily examine any new submissions that are put before them, whenever they are produced.
-
Just my poor grammar!
What I really meant to say was, they should readily examine any new submissions that are put before them, whenever they are produced.
In a perfect world, Neil. In a perfect world :D
-
Does anyone think that people would go to all this trouble if they didn't think there was the slightest chance that Jeremy could be innocent ? Even Jeremy himself,I'm sure he's not that thick to realise that he could have been wasting peoples time over the years.
He doesn't strike me as being a person to take advantage of peoples willingness to help. He obviously gets frustrated at times,wouldn't we all ?
-
We will have to agree to differ on this Mat. I think the arguments have all been made and members here can make their own conclusions. Perhaps we should have a poll?
Happy to agree to differ. Think a poll would be a little useless/waste of time as it is just different opinions and doesn't really bother me whos opinion is more popular.
-
Happy to agree to differ. Think a poll would be a little useless/waste of time as it is just different opinions and doesn't really bother me whos opinion is more popular.
I thought the CCRC submission was Jeremy's application. So he had control over the time scale and when he submitted it.
He had ten years between 2002 - 2012 to prepare his submission.
When the CCRC rejected it, the CCRC generously extended the appeal deadline. Which was again rejected.
-
The CCRC set a final deadline which was very difficult as Simon McKay had not long been instructed. If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.
So the basis of a fresh application would be that the marks on Neville may not be from the silencer.
They may not be from the gun either. And the silencer may have been taken off and put at the back of the gun cupboard beforehand anyway.
Wouldn't it be obvious it is not from the silencer. It would have surely melted if it had been burnt to such a high degree.