Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 31, 2011, 03:23:PM
-
(1) There was no time of death, given in SC's case. (2) The delay between both shots, inflicted upon SC, is not known, and cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy by any prosecution expert.
-
(1) There was no time of death, given in SC's case. (2) The delay between both shots, inflicted upon SC, is not known, and cannot be estimated by any prosecution expert.
Has there been any information available as to the reasons why no time of death was officially estimated?
-
(1) There was no time of death, given in SC's case. (2) The delay between both shots, inflicted upon SC, is not known, and cannot be estimated by any prosecution expert.
Check this post of yours regarding your second point.
Trial testimony of Pathologist, Peter Venezis
During the trial, Pathologist stated that there could have been a delay in between both shots which were fired into the neck / throat of SC, which was between a few seconds / minutes, and up to half an hour in duration...
-
(1) There was no time of death, given in SC's case. (2) The delay between both shots, inflicted upon SC, is not known, and cannot be estimated by any prosecution expert.
Check this post of yours regarding your second point.
Trial testimony of Pathologist, Peter Venezis
During the trial, Pathologist stated that there could have been a delay in between both shots which were fired into the neck / throat of SC, which was between a few seconds / minutes, and up to half an hour in duration...
So up to half an hour then... between shots.
-
So up to half an hour then... between shots.
So it would seem.
I don't get why Mike keeps posting contradicting statements. ??? ??? ???
Can we change this thread title to 'One undisputed and one disputed fact' ? ;D
-
Although the pathologist, Peter Venezis, testified during the trial, to the effect that there could have been a delay of between a few seconds and up to half an hour, between the two wounds inflicted by two separate shots, he was unable to place this period of delay, to a time of death, or an estimated time of death - which means that Shiela could have received the first wound downstairs in the kitchen, at around 7.37am, and that the second shot was not inflicted, upstairs - until after 8.10am, consistent with the account given in the police radio logs, that two bodies were found downstairs by 7.37am, and only a further three bodies found upstairs, by 8.10am - and the scene declared to have been completely searched...
-
Could someone show me where the radio log is, that states 2 bodies found downstairs, please.
-
Two bodies weren't found downstairs according to the statements of PS Adams, both original in 1985 and COLP statement in 1991.
As per this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.0.html
So let's see time of death could have been up to 8 hours before she was found, basing it on rigor mortis occurrence.
So that puts time of death from about midnight onwards.
-
In fact in PS Adams statements mentioned above he makes specific reference to the fact that what was mistakenly thought to be a female body turned out to be that of Ralph.
Can't be much clearer. :-\
-
Yes Hartley, i thought you cleared this up yesterday.
Infact, thats the only undisputed fact so far. ;)
-
Two bodies weren't found downstairs according to the statements of PS Adams, both original in 1985 and COLP statement in 1991.
As per this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.0.html
So let's see time of death could have been up to 8 hours before she was found, basing it on rigor mortis occurrence.
So that puts time of death from about midnight onwards.
-----------------------
Livor mortis Starts to take effect from between 20 minutes and three hours after death, and when applied in this case, it indicates that Sheila was not dead, and that she did not die, as long ago as midnight, but rather that she could have died as late as between 8:10am and 8:40am, that morning...
Livor mortis or postmortem lividity (Latin: livor—bluish color, mortis—of death) or hypostasis (Greek: sediment), one of the signs of death, is a settling of the blood in the lower (dependent) portion of the body, causing a purplish red discoloration of the skin: when the heart is no longer agitating the blood, heavy red blood cells sink through the serum by action of gravity. This discoloration does not occur in the areas of the body that are in contact with the ground or another object, as the capillaries are compressed...
Coroners can use the presence or absence of livor mortis as a means of determining an approximate time of death. The presence of livor mortis is an indication of when it would be irrelevant to begin CPR, or when it is ineffective to continue if it is in progress. It can also be used by forensic investigators to determine whether or not a body has been moved (for instance, if the body is found lying face down but the pooling is present on the deceased's back, investigators can determine that the body was originally positioned face up)...
Livor mortis starts twenty minutes to three hours after death and is congealed in the capillaries in four to five hours. Maximum lividity occurs within 6-12 hours. The blood pools into the interstitial tissues of the body...
Lets get the facts right, there was no significant discoloration of the skin on Sheila's body despite it being after 10 am, that morning before the police started to photograph her body in situ...
To all intents and purposes, several police officers commented on how waxy Sheila's bodty looked when they viewed it, which caused some of them to comment that but for her injuries, she looked like she was simply asleep...
There were no deep purplish patches on her body at all - consistent with her having been dead for several hours, by the time she was photographic (between 10am and 11:15am)...
-
Whilst we are getting the facts straight.
Clearly the prosecution, the CCRC and the various trial judges disagree with your conclusions on this matter.
-
In fact in PS Adams statements mentioned above he makes specific reference to the fact that what was mistakenly thought to be a female body turned out to be that of Ralph.
Can't be much clearer. :-\
--------------------------
Except that at a de-briefing PS Adams and the other armed police officers were told by senior officers that they all had to write up their notes, and make their statements along the lines that what they had been dealing with was four murders and a suicide, and that they had to refer to the position of the bodies as shown in the SOC video clip, and photographs...
PS Adams told COLP (1991) that he was not happy with the position of Sheila's body as shown in the video taken at the scene, but he was told by senior officers to toe the line, along with everyone else...
So, if true, where does that leave PS Adams account about the female body and the male body?
In any event, if this was merely a mistake where the body of a male victim was inadvertently identified as the body of a dead female, how come that according to the contents of the police radio message log, there was only another three bodies found upstairs by 8:10am?
Additionally, how come by 7:45am, DS Davidson (SOC) was being contacted at his home and told to come into the office because police at the scene (WHF) were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
If there was only one body - how could the police at the scene at that time, be dealing with a murder, and a suicide?
The known facts do not fit the explanation you are referring to and relying upon, since, if it was merely a case of a mix up, where the body of a dead male was mistakenly identified as a dead female, police at the scene would not be reporting a murder and a suicide, and what is more, four bodies would have been found upstairs, not three, by 8:10am...
-
Whilst we are getting the facts straight.
Clearly the prosecution, the CCRC and the various trial judges disagree with your conclusions on this matter.
----------------------
They do not disagree with my views on the matter, where is your evidence for suggesting such a stupid thing?
-
Lets put the record straight, Dr Peter Venezis has written many books on the subject of Livor mortis, and the way the skin starts to discolor after death, and based on what we now know he knows about the subject, one is left to ponder why he did not make any reference to these features in any of reports about Sheila's death and the timing of it...
The color of Sheila's skin at the time PC Bird started to take pictures at 10 O'clock, is consistent with her having died at some point after 8:10am, and about 8:40am, in the bedroom at whf...
-
And the fresh wet looking blood that was photographed (from 10 am) to be running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds upon her neck / throat is consistent with her having been killed no longer than two to three hours beforehand...
-
In fact in PS Adams statements mentioned above he makes specific reference to the fact that what was mistakenly thought to be a female body turned out to be that of Ralph.
Can't be much clearer. :-\
--------------------------
Except that at a de-briefing PS Adams and the other armed police officers were told by senior officers that they all had to write up their notes, and make their statements along the lines that what they had been dealing with was four murders and a suicide, and that they had to refer to the position of the bodies as shown in the SOC video clip, and photographs...
PS Adams told COLP (1991) that he was not happy with the position of Sheila's body as shown in the video taken at the scene, but he was told by senior officers to toe the line, along with everyone else...
So, if true, where does that leave PS Adams account about the female body and the male body?
In any event, if this was merely a mistake where the body of a male victim was inadvertently identified as the body of a dead female, how come that according to the contents of the police radio message log, there was only another three bodies found upstairs by 8:10am?
Additionally, how come by 7:45am, DS Davidson (SOC) was being contacted at his home and told to come into the office because police at the scene (WHF) were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
If there was only one body - how could the police at the scene at that time, be dealing with a murder, and a suicide?
The known facts do not fit the explanation you are referring to and relying upon, since, if it was merely a case of a mix up, where the body of a dead male was mistakenly identified as a dead female, police at the scene would not be reporting a murder and a suicide, and what is more, four bodies would have been found upstairs, not three, by 8:10am...
Where did Adams say he'd seen a video of the scene? That's the first I heard of it.
-
There are clearly two types of blood visible in this image, blood that is dried, and blood which is wet and fresh looking - in my opinion, blood from the first wound and blood from the second wound
-
In fact in PS Adams statements mentioned above he makes specific reference to the fact that what was mistakenly thought to be a female body turned out to be that of Ralph.
Can't be much clearer. :-\
--------------------------
Except that at a de-briefing PS Adams and the other armed police officers were told by senior officers that they all had to write up their notes, and make their statements along the lines that what they had been dealing with was four murders and a suicide, and that they had to refer to the position of the bodies as shown in the SOC video clip, and photographs...
PS Adams told COLP (1991) that he was not happy with the position of Sheila's body as shown in the video taken at the scene, but he was told by senior officers to toe the line, along with everyone else...
So, if true, where does that leave PS Adams account about the female body and the male body?
In any event, if this was merely a mistake where the body of a male victim was inadvertently identified as the body of a dead female, how come that according to the contents of the police radio message log, there was only another three bodies found upstairs by 8:10am?
Additionally, how come by 7:45am, DS Davidson (SOC) was being contacted at his home and told to come into the office because police at the scene (WHF) were dealing with a murder and a suicide?
If there was only one body - how could the police at the scene at that time, be dealing with a murder, and a suicide?
The known facts do not fit the explanation you are referring to and relying upon, since, if it was merely a case of a mix up, where the body of a dead male was mistakenly identified as a dead female, police at the scene would not be reporting a murder and a suicide, and what is more, four bodies would have been found upstairs, not three, by 8:10am...
Where did Adams say he'd seen a video of the scene? That's the first I heard of it.
-----------------------
Yes, he mentions a video of the scene that was taken by SOC...
I will be posting those notes in due course...
-
The pathologist does not give a time of death, and he does not attempt to give an estimated time of death, so the delay between both shots being inflicted could have happened at any stage - including between 7:40am and some time around 8:10am...
The skin on Sheila's body is not discolored sufficiently to warrant a claim that she must have been dead for many hours before PC Bird took pictures of the body in situ...
-
Lets also look closely at the shape of Sheila's left hand and fingers, you can clearly see that there is some evidence of Cadaveric Spasm - where it appears to show that she was grasping hold of the barrel at the time of her death with her left hand...
-
There are clearly two types of blood visible in this image, blood that is dried, and blood which is wet and fresh looking - in my opinion, blood from the first wound and blood from the second wound
The blood from her mouth looks dry, and Dr Craig said it was dried. The blood on her throat looks wettish, but it's from the same shot as the blood from her mouth. It makes no sense that some blood from one shot would be dry and some would still be wet.
-
The pathologist does not give a time of death, and he does not attempt to give an estimated time of death, so the delay between both shots being inflicted could have happened at any stage - including between 7:40am and some time around 8:10am...
The skin ion Sheila's body is not discolored sufficiently to warrant a claim that she must have been dead for many hours before PC Bird took pictures of the body in situ...
I haven't seen a photo of Sheila which would show livor mortis anyway.
-
The pathologist does not give a time of death, and he does not attempt to give an estimated time of death, so the delay between both shots being inflicted could have happened at any stage - including between 7:40am and some time around 8:10am...
The skin ion Sheila's body is not discolored sufficiently to warrant a claim that she must have been dead for many hours before PC Bird took pictures of the body in situ...
I haven't seen a photo of Sheila which would show livor mortis anyway.
-------------------
JB has these from the mortuary...
-
Besides that, discolouration in tissue due to liver mortis would occur in tissue closest to the ground, blood would drain due to gravity. A waxy appearance would be in keeping with the effect.
There is likewise no indication that she had been dead for a lesser time, as you say time if death is inconclusive.
-
There are clearly two types of blood visible in this image, blood that is dried, and blood which is wet and fresh looking - in my opinion, blood from the first wound and blood from the second wound
The blood from her mouth looks dry, and Dr Craig said it was dried. The blood on her throat looks wettish, but it's from the same shot as the blood from her mouth. It makes no sense that some blood from one shot would be dry and some would still be wet.
--------------------------------
Yes, have you contemplated why some of the blood appears to be wet, whilst other blood appears to be dried?
It's linked to the movement of the body by the police from the bed to the floor, and whilst on the floor, as result of rolling her body about from its side onto the supine position...
The police moved the body, and what you see in the photograph in so far as the blood is concerned, is evidence of that movement and disturbance by the police...
Simple...
-
Besides that, discolouration in tissue due to liver mortis would occur in tissue closest to the ground, blood would drain due to gravity. A waxy appearance would be in keeping with the effect.
There is likewise no indication that she had been dead for a lesser time, as you say time if death is inconclusive.
-----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livor_mortis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algor_mortis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallor_mortis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition
-
Yes as I said, the lower areas would be discolored.
You cant see the lower areas in any of the photographs.
-
There are clearly two types of blood visible in this image, blood that is dried, and blood which is wet and fresh looking - in my opinion, blood from the first wound and blood from the second wound
The blood from her mouth looks dry, and Dr Craig said it was dried. The blood on her throat looks wettish, but it's from the same shot as the blood from her mouth. It makes no sense that some blood from one shot would be dry and some would still be wet.
--------------------------------
Yes, have you contemplated why some of the blood appears to be wet, whilst other blood appears to be dried?
It's linked to the movement of the body by the police from the bed to the floor, and whilst on the floor, as result of rolling her body about from its side onto the supine position...
The police moved the body, and what you see in the photograph in so far as the blood is concerned, is evidence of that movement and disturbance by the police...
Simple...
It could also be because of flash photography giving a false impression.
You said a while back that the blood from her mouth was fresh and that it was held in her mouth until she was moved, and now you don't appear to think that.
-
Disputed facts may be a better title. :-\
-
There are clearly two types of blood visible in this image, blood that is dried, and blood which is wet and fresh looking - in my opinion, blood from the first wound and blood from the second wound
The blood from her mouth looks dry, and Dr Craig said it was dried. The blood on her throat looks wettish, but it's from the same shot as the blood from her mouth. It makes no sense that some blood from one shot would be dry and some would still be wet.
--------------------------------
Yes, have you contemplated why some of the blood appears to be wet, whilst other blood appears to be dried?
It's linked to the movement of the body by the police from the bed to the floor, and whilst on the floor, as result of rolling her body about from its side onto the supine position...
The police moved the body, and what you see in the photograph in so far as the blood is concerned, is evidence of that movement and disturbance by the police...
Simple...
It could also be because of flash photography giving a false impression.
You said a while back that the blood from her mouth was fresh and that it was held in her mouth until she was moved, and now you don't appear to think that.
-----------------------
It could have been held in her mouth, and leaked out when they moved her body from the bed to the floor, and subsequently dried, before she was moved again by rolling her body over into the supine position, at which stage the plugs of clotted blood on the two entry wounds became detached and blood that was trapped in the tracks made by the bullets, started to leak out on a different occasion...
So, I do not think I am saying anything different to what I have already said, only that you have invited me to explain these apparent anomalies, and I have given this response...
If for whatever reason you are not happy with my reply, you may make a different point, and I may answer it in a different way...
If I do, it does not mean I have changed my mind about something, or anything...
-
Yes as I said, the lower areas would be discolored.
You cant see the lower areas in any of the photographs.
-----------------------
You can't see any of the purplish patches anywhere on Sheila's body...
Why do you think that is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallor_mortis
allor mortis (Latin for paleness of death) is a postmortem paleness which happens in those with light skin almost instantly (in the 15–120 minutes after the death) because of a lack of capillary circulation throughout the body. The blood sinks down into the lower parts (according to gravity) of the body creating the livor mortis.
-
Yes, she looks pale.
-
Yes as I said, the lower areas would be discolored.
You cant see the lower areas in any of the photographs.
-----------------------
You can't see any of the purplish patches anywhere on Sheila's body...
Why do you think that is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallor_mortis
allor mortis (Latin for paleness of death) is a postmortem paleness which happens in those with light skin almost instantly (in the 15–120 minutes after the death) because of a lack of capillary circulation throughout the body. The blood sinks down into the lower parts (according to gravity) of the body creating the livor mortis.
I've only really seen her body from above, and the photos of her legs were quite blurred. Livor mortis would not be visible on such photos.
-
You can see that the fingers and shape of SC'as left hand appears to have been holding something, like the barrel of a gun - but her fingerprints were not found on the end of the guns barrel that was photographed upon her body - does anybody have any idea why?
-
Yes, she looks pale.
--------------------
This is how DS "Stan" Jones, described Sheila's body when he first saw it in the bedroom on the morning of 7th August 1985...
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
------------------
There is no evidence that the police did not move Sheila's body, it is only your opinion, and speculation...
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
------------------
There is no evidence that the police did not move Sheila's body, it is only your opinion, and speculation...
Well that's just silly. You can't prove a negative, and anyway the police don't have to produce evidence that they didn't move the body because it's just an accusation with no basis to it.
-
How to choose the perfect thread title ;)
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
------------------
There is no evidence that the police did not move Sheila's body, it is only your opinion, and speculation...
Well that's just silly. You can't prove a negative, and anyway the police don't have to produce evidence that they didn't move the body because it's just an accusation with no basis to it.
----------------------
Stop being stupid - if thats the best you can do by keep saying there is no evidence and its speculation, theres not much hope for you...
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
------------------
There is no evidence that the police did not move Sheila's body, it is only your opinion, and speculation...
Well that's just silly. You can't prove a negative, and anyway the police don't have to produce evidence that they didn't move the body because it's just an accusation with no basis to it.
----------------------
Stop being stupid - if thats the best you can do by keep saying there is no evidence and its speculation, theres not much hope for you...
It's you who's being stupid. You claim the police moved the body and say that's evidence because there's no evidence to prove they didn't. That's just ridiculous - your worst post yet.
-
It's like saying there's no evidence that unicorns don't exist. ;D
-
they don't?
-
they don't?
I can't prove they don't. :(
-
Well perhaps because she was placed in that position by her killer to give the impression that she committed suicide?
--------------------
The only people who moved Sheila's body were the police...
So says you.
------------------
So says the evidence...
There is no evidence - it's just your opinion. The only evidence is that the police moved her hand and the gun slightly, and we've known about that for ages.
------------------
There is no evidence that the police did not move Sheila's body, it is only your opinion, and speculation...
Well that's just silly. You can't prove a negative, and anyway the police don't have to produce evidence that they didn't move the body because it's just an accusation with no basis to it.
----------------------
Stop being stupid - if thats the best you can do by keep saying there is no evidence and its speculation, theres not much hope for you...
It's you who's being stupid. You claim the police moved the body and say that's evidence because there's no evidence to prove they didn't. That's just ridiculous - your worst post yet.
--------------------
You don't know what you are talking about, the police moved the body and there is evidence that they did - it will be treated as evidence when the matter eventually comes to court, in the same way that all the prosecutions nonsensical evidence was treated as evidence at the time of the trial and the last appeal. You can't decide what is and what is not evidence, evidence is material and information that one party to any criminal proceedings chooses to rely upon...
You can' t make it so that such material is not evidence just because it is convenient to do so...
You think that if you keep saying there is no evidence that it makes it so that it is not evidence, its a pathetic approach...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
-
Nothing anyone says is evidence, or becomes evidence, until it is presented at court to support arguments made by one party or another - you can say all you want and you can say it as many times as you want, but there is more evidence to prove that the police tampered with the crime scene, and that they moved the bodies and planted the rifle on Sheila, and that they interfered with the crime scene ammunition, and everything else they are responsible for doing, than there is or ever could be, to show that JB killed anyone, or that he could have stage managed the scene, as alleged...
The evidence used to support the prosecution of JB is fundamentally flawed and the silencer / blood / paint evidence should not have been used to convict him...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
Christ Mike! You should seriously consider applying for the Bar. You seem to have the knack of reading what we have said but interprating it as something entirely different.
-
Nothing anyone says is evidence, or becomes evidence, until it is presented at court to support arguments made by one party or another - you can say all you want and you can say it as many times as you want, but there is more evidence to prove that the police tampered with the crime scene, and that they moved the bodies and planted the rifle on Sheila, and that they interfered with the crime scene ammunition, and everything else they are responsible for doing, than there is or ever could be, to show that JB killed anyone, or that he could have stage managed the scene, as alleged...
The evidence used to support the prosecution of JB is fundamentally flawed and the silencer / blood / paint evidence should not have been used to convict him...
I agree with all of this. However,I thought that the photos of Sheila had already been put to the appeal court and that they decided to believe the police that they had not moved Sheilas body and therefore the photos were irrelevant?Obviously I clearly got that wrong :(
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
..................
They convicted him, based upon lies, false evidence and fabricated truths...
I doubt that the same jury would have convicted him today, if the prosecution led with the same evidence, and all the new material which has been gleaned over the past 25 years was presented to cast doubt on crucial; features of the prosecution case...
The silencer evidence would be out, along with the blood evidence and the paint evidence - there would not be anything credible upon which the prosecution could hope to achieve a conviction for these murders...
One thing is certain and that is that JB did not receive a fair trial, and at the end of the day, be it as a result of this application to the CCRC or the next one, if there has to be another application, and one day these convictions will be overturned...
It wouldn't even get to court...
-
well said Kladin... now about these Unicorns.when I was a little boy someone read me a story about Unicorns. so therefore they must exist and i think your stupid if you think otherwise..... ;)
-
Nothing anyone says is evidence, or becomes evidence, until it is presented at court to support arguments made by one party or another - you can say all you want and you can say it as many times as you want, but there is more evidence to prove that the police tampered with the crime scene, and that they moved the bodies and planted the rifle on Sheila, and that they interfered with the crime scene ammunition, and everything else they are responsible for doing, than there is or ever could be, to show that JB killed anyone, or that he could have stage managed the scene, as alleged...
The evidence used to support the prosecution of JB is fundamentally flawed and the silencer / blood / paint evidence should not have been used to convict him...
I agree with all of this. However,I thought that the photos of Sheila had already been put to the appeal court and that they decided to believe the police that they had not moved Sheilas body and therefore the photos were irrelevant?Obviously I clearly got that wrong :(
No, not to the Appeal Court but they were submitted to the CCRC. The CCRC has not made a comment about the pictures. However, Bamber says that the CCRC said that contemporary evidence from the officers was stronger than the photographic evidence.
-
But i do agree with Mike. JB probably didn't get a fair trial etc etc and I do hope he is retried, not released or this endless bickering will go on forever.
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
..................
They convicted him, based upon lies, false evidence and fabricated truths...
I doubt that the same jury would have convicted him today, if the prosecution led with the same evidence, and all the new material which has been gleaned over the past 25 years was presented to cast doubt on crucial; features of the prosecution case...
The silencer evidence would be out, along with the blood evidence and the paint evidence - there would not be anything credible upon which the prosecution could hope to achieve a conviction for these murders...
One thing is certain and that is that JB did not receive a fair trial, and at the end of the day, be it as a result of this application to the CCRC or the next one, if there has to be another application, and one day these convictions will be overturned...
It wouldn't even get to court...
Well the judges at the 2002 appeal looked at the silencer evidence, the blood evidence, and the new DNA evidence and decided that the jury would have come to the same conclusion - guilty as charged. The paint evidence wasn't discussed then of course but if that's all there is, I don't see much change to be honest.
-
But i do agree with Mike. JB probably didn't get a fair trial etc etc and I do hope he is retried, not released or this endless bickering will go on forever.
-----------------------
Well, I should think it should be obvious to almost everybody that JB did not get a fair trial, and like anybody else, he deserved to have one...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
..................
They convicted him, based upon lies, false evidence and fabricated truths...
I doubt that the same jury would have convicted him today, if the prosecution led with the same evidence, and all the new material which has been gleaned over the past 25 years was presented to cast doubt on crucial; features of the prosecution case...
The silencer evidence would be out, along with the blood evidence and the paint evidence - there would not be anything credible upon which the prosecution could hope to achieve a conviction for these murders...
One thing is certain and that is that JB did not receive a fair trial, and at the end of the day, be it as a result of this application to the CCRC or the next one, if there has to be another application, and one day these convictions will be overturned...
It wouldn't even get to court...
Well the judges at the 2002 appeal looked at the silencer evidence, the blood evidence, and the new DNA evidence and decided that the jury would have come to the same conclusion - guilty as charged. The paint evidence wasn't discussed then of course but if that's all there is, I don't see much change to be honest.
------------------
The wrong silencer was tested for DNA - blood and paint was not found inside that (DRB/1) silencer, because that silencer did not get sent to the lab' until a long time after the blood and the paint had already been found in the other one (DB/1)...
Please try to get the facts right...
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
..................
They convicted him, based upon lies, false evidence and fabricated truths...
I doubt that the same jury would have convicted him today, if the prosecution led with the same evidence, and all the new material which has been gleaned over the past 25 years was presented to cast doubt on crucial; features of the prosecution case...
The silencer evidence would be out, along with the blood evidence and the paint evidence - there would not be anything credible upon which the prosecution could hope to achieve a conviction for these murders...
One thing is certain and that is that JB did not receive a fair trial, and at the end of the day, be it as a result of this application to the CCRC or the next one, if there has to be another application, and one day these convictions will be overturned...
It wouldn't even get to court...
Well the judges at the 2002 appeal looked at the silencer evidence, the blood evidence, and the new DNA evidence and decided that the jury would have come to the same conclusion - guilty as charged. The paint evidence wasn't discussed then of course but if that's all there is, I don't see much change to be honest.
------------------
The wrong silencer was tested for DNA - blood and paint was not found inside that (DRB/1) silencer, because that silencer did not get sent to the lab' until a long time after the blood and the paint had already been found in the other one (DB/1)...
Please try to get the facts right...
My facts are right - I've read the appeal. Have you?
-
To my mind, the only way an appeal could succeed is if one of the officers who was present at the scene comes forward and states that they know the body was moved - as in they saw it being moved, or if one of them says that they saw Sheila in the kitchen, or they know for a fact that blood was planted in the silencer. That's not likely to happen is it? Everything I've seen on here which has been put forward as evidence can be explained away.
There was even someone on here claiming to be "Ron Cook" but he disappeared pretty sharpish. ;D
-
Look we know the police moved Sheila's body because THEY SAID THEY DID so why keep arguing about it.
There seems to be a lot of chasing tails on this forum these days and it is getting tedious.
I agree. No wonder some people delete themselves. Round and round it goes with no evidence, just speculation and cherry picking to suit some new weird theory.
------------------------
Yes, I agree that the prosecutions theories are and were weird...
They convicted JB on speculation and theories - but it will be their undoing...
No, the jury convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
..................
They convicted him, based upon lies, false evidence and fabricated truths...
I doubt that the same jury would have convicted him today, if the prosecution led with the same evidence, and all the new material which has been gleaned over the past 25 years was presented to cast doubt on crucial; features of the prosecution case...
The silencer evidence would be out, along with the blood evidence and the paint evidence - there would not be anything credible upon which the prosecution could hope to achieve a conviction for these murders...
One thing is certain and that is that JB did not receive a fair trial, and at the end of the day, be it as a result of this application to the CCRC or the next one, if there has to be another application, and one day these convictions will be overturned...
It wouldn't even get to court...
Well the judges at the 2002 appeal looked at the silencer evidence, the blood evidence, and the new DNA evidence and decided that the jury would have come to the same conclusion - guilty as charged. The paint evidence wasn't discussed then of course but if that's all there is, I don't see much change to be honest.
------------------
The wrong silencer was tested for DNA - blood and paint was not found inside that (DRB/1) silencer, because that silencer did not get sent to the lab' until a long time after the blood and the paint had already been found in the other one (DB/1)...
Please try to get the facts right...
My facts are right - I've read the appeal. Have you?
-----------------
You can read the appeal judgement as many times as you like, it doesn't prove anything, in the same way that it didn't mean anything in other similar cases like the Birmingham six, the Guildford four, and all the other miscarriages of justice there has been over the years, where appeals have been lost, before they were eventually won...
Relying upon the appeal judgement doesn't mean nothing...
There will come a time when the court of appeal will have to listen, or risk bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute - and when it gets to that stage, it will be possible to bend the ears of the judges...
That moment in this case, is looming large...
-
You can read the appeal judgement as many times as you like, it doesn't prove anything, in the same way that it didn't mean anything in other similar cases like the Birmingham six, the Guildford four, and all the other miscarriages of justice there has been over the years, where appeals have been lost, before they were eventually won...
Relying upon the appeal judgement doesn't mean nothing...
There will come a time when the court of appeal will have to listen, or risk bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute - and when it gets to that stage, it will be possible to bend the ears of the judges...
That moment in this case, is looming large...
You can dispute the appeal document all you like but the fact is that the judges found nothing in any of those claims (all 16 of them) to suggest that the trial had not been fair or that there was anything wrong with the evidence which convicted Jeremy.
If you're hiding evidence that could make a difference, then that's up to you, but what's been presented here so far does not make the conviction unsafe in my opinion.
-
You can read the appeal judgement as many times as you like, it doesn't prove anything, in the same way that it didn't mean anything in other similar cases like the Birmingham six, the Guildford four, and all the other miscarriages of justice there has been over the years, where appeals have been lost, before they were eventually won...
Relying upon the appeal judgement doesn't mean nothing...
There will come a time when the court of appeal will have to listen, or risk bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute - and when it gets to that stage, it will be possible to bend the ears of the judges...
That moment in this case, is looming large...
You can dispute the appeal document all you like but the fact is that the judges found nothing in any of those claims (all 16 of them) to suggest that the trial had not been fair or that there was anything wrong with the evidence which convicted Jeremy.
If you're hiding evidence that could make a difference, then that's up to you, but what's been presented here so far does not make the conviction unsafe in my opinion.
-----------------
Well, actually that is not strictly true, because no evidence was produced at the appeal to try and back up any of those claims, those 16 points were raised in the defense opening address to the court, but no evidence was introduced at any stage of the appeal, so how can anyone say that such evidence if it existed at all, was rejected - you have to introduce evidence into the proceedings before it can be rejected...
Please explain in plain English how any evidence that was not introduced has been or could have been rejected?
What kind of a justice system rejects evidence that was not even put to the court?
-
Play on words.
Mike you know what the grounds of appeal were and how they were responded to.
-
You can read the appeal judgement as many times as you like, it doesn't prove anything, in the same way that it didn't mean anything in other similar cases like the Birmingham six, the Guildford four, and all the other miscarriages of justice there has been over the years, where appeals have been lost, before they were eventually won...
Relying upon the appeal judgement doesn't mean nothing...
There will come a time when the court of appeal will have to listen, or risk bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute - and when it gets to that stage, it will be possible to bend the ears of the judges...
That moment in this case, is looming large...
You can dispute the appeal document all you like but the fact is that the judges found nothing in any of those claims (all 16 of them) to suggest that the trial had not been fair or that there was anything wrong with the evidence which convicted Jeremy.
If you're hiding evidence that could make a difference, then that's up to you, but what's been presented here so far does not make the conviction unsafe in my opinion.
-----------------
Well, actually that is not strictly true, because no evidence was produced at the appeal to try and back up any of those claims, those 16 points were raised in the defense opening address to the court, but no evidence was introduced at any stage of the appeal, so how can anyone say that such evidence if it existed at all, was rejected - you have to introduce evidence into the proceedings before it can be rejected...
Please explain in plain English how any evidence that was not introduced has been or could have been rejected?
What kind of a justice system rejects evidence that was not even put to the court?
New DNA evidence was the main reason the CCRC referred the case back to the appeal court. The DNA evidence was produced, and it made no difference.
-
Play on words.
Mike you know what the grounds of appeal were and how they were responded to.
----------------
No, its not a play on words, these 16 points were made at the opening of the appeal in 2002, but no evidence was adduced to back any of those arguments up, which does not entitle the court of appeal to reject the evidence that was not called, simply because those 16 points were made at the opening address to the court. If no evidence was actually adduced at the appeal with regards to those 16 points, but such evidence existed, it does not entitle the court to reject the evidence that does exist to support such arguments and grounds, if such evidence existed but which was not introduced?
-
You can see that the fingers and shape of SC'as left hand appears to have been holding something, like the barrel of a gun - but her fingerprints were not found on the end of the guns barrel that was photographed upon her body - does anybody have any idea why?
Well, that is strange. If Sheila had shot herself, obviously her fingerprints would be on the barrel of the gun - she´d have had to hold it there to be able to aim properly.
If Jeremy (or a hit-man) staged a suicide, he/the hit-man would have made sure that her fingerprints were there. You just WOULD do that. You put the Bible in place, you arrange the body - you wouldn´t likely forget that, I think.
So this is tricky!
-
Not only did this hitman not have his/her own weapon. This trained assassin used a rifle indoors (not an ideal weapon of choice) and was so skilled in the dark arts that they required 25 shots to accomplish their mission.
When i imagine a hitman, i conjure images of a secret service assassin a la a James Bond film swishing through the room with grace in a tuxedo and leaving the scene like the man in the milk tray adverts on a speedboat or by abseiling from a great height.
It could be possible there is a hired killer involved but imagine them in a clown outfit amid the farcical scenes of a carry on film.
-
Really, Si?????????
-
Play on words.
Mike you know what the grounds of appeal were and how they were responded to.
----------------
No, its not a play on words, these 16 points were made at the opening of the appeal in 2002, but no evidence was adduced to back any of those arguments up, which does not entitle the court of appeal to reject the evidence that was not called, simply because those 16 points were made at the opening address to the court. If no evidence was actually adduced at the appeal with regards to those 16 points, but such evidence existed, it does not entitle the court to reject the evidence that does exist to support such arguments and grounds, if such evidence existed but which was not introduced?
Is this statement alleging that an appeal is a worthless method of reviewing the original decision, if the very evidence needed for the appeal is withheld? That's the way I read it. If so, it sounds almost as pointless as debating a staged, spent cartridge crime scene, in order to work out how the killer moved and where the victims were shot.
-
Play on words.
Mike you know what the grounds of appeal were and how they were responded to.
----------------
No, its not a play on words, these 16 points were made at the opening of the appeal in 2002, but no evidence was adduced to back any of those arguments up, which does not entitle the court of appeal to reject the evidence that was not called, simply because those 16 points were made at the opening address to the court. If no evidence was actually adduced at the appeal with regards to those 16 points, but such evidence existed, it does not entitle the court to reject the evidence that does exist to support such arguments and grounds, if such evidence existed but which was not introduced?
If the defence did not introduce evidence to back up their claims on those 16 points, it does entitle the court to reject their claims. It was up to the defence to produce that evidence, or if the documents were not available but they believed such documents existed, it was up to them to ask the court to make the prosecution produce those documents in advance.
It's no good going into an appeal and just claiming that something happened - there has to be a good reason for them thinking that such a thing happened.