The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[JackieD]

I believe that he is well enough although I suspect that at present he will be a worried chap.

I will never be able to get my head around how someone could put an innocent person in prison

I guess Mugford, the relatives and the police are equally wicked

[lookout]

I'm supposing that the idea at this stage was to hang on for everyone to snuff it, including poor Jeremy.
That's how it would look to me. What a shower of shysters, who I hope will get their comeuppance.

[JackieD]

I'm supposing that the idea at this stage was to hang on for everyone to snuff it, including poor Jeremy.
That's how it would look to me. What a shower of shysters, who I hope will get their comeuppance.

I don’t think there’s an appropriate comeuppance for putting an innocent man in prison for over 30 years but if you imagine the books, series films if the conviction is proved to be unsafe I don’t think those involved will ever be able to live a normal life again

[David1819]

No, the actual submission was written by the lawyers, but I did research the materials used for the submission for 6 years and I know pretty much what the submissions are based on.

Well, I just hope you have thought things through, cross referenced everything and drawn inferences from facts this time. Otherwise it could just be a repeat of something like this.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440

[lookout]

I don’t think there’s an appropriate comeuppance for putting an innocent man in prison for over 30 years but if you imagine the books, series films if the conviction is proved to be unsafe I don’t think those involved will ever be able to live a normal life again

I should hope that those who put Jeremy where he is will never ever feel normal again least of all if/ when he's released that they suffer nightmares for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Adam]

No of course not. There was no silencer on the rifle during the killings.

Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?

[Roch]

Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?

Didn't Davidson say it was? Rings a bell.

[guest29835]

Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?

We don't know for sure that it wasn't.  The test carried out was hardly rigorous.  And how do you explain the absence of such blood in the rifle if - I assume - you're saying Sheila's blood was in the silencer?  Isn't that a contradiction?

[Bill Robertson]

Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?

I have no idea; I’m not a forensic scientist. But by the same token there was no blood from the other victims shot at close proximity. So maybe there is a scientific explanation?

[Adam]

I have no idea; I’m not a forensic scientist. But by the same token there was no blood from the other victims shot at close proximity. So maybe there is a scientific explanation?

Sheila's shots were contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

The other shots were in areas of low blood flow or non contact. Or both.
 

[Adam]

We don't know for sure that it wasn't.  The test carried out was hardly rigorous.  And how do you explain the absence of such blood in the rifle if - I assume - you're saying Sheila's blood was in the silencer?  Isn't that a contradiction?

How do you know they were not rigorous? It was a murder case.

If Sheila's blood is in the silencer it would not be in the rifle barrel as well.

[guest29835]

How do you know they were not rigorous? It was a murder case.

Again, something I've been through before.  I recall there was a thread in which I raised this, you challenged me, and I then asked you a series of questions about the pull-through examination that you never answered.  It wasn't rigorous.  It was a joke.

If Sheila's blood is in the silencer it would not be in the rifle barrel as well.

Why not?

[Adam]

Again, something I've been through before.  I recall there was a thread in which I raised this, you challenged me, and I then asked you a series of questions about the pull-through examination that you never answered.  It wasn't rigorous.  It was a joke.

Why not?

The rifle isn't powerful enough for back splatter to travel several inches tjrough a silencer. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.

[Roch]

The rifle... back splatter... Silencer

I really don't understand how Fletcher's trial testimony managed to stand. He was made to look foolish when cross examined. 

[David1819]

Didn't Davidson say it was? Rings a bell.

No.