An innocent Jeremy = an amazingly brave (and stupid) Julie:

[scipio_usmc]

I've seen the 2002 appeal doc which simply makes a lots of assumptions about the stain but we have no idea if they actually viewed the bible or not - I suspect 'not'. So you don't have a reference for the rest of the above then? The defence claimed not to have seen the bible so which lawyers?

They assumed it was Sheila's blood so perhaps they assumed it was Sheila's print - it makes no never mind to the outcome so it would hardly form a major part of the investigation. Are you saying that even though they were convinced that Sheila was the killer, they would have identified every bloody print at the scene?

1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints.  Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.

2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards.  No plam prints at all let alone in blood.

3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved.  Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.

4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.


The 2002 Appeal:

No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."

Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining  (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."

The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."

[lookout]

 If the Bible had been closed with blood adhered to the pages,then those pages wouldn't have opened without tearing,as blood is sticky and once dried has the same effect as glue. Meaning that the blood couldn't have been there that long for that to have happened. Those people hadn't been dead for hours on end !

[maggie]

If the Bible had been closed with blood adhered to the pages,then those pages wouldn't have opened without tearing,as blood is sticky and once dried has the same effect as glue. Meaning that the blood couldn't have been there that long for that to have happened. Those people hadn't been dead for hours on end !

I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed?  Will have to think more about this.

[lookout]

I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed?  Will have to think more about this.

Yes Maggie,the pages are like tissue paper.

[Caroline]

1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints.  Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.

2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards.  No plam prints at all let alone in blood.

3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved.  Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.

4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.


The 2002 Appeal:

No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."

Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining  (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."

The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."

I've read the above passage many times. Firstly, they're only discussing finger prints, I'm not talking about finger prints and they formed their OPINION in respect to the large stain in the same way - looking at a photograph. Suthurst was discredited for forming 'expert' opinion from a photograph - we can all look and form an opinion, I don't agree with theirs (or yours). Also you claim the staining on the opposite page (left side open) is from the floor? Take a ruler and measure the length, it's the same as the top of the large stain. Rather than it coming from the floor, it looks as though it transferred from the large stain (which must have dried somewhat) when the bible was closed. Also in your example, you have the pages bent too far over to the right side (face down). The book you used in your example isn't any good, the bible has tissue pages that don't handle in the same way. If you're going to try and replicate, you need to use like with like. Also in your example, there is a clear line where the pages had been folded back - there is no such line on the Bamber bible.

[lookout]

1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints.  Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.

2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards.  No plam prints at all let alone in blood.

3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved.  Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.

4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.


The 2002 Appeal:

No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."

Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining  (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."

The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."

But I'm not on the side of the prosecution and no matter how long your lengthy Sermons are------they're wrong------------------------according to me. :D

[Caroline]

I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed?  Will have to think more about this.

You're right Maggie, they are like tissue, just mentioned the same thing in a reply to Scip. The stain could have dried somewhat before it was closed because there is some staining to the other size which is the same length as the palm stain. We don't know the series of events that occurred that night, we can't say for sure when the stain got on the bible or who's blood it is. It was assumed to have come from the pool on the floor because that's where it was ultimately picked up from.

[lookout]

 I would have said that it was June's blood on the Bible,as the drips on the carpet were hers both in the bedroom and boxroom,silencer and socks too.

[Caroline]

I would have said that it was June's blood on the Bible,as the drips on the carpet were hers both in the bedroom and boxroom,silencer and socks too.

Well, we can't say for sure and the bible is gone now - BUT I know someone who has a high resolution picture of the stain. Too many 'assumptions' were made without checking things out properly (for whatever reason).

[lookout]

Well, we can't say for sure and the bible is gone now - BUT I know someone who has a high resolution picture of the stain. Too many 'assumptions' were made without checking things out properly (for whatever reason).

I agree,there were lots of aspects of the case which weren't thoroughly investigated.It was a complete sham.

[nugnug]

Apart from being savagely vindictive and supremely confident, Julie must have been amazingly brave to do what she did to an innocent Jeremy.

A month after the massacre and Jeremy was a free man. An innocent Jeremy had not said anything to Julie. There would be no evidence supporting a guilty Jeremy.

Despite this she approached the police, and amazingly told unsupported lies to try to get the correct murder/suicide verdict overturned. 

She would assume there was no evidence which would support her lies. Meaning she would get into

trouble if found to be lying. Maybe she thought she wouldn't get found out and her testimony alone would be enough. Which was very very naive.

She was prepared to and went through with a WS and testifying. Knowing Bamber was innocent and  a 'not guilty' verdict would ruin her.

Jesus, she was brave (and stupid). 


you dont have to brave to tell somone somthing they allready want to hear

Although I have to say she was also very brave in going to police after a month if Jeremy was guilty. As I just stated in another thread.

[Jan]

if hand swabs were done at the scene would that have removed any blood?

Just that mike posted that a while ago?

[Jan]

It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .



Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]

Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.

Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained. 

[Caroline]

It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .



Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]

Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.

Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained. 

I did ask him to provide documented evidence - it's clear that not everything about the bible was disclosed. I honestly don't think it would make a difference one way or the other but it would be interesting to see documented facts as opposed to someone saying 'an expert said'.

[maggie]

It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .



Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]

Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.

Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained. 

Thanks Jan.......  food for thought!!