8/22/2005

699 comments »

1. Sheila, my sweet Bambi I still miss you. Why didn’t we meet before this horror happened to you and the twins and your poor parents ? You know I spent long hours on your grave wondering why a few years back. I regret so much I wasn’t present that day on your sides. You needed so much love my poor swetheart. And I still wonder if my presence could have changed your fate or mine as well.I regret so much I wasn’t there to protect you.I would have given my life to save your.
   Rest in peace my sweet love and pray that this bastard never crosses my way some day !

   Forever in my heart, I’ll always love you Sheila.

   Phil

   Comment by Justiceformybambi — 5/15/2006 @ 8:23 am

2. spare us your stupid comments. Dont you care that an innocent man is incarcerated and has been
   since 1985 because of some psycho stupid adopted sister and a jilted girlfriends testimony
   which to me counts as fluff. Even the dimmest of people would not commit a man to jail for that
   much insufficient evidence. Get real pal.

   Comment by candi roberts — 8/15/2006 @ 12:25 pm

3. NOTHING places jeremy at the scene.convicted because of a woman scorned.any fool could read the trial transcripts and work that out for themselves.jeremy rotting in hell because of her jelousy!

   Comment by georgie anderson — 8/23/2006 @ 1:56 pm

4. I have been studying the case of the white hiouse farm murders since 1990, and I have come to the conclusion that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister and stage manage her corpse as has been suggested by the Prosecuting authorities. New evidence which I have helped to uncover shows that despite crime scene photographs that were taken of Sheila’s corpse at 10 O’clock that morning there was little or no sign at all of any discoloration upon her body that would be consistent with her having been dead for any sooner than two hours before she was photographed. Photographs taken of her parents at about the same time, display visible signs of discoloaration upon their respective corpses and confirms that they both died a consieerable time before Sheila had died. Additionally, later that afternoon, an autopsy was performed upon the corpse of Sheila Caffell by the pathologuist, Peter Venezis, and a number of other photographs were taken at that stage. These later photographs that were atken at 1430hrs the same day show visible signs of discolorment that was present earlier in the day upon the corpses of her parents..

   The rate at which the discolorment started to appear upon the corpse of Sheila, appears to have developed up to four hours after similar discolorment developed upon the corpses of the parents and this disparity suggests that Sheila caffell could not have died any sooner than about 0800hrs - if true, then Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have killed his sister and stage managed her corpse because the police were already inside the house and had been inside since about 0730hrs. This suggests that Sheila did not die until after the police had got into the house..

   Also,a police radio mesaage log that first came to light last year, suggests that the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female was discovered inside the kitchen at 0737hrs and later after a delay of half an hour or so, a further three bodies were found upstairs - this contradicts the evidence given by the police who state that only one body was found downstairs and four other bodies were found upatairs. There appears to be a question mark over where the police originally found the five bodies, one version (that was not disclosed to the defence until last year in the form of the police radio message log) which places two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs and the other official version which places only one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs..

   Both versions cannot be correct..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:03 pm

5. I have seen crime scene photographs which show blood and injuries upon the right hand of Sheila Caffell and so the pathologists evidence was inaccurate and misleading in this respect..

   Additionally, newly released crime scene photogra[phs show a pressence of blood staining upon the soles of both her feet..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:08 pm

6. The pathologist also stated that Sheila did not have any other injuries other than the two gunshot wounds inflicted upon her throat, but I have seen crime scene photographs which clearly show a series of giouge marks that are present upon Sheila Caffells right forearm..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:10 pm

7. New evidence has come to light which suggests that the silencer may have become innocently or accidentally contaminated with blood from Sheila, and this could have taken place or occurred three weeks after the incident when the seb=nior Scenes of Crime Officers (Ronald walter COOK) took possession of the bloodstained rifle that had purportedly been found on top of Sheila’s body and the silencer, COOK had on the 29th August 1985 dismantkled the silebncer and removed all 17 of its internalised baffle plates and had then proceeded to rebuild the silencer and then he screwed it onto the thread on the end of the rifles barrel - this whole process was photographed and the pictures were sent along to the lab along with the rifle and the silencer on the following day (30th August 1985)for the attention of the ballistic expert, who dismantled the silencer again and found the crucial flake of blood..

   Therefore, the presence of Sheila Caffells blood inside the silencer does not necessarily of itself establish that Sheila was murdered at all..

   Since, dried blood that was ingrained upon the exposed thersd on the end of the rifles barrel could have been forced by dynamic pressure back into the internal thread of the silencer and later found inside the silencer by the ballistic expert..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:18 pm

8. A police action report has come to light which mentions the fact that the contents of Julie Mugfords original confession was recorded in the third paerson and a request was made to take a statement from her explaining why this is so - to date, despite 21 years having elapsed since Mugford made that original connfesion, the contents of it have still not yet been disclosed..

   Neither have the contents of the aforementioned statement that she m,ust have made giving her explanation for having recorded her original confession in the third paerson..

   Seems to me like Julie Mugford may have been put up to say some of the things she said, and this may be the reason why the contents iof the original confession have so far not been disclosed..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:25 pm

9. I have been studying the case of the white house farm murders since 1990, and I have come to the conclusion that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister and stage manage her corpse as has been suggested by the Prosecuting authorities. New evidence which I have helped to uncover shows that despite crime scene photographs that were taken of Sheila’s corpse at 10 O’clock that morning there was little or no sign at all of any discoloration upon her body that would be consistent with her having been dead for any sooner than two hours before she was photographed. Photographs taken of her parents at about the same time, display visible signs of discoloaration upon their respective corpses and confirms that they both died a consieerable time before Sheila had died. Additionally, later that afternoon, an autopsy was performed upon the corpse of Sheila Caffell by the pathologuist, Peter Venezis, and a number of other photographs were taken at that stage. These later photographs that were atken at 1430hrs the same day show visible signs of discolorment that was present earlier in the day upon the corpses of her parents..

   The rate at which the discolorment started to appear upon the corpse of Sheila, appears to have developed up to four hours after similar discolorment developed upon the corpses of the parents and this disparity suggests that Sheila caffell could not have died any sooner than about 0800hrs - if true, then Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have killed his sister and stage managed her corpse because the police were already inside the house and had been inside since about 0730hrs. This suggests that Sheila did not die until after the police had got into the house..

   Also,a police radio mesaage log that first came to light last year, suggests that the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female was discovered inside the kitchen at 0737hrs and later after a delay of half an hour or so, a further three bodies were found upstairs - this contradicts the evidence given by the police who state that only one body was found downstairs and four other bodies were found upatairs. There appears to be a question mark over where the police originally found the five bodies, one version (that was not disclosed to the defence until last year in the form of the police radio message log) which places two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs and the other official version which places only one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs..

   Both versions cannot be correct..

   Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/2/2006 @ 5:27 pm

10. There are a great number of contradictory features connected with this case that need to be explained in addition to the two bodies downstairs/ three bodies upstairs versus the one body downstairs and the four bodies upstairs, issue.

    For example, like the police case is that there was only one murder weapon used, which was an anshulz model 525 semi-automatic rifle that had fired 25 Eley .22 LR hollow point bullets during the incident that wounded and killed everyone. The ballistic expert could only link 15 of the crime scene bullets to that rifle and exactly five of the bullet entry holes found on two victims (three on one and two on the other) had 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry holes that could not have been made by .22 bullets (which only oproduce 1/4 inch bullet entry holes) these five large bullet entry holes must have been made by a .38 revolver or a 9mm hand gun.

    Also, there is another mystery which has not yet been fully explained by the police, for example, that despite the police denying that they touched or moved anything at all in the kitchen at the scene before crime scene photograophs were taken, a large wooden chair has materialised directly up against the very same internal door that the police must have passed through to get into the kitchen in the first place to discover the bodies.

    Additionally, If Jeremy Bamber killed all of his family before 0400hrs, why is it that only the bodies of Ralph and June Bamber and the children have got corresponding areas of discolorment upon their skin (validity) suggestive that they had been dead for several hours before the occassion when the crime scene photographs taken of their corpses were taken (10 O’clock) and yet, there is a marked absence of any such discoloration upon the corpse of Sheila Caffell who looks like she has very recently been killed.

    If Sheila was killed as long ago as 0400hrs, then why is bright red blood still leaking and running from the two wounds upon her throat and the sides of her mouth, at 10 O’clock that same morning.

    If the ballistic expert did not officially do his ballistics tests of the batch of crime scene ammunition until the 20th September 1985 to see if he could link it to the murder weapon spoken about, how come that at least twelve of the spent cartridge cases that formed part of that batch, were examined and compared with control ammunition fired from the rifle on dates that precluded the 20th September 1985, such as on 12th, 13th and 18th September 1985.

    How come, that although the ballistic expert describes the non fatal neck wound as being non contact in nature when the muzzle of the weapon was held some three inches above the surface of the skin, and yet there is a corresponding visible mark that was made by the end of the silencer being pressed into the neck at the time Sheila was non fatally wounded - there would have had to be contact to enable the mark to have become formed.

    There is a list of contradictions that are as long as my arm that I could go onto mention which suggest in the strongets possible terms that something is just not right with the validity of Jeremy bambers convictions, the evidence does not fit the facts of this case

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 10/1/2006 @ 6:36 am

11. So, prints were found on the gun. Both those matching Mr. Jeremy’s and his sisters, and the latter is deceased…using process of elimination wouldn’t you find Mr. Jeremy’s prints a silver bullet?

    Comment by Markus Loehre — 12/9/2006 @ 4:05 pm

12. The gun upon which the fingerprints of both Jeremy and his sister were found, did not fire the fatal bullet that killed Sheila. The fingerprints of his sister and his father (Ralph Bamber) were also found upon another gun at the farm.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/24/2006 @ 1:25 pm

13. David Boutflour was one of the most important witnesses for the Prosecution at the trial of Jeremy Bamber, Chelmsford Crown Court, October 1986..

    (a) He was the person who had found the crucial silencer in the gun cupboard at white house farm.

    (b) Blood found inside the silencer was analyzed and the results suggested that the blood belonged exclusively to Bambers Sister (Sheila Caffell).

    (c) The defence solicitors argued that the blood group results may have belonged to an intimate mixture of the parents blood types.

    ——————————————–

    The jury had the unenviable task of deciding to whom and from whom the blood found inside the silencer belonged to or originated from?

    —————————————————–

    David Boutflour harbored a dark secret when he made his witness statements in 1985 and also when he testified at the trial in the following year..

    ———————————————————–

    He forgot to mention in his statements that he had used a razor blade to scrape off a small flake of dried blood from the flat surface on the end cap of the silencer and that he had retained it because it fascinated him?

    ————————————————

    This same silencer had been handed to Essex police and subsequently submitted to the lab to be examined. Apparently, he had told Essex police officers exactly what he had done, but the police appear not to have brought this to the attention of the Prosecuting solicitors and or to the scientists who were charged with examining the silencer..

    ———————————————————————————-

    The Defence solicitors knew nothing of this and therefore they could not raise issues at trial to try and get the silencer and its blood based evidence ruled inadmissible due to its integrity being tampered with and called into question By Boutflours actions..

    ———————————————————————————–

    The flake of blood that Boutflour deliberately removed from the end of the silencer was arguably the most significant piece of evidence that would have gone along way towards establishing to whom and from whom the blood inside the silencer had originated?

    ——————————————————————————–

    No sooner had Jeremy Bamber been convicted of the five murders, than Boutflour was telling the Worlds Media that a dead person cannot remove a silencer from the end of the guns barrel and walk all the way downstairs and conceal it in the gun cupboard before walking all the way back upstairs and laying down dead again on the bedroom floor..

    ———————————————————————————–

    He forget to mention to the worlds Media, that he had deliberately tampered with the silencer and effectively rendered it and any blood based evidence found upon or inside it, inadmissible..

    ——————-

    It was not until 1991, when the City Of London Police (COLP) investigated the case again, that Boutflour decided to tell the truth about what he had done..

    ————————————————————————–

    He told COLP that he had used a razor blade to remove a small flake of dried blood from the end of the silencer, which he had retained because it fascinated him.He told COLP that he had told Essex police about what he had done, but failed to name the officers he had spoken to. He also failed to explain about what had happened to the flake of dried blood he had removed..

    ———————–

    The defence solicitors and the jury were entitled to know about what Boutflour had done..

    ——-

    But Boutfloyr and Essex police chose to remain silent at the trial and the jury were fooled by their conduct..

    ————————-

    Without the silencer evidence and the blood activity found inside it, there was hardly a case to be brought against Jeremy Bamber, at least one that would have afforded a good chance of succeeding..

    ———————–

    Shame on David Boutflour and Essex police..

    (c)

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/27/2006 @ 4:47 pm

14. Shame on of all of you above for your pro Jeremy Bamber posts. He is GUILTY. Poor Shiela Caffell was not only murdered in cold blood but far too many people lay the blame of this terrible crime at her feet.

    A few facts you may consider, none of which appear above of course:

    Neville Bamber took a very bad beating before being gunned down. Neville Bamber was 6 foot 4 and as a hard working farmer, very strong. Does anybody seriously believe that the waif like, slightly built, Ms Caffell would be capable od administering such a beating?

    Jeremy Bamber allegedly recieved a call from his father, telling him that ‘ Shiela had gone crazy and had a gun’ , or words to those effect. Now Neville Bamber is an intelligent man, why would he phone Jeremy Bamber before the Police? What could Jeremy Bamber possibly do to help, when the Police have a trained firearms team?

    Why did Jeremy Bamber dial the local Police station number instead of 999? It was after all an emergency…

    Jeremy Bamber cycled round to his parents home instead of jumping in his car. Why did he do this, in such an dramatic situation?

    What would anyone do after suffering such an awful tradgedy?

    Would you

    (a) Grieve
    (b) Take off on a holiday abroad, having a great time while your at it. Upon return try to sell photo’s of your dead sister to the tabloids.

    Jeremy Bamber is GUILTY. I am very confident he will never be released and that has to be a good thing. Rot in hell Jeremy.

    Jeremy bamber

    Devestated by the death of his sister and family, Bamber tried to sell photo’s of his ex model sister to a downmarket tabloid

    Comment by Kevin — 8/24/2007 @ 12:41 pm

15. Forgot to say Jeremy Bamber chose option b in the above.

    Warped and evil? The judge was too kind…..

    Comment by Kevin — 8/24/2007 @ 12:45 pm

16. I very much agree with Kevin. We have heard far too much about Jeremy Bamber and his ‘version of events’ written by his cronies. I want to express a few points here. Points that I think are long overdue. Bamber is a psychopath. There was a pychiatrist brought in by the original defense in 1986 that refused to go along with his team wishes. He stated that ‘after through questioning and analysis. I have concluded that if ever there was a psychopath, then Jeremy Bamber is it’. The defence was to put it mildly, worried by this development. This is a man that staged- burgled his own family’s caravan park, then gleefully went on a spending spree without a so much as a shred of guilt. This is is the same individual that earlier in his life had to leave New Zealand in a hurry because his associates had been caught up in a drug-related murder. This is the same man who shamelessly tried to hawk his dead sisters private photos to a reporter from the Sun while laughing. This is the same man who stated openly in front of witnesses how much he ‘hated his parents’. This is the same man who after telling his girlfriend that he wanted his entire family dead, and is also the recipient of a ‘phone call’ from his father claiming that ‘his sister has got crazy with a rifle’. One only wonders why Nevil decided to phone this ingrate rather than phoning the police?(Nevil Bamber was a Magistrate and had a high regard for the law). This is the same man who fell over himself at the crime scene trying to blame his sister Shiela (although going by his version of events; how did he know what happened in the house?) I am getting a little tired of reading these ridiculous comments about this psychopath’s ‘innocence’ This is what he wants you to believe. A psychopath is a highly manipulative person and it seems too many people are being taken in by him. I would like to address my comments to a person who posted comments earlier called ‘Candi Roberts’. Candi I strongly suggest that you review the case properly and stop making unsubstantiated accusations about anyone that doesnt agree with you. I also strongly suggest that you review the evidence carefully. Poor Shiela has been ridiculed shamelessly by ignorant people such as you. Shiela cannot defend herself. Bamber has had ample opportunity!. There are people that will step forward to straighten the record and not let her be condemned by the ignorant and foolhardy.

    Comment by Ian — 9/30/2007 @ 3:53 pm

17. I also would like to add the fact that Sheila was found with two gunshot wounds to the underside of her chin. I have heard ridiculous assertions that she could have been able to shoot herself a second time after firing the first shot. This is absolute nonsense! As an ex-soldier I have seen the appalling damage that gunshots inflict on the body. The rifle - an Anschultz .22 rifle is designed to inflict maximum damage at close range. The first bullet travelled(at subsonic speed) through her lower chin and deep into her head just behind the right ear. I agree that this probably would not have killed her instantly, but probably rendered her instantly unconscious. She would definately be incapable of firing a second shot. Considering that a strong, fully fit man can be knocked totally unconscious by a well placed, light blow to the chin, think what a .22 bullet travelling at subsonic speed could achieve to a slender waif like Sheila Caffell? What these Bamber supporters would have us believe is that Sheila (presumably after killing her entire family - including beating a man twice her size, so viciously that the stock of the gun broke) went upstairs, lay on the floor, shot herself under the chin with the silencer attached. Realising that she wasnt yet dead, unscrew the silencer walk all the way down stairs and place it back in the gun cupboard. Calmly walk upstairs, lay down, manoeuvre herself into position again, then place the barrel of the gun under her chin a second time and pull the trigger. This, and with many other incidences listed above is what convicted Bamber at his original trail. Now matter how much Bamber and his supporters try to present their version of events, the truth and people’s own common sense and judgement will always prevail. I strongly believe that Jeremy Bamber is a throughly evil and despicable misfit. He has manipulated a host of people since his conviction and continues to do so……….what has he to loose by consistantly denying his guilt? He claims to be buoyed by what his father used to say: “Don’t worry, Jeremy, the truth always comes out in the wash.”
    Well I will say this. The spin cycle has finished and the wash is complete and Bamber will always be a vile, lying murderer.

    Comment by Ian — 10/2/2007 @ 1:24 pm

18. Between 6th and 29th September 1985, Essex police were intent on trying to trace and locate and interview an unidentified male who had been seen at whf by police officers at 0345am and 0445am respectively. Let me outline what this gist of these sightings related to and where the evidence which confirms there was such a man exists, sop as to leave no-one in any doubt that, in September 1985, Essex police were clearly aware of this mystery man at the scene and that he may have had something to do with the killings inside the farmhouse. Firstly, in September 1985, Essex police created a document which became known as the Major incident project register, inside which was recorded information about all the unidentified males, and unidentified females and unidentified motor vehicles which the police at that stage were extremely interested in. There were literally hundreds of entries and each entry was given a unique reference number. At the very beginning of this project register, numbered 001, was information that should set off alarm bells ringing, because it states that the police were trying to identify an unidentified male who was seen at white house farm at 0345am, that morning, and that the witness who had seen this man, was non other than PC Myall, who was the first officer to arrive at the scene. PC Myall was one of two police officers who along with Jeremy Bamber had gone into the grounds of the farmhouse upon arrival and had seen a person standing at first in the bedroom window, but which eventually moved across the full opening of the window and out of sight, which caused PC Myall and the others to dash from the grounds of the house and go back to the nearby patrol car that was parked in pages lane, and PC Myall passed a radio message to police control about what he and the others had just witnessed. It is quite clear, that the reference at 001 in the major incident project register, to an unidentified male seen at whf by PC Myall at 0345am, must be in relation to the sighting of the unidentified person seen at the bedroom window, because there was no opportunity for PC Myall to have seen anyone else at whf by that stage.Of particular interest, would be the content of the radio message that was passed by PC Myall to police control at that time, which must have included more detail about what they had seen, because as a result of this message being passed, the firearms team were deployed to the scene to deal with what they were told was a possible hostage situation. Of particular significance, is that the major incident project register did not come into being until the beginning of September 1985, and so PC Myalls reference to the unidentified male seen by him at whf, at 0345 am, is significant for more than one reason.To begin with, it means that by 6th September 1985, Essex police had failed to trace or locate or eliminate the unidentified male from their inquiries and it remained possible that this man may have been involved in the killings of the four victims (Ralph, June, Daniel and Nicholas)but not Sheila because Essex police have evidence that she did not die until after the raid team had gained access to the house at 0737am..

    Secondly, it is clear that Essex police poured a lot of resources into trying to trace and eliminate this man from the investigation..

    There was another sighting of a scruffy looking hunched up man who was seen walking away from the house at about 0445am, which caused the police to bring PC Mercer and his dog to the scene to try and track him down - without success. Kim Sengupta referre3d to the sighting of this scruffy looking hunched up man who had been seen walking away from the house about an hour after the police first arrived at the scene, in a newspaper article which was written in the first days of the investigation when the police were treating this matter as one of four murders and a suicide with Sheila being held responsible for all the deaths including her own at that stage.It was not realized the significance of this particular sighting until the beginning of September 1985, when Essex police were trying to identify the man seen at the bedroom window earlier by PC Myall.

    In September 1985, Essex police took the view that this was still a case of four murders and a suicide, but rather than Sheila being responsible on her own for the murders of the other four victims, they believed that she or Jeremy may have had an accomplice.

    Essex police were particularly interested in finding out the full identity of a man by the name of Mathew..

    A number of Mathew’s were traced and eliminated..

    Julie Mugford came forward and told Essex police that Jeremy had paid a local mercenary £2000 to kill all of his family. The man named as Mathew McDonald was duly arrested and interviewed. He gave the police an alibi for the material time and when this was verified Essex police released him without charge. Essex police then turned their attention upon the friend of Jeremy’s (Brett Collins) who had gone on a short holiday to the south of France, and arrested both upon their return to the UK at Dover.Brett Collins was interviewed and gave an alibi to the police, saying that at the material time he was staying at a hotel in Belgium with friends and Essex police very quickly confirmed this to be true.

    Such was the intensity of Essex police activity to trace and eliminate the unidentified male seen at whf and seen walking away from the scene prior to the arrival of the firearms team,that we can all be sure that Essex police themselves believed that this man did have something to do with the killings inside the house. To date this unidentified man has not come forawrd to expklain what he was doing inside whf at the material time or why he walked away from the scene without identifying him,self to the police at the scene before the firearms team arrived at 5am..

    The failure by Essex police to trace and identify this mysterious man at the scene etc, led to Essex police buolding a false case against Jeremy for all the murders.

    They charged him with all five murders, including the murder of Sheila, which the police know could not be true because she did not die upstairs until after the raid team had got into the house.

    At his 1986, Chelmsford crown court trial, The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury that they should not concern themselves with any fanciful ideas that some as yet unidentified third party had committed these murders, it was in his words a simple case of choosing between Sheila and Jeremy as to who was responsible for the five deaths. These comments were extremely misleading and inaccurate, because Essex police had evidence and information which they had been actively pursuing in September 1985 which led them to believe that someone other than Jeremy Bamber was involved with and responsible for the killings of at least four of the five victims..

    How can Jeremy Bambers convictions be considered to be safe that that it is known that Essex police had another suspect who they failed to locate or eliminate from their inquiries?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/2/2007 @ 5:41 pm

19. Now that it is known that Essex police had another suspect in mind, who they failed to trace and eliminate from the investigation into these deaths, it remains possible that everything which has been alleged that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for at the scene, could have been done by the unidentified man which Essex police were and are interested in, who was seen (0345am) at the house, and also to have walked away (0445am) from the scene before the firearms team arrived, at 5am.

    The failure to trace and identify this man by Essex police does not entitle them to switch their attention upon Bamber just because they could not trace or identify the other suspect.

    The jury were not told about this part of the case, which allowed the judge to nip in with the comments to the jury that they should not concern themselves with any fanciful ideas about some unidentified third party being responsible and that they had to chose between Sheila and Jeremy..

    What kind of justice is that?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/2/2007 @ 5:54 pm

20. Suspect (X) could have done all the things which the guilty brigade allege Sheila could not have done and that which they say Bamber must have done..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/5/2007 @ 5:43 pm

21. Essex police and the guilty brigade do not want the general public to know about the existence of suspect(X)because it becomes in its absence, more easier to keep blaming Bamber, for all the things which they say Sheila Caffell could not have done..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/5/2007 @ 5:46 pm

22. Sheila Caffell was not the angelic innocent figure that people have been trying to make her out to be or to portray her as being..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/5/2007 @ 5:50 pm

23. I would invite the general public not to be fooled by Essex police’s claim that they found only one body downstairs and the other four bodies upstairs when they got into the house.-, since, according to the contents of the police message log, they found two bodies downstairs by 0737hrs and three bodies upstairs by 0810 hrs..

    I would invite everyone to accept that both versions of events cannot be true at the same time, but that they both could be true at different times during the incident as it unraveled inside the house..

    Where, two bodies downstairs (0737am) and three bodies upstairs (0810am)turned into oje body downstairs and four bodies upstairs by 0830am..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/7/2007 @ 1:41 pm

24. Why would the police have two different versions of where all the bodies were found inside the house, where one suggests two bodies were found once they got into the kitchen and a further three bodies were later found upstairs, and later, that there was only one body found downstairs and the other four bodies were found upstairs?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/7/2007 @ 5:13 pm

25. Why would Essex police seek to deliberately conceal one version of these two entirely contradictory versions of the events which unfolded inside white house farm after 0730am on the morning of 7th August 1985?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 4:52 am

26. Why did Essex police choose to public declare that only one body had been found downstairs once the raid team had gained access to the premises and that the other four bodies were found upstairs?

    Why not the other version:-

    Twp bodies found downstairs and only three bodies found upstairs?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 4:55 am

27. The fact that two different versions of events exist is not down to a mistake being made in the way the facts were recorded..

    Since, if this were true, why did Essex police try desperately hard to conceal the alternative version about two bodies being found downstairs and only three bodies being found, upstairs?

    If it was a mistake that could be put down to the way the information was recorded, then why not disclose both versions of events and supply the explanation so that ordinary members of the public can consider for themselves where the truth in this matter rests?

    Why was this crucial information and evidence withheld from the legal team of Bamber and the court of trial, in October 1985?

    What, if anything, could the jury have made from it?

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 5:00 am

28. The Prosecuting authorities had good reason for not wanting this contradictory material to come out in the public domain, because if it had done, it would have fueled the defense arguments that Bamber could not have killed Sheila, because she had not been dead when the police first entered the house and that she could not have died until after the police got inside the premises. In particular, the defense would have be able to argue that the existence of the two contradictory versions of events concerning where inside the house the bodies of the victims had been found,was capable of supporting the argument that Bamber could not have killed his sister, as was being alleged..

    The defense would have been able to rely upon the contents of the police message logs, aforementioned to show to the jury and the public at large, that Sheila was originally presumed dead downstairs in the region of the kitchen, but that something went wrong with the police operation inside the house and Sheila ended up dead upstairs in the main bedroom at some point after 0810 am..

    The defense would have been able to argue in forceful terms that Bamber could not very well have killed his sister upstiars in the main bedroom and stage managed her body there to make it appear like she had in fact committed suicide, if as the police message log contends that her body had been found downstairs in the kitchen from as early as 0737am?

    Withholding the version of events as outlined in the police message logs, which were being recorded contemporaneously at and from the scene at the material time, has served to mislead and misinform the jury and the general public at large that nothing untoward took place involving the handling of this case by Essex police, save to say that they were suggesting that Bamber had almost got away with the perfect murder(s)..

    In pursuance of trying to show that this is what Bamber did, Essex police had to hide away information that was capable of suggesting otherwise?

    Concealing the contents of the police message logs and several crucial crime scene photographs, allowed Essex police to pull the wool over everyones eyes and to fool the jury into convicting Bamber for murders that he almost certainly did not ande could not haver committed.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 5:13 am

29. In response to comments (14) above, as posted by Kevin:-

    There is nothing to be ashamed about for exposing what is arguably the worst miscarriage of justice the UK has ever witnessed.

    The beating of Neville Bamber does not necessarily mean that only Jeremy Bamber could have been responsible for doing that, as you allege. Since, it is quite clear that Essex police were well aware of an unidentified male suspect (X) who had been seen at whf by PC Myall (as recorded in the Major Incident Project register)at 0345am, and later by another witness, to be walking away from whf at about 0445am. In the early part of September 1985, Essex police were actively pursuing this unidentified man, and tried unsuccessfully to put various male persons in the frame as being that man, including a local man by the name of Mathew, a second man by the name of Mathew McDonald, a third man by the name of Brett Collins, and a mysterious Belgium man? And so, here is proof positive that from the beginning of September 1985, Essex police were under the impression that an unknown and unidentified male person was responsible for beating and killing Ralph Bamber - and that it could not have been and was not Jeremy Bamber who had carried out these beatings or the attack upon Ralph as you claim in yopur post.

    The next point you make about the telephone call is not a valid one in my opinion, since, it was not established by the prosecution that anyone had actually been shot by that stage of the proceedings, so what would be wrong with Ralph making the call to Jeremy at that time if no shots had been fired? Furthermore, it was not established technically that the call could not have been made by Ralph to Jeremy at that time, and so this part of your arguments is a weak one in my opinion.

    The fact that Jeremy dialed the local police station rather than 999, does not of itself establish that Bamber killed anyone. There was no reason for Bamber to call 999 because his father did not tell him that anyone had been shot by that stage. Furthermore, if he had dialed 999, the police from the local police station who he called would have been contacted and diverted to the incident and so how could what Bamber did have delayed the attendance of the police at the scene?

    What has riding a hike to his parents house have to do with proving or establishing he killed anyone?

    People do strange things when they are suffering from shock, the holiday episode does not prove that Bamber killed anyone, and neither does the attempt to sell pictures to the sun reporter, who was keen as mustard to purchase them until his editor said “no”?

    I am as equally convinced as you are, that Jeremy Bamber’s convictions will be set aside, because there is absolutely no evidence to show that he killed anyone.

    His case truly is a miscarriage of justice.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 5:38 am

30. Response to point (15) above, by Kevin:-

    Considering for the fact that Essex police withheld information and evidence that Sheila Caffell was still very much alive once the raid team got into the house at 7.30am, and that she did not die until afterwards,at around 8.30am, we are left to wonder what the judge would have had to say about the conduct of Essex police had the dark secrets they sought to conceal been made public, and the jury had been alerted to the fact, that Jeremy Bamber, could not possibly have killed his sister, or stage managed her body upstairs in the main bedroom, as alleged..

    The words “warped and evil” would hardly be a fitting tribute to describe the despicable conduct of the police in this matter..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 2:31 pm

31. Response to point (17) above, as posted by Ian :-

    Yes, Sheila did have two wounds upon her throat, one to the side of the neck which the pathologist concluded would not have been immediately fatal and might have allowed her to walk about for some time before she passed out, before the other second and fatal shot beneath the chin was inflicted, which was immediately incapacitating..

    Let us consider these comments in light of the fact that Essex police during the first month of the investigation, chose to believe that Sheila had shot herself twice in quick succession with the same gun, by a process of recoil, where the trigger had been activated for a second time within a very short time of the original shot having been fired - and that Sheila had done this to herself, whilst in the vicinity of the main bedroom.

    I am afraid, the pathologist and Essex police, disagree with your version of events, in that they agreed that the first shot, would have been the non fatal one to the side of the neck, and that the second one, which was the fatal one, entered under the chin and brought on death almost instantaneously..

    Also, at a debriefing, held on the evening of the incident (7th August 1985) involving members of the firearms team, and senior police officers,involved in the investigation, it was agreed by all parties that the second wound could have been inflected by the process of recoil, where the trigger was accidentally activated, by the victim within a split second of the first shot having been fired, and so despite your considerable experience of being an ex soldier, your views appear to be somewhat misdirected in this instance.

    Your assertion “I have heard ridiculous assertions that she could have been able to shoot herself a second time after firing the first shot. This is absolute nonsense!” is not the absolute nonsense as you are trying to imply, otherwise you are making a mockery of Essex police, including the firearms officers whop attended the incident and the pathologist and the ballistics expert who were all in agreement over the second shot having been fired by the process of recoil.

    Rather than try to ridicule the supporters of Bambers case, by putting forward fanciful ideas that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time one of the two shots was fired, but not the other,you fail to consider for the possibility that the silencer may not have been used at all in her killing, and that the only reason any of her blood got into and upon the silencer, was because Detective Inspector Walter Cook, experimented with the silencer, and the blood stained riffle, before both were submitted to the lab’, and Sheila’s blood identified as being present, inside the silencer. I suppose you think it was alright for DI Cook to be tampering with crucial exhibits prior to their submission to the lab’ for examination by people who are supposed to know what they are doing? Let me remind you and everyone else about what Cook did and when he did it, so that you and everyone else can be left in absolutely no doubt at all, that what you are trying to suggest is nothing but humbug..

    On the 29th August 1985, none of Sheila Caffell’s blood was found upon or inside the silencer at all, anyone who says otherwise is a liar..

    The only blood that had been found upon and slightly inside the small aperture on the end of the silencer, was “Human in nature” and blood which could have belonged to anyone. This “Human in nature Blood” was found in and on the silencer by forensic scientist, Glynis Howard, when she examined it on the 13th August 1985, after which, she handed the silencer, so we are led to believe, back into the possession of DI Cook. What I would like to know, is this, what was Cook doing tampering with the silencer on the 29th August 1985?

    What do I mean by the suggestion that Cook was tampering with the silencer on that date?

    Well, allow me to be entirely specific, so that I cannot be accused of relaying the facts as they were on that occasion. What we had on the 29th August 1985, was Cook in possession of the bloodstained Anshulz rifle that had previously been photographed by PC Bird on the body of Sheila Caffell at the scene.This rifle was resting on top of a heavily bloodstained nightdress that Sheila had been wearing that night at the time she had died. The rifle itself was resting directly on top of a bloodied hand print on the front lower part of her nightdress, and the end of the rifles barrel (with its external thread exposed and very close to fresh looking blood, from the two wounds upon her throat, and the corners of her mouth, in the region of her throat, and with the bloodied fingers of her right hand, actually resting directly upon the gun in the region of the fore plate, where there exists three venting holes, that allow access to the internal mechanisms of the gun, was situated. And so, by the 29th August 1985, Cook had this heavily blood stained rifle in his possession and he experimented with it, before ending both back to the lab’ to see if they could be linked together, scientifically?

    Cook, placed this heavily bloodstained rifle on top of an unprotected worktop (table) and he placed the crucial silencer alongside it on the same work surface. Neither the bloodstained rifle or the crucial silencer were retained in protective packaging at this time - we know this now, because Cook took pictures of these experiments and the bloodstained rifle and the crucial silencer are there for all to see resting side by side on the very same worktop surface, before both were sent along to the lab to be forensically examined, and when the crucial sample of Sheila Caffells blood was supposedly then found inside the silencer..

    Not only did Cook place both of these crucial and significant exhibits side by side next to each other on the same worktop surface,he did something which was unforgivable and some thing which the jury never got to know about or consider, he dismantled the silencer by removing its end cap and taking out all of the 17 internalalised baffle plates and he laid them out on the very same work top where the bloodstained rifle had previously been placed. He then separated the first five baffle plates from each other, so that there was a distinctive gap between each, including a similar gap between baffles five and six, and it is clear that by this stage there was absolutely no small flake of dried blood in that part of the silencer at that time. Imagine that, for one moment, there was no small flake of dried blood between baffles five and six, on the 29th August 1985, but later when the silencer was submitted back to the lab, the ballistic expert dismantles the same silencer and finds the crucial flake of Sheila Caffells blood nestling between baffles five and six - where it had not previously been, on the 29th August 1985, when Cook performed his vital experiments with the heavily bloodstained rifle, and the crucial silencer..

    Cook then rebuilt the silencer by picking up all of the internalized baffle plates that he had set out on the contaminated worktop surface, and he placed them all back into the tubing of the silencer, and screwed its end cap, back into place.

    He did something next which beggars belief..

    He physically screwed the rebuilt silencer directly onto the external thread on the end of the heavily bloodstained rifle, so that it was fully attached to the end of the guns barrel - and he did this before both exhibits were sent back to the lab’ to see if there was any way both could be associated together, for possible use in the shootings under investigation? Cook took pictures on the 29th August 1985, to conform that this is what he had done, and he sent these pictures to the lab’ along with the two exhibits so that the ballistic expert could see exactly what he had been doing with them whilst both had been in his possession..

    Let us not forget, how close the end of the guns barrel with its exposed external thread on the end of its barrel was to the fresh flowing blood escaping from the two wounds on the victims throat and the corners of her mouth?

    And here was Cook, experimenting with these two very crucial and highly significant exhibits, on the 29th August 1985, prior to bot being submitted back to the lab’ to allow the ballistic expert the opportunity to examine the silencer again on some later occasion, which led to the discovery of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer..

    We can now be absolutely sure, that the silencer was contaminated with a small particle of Sheila Caffells blood at the time DI Cook performed his experiments with the bloodstained rifle and the4 crucial silencer, on the 29th August 1985. No court in the land would allow the evidence of the blood to be used to prosecute anyone without at the very least the full facts as to how the silencer (in this particular case) could have been contaminated with the victims blood by a process of contamination..

    The jury had a right to know about the experiments that Cook performed with the bloodstained rifle and the crucial silencer, before the ballistic expert carried out his own examinations and found the crucial evidence. Let us also not forget that the ballistic expert was fully aware of the experiments which Cook had performed previously, since, Cook, had sent along photographic proof of what he had done for the ballistic expert to consider?

    I am 100% confident that the blood evidence would have been ruled inadmissible had these true facts been known about at the time of the original trial at Chelmsford crown court, in October 1986. I believe that the trial judge would not have allowed the evidence of Sheila’s blood supposedly found inside the silencer, to be mentioned at all to the jury, because of the severe risk that Sheila’s blood got into the silencer by a process of contamination, rather than at the time she was shot either in the side of the neck or under the chin..

    For these reasons, and more, I think we can safely conclude that the silencer may not have necessarily been used at all in these shootings, and is nothing but a red herring which has caused all sorts of problems, for all concerned,not least of all, Jeremy Bamber, because he has been convicted of these awful murders on the basis that he killed Sheila by use of the silencer on the gun which he removed from the gun after he had killed her and took it all the way downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard?

    I am sorry but this version of events is now defunct and not relevant and cannot any longer be relied upon to support the correctness or otherwise of these convictions for murder. The blood in the silencer evidence is now useless, and not worth the paper that has been used to write about it, on…

    Make no mistake about it..

    Jeremy Bamber is truly innocent, and he did not kill anyone, despite him having the many faults which [people have been pointing out over the last 22 years or so..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 3:35 pm

32. Why did Essex police stop looking for suspect (x), even though its own officers reported seeing him at white house farm?

    Major Incident Project Register Entry 001 timed at 0345hrs, unidentified male seen at whf by PC Myall?

    Essex police know that this was the man they were interested in and whom they thought may have been responsible for shooting the family and beating and overpowering Ralph Bamber, before he was killed..

    Essex police know that the case they eventually went onto build against Jeremy Bamber was and is a false one..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/8/2007 @ 4:54 pm

33. Because Essex police failed to make the following persons the unidentified male they were interested in speaking to about the killings at whf, the police later chose to blame Jeremy Bamber for doing something which they knew he could not possibly have been responsible for, because he was not the unidentified male they were seeking to identify and speak to about the killings:-

    (1) Local youth named Mathew
    (2) Mathew McDonald the supposed mercenary who turned out to be a local plumber
    (3) Brett Collins

    and

    (4) a mysterious Belgium man..

    —————————–

    Some people have even suggested that the unidentified male seen at whf by the police ( PC Myall at 0345am) may have even been one of the relatives?

    —————————————————————

    Jeremy Bamber could not have been the unidentified male seen at whf by PC Myall and the others..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/9/2007 @ 6:42 am

34. The implications

    PC Myall - (1)
    PS Bews - (2)
    Jeremy Bamber - (3)
    Unidentified male - (4)
    The figure - (4)
    The reflection - (4a)
    Mathew - (4b)
    Mathew McDonald - (4c)
    Brett Collins - (4d)
    Mysterious Belgium - (4e)
    PS Saxby - (5)
    Sheila Caffell - (6)
    Firearms team - (7)
    Essex Police - (8)
    PC Mercer - (8a)
    Police dog - (8b)
    Man - (9)
    Ralph Bamber - (10)
    June Bamber - (11)
    Nicholas Caffell - (12)
    Daniel Caffell - (13)
    Police Inspector Miller - (14)
    Mr Thomkin - (15)
    Julie Mugford - (16)
    Witnesses - (17)
    Second Person - (x)
    Killer - (y)
    Accomplice - (z)

    ———————————————————————————————

    (1) (Figure seen at the window):-

    PC Myall (1) , PS Bews (2) and Jeremy Bamber (3) were in the grounds of the house at about 0345am, looking around, when they all noticed a figure standing at the left side of what turned out to be the main bedroom window. The figure (4) appeared to be standing to the right side of the window as the three looked on. As soon as they saw the figure (4) they hid behind a small retaining wall in the garden and peered up at the figure which then moved across the opening from right to left and disappeared from view altogether. Once the figure disappeared, the police and Bamber fled from the grounds and rushed back to a nearby patrol car and PC Myall (1) passed a radio message to police control. In that message, PC Myall (1) recalled what they had just witnessed; describing the figure he had just seen as an unidentified male who could have possibly been armed with a gun. As a result of what PC Myall (1) told police control on that occasion, arrangements were made to deploy the firearms team (7) to the scene – arriving at 5am, that same morning.

    Once PC Myall (1) had passed his radio message, he and PS Bews (2) returned to the grounds of the house, leaving Bamber (3) at the patrol car with PS Saxby (5) .

    If there was someone alive inside the house at the time of this sighting (0345am) then Bamber (3) could not have killed everyone inside the house and stage managed the scene to try and make it look like his sister, Sheila Caffell (6) , had killed everyone and that she (6) had then committed suicide. If this person either escaped from the premises before the firearms team (7) arrived or died later inside the premises, then Bamber (3) could not possibly have killed this person because from the outset upon arriving at the scene, until he (3) left, Bamber (3) was always in the company of police officers (8) .

    PC Mercer (8a) and his dog (8b) arrived on the scene shortly after 5am, and set about trying to track down and trace the scruffy looking hunched up man (9) who had earlier been seen leaving the house?

    At some stage between 0345am and the time the firearm team (7) arrived upon the scene at 5am, a witness (u) saw a scruffy looking hunched up man (9) walking in the grounds of the house, away from the general direction of it. PC Mercer (8a) and his dog (8b) arrived on the scene shortly after 5am, and set about trying to track down and trace the scruffy looking hunched up man (9) who had earlier been seen leaving the house?
    Is it possible that this scruffy looking man (9) was the same unidentified male (4) whom PC Myall (1) had earlier seen at the bedroom window?

    If not, then we have to consider who the unidentified male (4) that was seen inside white house farm at that time by PC Myall (1) could have been? By the end of the police operation inside white house farm (whf) at about 9am, that same morning, there was only one dead male (10) found inside the premises, and that was Ralph Bamber (10) aged 61 years, who had been shot no less than eight times, four times non fatally and four times fatally. If Ralph (10) had been the unidentified male (4) seen at the window by PC Myall (1) , then who had killed him (10)?

    If Ralph (10) had been the unidentified male (4), spoken about, then there must have been a second person (x) alive inside whf. The second person (x) could have been the killer (y) or an accomplice (z) . If the second person (x) was the killer (y) or the accomplice (z) , then he would have had to leave the premise before the firearms team (7) arrived at 5am, because once they were at the scene the premises were completely surrounded and no-one (x) could have either got into the house, or out of it, without being seen.

    The second person (x) could have been either June Bamber (11) aged 61years, or Sheila Caffell (6) aged 24 years.

    If the second person (x) inside the house was June Bamber (11) it would have required her to have killed her husband (10) by shooting him (10) dead with a total of eight bullets, at some stage after 0345am.

    But if June (11) shot Ralph (10) and killed him (10) who killed June (11)?

    If the second person (x) alive inside the house at that time (0345am) was Sheila Caffell(6) she (6) could have shot Ralph (10) eight times, and then killed herself (6) She (6) could have done this, because she (6) only had two wounds, one to the side of the neck which was of a non fatal nature, and secondly under the chin, which would have resulted in instantaneous death.

    The unidentified male (4) who was seen at the bedroom window by PC Myall (1) at 0345am, could only have been Ralph Bamber (10) or the killer (y) / accomplice (z).

    If it was Ralph Bamber (10) there must have also been someone else (x) alive inside the premises who later killed him (10) and either fled the scene before the firearms team (7) arrived upon the scene at 5am, or who died inside the house before the end of the police (8) operation, by 9am that morning.

    For about one month, Essex police (8) came to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell (6) had killed everyone and then had taken her (6) own life in the main bedroom. The police (8) accepted that Sheila (6) had killed both of her children (12 and 13) Ralph (10) and June Bamber (11) and then herself (6). This is what Police Inspector Miller (14) told the Deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin (15) at the opening of the inquests on the 14th August 1985, which caused him (15) to agree to release the bodies of the victims for disposal Ralph (10) June (11) and Sheila (6) were subsequently cremated and the bodies of the children (12 and 13) were buried at Highgate Cemetery in London.

    More recently, Essex police (8) have gone on record as suggesting that a figure (4) was not seen by PC Myall (1) at 0345am at the bedroom window, but rather what they had seen was a reflection upon the glass (4a) which resembled the shape of a figure (4) and that presumably this reflection (4a) retained its shape and size and moved across the window from right tot left, before it disappeared altogether from sight? To be pondered, is that if it was a reflection (4a) as is now being suggested, why did PC Myall (1) pass the crucial radio message to police control (8a) that he had just seen an unidentified male (4) at the bedroom window? And why were the firearms team (7) deployed?

    What could have caused such a reflection (4a) to occur that was so convincing as to make PC Myall (1) believe that what he had seen and what he was observing was merely a reflection (4a) upon the glass of the window?

    A reflection (4a), of what?

    More importantly, at what stage did the police (8) come to the conclusion that what PC Myall (1) and the others (2 and 3) had witnessed was merely a reflection (4a) upon the glass, as opposed to a figure (4)? Since, by the beginning of September 1985, Essex police (8) were hell bent on trying to identify who this unidentified male (4) figure could possibly have been. They believed this unidentified figure (4) to be someone called Mathew (4b) Later, after receiving information for Bambers (3) former girlfriend, Julie Mugford (16), to the effect that the person (4) they were looking for was called, Mathew McDonald (4c) Essex police (8) arrested him (4c) and interviewed him (4c), but they had to release him (4c) without charge, once they established that he (4c) had a concrete alibi, and that he (4c) could not possibly have been the unidentified male (4) they were seeking, and wishing to speak to, in connection with the murders.

    Essex police (8) then switched their attention to Brett Collins (4d) the companion of Jeremy Bambers (3) who had been arrested with him (3) upon their return to the UK from a short break in the south of France. Was Brett Collins (4d) the unidentified male (4) that had been seen at whf? Apparently not, since, Collins (4d) had an alibi and was staying in a hotel with witnesses (17) in Belgium at the time of the murders.

    Once, Brett Collins (4d) was eliminated from their inquiries, Essex police (8) focussed their attention upon a mysterious Belgium by the name of ——————– (4e).

    Eventually, however, for one reason or another, Essex police (8) abandoned all hope of ever tracing the unidentified male (4) spoken about, and instead, they began to focus upon the possibility that Jeremy Bamber (3) had killed everyone (10, 11, 12, 13 and 6) and that he (3) had stage managed the scene, to make it look like or appear as though Sheila (6) had been responsible, for killing everyone (10, 11, 12 and 13) and then herself (6).

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/15/2007 @ 4:21 pm

35. Essex Police refuse convicted killer’s FOI request
    Convicted killer Jeremy Bamber has been refused access to evidence which he hopes will clear his name. Essex Police told him that his requests were either beyond the remit of the information compliance officer at Essex Police or could not be completed within the 18-hour limit of searches.

    The 44-year old Bamber was jailed for life in 1986 for murdering his adoptive parents, sister and her two children at White House Farm in Tolleshunt D’arcy near Maldon. He had asked Essex Police for details of notes made by an officer at the scene of the crime, a register of the firearms issued on the morning of the killings and audio tapes of radio and telephone calls from August 7, 1985.

    He is hoping to obtain another hearing at the Court of Appeal. In 2002, the Court of Appeal rejected suggestions that the murder convictions had been based on the deceit of police and evidence that had been withheld.

    A spokeswoman for Essex Police stated that several Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests from Mr Bamber had been received, a large number of which have been complied with. The spokeswoman said “This one particular request could not be dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, so in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act we rejected the request on that basis. We feel we have complied with the act and our statutory obligation. Mr Bamber can appeal via the information commissioner, however, we have not received notice of such an application.”

    Killer denied access to case information (East Anglian Daily Times, 16 July 2005)

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/15/2007 @ 4:36 pm

36. Essex Police Officers only agreed to co-operate with the Barrett Enquiry (1988) and the Colp Enquiry (1991)on the proviso that none of its officers would be either prosecuted with criminal offences, or be subject to Disciplinary matters, based on what they agreed to disclose to them by individual police officers who were involved in the investigation of the case. These officers, who included members of the raid team who entered the building and who carried out duties inside the house between 0730am and 11:15am, and SOCO, along with Senior Police officers, who allowed parts of the police operation to be covered up. All of the information which fell into this category was withheld under Public Interest Immunity (Pii) rules. This means that Bambers legal team have been deliberately denied access to this information and therefore it had a dramatic effect upon the outcome of Bambers trial (1986)and his subsequent appeal(2002). It is important that everyone understands exactly what we are talking about here, since, it was Essex police who stage managed Sheila Caffells body inside the main bedroom at whf that morning, not Jeremy Bamber. Essex police believe they had good reason and cause to do what they did and for allowing misleading evidence to be used and relied upon to prosecute and convict Bamber for these five murders. Most significantly, a crucial part of the police operation conducted inside the house between 7:30am and 8:30am, was covered up, to allow Essex police, to conceal for the fact of how the operation inside the house had gone dramatically wrong - where the body of Sheila Caffell which had been found downstairs by 7:37am, found its way upstairs into the main bedroom by 8:30am, that same morning. Additionally, how Essex police had been allowed to swap over the gun that was used by Sheila to kill herself in the main bedroom and later for them to tamper with the crime scene ammunition, so as to prevent anyone being able to establish that two rifles were used in Sheila’s killing (one downstairs and one upstairs)and that Sheila Caffells death resulted because of the negligent manner with which the operation inside white house farm was carried out. Whilst Essex police and its officers were making plans to prevent themselves from being prosecuted or disciplined over their misdemeanors, Jeremy Bamber was arrested, charged with the five murders, convicted by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment, for murders he most definitely could not have, and did not commit. To date he has spent almost 22 years in custody, in connection with these matters, whilst Essex police officers continue to enjoy the knowledge that they will never be prosecuted or disciplined, for what they did. Such was the nature and seriousness of what took place involving police officers, that over four and a half million documents are currently being withheld from Bamber and his legal team under Pii rules, because of the agreements between Essex police and the Barrett (1988) and Colp (1991)Investigations.

    It is not only Essex police, and the Barrett (1988) and the Colp (1991)investigatioins who are involved in this cover up, but it also involves the CPS and Home office, and Parliamentary figures, such as the Home secretary, and even Parliament, and the court of appeal. Hiding away the truth behind Pii rules, is an affront to justice, and brings the criminal Justice system into disrepute.

    Jeremy Bamber, did not kill anyone - the authorities know this to be absolutely true, but they continue to turn a blind eye to what has and is taking place.

    There should be a public enquiry into what has taken place and what is going on, in connection with this case.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 12/23/2007 @ 6:10 am

37. You people are crazy. You just believe whatever you want, but Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded murderer who killed his entire family. Shame on you for sullying a dead woman to defend him. Sheila had NO gun oil, powder burns on her fingers, and her newly painted fingernails were not even chipped.

    Or did she clean herself after she committed suicide.

    You people are blind. He’s as guilty as sin and deserves to rot

    Comment by M Gibson — 1/14/2008 @ 7:00 pm

38. The suggestion that Sheila did not have any gun oil on her hands, powder burns on her fingers, and the suggestion that her newly painted fingernails were not even chipped, has been misrepresented by Essex police and the CPS. To begin with when the hand swabs were originally sent to the lab to be checked for gun powder residue on the 9th August 1985, the lab’ rejected them because they arrived at the lab in the same exhibit gag as other firearms submitted to the lab by Essex police on the same day.The hand swabs were rejected on that date and were deemed to be inadmissible. Two months later, Essex police submitted some fresh hand swabs with a different exhibit reference and lab reference number and it was these hand swabs that were examined and found not to have any gun oil or residue upon them? You look at this issue anyway that you choose, but the fact of the matter is that Essex police sent a clean swab to the lab on the second occasion and it is no surprise that they did not find any gun oil on them at that time. Essex police tricked the lab into examining a different hand swab than the one that was originally submitted to the lab on the 9th August 1985 which got rejected outright. As for there being no gun powder residue upon her hands, well I have got a crime scene photograph which clearly shows Sheila’s hand covered in black gun powder and I would be prepared to let you see this photograph if you want to contact me at Miketesko@yahoo.co.uk, so that this matter can be put to bed once and for all.One of the problems that the Bamber is guilty brigade has got is that now new evidence which Essex police did not release previously is now available that can prove that Jeremy Bamber was not the cold blooded killer he has been made out to be, and that Sheila really did kill the others and then herself. If anyone cleaned up Sheila after she committed suicide it could only have been the police inside the house because Jeremy was not inside the house when Sheila was still alive and he was long gone by the time the police photographed the bodies, including Sheila’s. If you could see the new photographic evidence that is in favor of Sheila being responsible for all the deaths, you would not be saying that people are blind who believe that Bamber is innocent. On the contrary, Jeremy Bamber is completely innocent and he does not deserve to rot in prison for something he could not possibly have done. If you are in any doubt about Bambers guilt or innocence, I suggest that you contact former ACC peter Simpson of Essex police and ask him if Sheila Caffell was still alive after his armed officers entered white house farm? Ask him if he thinks Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent? While your at it, ask him why the police tampered with the photographic records and why they created a revised “M

    Comment by miketesko — 1/20/2008 @ 2:50 pm

39. While your at it, ask him why the police tampered with the photographic records and why they created a revised “Master copy album” and why they removed over 55 photographs and substituted them with 55 others that were taken on some later occasion? The CCRC have got the negatives of these missing 55 photographs and so now it should be relatively simple to reconstruct the order with which all of the pictures were taken - something Essex police did not want anyone to be able to do..

    fact of the matter is, that you are as guilty of committing these murders as Jeremy Bamber was?

    Sheila killed herself in the main bedroom because of a police blunder during the operation that was being performed inside the house.

    Ask ACC Peter Simpson, to verify that fact for you when you contact him..

    Comment by miketesko — 1/20/2008 @ 2:57 pm

40. Mike, I would firstly like to apologise to you for not replying to your well thought out but deeply flawed posts. I forgot that I posted on here several months ago and it was only last week that I stumbled upon this forum again.

    Ian, thank you for your technicall information on the gun used in the shootings. It is nice to have someone on this forum who actually knows what they are talking about…..

    Mike, you have obvisoully decided that Bamber is innocent. You are entitled to your opinion. I remember this terrible incident and all the publicity that followed. I have kept an eye on developments ever since.

    Sheila Caffell did NO wrong whatsover and the castigating of her name ever since is disgusting. A lot has been made of her fragile mental state but some will have you believe that she savagely beat up her hulk of a father, gunned down 5 of her family including her beloved twins. While doing this she managed to score a direct hit on all her targets. Every shot found a victim. Quite remarkable don’t you think, that this 6 stone waif with limited firearms knowledge could achieve such a feat don’t you think!

    Jeremy Bamber has gained some credibility about ‘ a figure at the window’ due to the ineptitude of the Keystone Cops who were first on the scene. They would have believed anything Bamber told them.

    There was no phonecall from Ralph Bamber to Jeremy Bamber. Ralph Bamber had a deep lying contempt for his lazy, arrogant, adopted son. In a moment of crisis Jeremy Bamber would have been the last person he would have called. Jeremy Bamber knew damned fine what was awaiting the Police when he called them to report the ‘incident’. This is why Bamber took his bike ( which had no lights) down a dimly lit route instead of the high powered sports car that lay at the front of his home. He was in no hurry to get there, the bloody mess that was to greet him was the result of his own handywork.

    Your hitman theory’s, while you have filled us with possibilities, hold no ground. This angle was fully investigated by Senior Police and was more colourfull gossip than actual reality.

    Jeremy Bamber is GUILTY and I look forward to him spending many more years at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. I feel very confident that he will NEVER be released. His case will continue to attract publicity but he has very little chance of freedom. He has a large band of followers, many in it for their own interests -

    Bob Woffinden is a veteran ‘miscrriage of justice’ campainger. He has jumped on the Bamber bandwagon. An intelligent man, his energies are wasted here but he does have a fondness for chasing lost causes.He recently wrote an article for The Daily Mail about Bambers case,
    which can be found on Bamber’s website. Some of his claims bordered the ridicolous. I am half expecting him to campaingn for Ian Huntley next. George Galloway is a high profile MP who loves controversy. He is actually a fool of a man who no rightminded person takes seriously. Giovanni Di Steffano is Bambers lawyer these days. He only deals in high profile cases such as these to boost his ego and attract attention to himself. No stranger to prison himself, having spent 3 years in prison for theft in the 80s, he will do Bamber more harm than good. All this talk of lie detector tests amuse me.

    Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2008 @ 1:45 am

41. My apologies, in the above I meant to say Neville Bamber ( Jeremy Bamber’s father) instead of ‘Ralph Bamber’.

    Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2008 @ 8:20 pm

42. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that there has recently been a significant development in the investigation into a possible miscarriage of justice in Jeremy Bamber’s case. New evidence has been uncovered which proves that the rifle which is supposed to have been the murder weapon was photographed leaning against the bedroom window before later photographs were taken which show the same rifle on the body of Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom. This new evidence proves that it was the police who placed the rifle on the body so that PC Bird could take his pictures of the gun being on the body. These pictures were shown to the jury at the 1986 trial under the pretense that this was exactly how the police had discovered Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor with the rifle on it. But the new evidence proves conclusively that the gun was put onto the body by the police before PC Bird took the relevant pictures. The police inside the house moved the rifle from the bedroom window and they planted it onto Sheila’s body and stage managed it to try and suggest that she had committed suicide by use of it. These are the facts and this is the new evidence that will cause the CCRC to refer Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the court of appeal. There is currently an in depth investigation ongoing into the sequence with which all the photographs were taken in conection with this investigation and by the time this investigation is concluded there will be no room for any doubt in anyones mind that Jeremy Bamber truly was and is innocent. Fact of the matter is, the new photographic material which was withheld from Bambers legal team at the original trial,is now in the hands of the CCRC and it will be sufficient to establish that the police could not and did not find Sheila Caffells body with the rifle upon it as indicated by the pictures which PC Bird took at the scene at the material time. The rifle cannot have been on Sheila Caffells body and be leaning against the bedroom window both at the same time? The new photographic material which is now available indicates that the rifle was leaning against the bedroom window before it was photographed upon the body. How Jeremy Bamber is supposed to have moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto the victims body when he was not even at the scene at that time is something which I look forward to Essex police and its supporters explaining. In my opinion, Jeremy Bamber will not be spending the rest of his life behind bars. He truly is innocent and deserves to be set free immediately. The sooner this case come to appeal the better, so that this miscarriage of justice can be put right once and for all..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 1/24/2008 @ 7:17 pm

43. Well done Kevin for your analysis and insight into the case. I think you are absolutely spot on! It seems that Bamber’s supporters have some ‘new evidence’ everytime I look into the case. While Mike is in possession of many good points and facts I think the way they are presented is often misleading. I would like the general public see a copy of this ‘new evidence’ which he keeps coming up with. Mike is entitled to his opinion and I admire his tenacity. However, many of the facts simply do not support the case for Jeremy Bamber’s innocence. Many excuses are repeatedly made about ‘acting in shock’ and ‘each person acts differently’ This is in no doubt true. However, Bamber acted with unbelievable callousness both immedietely before and after the crimes had been discovered. His behaviour stretches this point too far. Mike you do not just ‘go on a jolly up to Amsterdam, in shock’ or go sell your ‘dead sister’s pictures to a Sun Reporter in shock’. These excuses are wearing extremely thin. I would also like to see the statement of the police officer who claims to have seen - and the accompanying photographs - a rifle propped up against the window.
    I agree with Kevin the talk of this ‘mysterious stranger’ is an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse a straightforward issue of guilt. One other point that I would like to make Mike is this. As an ex-soldier I have never, ever seen a rifle (and I have handled literally thousands) that has fired twice in succession unless it has a faulty trigger mechanism. The so called ‘hair trigger’ is possible, but it is either the result of criminal tampering with the mechanism (I am led to believe that criminals do this to avoid the gun jamming or to fire shots repeatedly) or it is faulty. The assertion that Sheila shot herself twice is totally absurd. The truth is is that she was murdered. Bamber shot her underneath the chin thinking that this would suffice. He then discovered that she was still alive and shot her a second time, this time fatally. He realised that the gun with it’s silencer was too long for Sheila to have reached the trigger and, at the same time place the tip of the silencer under her chin. He therefore removed the silencer and placed the gun on her now dead body. He then placed the silencer back in the cupboard where it was later found. Furthermore, Sheila’s body was ‘pulled down’ probably by her ankles, possibly to fire the second, fatal shot. This is born out by the fact that her nightdress was found to have been ruffled underneath her body and not on the top. I suspect that Bamber fired the second, fatal shot after putting Sheila into this position in order to get the gun barrel under her chin. Mike the truth is without conspiracy theories, or, as Kevin so rightly points out, without people trying to court controversy by expressing support. The truth is Bamber murdered them all, and thought in his infinate arrogance that he could get clean away with it. He will, without a shadow of doubt, spend the rest of his unnatural life behind bars, exactly where this appalling ingrate belongs.

    Comment by Ian — 4/4/2008 @ 5:22 pm

44. Further to the point about recoil. An Anschultz.22 rifle has ‘minimal’ recoil due to the calibre of the ammunition used. Moreover, recoil means that the gun is reacting to the force exerted upon it by the exiting of the bullet at subsonic velocity. Newtons Law states that ‘for every action, there is an equal and positive reaction’ This means that the gun (it would have had minimal recoil) would have lurched slightly in the opposite direction from which the bullet is fired. In other words, away from the direction of the trigger mechanism itself. Her finger/s would have ended up at the front inside the trigger guard and it would have been impossible for her finger/s to re-activate the trigger a second time, unless the mechanism was faulty or had been tampered with. As far as I am aware no such findings were found on the rifle. What was found however, was that the release catch on the magazine was extremely stiff. I am led to believe that the police officer testing the rifle broke a nail trying to release it. No such marks were found on the hands of Sheila Cafell, in fact her nails were freshly painted and manicured. Very odd don’t you think for a woman who has just fired 26 shots - which meant that she would have had to release the catch at least twice in order to to reload - and been in a fight to the death with a man twice her size? The truth is simpler……..she was murdered by Jeremy Bamber.

    Comment by Ian — 4/4/2008 @ 6:01 pm

45. i have read all of our comments with both intrest and revulsion
    did you live 2 miles away from whfarm when this happened ,i dont think so
    did you know the family, probably not
    i did i first met jeremy when he was 6 yrs old
    june and neville were both getting quite fraile when this happened so although neville was tall he was not burly as suggested
    sheila had lived a troubled life and was unfortunatley quite ill for various reasons
    what happened inside that house did happen inside it and the one person who wasnt inside the farm was jeremy so unless he has the abiliy to walk through walls or locked doors it wasnt possible for him to have done this
    time marches on and due to the lost and missplaced evidence and many police mistakes jeremy has lost his life is it not enough that he has probably lost any chance of a normal family life
    perhaps the truth will out but until it does then people should stop picking over this case and leave it to the experts and keep there personal comments to themselves
    without the fact that hes had to bare more than his soul that he should now have some chance of life
    the upshot of this comment is if your not im full possion of the facts and there is only one person who is and that is jeremy then you should keep your comments to your self
    and a message to jeremy it will happen you will be proved innocent

    Comment by sue lusher — 4/8/2008 @ 9:41 pm

46. Thank you for your comments Sue. I must hastily add that this is a public forum and anyone is entitled to their opinion on this case, especially as Bamber himself seems so eager to cast it constantly into the public eye. Whether you knew Bamber or not is not in any way evidence of his innocence nor guilt. You state that ‘bamber was not inside the farmhouse’ - May I ask how you know this?
    May I also suggest that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Your comments I find amusing in the extreme. They are typical of ther ignorance surrounding the case that has allowed Bamber to make ludicrous claims of innocence. You also state that ‘he should now have some chance of a life’ I find this comment distasteful and ignorant. Did he give any thought to the lives of those he murdered so brutally? Did he show any kind of mercy to those poor twin six year old boys that he shot through the head while they slept in their beds? Did he show any kind of mercy for a father that he battered with the butt end of a rifle before shooting him 8 times? Did he show mercy for his mother whom he shot while crawling helplessly on the floor? did he spare Sheila?
    The answer to this is NO, he did not. This is the same mercy that this disgusting, appalling ingrate deserves - absolutely none

    Comment by Ian — 5/12/2008 @ 3:54 pm

47. Without mentioning any names, I am a family member. I have grown up in the knowledge and fall-out of what happened in 1985. I cannot contain my anger at the ignorance of Mike Tesko and others who blindly support Bamber and his deceptive rhetoric. There is no doubt that he is guilty - the only contentious elements of the case are unproven and spun by Bamber’s cronies.

    The bare facts point to the reality. Bamber was a known black sheep and displayed all the behaviours of someone that was detached from the morals of society. The silencer blood and gunshots clearly show that Sheila (with no firearm experience to boot) could not have possibly have carried out such cold-blooded killing.

    Throw in the testimony of a genuinely nice girlfriend, the disgracefully amoral behaviour (holiday and pornographhic photos) and a botched ‘alibi’, it was clear to the family that Jeremy was more than capable of doing such a disgusting thing. It only takes a look into those dead eyes and chilling smile to realise that he is not all there.

    He is not a normal person - a switch was flicked at some point in his youth that enabled him to lose empathy and feeling for others. When coupled with extreme narcissism and greed, we have a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, this recipe came to fruition and we have all payed for it in some way or another. Jeremy is a psycho and has literally lied to himself for so long that he has created his own palatable ‘reality’ where somehow he believes he is innocent. That is the scariest thing of all. A man like this is capable of anything when he can justify disgusting actions in his mind - and for this reason, that is why he will deservedly rot in hell. With every passing re-trial or review, his deluded attempts for freedom become increasingly desperate and laughable. Shame that I can’t really laugh about it all, but I find some solace in the fact that the right person is in jail until he dies.

    Comment by Rocky Fish — 5/19/2008 @ 5:30 pm

48. Rocky Fish,

    In his 2001 statement to the City of London Police, David Boutflour stated that Peter Eaton had been in the farmhouse on the night of Friday 9 August 1985. (This was the night before Essex police had returned the key to Ann Eaton.) David Boutflour further states that Peter Eaton had “returned a rifle” into the farmhouse.

    What rifle would that have been?

    The murder weapon was at Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory.

    Cash Bottome

    Comment by Cash Bottome — 7/18/2008 @ 10:27 am

49. Dear Rocky Fish
    I agree that Jeremy Bamber was a phycho. I can remember him working in a local clothes shop and seeing out and about in Colchester (my fav pizza restarant in the high street) and in Burnham ( i cant remember the name of the restaurant there, but my dad used to make deliveries and i would go with him) … - a reall odd ball to say the least - yes good looking, but there was something about him that made your flesh goose up.

    The murder happened on the eve of my 14th Birthday - the next day police and press were everywhere. Maldon had never had such big news. I have followed every tiny detail of this case and I am in no doubt the police made huge blunders…but at the end of the day, they got the right result, the guilty person IS behind bars and will remain there hopefully until his dying day.

    As for mud on the tyres of June’s bike - we also cycled around the area, as kids interested in what had happened, we couldnt get close to Pages Lane, the police wouldnt allow us anywhere near - but went across the fields as close as we could. Funny how our bike tyres were mud covered on the outside wall, and not on the tread as we reached goldhanger ! It was hard going the cycle to the sea wall that way - but nobody would see you or take much notice! At the time Trevor Jones worked in the chequers Pub and we would go in to see the parrot (named scooby doo) then cycle back past Osea caravan park, along to the Mill Beach pub and home to Heybridge. We were on school holidays, and the fascination of the police was just too much for a bunch who had long summer days on their hands.

    I remember seeing Stan Jones and another police man at the bungalow in Head Street. Stan Jones looked like a man with the world on his shoulders. He knew the truth from day one…but nobody wanted to listen to him. What a shame they didnt. So much evidence could have been saved, and used today to re-affirm JB’s guilt. Sheila could have been buried with her children - or the whole family could have been buried together. Shelia was not shown in a good light at the church service and as for that clown acting behind the coffins… i just knew in my tummy there and then aged 14 that he’d done it. I had never been interested in newspapers before then…but i read every page in every local paper and the fronts of every national paper in the stands. Not an obsession, but a complete shock of how this could happen, close enough to my home that i could cycle to the scene ! this didnt happen in Maldon, to us kids, it had put us on the map.

    Since then…i have read every book, read every article i can find on the case, and at times yes i have been fooled,and have doubted. but i come back to the same old thing… he is guilty. Mike Tesko - you have been brainwashed, just as Julie Mugford was, and Brett Collins… ive often wondered who you are…. i bet you are someone who has done time with JB and he’s got you in his clan ! I admire your knowledge of the case, and this could only have come from someone who was either involved in the paper work, or has spent long enough with JB to be living the lie too.

    I wish the Eatons, Boutflours and Speakman’s (all local farming families) the best for the future, they are hard working people who are perhaps perceived locally as previlaged with their land etc, but they have lost the most precious thing of all, 5 members of their family.

    Comment by Missy B — 2/10/2009 @ 12:14 pm

50. Mike Tesko Is a Former Cell Mate of JB’s For Sure you can tell.

    Comment by MythBuster — 2/17/2009 @ 8:02 pm

51. It is hard to get the truth from a onesided story

    Comment by MythBuster — 2/17/2009 @ 8:02 pm

52. I agree, although in one book I read JB was quoted to say “only I know what happened in that house that night” …!!!!

    Comment by Missy B — 3/2/2009 @ 1:37 pm

53. EVERYONE SEEMS TO MISS THE EMOTIONAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE AND ARE SO WRAPPED UP IN THIS NEW EVIDENCE. MOST OF THE NEW EVIDENCE CENTRES ON THE FORENSICS WHICH ARE INADMISSABLE BECAUSE THE POLICE TOTALLY MISMANAGED THE CASE AS SOON AS THEY ENTERED THE HOUSE. LOOK AT THE TIMELINE PEOPLE.THIS TELLS THE WHOLE STORY.IF SHEILA WAS SHOT NO LATER THAN SIX AM;THEN SURELY BAMBER AND POLICE WOULD HAVE HEARD THE SHOTS AND ENTERED THIS EVIDENCE WITH HIS LAWYER AT TRIAL; THIS WOULD BE CRUCIAL TO THE DEFENCE CASE.BAMBERS EVIDENCE THAT A MALE FIGURE WAS SEEN BY HIM AND POLICE ONLY REINFORCES THE ACCOMPLICE THEORY.HIS CALL TO JULIE MUGFORD CAME BETWEEN THE CALL HE CLAIMED CAME FROM HIS FATHER AND THE CALL TO POLICE.MUGFORD STATES BAMBER CALLED TO SAY EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL BUT THERS SOMETHING WRONG AT THE FARM WHICH REITERATES THE ACCOMPLICE THEORY.IHAVE SEEN THE BULLET WOUNDS ON SHEILAS NECK AND YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THE TWO WOUNDS ARE DIFFERENT.ONE IS ELONGATED AND THE OTHER PLAINLY ROUND.SILENCER ON;SILENCER OFF.BAMBER IS ACOLD AND CALCULATING KILLER.IF AS SOME PEOPLE ARESUGGESTING THE RELATIVES ARE INVOLVED WOULDNT J.BAMBER BE ON THE LIST OF DEAD.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/10/2009 @ 3:40 pm

54. BAMBER STATES THE LINE WENT DEAD AFTER HE HEARES A SHOT BUT THE LINE WAS LEFT OPEN AND HE COULD NOT HAVE GOT A FRESH DIALING TONE.THIS UNDERMINES HIS ALIBI,BUT ASK YOURSELF WHY NEVILLE WOULD PHONE HIS WASTREL OF A SON AND NOT POLICE AND THEN BAMBER IN TURN PHONES LOCAL POLICE AND NOT 999 . IT JUST DOES NOT ADD UP.USE COMMON SENSE WITH THE TIMELINE.TO MY EYES BAMBER PHONED POLICE TOO EARLY BECAUSE HIS ACCOMPLICE WAS STILL IN THE HOUSE WHEN THEY ALL ARRIVED AT THE FARM.BAMBER IS AN ENIGMA WRAPPED IN A MYSTERY.IT WAS LIKE PAINTING BY NUMBERS,BAMBER DID THE SKETCH AND POLICE COLOURED IN.HIS WHOLE BEHAVIOR DOES NOT BEFIT AN INNOCENT MAN.WHY WAS HE HAWKING PHOTOS OF HIS DEAD SISTER.HOW COULD HE LIVE IT UP ON THE SOUTH OF FRANCE,WHY DID HE WANT TO DESTROY ALL EVIDENCE LIKE CARPETS AND BEDDING.THE REASON,IT WAS ADONE DEAL AS FAR AS THE POLICE WERE CONCERNED AND HE ACTED AS QUICK AS HE COULD AND FELT HE WAS IN THE CLEAR.HE CLEARLY NEVER THOUGHT THE TRUTH WOULD BE UNEARTHED.FACT;BAMBERS SISTER NEVER USED FIREARMS.IF SHE IN A SCHIZO FRENZY HOW COULD EVERY SHOT HIT ITS TARGET.IT WAS A SKILLED EXECUTION PEOPLE,WAKE UP AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT BAMBERS INTENTIONS WERE.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/10/2009 @ 4:11 pm

55. Can somebody tell me…. does Bamber now stay in prison for life… or does he come out after 25 years? i seem to remember Douglas H saying he was in for “life” and there being some hoo hah in the press about it. I presume it is for life, otherwise bamber would just keep his head down and do the remaining years, which would not be far off the horizon now.

    Comment by Missy B — 4/17/2009 @ 10:42 am

56. everyone who supports bambers innocence seems to support this new forensic evidence, but his supporters dont seem to grasp that in the first instance the police and forensics made a complete mess of things and are now only still trying to shift the blame. none of it supports his innocence but in fact shows his involvement.take for instance his call to police where he states his father tells him sheila is going mad with agun,but on arrival at the farm he says a male figure can be seen at the window with what seemed to be a gun.these are 2 conflicting pieces of evidence.also new ballistics evidence shows more than 1 rifle was used in the murders.this to me just reittarates my feeling that bamber had an accomplice.so much timeline and behavoural evidence shows the motive was money.1.the theft of money from the caravan site.2.hawking of photos of sheila to the press.3.discussion of a dealer standing him a porsche with a copper outside the farm on the very night his family has been butchered.telling friends its important to have money when you are young.im sorry but his personality is such he has fooled a lot of people and they cannot grasp the truth.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/18/2009 @ 9:06 am

57. i agree with ian in that nobody else is in the frame. it reeks of bambers doing.the only motive is money and greed.mike tesco you have been well and truly taken in

    Comment by john hughes — 4/18/2009 @ 9:13 am

58. mike tesco keeps banging on about another male at the farm and why arn’t the police pursuing this line of enquiry.answer,well correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t bamber say his father told him sheila was the one going mad with a gun? you can’t just use the evidence to suit your theories mike and expect others to just believe your version of events. neville expressed fears about jeremy to his secretary and said i must never turn my back on that young man.now you just can’t dismiss thisas hearsay when there’s so much of this type of testimony from so many people.who else is seriously in the frame?who stood to gain from the 5 deaths?ask yourself these questions and you will come to the only common sense answer.the forensic evidence leads you in all directions because of the massive cock-up by the police.trust your instincts and use common sense.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/18/2009 @ 8:43 pm

59. i cannot believe your constant ramblings about bambers innocence mike tesco. do you not agree that police and forensics messed up this case then why do you pay so much attention to the time line of sheilas gun shot wounds when this could be another red herring.you seem to select evidence only to support your own theories.why is it you are right and everybody else is wrong?bamber was and still is an arrogant and narsistic bully and murderer.your comment about arelative being the unknown male inside the house beggars belief,who do you think you are making wild and unsubstatiated claims.these are innocent people and you support someone as warped and evil as jeremy bamber. you really are something else.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/18/2009 @ 9:15 pm

60. so mike tesco believes that all bambers behaviour after the murders does not point to his guilt and what are we to make of his actions before the event? these are not the actions of an innocent man.so we are to believe upon contacting police he cycles the 4to5 miles to the farm and we are not to see any unreasonable behaviour in this,oh come on. i have followed this case since its inception and the more i read and study the man is plainly guilty,simple as that.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/18/2009 @ 9:36 pm

61. John - can you let me know the answer to my question about how long Bamber is to be inside for? (see my earlier post)
    thanks

    Comment by missyb4 — 4/21/2009 @ 11:33 am

62. in answer to you missy b,his sentence is a whole life tarriff.it means he will never be released,home secretary michael howard changed it to this so life means life.thanks for your query.john.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/23/2009 @ 5:32 am

63. it will be a very sad day for justice if this callous murderer is ever released due to the botched-up forensics at the scene of the crime.he didn,t seem to mind when he instructed police to destroy all evidence in the house.this is very convenient for bamber,but now wants to rely on forensic evidence to support his case

    Comment by john hughes — 4/24/2009 @ 5:43 am

64. i have looked on other websites and everyone has mike tesco clogging up the pages with his distorted view of events. if as you say the police restaged the scene to make it look like murder/suicide by sheila,isn’t there a problem with this line of thinking in that what was it restaged from.bamber told police that sheila was going mad with a gun and that she had suicidal tendencies and police duly obliged, so if bamber was telling the truth why is there a problem now.i’ll tell you the problem, the relatives and other officers smelt a giant rat and realised bamber was up to his neck in this murderous rampage.bambers supporters are trying to blind everyone with this new forensic rhetoric but common sense will always prevail. this new evidence is supposed to show that police marksmen upon entering the farm are responsible for some of the shots fired but as i have said previously bamber would have heard these shots and this into evidence at trial and the police involved cross examined.i think bambers arrogance really shows he believes in his own innocence, because as bamber says : only i know what went on that night: oh and julie mugford,and she knew in detail as bamber informed her. as for the line of thinking that mugford is lying,she kept silent as bamber had total control over her and through his arrogance believed she would keep quiet after he dumped her.

    Comment by john hughes — 4/24/2009 @ 9:52 pm

65. Thanks John. Since my email, he’s been on the national news and has lost some appeal about his length of sentence.

    Comment by Missy B — 5/12/2009 @ 3:45 am

66. yes missy b,he failed in his bid to get his whole life tarriff lifted. apparently some of his appeal centred on his wild belief that he was framed by relatives, but that contradicts his original testimony where he states his father informed him sheila was going mad with a gun.when police arrived they found what bamber had described, and duly ruled murder/suicide by sheila,later that morning bamber then instructed police to destroy all evidence of the massacre.none of the relatives are in this timeline and only got involved when they smelt a giant rat.common sense must prevail when dealing with this case. all i can say is it would be a preposterous way to frame somebody given the timelne involved.but be rest assured evil doth never sleeps and bamber will continue to protest his innocence until his dying day.

    Comment by john hughes — 5/20/2009 @ 11:39 pm

67. Of course he will continue to protest his innocence because he is innocent. If it was a pretence I don’t believe he could have kept it up for all these years. The theory that he may have convinced himself that he didn’t do it or actually forgotten that he did it is in my opinion ridiculous.

    Comment by Leigh — 5/30/2009 @ 11:23 pm

68. IN REPLY TO LEIGH, WHY DO YOU THINK HE COULD’NT KEEP IT UP FOR ALL THESE YEARS? THAT IS NO BASIS FOR INNOCENCE. THE BODY IN THE SUITCASE MURDERER,WHOSE NAME ESCAPES ME, PLEADED INNOCENCE FOR OVER 40 YRS, BUT THEN ADMITTED GUILT ON HIS DEATHBED. SERIOUSLY WHO ELSE IS IN THE FRAME? WHO STOOD TO GAIN? WHO DIRECTED THE POLICE FROM THE OUTSET WHO THEN DESTROYED ALL THE INITIAL FORENSIC EVIDENCE BUT NOW WANTS TO RELY ON TAMPERED EVIDENCE? PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE BECAUSE ALL ROADS LEAD BACK BAMBER HIMSELF.HE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN MONETARY GAIN. HEROBBED HIS OWN PARENTS CARAVAN PARK AND WAS SUPPOSEDLY TO UPSET TO ATTEND HIS PARENTS MEMORIAL SERVICE, BUT ON SAME DAY WAS PARTYING IN LOCAL BARS. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I TALK ABOUT HIS ARROGANCE AND NARCISISM,HE REALLY BELIEVED HE WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT. ASK YOURSELF,WHO SET UP THE TIMELINE AND THEN LOOK AT THE MISTAKES HE MADE AND THEN PLEASE TELL ME WHO ELSE IS IN THE FRAME BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO KNEW HIM ALL SAY HE WAS CAPABLE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF SUCH A HEINOUS CRIME.IF IT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER WOULD’NT JEREMY BE IN THE LIST OF VICTIMS THAT NIGHT AT THE FARM.NONE OF THE FAMILY ARE IN THE INITIAL TIMELINE.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/2/2009 @ 10:00 pm

69. In reply to John Hughes, I THINK THAT IF HE WAS GUILTY AND ADMITTED IT HE COULD BE OUT OF PRISON BY NOW.
    Do you think that the prospect of monetary gain is greater than the prospect of freedom even after all this time? I take it that you knew Jeremy Bamber in person then. I don’t and I have not seen or read anything which states that he has been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As I understand it the parents had told Sheila Caffell that they wanted her children to go into foster care and had been attempting to discuss it on the night when the tradgedy took place. Such discussions could have sparked a schizophrenic episode, creating the belief in her mind that killing her children, her parents and then herself, was the most appropriate means by which the issue could be resolved?

    Comment by Leigh — 6/5/2009 @ 6:51 am

70. LEIGH, HIS LIFE TARRIFF WAS SET SUCH A LONG TIME AGO THAT HIS FREEDOM WAS NEVER TO ARISE. AS FOR BAMBERS PARENTS WANTING SHEILAS CHILDREN IN CARE, THE ONLY PERSON THIS COMES FROM IS BAMBER HIMSELF WHICH BLOWS THAT THEORY OUT OF THE WATER. AND NO I DIDN’T KNOW BAMBER PERSONALLY BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED HE WAS CAPABLE OF DOING THIS. ASK YOURSELF WHO ELSE IS IN THE FRAME? READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND YOU WILL SEE HE IS AN ARROGANT AND NARSISISTIC BULLY WHO PROBABLY HASN’T BEEN DIAGNOSED BUT COMMON SENSE MUST ALWAYS PREVAIL.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/10/2009 @ 4:14 pm

71. But wasn’t the original tariff 25 years? Didn’t someone connected with the family telephone them that evening and later say it seemed as though they had interrupted some sort of argument and also hadn’t there been previous discussions about the welfare of the children? I fail to see how people could testify that Jeremy Bamber was capable of ‘doing this’ if he hadn’t seriously and intentionally physically harmed anyone in the past. Couldn’t the arrogance and narcissism you mention therefore be confused with a confident but not unhealthy attitude?

    Comment by Leigh — 6/14/2009 @ 4:49 am

72. leigh, go back to rocky fish, who is a family member who reiterates my point about bambers narcisistic tendencies. this is someone who knew him.do you need any more evidence?

    Comment by john hughes — 6/15/2009 @ 3:27 pm

73. LEIGH, THE LIFE TARRIFF WAS ORIGINALLY 25 YEARS, BUT THE THEN HOME SECRETARY CHANGED IT TO A WHOLE OF LIFE TARRIFF A FEW YEARS LATER.APPARENTLY THE ARGUMENT YOU REFER TO WAS NEVILLE BAMBERS’ SECRETARY ANN EATON WHO UPON ENTERING THE FARM HEARD AN ARGUMENT , BUT COULD’NT ASCERTAIN WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT.WE ONLY HAVE BAMBERS WORD AS TO WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT. AS TO THE ARGUMENT HE HADN’T DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE, A MURDERER HAS TO START SOMEWHERE.IT DOESN’T MEAN HE ISN’T CAPABLE. THE WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN ONLY ARISES FROM BAMBERS TESTIMONY, BUT THEY WERE LIVING WITH THEIR FATHER ANYWAY. CAN’T YOU SEE, BAMBERS WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY WAS ONLY A FEW DAYS AND HE HAD TO ACT QUICKLY. JULIE MUGFORD STATES BAMBER TOLD HER ITS NOW OR NEVER DURING THIS PERIOD. YOU MUST SEE IT WAS DONE PURELY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN AND NOTHING ELSE. READ INTO HIS BEHAVIOUR BEFORE AND AFTER THE KILLINGS, WHY DID HE LEAVE A LOADED RIFLE IN THE KITCHEN THAT EVENING,WHEN BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY HE ALWAYS LOCKED FIREARMS AWAY IN THE GUN CUPBOARD BEFORE GIVING THE KEYS TO HIS FATHER. HE HAD NO ANSWER TO THIS POINT WHEN QUESTIONED.AS I KEEP POINTING OUT WHO ELSE IS IN THE FRAME AND TIMELINE.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/16/2009 @ 9:54 pm

74. I THINK IT’S NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RE-TRAIL john hughes.
    Yes I have read the comment you refer to and it’s not my intention to insinuate that anyone else’s views are lies. What I write is just my own view, you disagree with it that’s fair enough. Yes a murderer has to start somewhere but what you are saying sounds like you think anyone is capable of murder, they may well be but it doesn’t mean to say they will do it. Lack of empathy is not proof of murder but it looks that way because the majority of people have an image of what grieving should be like in their minds and the behaviour after the killings does not fit this image. Julie Mugford I understand had been ‘dumped’ and then decided to make her confessions to the police. That’s all a bit suspect, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Perhaps he forgot to lock the firearms away due to the afore mentioned argument taking place? We don’t know, we weren’t there, but having read information available regarding this case, I think he is innocent.

    Comment by Leigh — 6/19/2009 @ 6:18 pm

75. LEIGH, WILL YOU GIVE ME YOUR THEORY ON WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, AS IF IT WASN’T JEREMY AND WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT IT COULD NOT BE SHEILA AS YOU CAN’T COMMIT SUICIDE TWICE, AND THE TWO WOUNDS ON HER NECK ARE DIFFERENT,SILENCER ON, SILENCER OFF.CHECK LEGAL INTERNATIONAL TO SEE THE WOUNDS ON HER NECK FOR YOURSELF. WHO DO YOU THINK IT WAS? CRACKING DEBATE THIS IS.LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR THEORY.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/20/2009 @ 1:12 pm

76. New material has come to Light which indicates that Ralph Bamber contacted Essex police, some 10 minutes before Jeremy did …
    A police record states that Mr Bamber contacted the police and informed them that his daughter had got one of his guns and that she was going berserk - Jeremy contacted the police by phone 10 minutes later, and stated that he had been contacted by his father from the scene, informing him that his sister had got the gun, and that she was going crazy. It would appear that Essex police covered up the detail concerning Ralph Bambers call to the police. They achieved this by suggesting that there was some confusion surrounding the time Jeremy made his call to the police, one version of events had Jeremy contacting his former girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after he called the police, whilst another version of the events, had him calling his girlfriend, before he made that call. The truth of the matter is that Sheila was not Jeremy’s daughter, she was his adoptive sister, and that the alleged murder weapon (the .22 semi-automatic Anshulz rifle, did not belong to jeremy Bamber,but it was purchased and licensed by Essex police firearms licensing department, to Ralph Bamber. Discovery of this new material will hopefully silence those who keep harping on about the phone call that Ralph could not have made to jeremy, because he would have called the police instead, fact of the matter is, Ralph Bamber did make that call to the police, and that call took place 10 minutes or so, before jeremy himself made his call to the police. In the same way that Sheila was not Jeremy’s daughter, Sheila was also not Ralph Bambers, sister. Exactly how Essex police are going to dig themselves out of this hole, that they have created for themselves, awaits to be seen. Fact of the matter is, there now exists two different versions of the message received by the police, one from Ralph Bamber who speaks about his daughter having possession of one of his guns and that she is going berserk, and another version from Jeremy Bamber (10 minutes later) informing them that he had received a call from his father, informing him that his sister has got the gun, and that she is going crazy.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/20/2009 @ 5:25 pm

77. The fact that Jeremy contacted the police, after his father had already contacted them, suggests in the strongest possible terms that Sheila was responsible for the carnage that occurred inside the farmhouse. The sighting of the figure at the bedroom window by PC Myall and PS Bews, who arrived at the scene at about 03:45am, could have been a sighting of either, Ralph Bamber, June Bamber, or Sheila Caffell, who may have still been alive inside the premises at that stage. Alternatively, it could have been someone else, who has not yet been identified or linked to the five deaths. Truth of the matter is, someone was still alive inside the house when the police got there, and under those circumstances, jeremy Bamber could not have killed them all beforehand, as alleged in his prosecution. So convinced were the police that they had seen a figure at the bedroom window, that they sent a police message to police control from an nearby patrol car, requesting that the firearms team be sent to the farm, because the person they had just seen, could be armed, and it might turn into a hostage situation. As a result of this call, armed officers arrived at the scene, at around 5 am (first group) and 7am (second group). The police did not storm the house until around 7:30am,because they wanted to wait until daylight, and they were not sure that anyone had been shot up to that stage. Let me clarify something so that you can all be reassured, since, after the arrival of the first armed officers, at 5am, some were deployed to the house to have a close look through all the downstairs windows, and to check the doors. At this time, the kitchen light was switched on and officers looked in through the kitchen window and reported that they could see no-one, they did not see the body of Ralph Bamber in the kitchen at this time. However, when the raid team commenced its approach to the house, with a view to forcing their way into the premises, at around 7:30am, that same morning, one of the armed officers, looked through the same kitchen window, and reported what he believed was the body of a dead female, that he could see on the kitchen floor. This body was not present in the kitchen at just after 5am, when another officer had checked the same room, through the same window,and according to the contents of a previously undisclosed police message log, once the armed officers entered the kitchen they reported that they found - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female in the kitchen (7:37am). Another message that was passed from the scene a minute later (7:38am) One dead male, one dead female. Four minutes later, another message (7:42am)can someone please contact the police surgeon and the coroners officer regarding two dead bodies? Now how clear can this be? Surely, according to the police message log contents which were deliberately concealed for over 19 years by Essex police and the CPS, two dead bodies were found in the kitchen, once the armed police had entered it. The next message of any significance was timed at 8:10am, it states that after a thorough search of the premises, a further THREE BODIES HAVE BEEN FOUND UPSTAIRS, making Five dead bodies in total. The official version of events relied upon at jeremy Bambers, 1986, trial, was that the police only found one dead body in the kitchen, and four other bodies, upstairs. If the police had not deliberately withheld the contents of the police message log, from Bamber, and his legal team, and the court which was trying Bamber for these murders, it would have been very interesting to see how Essex police and the CPS would have tried to squirm their way out of this predicament? The real issue here, is how did a scenario of two dead bodies downstairs (by 7:37am) and three dead bodies upstairs (by 8:10am)eventually turn into a scenario, of only one dead body downstairs, and four other bodies upstairs, by 8:30am? There was obviously a displacement of a female body from the kitchen downstairs to the main bedroom upstairs, and this displacement took place or occurred after 8:10am. If the police were not responsible for moving the female body from the kitchen to the bedroom, how did the body end up where it had not originally been at and by 8:10am? The only possible explanation, is that she must have regained consciousness, and fled upstairs, where she was shot and killed in the bedroom, after 8:10am - infact, she died in the main bedroom at around 8:30am. Whether or not she took her own life is debatable, since, she could have been shot by the police who spent an anxious 20 minutes or so trying to track her down after her disappearance from the kitchen, where they had presumed her to already be dead. Jeremy Bamber cannot be held responsible for the way the police passed the messages from the scene, regarding the discovery of two dead bodies in the kitchen, by 7:37am, or the corresponding find of three further dead bodies, upstairs, by 8:10am. Fact of the matter is, that there was someone still very much alive inside the farm after 8:10am, and therefore, jeremy could not have killed that female. The only female victim who could have still been alive inside the house, by that stage, was Sheila Caffell - since there were only two female victims and the other (June Bamber) had been shot five times whilst she lay in bed and another twice (both fatal) in the head by the entrance to the main bedroom door. Logic dictates, therefore, that jeremy Bamber, could not have killed his sister, its as simple as that.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/20/2009 @ 6:02 pm

78. It was a crucial part of the prosecutions case against jeremy Bamber, that Sheila did not have any injuries upon her body, which would have been consistent with her having been involved in a struggle with her father, Ralph Bamber, in the kitchen? In order to pull off this deception, the police and the CPS withheld crucial crime scene photographs taken of injuries sustained to Sheila’s right forearm and the top part of her right hand, which was scratched and contained gouge marks, which had drawn blood…

    Ralph Bamber, also had corresponding scratch and gouge marks upon his right forearm..

    The pathologist commented upon these marks on both victims, and concluded that someone with longer fingernails had made the gouge and scratch marks, on Ralph Bambers forearm, than the person who made the marks, on Sheila’s arm and hand? If the same person had killed both Ralph and Sheila, why weren’t the scratch and gouge marks, that were made on Ralph and Sheilas arms, made by the same fingernails?

    Fact of the matter is …

    The marks on Ralph forearm, were made by Sheila, and the marks on Sheila’s forearm, and the top part of her right hand, were made by Ralph Bamber..

    Jeremy Bamber is innocent and did not commit any of these murders …

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/20/2009 @ 6:14 pm

79. WE are now some 24 years after the events that took place at the scene of these five shootings. we have been told that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time sheila was fatally wounded and that the murderer (Jeremy) removed the silencer from the guns barrel, after Sheila was already dead, and that he took it downstairs and concealed it in the gun cupboard, before fleeing the scene, and reporting to the police that he had been contacted by his father (Ralph Bamber)with a cock and bull story about his father telling that Sheila had got the gun, and that she was going crazy, before the line went dead etc…

    It now transpires, that on the first occasion (29 August 1985) when Essex police dismantled the silencer, that the baffle plates had been inserted the wrong way round, and that as a result of this, it could not have fired at least 12 whole crime scene bullets that were recovered, either from the bodies of the victims, or from the crime scene (loose bullets) itself.

    More worrying…

    The pathologist had removed the so called non fatal bullet (PV/20) from the side of Sheila’s neck and recorded for the fact that this bullet had fragmented into three separate pieces after it struck the Fourth vertebrae in her neck. An Xray taken of her body before the autopsy took place, shows the bullet broken into three separate pieces, and yet by the time the ballistic expert conducted his experiments with a view to link the crime scene bullets to the family own .22 semi-automatic rifle, this bullet (PV/20) have manifested itself, into a whole bullet, that the ballistic expert could positively link to the aforementioned rifle…

    Such is the current state of play with regards to the prosecution case, as far as the ballistic evidence is concerned…

    Lets face facts, the silencer was not used in the death of Sheila Caffell, as alleged by the prosecution at Jeremy’s trial - the silencer is nothing but a red herring, that was introduced to try and make it look like Sheila could not have taken her own life, when it now looks like she could have done..

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/20/2009 @ 6:31 pm

80. John, if you are still interested to know my theory this is what I think may have happened. As stated above, the police saw someone in the window of the house when they arrived at the scene and believing this person may be armed they did not enter the premises until some time later. I think it was most likely Sheila Caffell since the telephone call/calls from Ralph Bamber indicated that she had got a gun. She suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia and there had been reports that she had thoughts of harming her children and herself, possibly delusions, which unfortunately is not uncommon with this type of mental illness. As I said earlier discussions regarding the futures of her children could have sparked a schizophrenic episode.

    I think it is possible that the first injury to Sheila did not kill her, she may have regained consciousness in the kitchen and then retreated upstairs, hence the sighting in the window, where she received the second fatal injury. I am not a forensic or firearms expert so I can’t make assumptions about the type of wounds Sheila had but Jeremy Bamber was outside the house with police at this time so how could he be guilty?

    I don’t think the fact that Jeremy Bamber contacted local police rather than the emergency services shows a sign of guilt either as if he is telling the truth he would not have been aware of the seriousness of the situation at that point in time.

    The police originally thought that Sheila had committed the murders but due to the intervention of members of the extended family and the fact ‘money’ was involved the suspicion altered. The motive for killing apparently being financal gain. I wonder if this had not been a wealthy family would the outcome/conviction have been the same? Although it happened a long time ago, the inheritance was not a great amount, not great enough to murder your entire family in my opinion. I know that people kill for a lot less but the circumstances were that Jeremy was not in financial difficulty and since it was a large family wouldn’t other surviving members claim a share? I don’t know but I don’t believe greed alone would fuel murderous intent in this case. It’s been said he didn’t get on with his parents and sister, who does 100 percent of the time?

    I think Jeremy Bamber was set up by Julie Mugford because their relationship had broken down and she wanted revenge. If he was guilty and she had information to prove it don’t you think he would have waited longer before dumping her? It’s also interesting that she did gain financially from selling her story to the press and later fled the country.

    Comment by Leigh — 6/23/2009 @ 3:47 pm

81. So no I can’t CONCLUDE THAT IT COULD NOT BE SHEILA. I think it’s reasonable to think it could have been Sheila Caffell.

    Comment by Leigh — 6/23/2009 @ 3:54 pm

82. I REPEAT MIKE ALL OF THE FORENSIC AND BALLISTIC EVIDENCE IS INADMISSABLE BECAUSE POLICE TOTALLY MISMANAGED THE SCENE OF CRIME WITH THEIR INCOMPETENCE DURING AND AFTER THE KILLINGS. YOUR RHETORIC IS ONE OF COMPLETE RAMBLING AND COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT CONCERNING THIS CASE.ANSWER THIS, WHY DID BAMBER INSTRUCT POLICE TO DESTROY ALL EVIDENCE AND NOT CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION? AS FOR THE PHONE CALL TO POLICE,WHERE HAS THIS NEW EVIDENCE COME FROM MIKE? BECAUSE IF IT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE SURELY THIS WAS NEW GROUND FOR APPEAL, SO HOW IN GODS NAME COULD IT BE REFUSED? WHAT IS AMAZING IS THIS HAS NEVER SURFACED BEFORE AND IS SURELY ANOTHER RED HERRING IN THIS LONG RUNNING SAGA. YOU ARE FAR TOO TECHNICAL IN YOUR ACCOUNT AND IT SEEMS TO ME YOU THINK YOUR OPINION IS THE ONLY VALID ONE.IFEEL,ASAGOOD MANY OTHERS DO THAT YOU ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT AND HAVE BEEN SEDUCED BY BAMBER TO THE POINT OF SHEER BLIND IDOLOTRY.WHICHEVER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT,SHEILA COULD NOT HAVE OVERPOWERED NEVILLE BEFOREHAND. COMMON SENSE MUST PREVAIL,HE DID IT AND THOUGHT HE HAD GOT AWAY WITH IT.ANYWAY ASK ANY PROPER RIFLE EXPERT WHETHER A SILENCER WAS USED OR NOT SHE COULD NOT HAVE SHOT HERSELF TWICE. AND PLEASE DON’T WAFFLE ON ABOUT RECOIL AS IT DOESN’T STAND UP. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING.YOU’LL BE TELLING US ALL NEXT YOU BELIEVE IN THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY. JUST FOLLOW THE TIMELINE AND THERE’S ONLY ONE CONCLUSION. LEIGH STATES IN AN EARLIER PIECE THAT BAMBER COULN’ KEEP UP THE PRETENCE OF INNOCENCE ALL THIS TIME SO MUST BE INNOCENT, SO THE PRETENCE OF JULIE MUGFORDS’ TESTIMONY HAS NO VALIDITY IN HIS GUILT? READ PEOPLES’ TESTIMONY THAT WERE CLOSE TO HIM AND THEN TELL ME HE IS INNOCENT.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/23/2009 @ 8:56 pm

83. IN RESPONSE TO YOU LEIGH,IF THESE GUNSHOTS OCCURED WHEN BAMBER WAS OUTSIDE WITH POLICE WHY DID HE NOT ENTER THIS EVIDENCE AT HIS ORIGINAL TRIAL. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SO CRUCIAL TO HIS CASE.YOU CANNOT EXPECT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HE OR HIS DEFENCE WOULD LEAVE THIS OUT, IT BEGGARS BELIEF. AS FOR SHEILA’S WOUNDS, GO BACK TO IAN AND KEVINS’EARLIER STATEMENTS ABOUT THE POWER OF THE WEAPON INVOLVED, THE FIRST SHOT WOULD HAVE COMPLETLY INCAPACITATED HER IMMEDIATLY.AS THEY STATE THEY HAVE USED THIS FIREARM DURING ARMY DUTY AND MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.AS FOR THE TELEPHONE WE ONLY HAVE BAMBERS WORD FOR IT,AND PLEASE DONT REITERATE MIKE TESCOS COMMENT THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT NEVILLE PHONED POLICE FIRST BECAUSE IF THAT WERE TRUE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REFUSE AN APPEAL OR RETRIAL.YOU DONT FEEL 500,OOO POUNDS WAS NOT A LOT OF MONEY IN 1985.YOUR ARGUMENT JUST DIED WITH THAT STATEMENT.IF AS YOU SAY SHEILA WAS A DANGER TO HER CHILDREN,WOULD HER PARENTS NOT HAVE BEEN MORE VIGILANT? THEY NEVER ONCE STATED TO ANYONE SHE WAS A DANGER

    Comment by john hughes — 6/23/2009 @ 9:34 pm

84. WHY WOULD POLICE NEED TO COVER UP NEVILLE’S CALL TO POLICE WHEN IT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THEIR CASE AFTER THE EVENT.IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER,SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE USED THIS,ITS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.YOU ARE NOT THINKING THESE RED HERRINGS THROUGH PROPERLY.WHEN FAMILY MEMBERS STARTED THEIR RESEARCH WHY DIDN’T POLICE SHOW THEM THIS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WOULD CLINCHED THEIR CASE? WHY, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.ARGUMENTS FOR BAMBERS’ INNOCENCE ARE BECOMING SO DESPERATE THAT HIS SUPPORTERS BLINDLY BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT ARISES TO SUPPORT HIS INNOCENCE.I’M WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME FORWARD TO SAY HE MUST BE INNOCENT BECAUSE I WAS THERE AND IT WAS’NT HIM.HE IS ACOLD BLOODED KILLER AND DESERVES NO MERCY.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/23/2009 @ 10:04 pm

85. Hello John, and everyone else - I will do my best to answer some if not all of the points you have made, about my inquiries into this case.Firstly, if I thought for one moment that there was any prospect of jeremy Bamber being responsible for these five deaths, I would not have invested so much of my time looking into everything. As far as the ballistics evidence is concerned, I do not believe it can be justified to simply keep saying that the police totally mismanaged the scene of crime with their incompetence,since by using this get out clause, it allows any deliberate wrongdoings to go unpunished. The truth in this matter is that Essex police did a remarkably good job of examining the scene, contrary to what everyone keeps trying to suggest. One of the problems with this case, is that the investigation was split into two separate parts, where the first part under (SC/688/85)contained all the information and evidence that one would have expected the police to carry out under the circumstances of a case like this. The second part of the case under (SC/786/85) was an edited version of the former one. The reason for this split in the investigation was because the first part of this case dealt with the police gathering evidence and information to prove that Sheila was responsible for killing the others and then herself. later, that view changed and this is when the second part of the investigation commenced - it set out to portray Jeremy as the murderer.Essex police and the CPS only disclosed information and evidence that was contained in the SC/786/85 file, withholding the original material contained in the original file (SC/688/85). The editing of information from one file to the other has led to a situation where it has been claimed that the police did not do a thorough job at the scene, but the truth of the matter is, that the police did everything possible and all that work was recorded in the original file. At the beginning of the 1990’s, the COLP investigation tried unsuccessfully to locate the original file (SC/688/85) without success - apparently, Essex police do not know what happened to it? In my opinion, more than one gun was used in these shootings, and at least one crime scene bullet (PV/20) metamorphosized from being a fragmented bullet when it was removed from the victims body (Sheila) on 7 August 1985, into a whole bullet by the time the ballistic expert received it on 20 September 1985. The bullet (PV/20) was eventually linked to the gun which the police photographed on the victims body at the scene - it needs to be explained how this bullet changed in appearance between 7 August 1985 and 20 September 1985, turning from a fragmented bullet into a whole one to enable the ballistic expert to identify the murder weapon, which had fired it..

    I will answer some of the other points in due course.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 3:06 pm

86. ( John - ANSWER THIS, WHY DID BAMBER INSTRUCT POLICE TO DESTROY ALL EVIDENCE AND NOT CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION?)…

    This is relatively easy to respond to. Firstly, ask yourself why Essex police were seeking Jeremy’s permission to get him to agree to destroy all the bloodstained carpets, blankets and mattresses etc.. on the day of the shootings? Why were Essex police so keen to get rid of any incriminating evidence? This was not a case where Jeremy approached the police and said to them, “you must destroy all the bloodstained evidence and burn it all on a bonfire” in the grounds of WHF - it was the police idea that such property should be destroyed. The police instigated that action, on the pretense that they wanted to destroy heavily bloodstained items or articles from the scene which was of no evidential value to the police investigation.

    ( John - AS FOR THE PHONE CALL TO POLICE,WHERE HAS THIS NEW EVIDENCE COME FROM MIKE? BECAUSE IF IT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE SURELY THIS WAS NEW GROUND FOR APPEAL, SO HOW IN GODS NAME COULD IT BE REFUSED? WHAT IS AMAZING IS THIS HAS NEVER SURFACED BEFORE AND IS SURELY ANOTHER RED HERRING IN THIS LONG RUNNING SAGA.)…

    Ralph Bamber did make that call, a police record exists which has recently been disclosed to jeremy and his legal team, which gives clear unambiguous evidence that Ralph called the police some 10 minutes before jeremy made his own call to the police. The contents of the call from Ralph, are recorded in terms that “he is speaking about his daughter” and that “she has got one of his guns”. Jeremy was not Sheila’s father, and Jeremy did not own any of the guns at whf. When Jeremy made his call to the police 10 minutes later, he refers “to Sheila as his sister” and he says that “his father told him that she has got the gun” and that “she is going crazy”. Both massages received 10 minutes a part by the police were clearly from two different peop0le, one from the father of Sheila and the other from her brother. This new material forms part of jeremy’s latest appeal bid and so it may very well prove to be a defining moment in this long running saga, as you put it..

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 3:56 pm

87. (John -YOU ARE FAR TOO TECHNICAL IN YOUR ACCOUNT AND IT SEEMS TO ME YOU THINK YOUR OPINION IS THE ONLY VALID ONE.IFEEL,ASAGOOD MANY OTHERS DO THAT YOU ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT AND HAVE BEEN SEDUCED BY BAMBER TO THE POINT OF SHEER BLIND IDOLOTRY.)…

    Anyone who really knows me would tell you that I do not think my opinion is the only one that matters..

    Is it such a bad thing to be so close to the defense argument, as you put it? I suppose we could level that same argument at the extended family who helped to produce the evidence upon which the prosecutions case was built, at Jeremy’s 1986 trial. It has benefits being close to the defense arguments (as you put it) as well as disadvantages, and I can assure you that there has been many disputes between jeremy and myself over many issues linked to his case. My views are not as biased as you are trying to make out….

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 4:25 pm

88. (John - WHICHEVER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT,SHEILA COULD NOT HAVE OVERPOWERED NEVILLE BEFOREHAND. COMMON SENSE MUST PREVAIL,HE DID IT AND THOUGHT HE HAD GOT AWAY WITH IT.)…

    I happen to believe that you are wrong when you say this - new previously undisclosed crime scene photographs which Essex police concealed from jeremy and his legal team and the court which tried jeremy for these murders, and so at the time of his trial, the images contained in these police pictures was not seen by those who had a duty to return a verdict in this case. I have heard all the police and CPS protestations about Sheila not having any injuries which would be consistent with her having struggled with Ralph in the kitchen, but to be frank, it is all hogwash…

    They say Sheila was not injured and that she had no blood on her hands - fact of the matter is such suggestions are nothing but false and blatant lies which have been circulated to support a false case that has been built up with a view to prosecuting jeremy for these five deaths. I have seen the photographs which show the injuries to the top part of Sheila’s right hand with blood running onto the top part of her hand, and I have also seen the scratch marks and gouge marks on her right forearm (with blood drawn) and I do not need to be bamboozled by the police or the CPS or the media in general, into believing something which is definitely not true. Sheila did have injuries that are consistent with her having been involved in a struggle with Ralph in the kitchen, but if you choose to believe otherwise that is your prerogative. Put another way, by the time of the struggle in the kitchen, and based on the prosecutions own case, Ralph had already been shot four times by the time he ended up in the kitchen, and so he would have been severely weakened by that stage. If you are trying to suggest that Ralph would have still been strong enough to overpower Sheila despite being wounded with four bullets pumped into him, then I will leave you to ponder on that idea for a while. Hopefully common sense will prevail and you might get to see the light, as far as this matter is concerned.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 4:38 pm

89. (John - ASK ANY PROPER RIFLE EXPERT WHETHER A SILENCER WAS USED OR NOT SHE COULD NOT HAVE SHOT HERSELF TWICE. AND PLEASE DON’T WAFFLE ON ABOUT RECOIL AS IT DOESN’T STAND UP.)…

    It is still in dispute that the silencer was used in the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, at jeremy’s trial..

    Let us put things into perspective, the prosecutions own ballistic expert, could not establish whether or not any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through the silencer..

    Any half decent ballistic expert will tell you that it would be possible to tell the difference between bullets which had been fired through a rifle minus a silencer, and other bullets which had been fired through a silencer fitted to that same weapon. The idea of recoil is not sometime which i have introduced into this case, it was what Essex police sought to introduce at the time when they accepted that Sheila had killed the others and then herself. This view was originally supported by several high ranking police officers and senior firearms officers and instructors involved in the case, and of course, this view was subscribed to by the pathologist, Peter Venezis. I am still open to the possibility that Sheila was shot once downstairs at the scene, and later, upstairs in the main bedroom. Technically speaking, I am still of the view that two different guns fired the two bullets and that it was not the same gun which fired both bullets as alleged by the police case. These are just my views and you do not have to agree with them, you may still continue to believe the hogwash about only one gun being used in the shootings and that all the 25 crime scene bullets came from one batch of bullets.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 4:48 pm

90. (John - IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING.YOU’LL BE TELLING US ALL NEXT YOU BELIEVE IN THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY.)…

    Please explain to me how one of the bullets which exited the skull of one of the child victims, ended up in the main bedroom without penetrating any wall or door? If you look at the trajectory that that bullet took, with the child victim laid in bed, how did the bullet swerve around corners and or end up in the main bedroom, without leaving any physical damage to any wall or door? If this is the bullet that you are referring to, as the magic bullet, then in my opinion, it appears to have behaved like one. If you do not like it being referred to as a magic bullet, please provide a description that you would like it to be referred to?.

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 4:53 pm

91. (John - PLEASE DONT REITERATE MIKE TESCOS COMMENT THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT NEVILLE PHONED POLICE FIRST BECAUSE IF THAT WERE TRUE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REFUSE AN APPEAL OR RETRIAL.)…

    It is not my comments that such a call was made by Ralph Bamber some 10 minutes before jeremy made his own call to the police, there exists police records to confirm this, and so, rather than try to pin the blame on me for the existence of such material, your criticism should be leveled at Essex police, since it was they who recorded the details from the call that Ralph made, and which Jeremy made. I hope this clarifies this matter

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 5:00 pm

92. (John - WHY WOULD POLICE NEED TO COVER UP NEVILLE’S CALL TO POLICE WHEN IT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THEIR CASE AFTER THE EVENT.IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER,SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE USED THIS,ITS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.YOU ARE NOT THINKING THESE RED HERRINGS THROUGH PROPERLY.WHEN FAMILY MEMBERS STARTED THEIR RESEARCH WHY DIDN’T POLICE SHOW THEM THIS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WOULD CLINCHED THEIR CASE? WHY, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.ARGUMENTS FOR BAMBERS’ INNOCENCE ARE BECOMING SO DESPERATE THAT HIS SUPPORTERS BLINDLY BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT ARISES TO SUPPORT HIS INNOCENCE.I’M WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME FORWARD TO SAY HE MUST BE INNOCENT BECAUSE I WAS THERE AND IT WAS’NT HIM.)…

    Essex police kept a great deal of the truth close to their chests, they did not reveal what really took place at the scene, either to the press, or in their dealings with the extended family. For example, the police led the family to believe that all the five victims had all been shot and killed with a solitary bullet each. This was highlighted in a statement made by Ann Eaton, who said that she was shocked to fond out later exactly how many bullets had actually been fired. So, why did Essex police mislead the family about the number of bullets fired during the shootings? What did they hope to achieve or gain by withholding the truth? Is there any wonder that the family chose to look into things themselves and they challenged the original police account to the point that pressure exerted by them caused the direction of the investigation to change direction..

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/24/2009 @ 5:06 pm

93. The claim that the only way Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer was if the silencer was fitted to the gun when Sheila was shot and killed was very misleading, indeed. This mistruth led to a situation whereby the presence of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer, would inevitably lead to the jury convicting Jeremy Bamber for these murders. In my opinion, the presence of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer does not necessarily mean that she was murdered as claimed. What we are talking about here, is a very small piece of dried blood, which could otherwise be best described as a particle of dried blood, that was not found inside the silencer, until the silencers second submission to the lab’ on 30 August 1985. Let us remind ourselves that the silencer had already been to the Lab’ beforehand on 13 August 1985, and at that stage the small flake was not found. Let us go further back to the time of the shootings and remind ourselves that Sheila’s heavily bloodstained knickers were found in a bucket in the kitchen next to the body of Ralph Bamber, and that according to the pathologist, Sheila was menstruating at the time of her death, and she had a tampon vaginally inserted at the time of the autopsy was performed upon her corpse, by Pathologist,Peter Venezis, on 7 August 1985. At the time the police found her body the only article of clothing worn by Sheila, was her light blue nightdress. Let us not be fooled into discounting for the possibility that Sheila’s fingers could have contained traces or elements of her own blood long before she was even shot. In addition to the possibility that she had her own blood upon her fingers from the heavily bloodstained knickers which she had obviously removed before she was killed, there also remains the distinct possibility that other blood which stemmed from injuries (right forearm and the top part of her right hand) which were sustained during the struggle with her father Ralph Bamber in the kitchen, got deposited onto one or more of the additional 15 bullets she would have had to reload into the magazine of the gun, to enable everyone to be killed during the incident, got transferred by a process of contamination onto bullets and into the gun, and ultimately once the gun was fired, blood belonging exclusively to Sheila, was carried into the silencer, where it became deposited and later discovered. It is more likely, in my opinion, that Sheila’s blood got into the silencer as a result of innocent or accidental contamination, rather than at the time she received the fatal bullet (PV/19). Let us put things into perspective, the only people who benefited from the suggestion that Sheila’s blood got into the silencer at the time she was shot and killed were the prosecution, the police and the extended family. It was in their best interests that the silencer had to have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and that her blood got into the silencer at that time when Sheila was shot and killed and dead and incapable of removing the silencer from the guns barrel and taking it downstairs to hide in the gun cupboard. This group of people, needed the silencer to be on the gun at that stage to promote the idea that Sheila was murdered and that she did not commit suicide. With the silencer fitted to the guns barrel she could not have killed herself even if she had wanted to because the overall length of the weapon so configured would have served to prevent her from doing so, even if she had wanted to. On the other hand, there was no silencer fitted to the guns barrel when the police found the gun at the scene. There was no evidence to prove that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed - only a theory known as backspatter which was postulated by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who states that with the muzzle of the silencer in a contact or close contact position, at the time the bullet is fired, blood will come back out of the wound and into the end of the silencer by a dynamic process. Well, lets look at this matter from a different perspective, lets say that there was no silencer fitted to the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed. Afterall, there was no silencer fitted to the gun at the time the police found it upon the victims body. Let us consider that any presence of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer at that stage, had got there by a process of innocent or accidental contamination, as described beforehand in this post? Under those circumstances, the presence of Sheila Caffells blood inside the silencer would not establish that she was murdered, but would i suggest, help to prove that she could have and almost certainly did commit suicide. What we are dealing with her, is a misrepresentation of the facts by the police, CPS and the family,who have been hellbent on promoting the idea that the only explanation for the presence of Sheila’s blood in the silencer was a theory - backspatter, when all along, there were other more tenable explanations and or causes which would leave or render the presence of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer, inconclusive..

    Sheila Caffells blood got into the silencer before the moment she was actually shot, not at the time she was shot, and therefore, the presence of her blood inside the silencer does not prove or establish that she was murdered, as opposed to her having committed suicide. The wrong reasons have been relied upon to convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders, its as simple as that. There is nothing complicated about this new argument, its straight forward and capable of belief, and it will eventually lead to the convocations for these five murders being quashed on appeal, whether or not Essex police, the CPS, and the extended family members, believe it or not…

    JEREMY BAMBER is innocent, he always has been innocent, and one day soon it will be established in a legal context that he is innocent. The new material spoken about here will result in his convictions being quashed on appeal, otherwise, the criminal justice system will have been seen to be brought into disrepute.

    The prosecutions argument that the killer removed the silencer from the gun, and that the weapon would have been too long to allow or permit Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself by use of the weapon so configured, and the mistruth about there only being one possible reason for the presence of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer(backspatter)can no longer be relied upon to justify and validate these convictions for all the reasons given. People can call Jeremy all the names under the sun to try and portray him in a bad light, but at the end of the day, he was entitled to a fair trial which he did not get. The actual evidence which would have allowed him and his legal team to produce the arguments outlined in this post at the time of trial, were prevented at that stage, because Essex police withheld crucial crime scene photographs and other material which pointed to the very strong possibility that Sheila’s blood got into the silencer accidentally or innocently, rather than by the process of backspatter..

    For example, prior to the trial Ann Eaton Spoke to DI Cook (SOC) about the blood in the silencer and Cook suggested to Eaton that the defense would be saying that the family had put the blood in the silencer, from the source in their possession, ie.. the heavily bloodstained knickers which Ann Eaton found at the scene and which she had taken home, in the boot of her car, to wash them (the same boot of the car inside which the silencer had been transported away from the scene, on the same day. Ann Eaton had told Cook that the blood was not menstrual blood, and Cook asked her how she could tell? Ann Eaton replied, “by smell”.. Cook reminded her to say that if she was questioned about it during the trial. This exchange demonstrates that the police and the extended family were fully aware of the possibility that the blood belonging to Sheila inside the silencer could have got there by a process of contamination, rather than by the specific means of backspatter.

    Since, Ann Eaton never actually saw the small dried flake of blood inside the silencer, how would she know what it smelled like?

    Let no-one be under any doubt that no stone will be left unturned in the pursuit for the truth in this matter..

    An innocent mans liberty is at stake …

    Comment by mike tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 6:36 am

94. MIKE,I’M SORRY I WAS BEING SARCASTIC WHEN REFERRING TO THE MAGIC BULLET. I WAS REFERRING TO THE JFK CASE.I SHOULN’T BE SO BLASE IM SORRY. BUT COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY, WITH ALL THIS EVIDENCE THERE HASN’T BEEN GROUNDS FOR A RETRIAL LET ALONE AN APPEAL? IS ALL THIS EVIDENCE CLEAR? I STILL THINK HE IS GUILTY.

    Comment by john hughes — 6/27/2009 @ 11:18 am

95. (THE LIFE TARRIFF WAS ORIGINALLY 25 YEARS, BUT THE THEN HOME SECRETARY CHANGED IT TO A WHOLE OF LIFE TARRIFF A FEW YEARS LATER.)…

    According to the rules of the day, once the trial judge had determined the length of sentence which needed to be served by the defendant, who in this case, was jeremy, and it was decreed that he must serve a minimum of 25 years, before he could be considered for release on parole license. This does not mean and did not mean that after Jeremy had served 25 years he would be released, only that he could be considered for release on parole license. Anyway, it was normal policy for the Home Secretary of the day, to write to the prisoner (Jeremy) and ask him to submit grounds in writing for why the length of his sentence should not be altered into a whole life tariff? It was normal practice in cases such as this, for the Secretary of state to await written representations were received from the prisoner, before he could extend or alter or change a sentence such as the minimum 25 year tariff, set by the trial judge in this case.

    In the case of the Yorkshire ripper, peter Sutcliffe, the Secretary of State was unable to increase the minimum 30 year recommendation into a whole life tariff, because he did not submit any written representations. This still stands to this day and the ripper will be due to be considered for release very soon.

    In Jeremys case, he did not submit any written representations but the secretary of State substituted the minimum 25 year tariff, for a whole life tariff, contrary to common practice at that time.

    The Secretary of state has bent the rules to enable him to alter jeremy’s tariff, despite having not received any written representations from jeremy…

    One suspects that no written representations were forthcoming, from jeremy or his solicitors, because jeremy is still pursuing an appeal against these convictions,if so there has obviously been an abuse of process involved in the decision to extend the minimum 25 year term into a whole life tariff. The rules have been circumvented to introduce the whole life tariff against Jeremy, despite the possibility that he may be completely vindicated at his next appeal of being responsible for any of the five deaths.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 12:59 pm

96. (John - so mike tesco believes that all bambers behaviour after the murders does not point to his guilt and what are we to make of his actions before the event? these are not the actions of an innocent man.so we are to believe upon contacting police he cycles the 4to5 miles to the farm and we are not to see any unreasonable behaviour in this,oh come on. i have followed this case since its inception and the more i read and study the man is plainly guilty,simple as that.)…

    There is no evidence to prove that jeremy, or anyone else, used the cycle to commit the murders, it was all just speculation that was introduced by Robert Boutflour and other members of the extended family, to promote the idea of how jeremy had travelled to and fro, between his home address in nearby Goldhanger and whf. Lets put it another way, the cycle in question was examined scientifically by the police and there was no blood found anywhere on the cycle or even any of the unique soil that could be found along the tracks and footpaths between whf and jeremys cottage at He3ad Street.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 1:06 pm

97. (John - mike tesco keeps banging on about another male at the farm and why arn’t the police pursuing this line of enquiry.answer,well correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t bamber say his father told him sheila was the one going mad with a gun? you can’t just use the evidence to suit your theories mike and expect others to just believe your version of events. neville expressed fears about jeremy to his secretary and said i must never turn my back on that young man.now you just can’t dismiss thisas hearsay when there’s so much of this type of testimony from so many people.who else is seriously in the frame?who stood to gain from the 5 deaths?ask yourself these questions and you will come to the only common sense answer.the forensic evidence leads you in all directions because of the massive cock-up by the police.trust your instincts and use common sense.)…

    We do not yet know the circumstances in which Ralph Bamber made those comments to Jeremy over the phone. For example, did he physically see Sheila with the gun, or did he just assume at the time of his call to Jeremy, that Sheila must have got hold of the gun, and that she was going crazy? There is also the possibility that jeremy misheard what his father actually said, since, “sheila’s got the gun” and “she’s got the gun” and “he’s got the gun” are all very similar phrases which could be mistaken one for the other and vice versa..

    I have questioned jeremy on this point and he is adamant that his father said “Sheila’s got the gun” but there still remains a possibility that jeremy mistakenly recollected that his father had said that. Equally, it could well be that Ralph did say that “Sheila has got the gun” but he did not say why she had got the gun or why she had gone crazy - did she have possession of the gun because there was somebody else at the house with another gun and was Sheila going crazy because this other person had shot the children and her mother? Did Ralph mistakenly believe that Sheila had shot the others if that is what he meant when he told jeremy Sheila had got the gun and that she had gone crazy?

    I do not think you can convict a man of five murders just because he received a phone call in the middle of the might and that as soon as the call was terminated, Ralph contacted the police to report what was happening to them, whilst all of the time Jeremy was trying to re-establish contact with his father at whf but kept getting a constant engaged tone. It was only after several minutes had elapsed that jeremy decided to contact the police (some 10 minutes after Ralph had already contacted them)and he repeated what his father had told him. Lets put things into perspective so that everyone can be in the picture, why is it that during the last failed appeal hearing the three appellant judges were concerned and puzzled as to why armed police were already on their way to whf before jeremy had made his call to the police at 3:37am? The answer to this part of the mystery is that the police were being deployed to the scene as a result of Ralph Bambers call to the police 10 minutes earlier. The decision to call out the armed officers to the scene of this tragedy was taken before jeremy made his call to the police at 3:37am, and was in fact a direct response to the call which Ralph had made 10 minutes earlier at 3:27am..

    These are the true facts surrounding this matter, whether or not anyone chooses to believe them..

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 1:21 pm

98. (Ian- I also would like to add the fact that Sheila was found with two gunshot wounds to the underside of her chin. I have heard ridiculous assertions that she could have been able to shoot herself a second time after firing the first shot. This is absolute nonsense! As an ex-soldier I have seen the appalling damage that gunshots inflict on the body. The rifle - an Anschultz .22 rifle is designed to inflict maximum damage at close range. The first bullet travelled(at subsonic speed) through her lower chin and deep into her head just behind the right ear. I agree that this probably would not have killed her instantly, but probably rendered her instantly unconscious. She would definately be incapable of firing a second shot. Considering that a strong, fully fit man can be knocked totally unconscious by a well placed, light blow to the chin, think what a .22 bullet travelling at subsonic speed could achieve to a slender waif like Sheila Caffell? What these Bamber supporters would have us believe is that Sheila (presumably after killing her entire family - including beating a man twice her size, so viciously that the stock of the gun broke) went upstairs, lay on the floor, shot herself under the chin with the silencer attached. Realising that she wasnt yet dead, unscrew the silencer walk all the way down stairs and place it back in the gun cupboard. Calmly walk upstairs, lay down, manoeuvre herself into position again, then place the barrel of the gun under her chin a second time and pull the trigger. This, and with many other incidences listed above is what convicted Bamber at his original trail. Now matter how much Bamber and his supporters try to present their version of events, the truth and people’s own common sense and judgement will always prevail. I strongly believe that Jeremy Bamber is a throughly evil and despicable misfit. He has manipulated a host of people since his conviction and continues to do so……….what has he to loose by consistantly denying his guilt? He claims to be buoyed by what his father used to say: “Don’t worry, Jeremy, the truth always comes out in the wash.”
    Well I will say this. The spin cycle has finished and the wash is complete and Bamber will always be a vile, lying murderer.)…

    Ian, with the greatest respect, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. First of all, the shot under the chin was the second shot according to the pathologist, Dr Peter Venezis. The wound under the chin which had its bullet deposited inside the victims brain was exhibit PV/19. The pathologist concluded that Sheila was shot twice, once to the side of the neck (bullet exhibit PV/20)which would have served to stun the victim momentarily, and a second shot under the chin which would have been immediately incapacitating. Senior police officers at the scene, including DCI “Taff” Jones, Police inspector Bob Miller, DCI Gibbons and DCI Harris, all came to the same conclusion that Sheila could have shot herself twice by a process of recoil, where the second shot had gone off within a split second of the first. The position of both bullet entry wounds were consistent with both shots having been discharged from the gun found upon her body (minus a silencer). In addition, the police surgeon, Dr Graig, also agreed with that conclusion, as did PC Wright the coroners officer, who attended the scene. There were also a number of senior armed officers at the scene who also agreed in principle that the second wound could have been inflicted by recoil. I am not saying that for these reasons that i discount your version of events, because actually i think that all these people that i have just mentioned introduced the recoil theory to cover up for what actually took place surrounding Sheila Caffells death. I have already explained elsewhere that according to the prosecutions case, Ralph was presumably already shot and wounded by four separate bullets by the time any struggle took place inside the kitchen at whf. There are some police officers who do not even believe that such a struggle took place, at all. and that any disturbances of the furniture inside the kitchen came about as a result of the armed police officers rushing into the kitchen upon entry to the building, or as a result of Ralph stumbling over because he was wounded and being shot at a further four times in the head..

    I actually believe that there would have been such a struggle, but far from it being one sided as suggested by your comments, that Sheila was fighting a very seriously wounded man who had already had four bullets pumped into his body by that stage. With Ralph wounded in this manner, the odds would have been in Sheila’s favor of winning any struggle that could have taken place. She may have battered Ralph with the rifle and a piece of its wooden stock may have broken off when she clubbed him with it - none of this proves that jeremy fought or killed his father. I cannot hold it against you for holding the views you do about Jeremy, you are entitled to believe what you want to, its just that I think you are wrong.

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 1:42 pm

99. (M Gibson - You people are crazy. You just believe whatever you want, but Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded murderer who killed his entire family. Shame on you for sullying a dead woman to defend him. Sheila had NO gun oil, powder burns on her fingers, and her newly painted fingernails were not even chipped.

    Or did she clean herself after she committed suicide.

    You people are blind. He’s as guilty as sin and deserves to rot )…

    It is disputed that Sheila did not have any gun oil or lead residue from the bullets upon her hands. It is not as easy to prove what you are saying regarding the presence or absence of such residues upon Sheila’s hands. This is because the hand swabs which were submitted to the lab’ on 9 August 1985, were rejected by the lab’ on that day and sent back to the police, because it was feared that they may have become contaminated with residue from other guns that travelled to the Lab’ in the same exhibit bag as the had swabs. The hand swabs arrived at the lab’ on 9 August 1985, and were given the Lab reference number 17, but three months later the police sent them back to the lab and on that occasion the hand swabs were given a different lab reference number of 75. This was done to conceal for the fact that the hand swabs had been submitted beforehand and rejected by the lab’. If the hand swabs had been submitted with their original lab reference number (17) the lab’ would have been under a duty to reject the hand swabs again. There is even a possibility that the police substituted the original hand swabs for a clean swab that they submitted in its place, but that issue to one side, the hand swabs should never have been accepted at the lab for a second time after they had already been rejected the first time. The hand swabs and any results obtained from them are dodgy to say the least and cannot I would suggest be relied upon in this case to say that the victims hands were definitely 100% clean from gun oil and lead deposits from the bullets.

    By the way, those long manicured fingernails may have been the ones which gouged deep cuts into Ralph Bambers right forearm..

    Sheila had similar finger nail marks on her right forearm and the top part of her right hand, which the pathologist said were caused by someone with differently lengthend fingernails, or in other words, the person who made the gouge marks on Ralph’s arms was not the same person who made the marks on Sheilas arm, and the top part of her right hand. According to the pathologist, someone wioth long nails made the marks on Ralph’s arm and someone with much shorter nails made the m,arks on Sheila. This means that Jeremy could not have been the person who caused the marks on Ralph anmd Sheila..

    But Sheila could have made the marks on Ralph’s arm, and Ralph could have made the marks on Sheila’s arm and the top part of her right hand..

    rather than being blind as you suggest, I can assure you that some of Jeremy’s supporters can clearly see what has taken place in this case with regards to the prosecution of Jeremy and a reliance upon evidence that has clearly been misrepresented..

    Nevertheless, you are entitled to your views, but from my point of view, I hope that justice will eventually be seen to be done in this case, and that jeremy will not rot in hell, as you put it..

    .

    Comment by Mike Tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 2:01 pm

100. (Rocky Fish - Without mentioning any names, I am a family member. I have grown up in the knowledge and fall-out of what happened in 1985. I cannot contain my anger at the ignorance of Mike Tesko and others who blindly support Bamber and his deceptive rhetoric. There is no doubt that he is guilty - the only contentious elements of the case are unproven and spun by Bamber’s cronies.)…

     Do not fool yourself into believing that people like me support Bamber, blindly as you put it. I choose to believe what I believe because I happen to know that there is no solid evidence in this case upon which you can realistically pin the murders of five victims. There is no tangible evidence that makes jeremy the killer, none whatsoever, it is all mere speculation and circumstantial evidence - which proves nothing. The blood found in the silencer evidence has been presented to the court in a very misleading and untruthful manner. We now know how the blood got into the silencer and its presence there does no prove that Sheila was murdered - she could still have committed suicide even if it was her blood inside the silencer. The prosecution and its experts have brain washed everyone into believing that the presence of Sheila’s blood in the silencer can only lad to the conclusion that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed, and that her killer removed it from the guns barrel after Sheila had died and that the killer then took the silencer downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard. All of this is nothing but hogwash, since there are many ways her blood could have got into the silencer even before she was shot..

     I am confident that the court of appeal will eventually quash these convictions for murder, on the basis that Jeremy did not receive a fair trial..

     Comment by mike tesko — 6/27/2009 @ 5:50 pm

101. The following facts which are now known were not available to jeremy or his legal team or to the court which tried him for these murders in October 1986. This new information and material has only recently come to light because of Essex police and CPS policy not to disclose crucial crime scene photographs and other photographs which related to the examination of the silencer on 29 August 1985, by Detective Inspector Ronald Walter Cook (SOC)and the presentation of a schedule dated 29 April 1986, which purports to show the position of blood staining on the first 8 baffle plates inside the silencer at its muzzle end..

     Condition of the silencer on 29 August 1985..
     ——————————————–
     DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the silencer for the very first time on 29 August 1985. At this time he also examined the bloodstained rifle. Both the bloodstained rifle and the silencer were placed on the same worktop during Cooks inspection that day.

     Cook (SOC) removed the baffle plates from the silencer and laid them out on the same worktop where the bloodstained rifle had earlier been resting. Cook (SOC) photographed these experiments, which show thew bloodstained rifle on the worktop, and the silencer in its original format (before baffle plates were removed) and afterward, when he had removed the baffle plates. He also took photographs of the rifle on the worktop by itself and another picture which showed the silencer screwed onto the barrel of the rifle after he had rebuilt the silencer.

     Let no-one be in any doubt, that the silencer was exposed to possible contamination at the time of these experiments, since it was highly likely if not possible that small flakes of dried blood broke off from the bloodstained rifle whilst it was placed on the worktop and that when Cook dismantled the silencer and laid out the baffle plates on the very same worktop, one or more of these small flakes got picked up and deposited onto the baffles and carried back into the silencer when Cook rebuilt it. The details of Cooks experiments performed on this date (29 August 1985) and the photographs he took of these experiments were not disclosed to jeremy, or his legal team, or to the court which tried Jeremy for these murders. By any standards this was wrong and the decision to withhold this information and photographic material from them may have led to a miscarriage of justice. The presence of Sheila’s unique blood could have found its way into the silencer at the time, and not at the time she was shot and killed. It was not until after the silencer was resubmitted back to the lab’ on 30 August 1985, that the crucial flake of Sheila’s blood was found inside the silencer by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who also dismantled it before 12 September 1985 and he discovered it trapped between two baffle plates inside the silencer…

     This matter to one side for a moment..

     It should be pointed out that at the time Cook (SOC) first dismantled the silencer, on 29 August 1985, that its baffle plates were inserted the wrong way round inside the silencer. The photographs which Cook took on that occasion, establish this to be the case. At this time, the baffle plates were in the following configuration from the muzzle end of the silencer back towards the bottom end, which screws onto the thread on the end of the rifles barrel, Baffles, 17, 16, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, Cook separated the first six baffle plates and the top washer and the knurled end from each other so that there was a distinctive gap between all of them. The following 11 baffle plates were not separated, and then Cook rebuilt the silencer. If there had been a small flake of blood trapped between baffles 17 and 16 at this time, Cook (SOC) would have found it, not the ballistic expert who would later claim to have found it between the top two baffle plates which by 12 August 1985, assumed the positions where baffles 17 and 16 had originally been configured at the time of Cooks examination on 29 August 1985..

     According to the ballistic expert, Fletcher, he found the crucial flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2…

     What is in dispute at the moment, but it will some be rectified, is at which end of the silencer were baffles 1 and 2, when Fletcher dismantled the silencer and he found the flake? There are only two possibilities, (1) baffles 1 and 2, were at the bottom end of the silencer, in the same position which Cook (SOC) found them on 29 August 1985, or (2) at the muzzle end of the silencer, where baffles 17 and 16 had originally been…

     The exact position inside the silencer where the ballistic expert recovered this crucial flake of blood, on or before 12 September 1985, is important…

     Did Cook (SOC) replace the baffle plates back inside the silencer the wrong way round after he rebuilt the silencer on 29 August 1985, before he submitted it to the Lab’ on the following (30 August 1985) day?

     On 29 April 1986, experts at the Lab’ examined all the baffle plates inside the silencer and they produced a schedule which show the baffle plates were in a different position to when Cook had dismantled the silencer eight months beforehand. By 29 April 1986, the following baffle plates were positioned inside the silencer from the muzzle end back toward the bottom end of the silencer, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Based upon this information it is now possible to establish that someone at the Lab’ or whilst the silencer was still in the possession of Cook (SOC) altered the position of the baffler plates so that by 29 April 1986, they had been turned head over heels and reinserted back into it. In any event, the experts have blood staining on the first 8 baffles, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, by 29 April 1986. These 8 baffles had in fact been in position at the opposite end of the silencer when Cook dismantled the silencer for the first time on 29 August 1985.

     It would appear that the position of the baffles was altered around inside the silencer to facilitate the introduction of the ballistic experts backspatter, to explain how Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer at the time she was shot and killed…

     The problem with this of course, was that if blood was on baffles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, it means that the blood was at the wrong end of the silencer, if it got there by a process of backspatter.

     There is only one possible explanation for how blood could have got onto baffles, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, at the wrong end of the silencer, and that is if blood was present on the bullets which were loaded into the gun and fired from it through the silencer. At this time blood which is present upon the bullet will be carried through the barrel of the gun and once the pressure changes when the bullet enters the silencer, the blood on the bullets or the bullet, will disperse and become distributed inside the bottom end of the silencer - carried into position by the swirling gases and violent turbulence which is created inside the silencer at the time by dynamic processes..

     If Sheila had blood on her fingers when she loaded bullets into the gun and it was her own blood,it could have been distributed inside the silencer even before she had been shot, let alone killed…

     Despite the false claim which the police and the CPS and its experts placed before the court alleging that Sheila, did not have any wounds on her body that were consistent with Sheila having been involved in a struggle with Ralph in the kitchen, and that she did not have any blood on her hands, new previously undisclosed crime scene photograiohs have recently been acquired which show scratch mark and gouge marks on the right forearm and the top part of Sheila’s right hand which all drew blood. Under the cuircumstances, it was possible if not highly likely that if Sheila loaded bullets into the gun, that some of her own blood got onto at least one or more of the bullets she handled and that once thee were fired at other victims, her blood got distributed into the silencer as described..

     This explains how blood got into the wrong end of the silencer upon baffles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which were actually in positions 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11 and 10, at the time of the shootings.

     If the small flake of blood that was associated specifically to Sheila did not get into the silencer at the time of Cooks (SOC) experiments on 29 August 1985, by a process of contamination, then it seems possible if not highly likely that Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer by the aforementioned means - accidental or innocent contamination, where her own blood was carried into the silencer from the wounds sustained during the struggle in the kitchen with Ralph, injuries which drew blood and which were photographed by the police (but these photographs were withheld and not disclosed to Jeremy or his legal team or to the court which tried him for these murders)..

     This explanation was not placed before the jury which convicted jeremy because the police and the CPS withheld it from Jeremy, his legal team and the jury which were charged with the responsibility of deciding his fate, based upon the evidence placed before them…

     Instead, the court was led to believe that there was only one possible explanation for how Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer (by a process of backspatter)..

     I am convinced that these new arguments will result in the convictions for murder against jeremy being thrown out, since he and is legal team and the court which tried him for these murders were entitled to hear any explanation which would help to establish how Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer, without its presence there meaning that it could have only got there at the time she was killed. The court was entitled to hear any explanation for how Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer before she was even shot once. Any reliable ballistic expert will confirm that it would be possible for blood to get into the silencer under the circumstances i have describes above, before Sheila was shot at all. Such evidence is admissible and will result in the court of appeal being forced to quash these convictions whether the CPS, or Essex police or members of the extended family like it or agree to it or not..

     Everyone is entitled to receive a fair trial..

     Otherwise the criminal justice system is brought into disrepute …

     Hallelujah …

     Comment by mike tesko — 6/28/2009 @ 7:35 am

102. John, I didn’t say I DONT FEEL 500,OOO POUNDS WAS NOT A LOT OF MONEY IN 1985. I said the inheritance was not a great amount, not great enough to murder your entire family in my opinion. I think the feelings of guilt would out weigh the financial incentive. Maybe I’m wrong but I wouldn’t say my arguement has died.

     The parents probably wouldn’t have gone around telling people that Sheila was a danger because they may have wanted to keep it a private matter and thought that they would be able to deal with it. In the 1980’s there wasn’t as much understanding or knowledge of the possible effects of mental illness as there is today, and even today there’s a lot of stigma surrounding it. It’s been said that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication correctly. Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home. Suicide is a serious danger in people who have schizophrenia, they have a higher rate of suicide than the general population.

     Comment by Leigh — 6/28/2009 @ 10:35 am

103. MIKE,IF THIS EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR, CAN THERE NOT BE AN UP TO DATE DOCUMENTARY ON THE NEW FINDINGS,TO GET IT IN THE OPEN.HOW CAN WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE NEVILLE NOW MADE 2 CALLS WHILE SHEILA IS SUPPOSEDLY GOING MAD WITH A GUN.IT’S HARD TO SWALLOW.I ADMIRE YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE CASE BUT I STILL KEEP COMING BACK TO JEREMY AS THE KILLER.

     Comment by john hughes — 6/29/2009 @ 1:43 am

104. Not to be overlooked is the fact that the CPS went out of their way to suggest to the jury at Bambers trial that Sheila’s hands were clean and that she did not have any injuries which one would have expected if she had been involved in a struggle with Ralph in the kitchen…

     Fact of the matter is…

     Sheila’s hands were bloodstained and she had scratch and gouge marks on her right forearm and the top part of her right hand - injuries which drew blood that is visible is many undisclosed crime scene photographs..

     Comment by mike tesko — 6/29/2009 @ 2:43 pm

105. (John - MIKE,IF THIS EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR, CAN THERE NOT BE AN UP TO DATE DOCUMENTARY ON THE NEW FINDINGS,TO GET IT IN THE OPEN.HOW CAN WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE NEVILLE NOW MADE 2 CALLS WHILE SHEILA IS SUPPOSEDLY GOING MAD WITH A GUN.IT’S HARD TO SWALLOW.I ADMIRE YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE CASE BUT I STILL KEEP COMING BACK TO JEREMY AS THE KILLER.)…

     One of the problems with this case is that a lot of water has already passed under the bridge so to speak. Everyone is suspicious of everybody else, to the point that all parties are levelling accusations at the other parties..

     Take Jeremy for instance, he is currently going through a phase where he is alleging that the police, and in particular, his relatives framed him for these murders. On the other hand, members of his extended family, keep saying that the jury got the verdict right back in 1986 and that it has been proven by scientific means that Sheila could not have killed herself. The police continue to sit on the fence, and appear sheepish and volunteer very little information which is requested from them by Jeremy..

     There is a lot at stake for all parties concerned..

     From my point of view, Jeremy was entitled to receive a fair trial , no matter what anybody thinks about him, no matter if he was the killer, he deserved a fair trial, and in this case, he did not receive one. You cannot withhold material, information and evidence from someone like Bamber and his legal team and the court which was responsible for trying him for these murders, and then claim that he received a fair trial. If Bamber was the killer and is the killer, let him have a fair trial so that he can have no complaints about the verdict. Do not allow him to be able to complain about anything which he can say was not done properly or some thing which was not taken into account. Give him his moment in court and let all the facts which are now known be considered by a new jury, bring everything which is now known out into the open and let a jury decide whether they would convict him as the murderer or acquit him as an innocent victim. I think your suggestion for a new documentary outlining all of this new material would be a good idea, and I would be willing to co-operate with anybody who decided to make such a documentary. I am even prepared to meet up with the family members to discuss the finer aspects of the case on TV, if that’s what they want. They have no reason to fear me or the views I hold, if they have got nothing to hide.

     When I look back at the way this case panned out from the beginning, I can’t help but feel that a great deal of the suspicion which the extended family members levelled at Jeremy was borne out of the way that the police handled the investigation (SC/688/85) originally and how they provided misinformation to the extended family and the media about what actually took place at the scene..

     If Jeremy is guilty of these murders, he should rot in hell, as you say, but I happen to believe that he was not responsible for killing anyone - he has an arrogant personality which I believe gets him into trouble and serves to portray him in a bad light, but this does not make him a killer in my view.

     Like you, I would welcome a new documentary with arguments from both sides so that the public can make up its own mind about whether or not, Jeremy received a fair trial back in 1986 - as I say I happen to believe that he did not receive a fair trial, I would like to think I would know if someone was trying to pull the wool over my eyes, I have served time in prison years ago with conmen, murderers, bank robbers, terrorists and the like, and when you live in such an environment you get to know one way or another if someone is trying to get one over on you by spinning a story about their innocence etc.. Although I originally thought the jury had got the verdict right as far as Bambers guilt is concerned,I arrived at that conclusion without knowing the full facts of the case that was used against him by the prosecution. It is not enough simply to say that he killed everyone because Sheila could not have, or that he did it because he stood to inherit 1/2 a million pounds in inheritance, or that he confided in his girlfriend and because they fell out she put him in the frame.. Where is the evidence that actually proves that he killed anyone? Quite simply, there is none. There is no scientific, forensic or fingerprint evidence at the scene or on any of the bodies, that links jeremy to any of these killings. If I thought for one moment that Jeremy was guilty I would not be supporting him as i do and exposing myself to all the criticism that i receive for standing by him and speaking out as i do about the things which I feel have been handled wrongly in his case. I do not even know if what I do in support of his case, is good for him or bad for him, because of my association with being a serving prisoner alongside jeremy back in 1989 to 1990.

     The police made a record of Ralph Bambers call to the police, timed 10 minutes before jeremy called them. At the last appeal (2002) the appellate court realized that something was wrong when they became puzzled as to how the armed officers were deployed to the scene even before jeremy had made his call to the police at 3:37am? The police sought to muddy the waters by creating some confusion about the timing of Jeremy’s call to the police, they came up with a cock and bull story about the control room clock being 10 minutes fast, and they threw in the argument that jeremy told police he called his girlfriend Julie Mugford after he made the call to the police, but because of the confusion created by the police over the timing of the call, the police were able to say that he had called Julie before he contacted the police, not afterward etc..

     When Ralph contacted the police (3;27am) - he told them that his DAUGHTER had got one of his guns and that she was going berserk, whereas, when jeremy called the police 10 minutes later,(7:37am) Jeremy told them about the call he had received from Ralph, how the line had gone dead, how he had been trying to re-establish contact with Ralph at the farmhouse, and the police even checked the line at WHF at that time and found it to be engaged, or off the hook, Jeremy told the police that Ralph had told him that his sister had got the gun and that she was going crazy, and to come quickly to the farm. In response to this the police told Jeremy to go to the farm but not to approach it before the police arrived who had already been deployed to the scene..

     Comment by mike tesko — 6/29/2009 @ 6:01 pm

106. MIKE,SUPERB INSIGHT INTO THE CASE AND I CAN SEE YOU HAVE WORKED HARD AND YOU MUST BE COMMENDED BUT PLEASE TELL ME HOW CAN THEY THROW THE APPEAL OUT IF THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT NEVILLE TELEPHONED POLICE FIRST.SURELY THIS WOULD ESTABLISH THAT JEREMY WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.THIS ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE SURELY ESTABLISHES THE TIMELINE OF JEREMYS’TESTIMONY. CAN YOU CLEAR SOMETHING UP MIKE,YOU SERVED TIME WITH JEREMY BAMBER,WHAT ARE HIS EXPLANATIONS FOR HIS BEHAVIOUR AFTER THE MURDERS? I.E. THE SELLING OF PHOTOS TO THE PRESS,THE REFUSAL TO ATTEND HIS PARENTS MEMORIAL,BUT THEN PARTYING WITH FRIENDS IN COLCHESTER BARS,SWANNING OFF ON HOLIDAY TO THE SOUTH OF FRANCE AMONGST OTHER ODD BEHAVIOUR. YOU SEE THESE THINGS THROW UP A RED LIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS.I KNOW IT DOESN’T PROVE GUILT BUT SURELY YOU MUST SEE IT DOESN’T LOOK FAVOURABLE. HAVE YOU SKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS? ANYWAY BACK TO THE CASE ITSELF,HOW CAN THEY REFUSE AN APPEAL LET ALONE A RETRIAL. I DO AGREE WITH YOU THERE SHOULD BE A RETRIAL NOW SO BOTH DEFENCE AND PROSECUTION CAN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE FAIRLY. I STILL FEEL HE IS RESPONSIBLE AS I WOULD NEED TO SEE AND HEAR THE EVIDENCE MYSELF. IJUST FEEL THAT JULIE MUGFORDS’ TESTIMONY IS CLEAR.WHY WOULD SHE LIE ON SUCH A THING? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN HER PAST TO SUGGEST SHE IS A PATHALOGICAL LIAR,AND SHE WAS CLEAR IN HER TESTIMONY AND NEVER WAVERED ONCE.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 6:10 am

107. WHY DID THE EXTENDED FAMILY QUICKLY BELIEVE THAT JEREMY WAS INVOLVED? COULD IT BE THAT THEY KNEW HE WAS CAPABLE AND THEN JULIE MUGFORD’S STATEMENTS SHOW CLEAR INTENT AND MOTIVE.I KNOW THEY SAY A WOMAN SCORNED BUT SURELY HER EVIDENCE IS COMPELLING AND BELIEVABLE.IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST NEVILLE PHONED POLICE FIRST REALLY CLEAR AS I STATED BEFORE SURELY POLICE WOULD HAVE USED THIS,IT’S CRUCIAL TO THE POLICE CASE BECAUSE IT WAS THE POLICE WHO INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT SHEILA WAS THE GUILTY ONE,

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 6:38 am

108. MIKE,CONSIDER THIS FOR A MOMENT. IN RELATION TO THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING NEVILLE PHONING POLICE FIRST,IF YOU READ AN EARLIER PIECE OF MINE I STATE AND STILL BELIEVE JEREMY BAMBER HAD AN ACOMPLICE AT THE FARM THAT NIGHT HENCE MORE THAN ONE WEAPON BEING USED,CAN YOU NOT CONSIDER THAT AFTER THE SHOOTINGS JEREMY HEADED BACK TO GOLDHANGER AND THE ACCOMPLICE STAYED BEHIND TO 1. STAGE THE SCENE AND 2.MAKE THE CALL TO POLICE POSING AS NEVILLE. DON’T YOU FEEL THIS IS PLAUSIBLE IN LIGHT OF EVIDENCE SOMEONE SEEN AT THE FARM AFTER POLICE ARRIVE AND THEN SOMEONE BEING SEEN WALKING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE A SHORT TIME AFTER. WHY DID POLICE ARRIVE ONLY A MINUTE OR TWO LATER THAN JEREMY WHEN A POLICE TEAM WAS DESPATCHED WHEN NEVILLE HAD SUPPOSEDLY PHONED TEN MINUTES EARLIER THAN JEREMYS’ CALL TO POLICE.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 9:03 pm

109. SORRY,REFERING TO THE ABOVE I MEANT A MINUTE OR TWO EARLIER THAN JEREMY.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 9:06 pm

110. I FIRMLY BELIEVE SHEILA WAS THE LAST TO DIE IN THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT, SO HER SUICIDE COULD BE STAGED WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. THERE HAD TO BE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED SO ONE COULD SUBDUE HER SO THE OTHER COULD MAKE SURE THE GUNSHOT WOUND BE ACCURATE.THEY THEN REALISED SHE COULD NOT REACH THE TRIGGER WITH THE SILENCER ATTATCHED SO THEN SHOT HER AGAIN NOT REALISING THEY HAD MADE ANOTHER MISTAKE. THE KILLINGS INSIDE THE FARM THAT NIGHT HAD TO BE DONE WITH SILENCERS ATTATCHED SO AS NOT TO MAKE MUCH NOISE AND WAKE EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE OR THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. IT HAS BEEN COMMENTED THAT SHEILA MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT NO EARLIER THAN 6AM BECAUSE HER BLOOD HAD NOT CONJEALED FROM THE WOUNDS,IHAVE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS TESTIMONY. 1.AS IHAVE STATED EARLIER IF THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AFTER THIS TIME AND JEREMY WAS OUTSIDE WITH POLICE WHEN A GROUP OF MARKSMEN ENTERED THE HOUSE THEN SURELY HE WOULD HAVE ENTEREDTHIS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SO HIS DEFENCE COULD CROSS EXAMINE.ITS’ PREPOSTEROUS TO BELIEVE THIS WOULDN’T BE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.2.A RELIABLE SOURCE INFORMS ME THAT AS SHEILA WAS MENSTRUATING HEAVILY HER BLOOD WOULD NOT CONJEAL ANY WHERE AS QUICKLY IF SHE WEREN’T MENSTRUATING.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 9:35 pm

111. I HAVE TO CONCLUDE MIKE ALTHOUGH YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPELLING,IT’S LITTERED WITH TOO MUCH COMPLEXITY AND WOULD HARD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE TO UNRAVEL.AN ARGUMENT HAS TO BE KEPT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE OR EVERYTHING GETS LOST IN THE MIX.LOOK AT THE O.J.SIMPSON TRIAL LAWYERS WHO COMPLICATED SO MUCH EVIDENCE TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE PROSECUTION CASE LOST MOMENTUM AND A GUILTY MAN WALKED FREE.WHICHEVER WAY YOU LOOK AT THE WHITEHOUSE FARM MURDERS IT ALL COMES BACK TO JEREMY BAMBER.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 9:47 pm

112. IN RESPONSE TO LEIGH, IF YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT 500,000 POUNDS IN 1985 WAS NOT ENOUGH TO KILL FOR THEN YOU MUST LIVE ON A DIFFERENT PLANET TO THE REST OF US.PEOPLE HAVE KILLED FOR FAR LESS.500,000 POUNDS IN 1985 IS EQUIVALENT TO OVER A MILLION POUNDS TODAY.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 10:00 pm

113. IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO SUPPPORTS MY VIEW ASALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED BAMBERS GUILT SEEM TO HAVE STOPPED CONTRIBUTING TO THE CASE.I SEEM TO BE FIGHTING ON MY OWN.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/1/2009 @ 10:04 pm

114. I am prepared to meet with Essex police and the extended family members to discuss issues from the case which need resolution..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/2/2009 @ 11:01 am

115. Ann Eaton currently has a copy of the bloodied handprint marks on the pages of the bible found by the police at the scene, but they refuse to provide a copy to Jeremy himself of this rather important piece of evidence. The bloodied hand print is believed to have been made by Sheila during the incident when four members of her family were shot and killed and she lost her own life…

     If Sheila had no blood on her hands as alleged at Jeremy’s trial, how could she have made the bloodied hand marks on the pages of the bible?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/2/2009 @ 5:55 pm

116. “IN RESPONSE TO LEIGH, IF YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT 500,000 POUNDS IN 1985 WAS NOT ENOUGH TO KILL FOR THEN YOU MUST LIVE ON A DIFFERENT PLANET TO THE REST OF US.PEOPLE HAVE KILLED FOR FAR LESS.500,000 POUNDS IN 1985 IS EQUIVALENT TO OVER A MILLION POUNDS TODAY.”

     I am well aware that people have killed for less, as I said in an earlier post! My point is that people are quick to assume that Jeremy Bamber is guilty because of the inheritance, and on the planet where I live his behaviour after the murders does not prove his guilt either. The trial was unfair, complicated though it may be, he should be granted a re-trial.

     Comment by Leigh — 7/2/2009 @ 7:13 pm

117. John - MIKE,SUPERB INSIGHT INTO THE CASE AND I CAN SEE YOU HAVE WORKED HARD AND YOU MUST BE COMMENDED BUT PLEASE TELL ME HOW CAN THEY THROW THE APPEAL OUT IF THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT NEVILLE TELEPHONED POLICE FIRST.SURELY THIS WOULD ESTABLISH THAT JEREMY WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.THIS ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE SURELY ESTABLISHES THE TIMELINE OF JEREMYS’TESTIMONY.
     ——————-
     Evidence does exist to prove that Ralph made a call to the police some 10 minutes before Jeremy did. As I say, the police records show a call as received at 3:27am, on the morning, 7 August 1985, where the caller identified himself as the father of Sheila and that his daughter had got possession of one of his guns and that she was going berserk. Jeremys call to the police followed at precisely 3:37am, that same morning - by 3;36am, armed police had already been deployed to the scene, and this is what the appellate court picked up on at the last (2002) appeal. They could not get their heads around how the police could have already been sent to the scene if jeremy was the only person who contacted the police about what was happening at WHF. We now know that Jeremy was the second person to call the police that morning about what took place at the farm, Ralph was the first caller at 3:27am, and Jeremy the second caller timed at 3;37am..

     When Jeremy called the police he used a different set of words to describe what his father had told him over the phone before the call was cut short..

     “Sheila’s got the gun, she’s gone crazy, comer quickly”..

     Did Jeremy mishear these words, or could Ralph have actually said, “She’s got the gun”, or “he’s got the gun”?

     I have spoken to Jeremy at length about this aspect of the case, but he is adamant that his father used the words “Sheila’s got the gun, she’s gone crazy, come quickly”..

     There is now a time line of events associated with the two telephone calls to the police which make Jeremy’s account more believable now, than at the time of his 1986, Chelmsford Crown court trial. Once you know there were two calls, one made by Ralph and the other by Jeremy to the police to alert them to what was taking place at the scene, it makes a big difference to how Jeremy’s version of events surrounding the call he received from his father, and the one he made to the police, and Julie Mugford. All of a sudden, everything Jeremy has been saying about it makes sense and can be related to by everyone concerned with trying to find out who killed who?

     The truth is that Ralph did make contact with the police before jeremy did ..

     I personally never doubted what he had been saying regarding this matter (about the phone call from his father and the one he made to the police after he had been trying to re-establish contact once the line had been cut). When you are sat opposite someone and you are asking them directly in either an informal manner or a formal one, it enables you to sift truth from fiction, by monitoring and observing the way a person reacts and responds to a line of questioning that can be vouched in many different ways. Each time I approached this matter by use of a different line of questioning, Jeremy gave the same response, and he did not do it so convincingly that he was able to pull the wool over my eyes - I’d like to think I would know the truth if it was placed before me by using my knowledge and experience of life and common sense, and in this particular matter, I believed Jeremy was telling the truth about the phone calls. I didn’t just take his word for it, I reasoned within my own mind that it would have been possible for it to have happened the way Jeremy says it did happen, despite severe criticism from the prosecution and its supporters that Jeremy could not have received such a call from his father, or that he would not have been able to call the police if the handset of the kitchen phone was off its cradle on the kitchen worktop at the scene etc..

     Discovery of the police records which confirm that Ralph Bamber did make a call to the police at 3;27am, some 10 minutes before Jeremy made his own call (at 3;37am)was a very satisfying discovery, which rewarded the trust I had placed in jeremy, and he in me, regarding this particular matter..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/3/2009 @ 3:55 pm

118. John - CAN YOU CLEAR SOMETHING UP MIKE,YOU SERVED TIME WITH JEREMY BAMBER,WHAT ARE HIS EXPLANATIONS FOR HIS BEHAVIOUR AFTER THE MURDERS? I.E. THE SELLING OF PHOTOS TO THE PRESS,THE REFUSAL TO ATTEND HIS PARENTS MEMORIAL,BUT THEN PARTYING WITH FRIENDS IN COLCHESTER BARS,SWANNING OFF ON HOLIDAY TO THE SOUTH OF FRANCE AMONGST OTHER ODD BEHAVIOUR. YOU SEE THESE THINGS THROW UP A RED LIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS.I KNOW IT DOESN’T PROVE GUILT BUT SURELY YOU MUST SEE IT DOESN’T LOOK FAVOURABLE. HAVE YOU SKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS
     ————————————-
     At the time of most of these events, Jeremy was suffering from acute shock and stress, and he was under the doctor, and in receipt of medication. He was also taking other illicit drugs such as cannabis and drinking large quantities of alcohol. I believe that some of his so called friends were taking advantage of his situation and trying to bleed him for all they could get out of the situation. Yes, Jeremy went out drinking, wining and dining, and on holiday to the south of France with his companion, Brett Collins, but he was ill and suffering with the consequences of losing his entire family. He was present when Brett Collins tried to negotiate a deal with a journalist from the Sun Newspaper, to sell semi-porn images of Sheila, otherwise known as Bambi.The cocktail of drugs and alcohol took its toll and although this dopes not provide a legitimate excuse to allow jeremy to behave as he did under the circumstances, it does give an insight into the causes behind his behavior on those occasions. What you have also got to take into account is that jeremy is naturally arrogant. I believe that a misunderstanding of these underlying features with regards to his behavior on the occasions you have mentioned, serves to portray Jeremy in a poor light…

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/3/2009 @ 5:06 pm

119. John - IJUST FEEL THAT JULIE MUGFORDS’ TESTIMONY IS CLEAR.WHY WOULD SHE LIE ON SUCH A THING? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN HER PAST TO SUGGEST SHE IS A PATHALOGICAL LIAR,AND SHE WAS CLEAR IN HER TESTIMONY AND NEVER WAVERED ONCE.
     ————————————————-

     “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” - Julie Mugford fits the bill, perfectly..

     During the trial, (October 1986) she was asked if she had signed a deal with the News of the worlds newspaper, to give her exclusive story, in the event that jeremy Bamber was convicted for the murders of his family? In response, she replied “No”…

     During her interview by City of London police (COLP) at the beginning of the 1990’s, the police put it to her that at the time of the trial when she said she had not signed up for a deal with the News of the world, for her exclusive story, that she had lied and misled the court on that occasion, because she had signed up for a £25,000 contract for her exclusive story, in the event that Jeremy was convicted. In addition, the News of the world had paid for Julie Mugford and her mother to stay in a five star hotel during the trial at the expense of the same newspaper group?

     Here then lies the truth exposed and laid bare for all to see what Julie Mugford was all about.

     It is hard to sort out truth from fiction in her case, because she has been so dishonest with her recollection of events, and the fact that she was motivated by greed to testify to try and make sure that jeremy was convicted - it was in her best interests for Jeremy to be convicted - since she stood to benefit to the tune of £25,000. That is all I have got to say about Julie Mugford for now. Why did she lie to the court about her contract with the News of the world?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/3/2009 @ 5:18 pm

120. John - WHY DID THE EXTENDED FAMILY QUICKLY BELIEVE THAT JEREMY WAS INVOLVED? COULD IT BE THAT THEY KNEW HE WAS CAPABLE AND THEN JULIE MUGFORD’S STATEMENTS SHOW CLEAR INTENT AND MOTIVE.I KNOW THEY SAY A WOMAN SCORNED BUT SURELY HER EVIDENCE IS COMPELLING AND BELIEVABLE.IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST NEVILLE PHONED POLICE FIRST REALLY CLEAR AS I STATED BEFORE SURELY POLICE WOULD HAVE USED THIS,IT’S CRUCIAL TO THE POLICE CASE BECAUSE IT WAS THE POLICE WHO INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT SHEILA WAS THE GUILTY ONE
     ————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
     I choose to believe that the extended family were quick to point the finger of suspicion at jeremy as the murderer, because they were not satisfied with the information and explanation for how everyone at the scene had died - The police were very secretive during the early part of the investigation, mainly because they were engaged in covering up part of the police operation at the scene which had gone dramatically wrong and which resulted in the loss of life in Sheila’s case, inside the main bedroom. For example, Ann Eaton and other relatives were led to believe that Sheila was supposed to have used only five bullets to kill everyone and herself and when they first heard this, they could not bring themselves to believe that sheila could have been so accurate and deadly with a gun. The extended family were being given information by Police inspector Bob Miller, detective Sergeant Stanley Brian Jones, and they also had the benefit of information provided to them by PC Robert Carr, a family friend who was a metropolitan police officer, who was negotiating with Essex police during the early part of the investigation. later when the extended family found out that over 25 shots had been fired during the incident, and that Ralph had been shot 8 times, June had been shot 7 times, Nicholas had been shot 5 times and Nicholas had been shot 3 times with Sheila herself having been shot twice, they could not bring themselves to accept that sheila could have been responsible for the killings and the taking of her own life because they argued that she was not capable of loading a gun let alone firing one - they maintained that Sheila had little if no experience at all, of guns and that she could not have killed everyone, and then herself. It was at this stage that the extended family began to suspect Jeremy of involvement in the daths..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/3/2009 @ 5:38 pm

121. The reference to “Nicholas had been shot 5 times and Nicholas had been shot 3 times” should have read,”Daniel had been shot 5 times, and Nicholas had been shot 3 times” above (Post 120)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 12:30 am

122. (John - IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST NEVILLE PHONED POLICE FIRST REALLY CLEAR AS I STATED BEFORE SURELY POLICE WOULD HAVE USED THIS,IT’S CRUCIAL TO THE POLICE CASE BECAUSE IT WAS THE POLICE WHO INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT SHEILA WAS THE GUILTY ONE)
     ——————————————————————–
     Fact of the matter is …

     That DCI “Taff” Jones did rely upon this information to reject the extended families allegations during the early stages of the investigation (SC/688/85) that jeremy had been responsible for all the deaths including Sheila’s. DCI Jones would not entertain any suggestions from extended family members that this was not a case of four murders and a suicide. In fact, on three separate occasions when extended family members went to see the police at Witham police station to discuss their feelings about the case, DCI Jones literally threw them out of the police station telling them not to come back trying to tell the police how to conduct their investigations. DCI Jones knew a lot more about the case than the relatives did because he was in charge of the overall investigation into the five deaths. He was privy to the detail of how the police operation at the scene inside the farmhouse had gone dramatically wrong and he knew that Sheila did not actually die inside the house until after the armed officers entered it at around 7:30am, that morning..

     From DCI Jones point of view, he did not want members of the extended family coming to the police station trying to get the police to go down a line of inquiry which would serve to expose the cover up regarding exactly how Sheila had died at the scene. She may have attempted suicide in the kitchen, for example, but she need not have died in the main bedroom, and only did so because of a police blunder once they got into the house. Police originally found two bodies in the kitchen when they got into the kitchen, not one, as verified by the contents of the previously non disclosed police message log contents. To be frank, the contents of that log are clear and unambiguous and clearly show that two bodies believed to be dead at that time were found upon entry to the kitchen, the first entry timed at 7:37am - the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female found in kitchen, says everything, it says it all in clear unambiguous terms. This was not a case where the police had mistakenly identified the body of a male for the body of a dead female, since the words used in the message include the word “AND”..

     There were two bodies believed to be dead in the kitchen at 7:37am, one was a dead male (Ralph Bamber) and the other a dead female (Sheila Caffell)..

     The next message that is passed from the scene is timed a minute later at 7:38am - “one dead male and one dead female”, this confirms the content of the previous message and in effect backs it up as being true and accurate. At this stage, two different messages have been passed from the scene by the police to the effect that two dead bodies have been found in the kitchen.

     If that isn’t enough to convince anyone and everyone that the police did find two bodies inside the kitchen when they first entered, then take note of the next relevant police message passed from the scene by police officers inside the house, timed at 7:42am - “Can someone contact the police surgeon and the coroners officer regarding two dead bodies”, Here is further proof that the police did fond two bodies inside the kitchen upon entry at shortly after 7:30am, that morning.

     You do not pass messages from the scene saying that you have found two dead bodies in the kitchen at &;37am, and that there is one dead male and one dead female (7:38am) and ask the police surgeon and the coroners officer to attend the scene regarding two dead bodies at that stage if you have only found one dead body at the scene by that stage (7:42am)..

     More compelling information is contained further on in the previously non disclosed police message log which Essex police and the CPS did not want Jeremy or his legal team or the court which tried Jeremy for these murders to see or to have access to. This additional information was also never disclosed to extended members of the family and the reason for this is because the police sought to cover it up because by 8:30am, that same morning, Sheila’s body was no longer to be found in the kitchen where it was originally discovered and reported to be, but rather, it was by that stage (8:30am) now upstairs in the main bedroom.

     The next crucial police message is timed at 8:10am, “after a thorough search of the premises, a further three bodies have been found upstairs, five dead in total”, Here is confirmation that by 8:10am, that morning, inside whf, three bodies had been found upstairs, and when added to the earlier discovery of two bodies found downstairs in the kitchen, it made for a total of five bodies found at the scene, two downstairs and three upstairs..

     A fourth body was not present upstairs at the scene by 8:10am, its as simple as that..

     The police have sought to cover up the full circumstances of how Sheila’s body became displaced from its original position as found in the kitchen at 7:37am, to its last resting place inside the main bedroom at around 8:30am, that morning. This is the evidence which Essex police sought to cover up and keep from Jeremy, his legal team the court which tried him for these murders and the extended family members. This was the reason why DCI “Taff” Jones treated extended family members as he did, because they were meddling in police matters which the police were trying hard to suppress. Sheila need not have died at the scene, she could have been saved because she was not actually dead inside the kitchen at 7:37am, she was unconscious but still very much alive and there were ambulances at the scene with medics who could have treated her and possibly have saved her life but for the police blunder inside the house.

     Why did the police withhold the details of this police message log from Jeremy, his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders? If the police had disclosed these details at Jeremy’s trial, there is no way that he would have been convicted of murdering Sheila and of stage managing her body to try to make it look like she had taken her own life when all along he had killed her in the main bedroom. To be blunt and to come straight to the point, the police were more than happy to present the case to the outside world and to the extended family at that stage, as one of four murders and a suicide where Sheila had shot and killed the others and that she had then taken her own life in the bedroom. But this was not true, at least the circumstances surrounding how the police had stumbled upon Sheila’s body in the main bedroom was as a deliberate and false lie, introduced to try to cover up for the way the police operation inside the house had gone dramatically wrong which resulted in the loss of Sheila Caffells life in the main bedroom.

     As far as the police were concerned, Jeremy had nothing to do with Sheila’s murder or death, its as simple and as straight forward as that..

     The meddling of the extended family members into the investigation would have served to expose the cover up regarding these matters at the scene and to the fact that it was the police themselves, who stage managed Sheila’s body inside the main bedroom, not some unidentified as yet unknown killer, or Jeremy, but the police at the scene once DCI “Taff” Jones and DCI Gibbons and other senior police officers arrived at the scene and decided what the best course of action was to take with the consent of ACC Peter Simpson, who sanctioned the cover up..

     This is the true explanation for what did occur at the scene and what lay behind the police taking the original stance that Sheila killed the others and then took her own life..

     The extended family members could not bring themselves to accept what the police were telling them about the way everyone had died at the scene including Sheila, and this is why the family began to suspect Jeremy, they suspected him because what they were being told by the police did not make sense and was inconsistent, ambiguous and contradictory..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 1:11 am

123. (John - MIKE,CONSIDER THIS FOR A MOMENT. IN RELATION TO THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING NEVILLE PHONING POLICE FIRST,IF YOU READ AN EARLIER PIECE OF MINE I STATE AND STILL BELIEVE JEREMY BAMBER HAD AN ACOMPLICE AT THE FARM THAT NIGHT HENCE MORE THAN ONE WEAPON BEING USED,CAN YOU NOT CONSIDER THAT AFTER THE SHOOTINGS JEREMY HEADED BACK TO GOLDHANGER AND THE ACCOMPLICE STAYED BEHIND TO 1. STAGE THE SCENE AND 2.MAKE THE CALL TO POLICE POSING AS NEVILLE. DON’T YOU FEEL THIS IS PLAUSIBLE IN LIGHT OF EVIDENCE SOMEONE SEEN AT THE FARM AFTER POLICE ARRIVE AND THEN SOMEONE BEING SEEN WALKING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE A SHORT TIME AFTER. )
     —————————————————————————————————————
     I am still open to the suggestion that there could have been an accomplice,someone who may have assisted in the earlier shootings. I arrive at this conclusion because by the time the nature of the police investigation altered from one of being four murders and a suicide, into a full scale murder investigation, that the police were trying very hard to locate and identify a person who had been seen (1)inside the bedroom window, (2) a person from inside the house who had been involved in a conversation with armed police at the scene at around 5.25am, (3) an unidentified male seen at whf by PC Myall,according to the contents of a major police incident log, (4) A scruffy looking hunched up man who was seen walking away from the scene at about 4:45am, that morning (according to the contents of a newspaper article written by Kim Sengupta, a story that was published only a day or so after the shootings took place)etc..

     At some stage once the nature of the investigation had altered its course, and DCI “Taff” Jones was removed from his office at the head of the investigation, with the appointment of unrelated senior officers (DCS Ainsley) to take charge of the changed investigation, the police considered that jeremy had had help from an accomplice and they went out of their way to try and identify who this accomplice could have been? For example, the police set out to try and find out a person who used the christian name “Mathew” who the police were wanting to speak to regarding the possible involvement in the shootings. These investigations were conducted in secrecy,at first, but when Julie Mugford provided details to DS Jones, about the possible involvement of Mathew MacDonald, who she said carried himself off as some sort of mercenary who jeremy had paid £2,000 to shoot and kill his family, once he was eliminated from the investigation by a reliance upon alibi, the police ditched the idea that an accomplice could have been involved in the killings..

     Once that line of investigation came to a halt, the police then began to focus on trying to gather evidence to prosecute jeremy as though he had killed everyone and stage managed Sheila’s body inside the house (not the police)..

     I am still open to the possibility that there may have been an accomplice, but this does not necessarily mean that such an accomplice worked alongside or with the consent of Jeremy,but rather that there could have been a third party involvement in the deaths of the other victims (Ralph, June)..

     It should not be overlooked that at the scene when the police arrived or shortly afterward, a police dog was used to try an track the scruffy looking hunched up man who had been seen in the grounds of whf and who had walked away from the garden into nearby fields (this person was not jeremy Bamber)..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 1:36 am

124. (John - THE ACCOMPLICE STAYED BEHIND TO 1. STAGE THE SCENE AND 2.MAKE THE CALL TO POLICE POSING AS NEVILLE.)
     ———————————————————————————————————-
     This is a possibility, but you have to remember that the prosecution at Jeremy’s trial alleged that such a call was not even made to the police by anyone other than jeremy, at 7:37am or 7:27am, or vice versa, depending upon which version of events you choose to accept as being true and accurate. One thing is certain, Jeremy did not make two calls to the police, one timed at 3:27am and the other at 7:37am. If your suggestion has any truth to it, why did the police cover up for the fact that such a call from the scene had been made before jeremy made his own call to the police?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 1:43 am

125. (John - THE ACCOMPLICE STAYED BEHIND TO 1. STAGE THE SCENE)..
     ————————————————————
     Recently disclosed crime scene photographs which were not available to jeremy, his legal team or to the court which tried jeremy for these murders, seems to suggest that it was the police at the scene, who were there between 8:30am and 10 O’clock, who stage managed the scene, in particular around the body of Sheila in the main bedroom and around the body of Ralph Bamber in the kitchen..

     Why did Essex police withhold these photographs from Jeremy, his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders - the jury should have considered the images contained in these photographs to help them decide who had been responsible for stage managing the scene. If these images had been disclosed, the prosecution would not have been able to argue that jeremy stage managed the scene, because it is almost certain that it was the police themselves who were responsible for doing that, and the reason they did what they did, was because a decision had been taken by Senior officers at the scene,from a very early stage, with the consent of Acc Peter Simpson, to cover up part of the police operation which had gone wrong, which culminated in the loss of life in the main bedroom of Sheila..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 1:50 am

126. (John - I FIRMLY BELIEVE SHEILA WAS THE LAST TO DIE IN THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT)..
     —————————————————————————
     I agree that Sheila died last at the scene because she was still very much still alive inside the farmhouse in the kitchen at 7:37am, and that she did not die until somewhere around 8:30am, in side the main bedroom.

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 3:35 am

127. (John - SO HER SUICIDE COULD BE STAGED WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. THERE HAD TO BE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED SO ONE COULD SUBDUE HER SO THE OTHER COULD MAKE SURE THE GUNSHOT WOUND BE ACCURATE.THEY THEN REALISED SHE COULD NOT REACH THE TRIGGER WITH THE SILENCER ATTATCHED SO THEN SHOT HER AGAIN NOT REALISING THEY HAD MADE ANOTHER MISTAKE)..
     ———————
     When the police at the scene set about stage managing Sheila’s body to make it look like she had committed suicide in circumstances which were different to how she had actually died inside the main bedroom, they actually did realize the significance of the two wounds which presented themselves to the police which were present upon Sheila’s throat. For example, the only gun in the main bedroom at that stage was a bolt action .22, that would have needed its bolt to be physically activated twice and the trigger squeezed twice in order for both bullets to have been received into the throat region by that particular gun. We know that there was a rifle leaning up against the bedroom window from about 7:15am, because a non disclosed police statement made by WPC Julia Jeepes, outlines what she saw when carrying out observations at that side of the house and she adequately describes a rifle ,leaning up against the bedroom window at that stage. WPC Jeepes arrived at the scene at about 7am, along with the second team of firearms officers and she was a trained firearms instructor with Essex police tactical firearms unit. This rifle had not previously been seen by any police officers who had been engaged in observations at the scene from as early as 5am, or before..

     Somebody placed the rifl at the bedroom window at around 7:15am, to enable WPC Jeepes to be able to refer to its presence there, once she conducted her duties at the scene..

     According to the official version of events there was only one gun found in the main bedroom when Sheila’s and June Bambers bodies were found, and that was the rifle on top of Sheila’s body..

     This cannot be true, because there was a rifle leaning up against the bedroom window from 7:15am, onwards..

     It is believed that in orde to facilitate the cover up instigated by the police at the scene, that they had to bring the other rifle (semi-automatic rifle from the kitchen where it was originally found close to the body of Sheila, and brought upstairs to place onto the body because it was capable of discharging two simultaneous shots by the process of recoil, at least this is what the police at the scene and the pathologist, and the ballistic expert originally chose to believe and to rely upon. You have to remember that there were senior firearms officers still present at the scene when the question of recoil was being debated in the main bedroom by senior police officers who were frantically searching for the means to cover up for the way the police operation had gone wrong and Sheila had lost her life in the bedroom?

     I am prepared to accept that the silencer could have been on the guns barrel when it was found downstairs in the kitchen and that the police removed it from the gun at the time they positioned it onto Sheila’s body - they removed it for ll the reasons you have spoken about..

     At least this is what I choose to believe…

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 3:51 am

128. I do not accept the suggestion that with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel that its overall length would have been too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself by use of it, since, experiments conducted at Birdwell armoury in 2003, established beyond doubt that Sheila or anyone could have used the weapon so configured to do precisely that which it has been claimed could not possibly have been done - these experiments were photographed and videoed, and as such are available to prove that Sheila could have shot herself by use of the gun with the silencer fitted (not that she did so in the main bedroom)..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 3:58 am

129. (John - THE KILLINGS INSIDE THE FARM THAT NIGHT HAD TO BE DONE WITH SILENCERS ATTATCHED SO AS NOT TO MAKE MUCH NOISE AND WAKE EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE OR THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.)..
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
     I can go along with that to a certain extent, fact of the matter is, that these killings took place and occurred in at least three different episodes inside the farmhouse, (1) the shooting of Ralph and June which started inside the main bedroom,and escalated downstairs into the kitchen (2)the shooting of Ralph Bamber in the kitchen and the additional shooting of June Bamber at the door to the main bedroom, and (3)the shooting of the children, and Sheila’s attempt to commit suicide in th kitchen as armed police commenced their approach to force their way into the house at about 7:30am..

     I am prepared to accept the possibility that the silencer could have been used at (1),(2)and the first part of (3), but I think the gun that fired the fatal bullet which killed Sheila in the main bedroom did not have a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel.

     I think evidence exists to prove that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the first shot to Sheila’s throat which was inflicted whilst she was downstairs in the kktchen (where the police originally found her body). These are my personal views not Jeremy’s..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 4:06 am

130. (John - IT HAS BEEN COMMENTED THAT SHEILA MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT NO EARLIER THAN 6AM BECAUSE HER BLOOD HAD NOT CONJEALED FROM THE WOUNDS,IHAVE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS TESTIMONY. 1.AS IHAVE STATED EARLIER IF THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AFTER THIS TIME AND JEREMY WAS OUTSIDE WITH POLICE WHEN A GROUP OF MARKSMEN ENTERED THE HOUSE THEN SURELY HE WOULD HAVE ENTEREDTHIS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SO HIS DEFENCE COULD CROSS EXAMINE.ITS’ PREPOSTEROUS TO BELIEVE THIS WOULDN’T BE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.2.A RELIABLE SOURCE INFORMS ME THAT AS SHEILA WAS MENSTRUATING HEAVILY HER BLOOD WOULD NOT CONJEAL ANY WHERE AS QUICKLY IF SHE WEREN’T MENSTRUATING.)…
     ————————————————————————————————————-
     Actually, the report which deals with the congealment of Sheila’s blood, states that she could not have died any sooner than two hours before the photographs had been taken. Since, PC David Bird did not start taking his pictures at the scene until 10 O’clock that morning (delayed because the senior officers inside the house were still stage managing the bodies to promote the idea that Sheila had killed the others and then taken her own life)it places Sheila’s death at around 8am, which just happens to coincide with the contents of the police message message log which places a female body in the kitchen at 7:37am until 8:10am, but by 8:30am, that female body is no longer there in the kitchen but has by 8:30am, become displaced upstairs into the main bedroom. Sheila did not actually die inside the main bedroom until about 8:30am and the fact that the blood around her wounds and the corners of her mouth had not congealed by at the very earliest 10am, supports the suggestion that She did not die until after 8:10 am that morning..

     I am also aware that certain medications thin the blood out and that this could effect the ability for blood to congeal in the normal way or manner, but there is no evidence from the lab’ to prove that the kind of medication Sheila should have been taking or indeed which she was takling would have had this effect upon the stat of her blood at this time?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 4:16 am

131. New material which was not available and not disclosed by the police to Jeremy or his legal team or to the court which tried him for these murders, has come to light regarding the distribution of spent bullet cases around the scene, namely that four bullet cases which were referred to by the exhibit references, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were supposedly recovered or found inside the main bedroom where the bodies of Sheila and June were supposed to have been originally found once the police got into the house…

     According to the prosecutions case at the time of Jeremy’s 1986 trial, a total of 13 bullet cases were found or recovered from the main bedroom, at the scene..

     Included amongst those 13 bullet cases, were exhibits, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4..

     To be more specific, exhibits, DRH/1 and DRH/2, were bullet cases allegedly found next to or under the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor by the side of the bed..

     However, more disturbing is the fact that a handwritten document that was compiled by Police Inspector Bob Miller, instructs Dc Robert Hammersley (exhibits officer at the scene) to alter the original exhibits which bore the exhibits references, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, to DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, respectively - thus enabling these four bullet cases to be introduced into the equation as though they were found or recovered from the main bedroom when they may not have been at all..

     The original exhibits, DRHJ/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, have not yet been identified, despite almost 24 years having elapsed since the time of these events..

     It becomes clear, therefore, that at least four (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) of the 13 bullet cases which the police attributed to the main bedroom, had not been recovered from there at all, but that they needed to be suggested as coming from there for a reason which supported the case which was brought against jeremy..

     Why introduce four bullet cases into the equation inside the main bedroom?

     We can work out from this that there was only 9 bullet cases found inside the bedroom, not 13..

     The reason the police chose to introduce four additional bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the equation, was because it was a significant part of the proscriptions case at Jeremy’s trial for them to be suggesting that Ralph had already been shot and wounded four times whilst inside the main bedroom before he went downstairs and therefore, he would not have been able to talk to Jeremy on the phone and say the things which jeremy claims his father had said (Sheila’s got the gun, she’s gone crazy, come quickly).This was because one of the four non fatal wounds was a bullet received into the face and jaw of Ralph Bamber and if that injury was sustained upstairs in the main bedroom, before Ralph ended up downstairs in the kktchen, then obviously he would not have been able to speak in a clear coherent manner to say the things which jeremy alleged he had said?.

     Fact of the matter is…

     Ralph was not and could not have been shot four times whilst inside the main bedroom, otherwise there would have been more than 9 bullet cases found there by the police..

     Forget the suggestion that 13 bullet cases were found in the main bedroom, it is all hogwash, and it was introduced to allow jeremy to be prosecuted for these murders..

     There were three different episodes involved in the shootings, which related to the three loads of the gun with bullets (1) the first load, which we shall say contained 10 bullets which were already loaded into the gun, and if so it would not have required Sheila to handle any of these first 10 bullets, (2) the second load, which I believe consisted of 5 bullets which Sheila picked up from the worktop in the kitchen and at which time they got contaminated with her own blood, and (3) the last load of the gun, where Sheila reloaded the gun with a further 10 bullets (once Ralph and June were already dead)..

     episode (1) - 10 bullets
     episode (2) - 5 bullets
     episode (3) - 10 bullets

     It is possible to reconstruct what probably took place at the scene and to establish the order with which the victims died during the incident, buy reference to a number of different factors, such as th actual distribution of bullet cases found at the scene by the police, the type of injuries received by the victims, and in particular, establishing the precise position or location inside the house where each of the five victims actually died..

     For example, I am prepared top accept that Ralph could have been shot at least once whilst he was present inside the main bedroom, but he received other non fatal wounds elsewhere in the house, away from the bedroom. I am prepared to accept that at some point, Ralph was frogmarched downstairs to the telephone and at the point of a gun which was pressed into the back of his neck (which left circular marks there which the pathologist, Dr Peter Venezis, confirmed had been made by the guns barrel being pressed into the back of his neck)and he was forced into making a call. To whom did he make that call? That I would suggest is an important question which requires answering? Was Ralph forced to call the police? or jeremy? It was DCI “Taff” Jones view, that Sheila forced Ralph to call Jeremy to try and get him to come to the farm because sheila wanted to make him the sixth victim of the tragedy, she wanted to shoot and kill Jeremy.

     For this to be true, however, Ralph would have to be free to make the call to the police beforehand..

     What this leads me to suspect is that Ralph could have been initially shot once (and only once) in the main bedroom, before he fled the immediate vicinity of the bedroom, being pursued by Sheila with the gun, and that he managed to make the call to the police (3:27am) before Sheila cornered him at the point of a gun and he was forced to make the call to jeremy with a view of trying to lure him to the scene (exactly like DCI Jones said)…

     There was obviously some sort of a struggle which took place in the kitchen after that call was made and i believe that at this time, Ralph was shot and wounded non fatally by two or more bullets and finished off by the last bullet in the gun (that effectively killed him). This last bullet would have been fired into Ralph’s head and killed him instantaneously, according to what the pathologist said in his statement..

     By this stage, then, June was upstairs in the bedroom, she had been shot five times non fatally, and had made her way to the bedroom door, and Ralph who had initially been shot and wounded at least once in the bedroom, had fled the immediate vicinity of the bedroom,upstairs, to get to the phone to contact the police (3:27am) only to be confronted by a gun wielding Sheila, and forced at gun point, to make the call to Jeremy, to try and get Ralph to lure jeremy to the farm, so that Sheila could shoot him as well. Ralph was shot once fatally in the kitchen by this stage, and therefore, I think it is highly likely if not probable that he was shot three other times non fatally somewhere en route between the bedroom (upstairs) and the kitchen where his body was eventually discovered once the police forced their way into the house at just after 7:30am, that morning..

     I think that the first 10 bullets were used up shooting the parents, as described or outlined by me in this post..

     With all the bullets in the first load of the gun used up and Ralph dead in the kitchen, Sheila would have proceeded to reload the gun with bullets from the kitchen worktop. Before this took place, Sheila and Ralph grappled with each other and injuries were caused to Ralph’s forearm by Sheila’s longish fingernails, and silmilar scratch and gouge marks were inflicted upon Sheila’s right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, by Ralph..

     Blood from the injuries inflicted to her right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, got onto her hand, and fingers, and these bloodstained fingers picked up the bullets which he Loaded into the gun, so that episode (2) could be completed..

     This is my explanation for how Sheila’s blood got into the silencer, before she was even shot at all..

     Evidence exists to indicate that the police sought to cover up for the fact that Sheila’s hands and fingers were bloodstained - (1) There was a bloodied hand print on the front lower part of her nightdress which for some reason the police do not want to disclose who made it, and whose blood it was made in? (2) bloodied had marks on the pages of a bible, again, the police withheld information about this bloodied mark and who made it, and in whose blood it was made in. (3) Bloodied fingermarks on the edge of the kitchen worktop close to where the bullets were tipped out onto the worktop, who made these bloodied fingermarks and whose blood were they made in? (4) a spot of blood was found on one of the bullets on the kitchen worktop, whose blood was it, and did it get there whilst the person was loading bullets into the gun, at the time of the first or second load of the gun with bullets required to enable all the 25 shots to be fired during the incident? (5) blood was found by Ann Eaton inside the gun cupboard - when she alerted the police to its presence the police seemed to take very little interst in it, but whose blood was it, and how did it get there?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 2:19 pm

132. Episode (2) - the loading of 5 bullets into the gun which could possibly have been contaminated with Sheila’s own blood from her bloodstained fingers..

     Once Sheila reloaded the gun with 5 bullets, I believe that she shot Ralph a further 3 times in the head whilst he was sat (already dead) on a wooden chair, that was situated behind the internal kitchen door, that led to the back passage or hallway (the door which armed police would eventually forced open and gain access into the kitchen via)..

     Next…

     Sheila went upstairs, and found June by the doorway of the bedroom, and she shot her twice in the head, once directly between the eyes..

     The timing of this part of the shootings, is not known exactly, it could have been before armed police were engaged in a conversation with someone form inside the house,(timed in the police message log as occurring at 5:25am) or afterward..

     One thing is certain, and that is that something occurred at the scene which caused the police to request two ambulances and their crews to attend the scene, one for immediate use to the house, and the other on standby - these ambulances and their crews arriving at the scene along with the second string of armed officers at 7am..

     The shooting of Ralph in the kitchen (episode (2)) and the shooting of June at the bedroom door, could have triggered the request made by the police for an ambulance to attend to the house with immediate effect..

     Once Ralph had been shot three times in the head (downstairs in the kitchen) and also June was shot twice in the head (upstairs in the bedroom),the gun would be empty…

     Sheila would need to go back downstairs to reload the gun with more bullets..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 2:32 pm

133. Episode (3) - the loading of the gun with the last 10 bullets..

     Sheila must have returned to the kitchen and proceeded to load the last 10 bullets into the magazine of the gun. At this time, there was a real chance that any blood that was still on her fingers from her own wounds could have got onto the bullets she put into the gun. The silencer could have been fitted to the end of the guns barrel at this stage, already contaminated with her own blood despite the fact that she had not yet even been shot at all. I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that if you have bloodied fingers and you pick up bullet to load into a gun, that there is going to be a very good chance that some of the blood on your fingers, is going to get onto the bullets you pick up and load into that gun…

     Once your blood is on the bullets, it is in gods hands how your blood will disperse once the bullet is fired, and it exits the barrel of the rifle, and goes into the silencer..

     There is a real possibility that your blood will become dispersed inside the baffle plates of the silencer, starting at the wrong end of the silencer, the end nearest to the end of the guns barrel to which the silencer is attached..

     This is precisely what occurred in this case - blood got dispersed into the silencer at the wrong end, for all the reasons given. It got there by a process of contamination, not at the time Sheila was shot and killed by bullet PV/19..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 2:42 pm

134. Episode (3) - the last 10 bullets..

     Sheila used these bullets, to go back upstairs and shoot Daniel 5 times in the head and Nicholas, 3 times in the head, whilst both children were sleeping in their respective beds..

     Sheila went back downstairs and left a bloodied hand print on a specific page of the bible in the kitchen - the police refuse to say what happened to this particular bible, although the house keeper, confirms that it was missing after the shootings. This bible had Sheila’s bloodied hand print upon its pages, it was Sheila’s way of showing to the world she was leaving behind, that she was responsible for the killing, Ralph, June, Daniel and Nicholas, and that she fully intended to take her own life..

     She was in the kitchen when the armed police began to make their approach to the farmhouse door - at this stage Sheila is believed to have shot herself once in the kitchen and collapsed onto the floor with the gun nearby..

     A police officer looked through the kitchen window as he went past and reported that he could see a female body in the kitchen..

     Armed police smashed the door in and there was some delay before they could force open a further internal door that led into the kitchen - this was due to the fact that Ralph’s body was sat on a chair behind the door preventing the police from being able to get into the kitchen at that stage. It took several minutes before Ralph’s body was toppled over and sent crashing into the kitchen floor by the corner of the aga..

     By this stage, Ralph was dead (first to die) June was dead (second person to die) and the children were both dead (four dead)but Sheila was not dead, she was unconsciuos and bleeding from a solitary wound to her neck on the kitchen floor..

     Police inside then house passed a message - (7:37am) “the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female found in kitchen”..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 2:54 pm

135. Before police broke into the farm house, they could not see the body of Ralph Bamber through the kitchen window, because it was concealed and out of sight in a blind spot behind the internal kitchen door. The angle between the vantage point of the window (as viewed from outside)to the door behind which Ralph’s body was positioned was too acute to enable anyone to see the body at all. This fact alone will be enough to undermine the police case that they saw Ralph’s body from the vantage point of the kitchen window which they originally mistook for a female body?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 5:43 pm

136. (John - IT HAS BEEN COMMENTED THAT SHEILA MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT NO EARLIER THAN 6AM BECAUSE HER BLOOD HAD NOT CONJEALED FROM THE WOUNDS,IHAVE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS TESTIMONY. 1.AS IHAVE STATED EARLIER IF THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AFTER THIS TIME AND JEREMY WAS OUTSIDE WITH POLICE WHEN A GROUP OF MARKSMEN ENTERED THE HOUSE THEN SURELY HE WOULD HAVE ENTEREDTHIS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SO HIS DEFENCE COULD CROSS EXAMINE.ITS’ PREPOSTEROUS TO BELIEVE THIS WOULDN’T BE THE COURSE OF EVENTS)..

     I believe the point you are trying to make is that if there had been gunshots after or around 6am, that the police and Jeremy would have heard these and that this being the case jeremy and his legal team would have raised these points and matters at the time of his original trial in 1986? Everyone assumes that if there were shots after the arrival of the police at the scene, everyone would have heard them? well, first of all, we are not talking about a shotgun blast here. We are talking about a .22 rifle discharging subsonic ammunition. If the silencer was used, we are talking about the sound from the discharge of that ammunition from the rifle being suppressed and dulled to such an extent that if the gun had been fired in one room inside the house, it might not necessarily have been heard by anyone outside in the grounds, because the sound of the discharge would have been absorbed by the furniture in the room where the gun was discharged and by the carpets, and curtains etc..

     It does not necessarily follow that anyone would have been able to hear any shots, and in any event, Jeremy was not in the grounds of the house with the police at all times, he was in fact sat in a patrol car along pages lane in the company of a police officer..

     I have been present at Birdwell armoury when a duplicate .22 semi-automatic rifle was fired using .22 subsonic ammunition (2003) both with and without a silencer, and you could not hear the gun being discharged if you were in the next room (albeit this was an underground shooting range facility). There is a vast difference between the sound of a shotgun being fired, and the sound of high velocity ammunition being fired from a .22 rifle, than say the alternative use of subsonic ammunition fired from the same .22 rifle. If you stick a silencer on the end of the gun and fire subsonic ammunition, it might be difficulty to hear the gun being fired if it was fired inside the main bedroom or the kitchen at whf and Jeremy was sat in a patrol car along pages lane, and so for these reasons I do not accept that jeremy would necessarily have heard any shots being fired..

     However, this would not be true of the police, because they had access to the telephone which had its handset off its cradle on the kitchen worktop and they might have been able to hear the sound of shots being discharged in the kitchen..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 5:58 pm

137. (John - I HAVE TO CONCLUDE MIKE ALTHOUGH YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPELLING,IT’S LITTERED WITH TOO MUCH COMPLEXITY AND WOULD HARD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE TO UNRAVEL.AN ARGUMENT HAS TO BE KEPT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE OR EVERYTHING GETS LOST IN THE MIX)..

     If the police refuse to hand over evidence in their possession that is capable of establishing Jeremy’s innocence in these matters,it may turn out to be something of a complex effort to try and reconstruct what took place. If the authorities deliberately set out to cover up what actually happened inside whf as I allege, it is never going to be easy to prove what took place or what went on..

     If on the other hand, new material gets released from time to time, it might make the job of reconstructing what took place a far easier task..

     It is easy when you have got the material in front of you, to make out a simple argument that does not require any form of complex arguments, to make a point.

     Some of my arguments may appear to be somewhat complex but they have been arrived at without the benefit of seeing or having access to the necessary material which has only recently been made available to Jeremy, his legal team and to others like me, who sit on the fence trying hard to fathom out what went on? I have comer to the conclusion that a great many police officers involved in this investigation, believe that jeremy did not kill his family. I cannot put it any simpler than that..

     Members of the firearms team when questioned by COLP as part of their 1991/92, investigation into the case, told the investigating officers during interview that they saw nothing at the scene which caused any of them to suspect that they were dealing with anything other than four murders and a suicide? It was the meddling senior officers who stage managed the scene and did what they had to do to try and cover up for the way the police operation inside the house had gone dramatically wrong..

     I cannot put it any simpler than that….

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/4/2009 @ 6:11 pm

138. SENIOR OFFICERS STAGE MANAGE SCENE AS PART OF COVER UP..

     The dramatic way in which the police operation inside the farmhouse went wrong, caused senior officers at the scene, with the consent and permission of ACC Peter Simpson, who was being updated from the scene by use of the kitchen phone in the kitchen, to stage manage the scene to make it look like a straight forward case, of four murders and a suicide, (i.e. where Sheila had killed the others and then shot herself in the main bedroom) where the bodies had originally been found, where they all ended up by the end of the operation.

     This was not necessarily true regarding the original position of Sheila’s body which was found to be present in the kitchen along with Ralph’s body once the police entered the house (7:37am), however, by 8:30am, Sheila’s body was present upstairs in the main bedroom..

     Ralph’s body had originally been sat perched upon a large wooden chair behind the internal kitchen door, through which the armed officers entered, his body was toppled over during the process of police getting into the kitchen..

     With the exception of police inspector Montgomery and police sergeant Woodcock, the rest of the firearms team had left the scene, and therefore, they were not privy to the stage managing which took place after the left.

     Police Inspector Montgomery, and Police sergeant Woodcock, were both privy to the stage managing of the scene, along with DCI Jones, DCI Harris, DCI Gibbons, DI Cook, DC Hammersley, DS Davidson, police inspector Bob Miller, PC David Bird, PC Wright (coroners officer),and Acc Peter Simpson who was being advised and consulted via the use of the kitchen phone..

     Later that evening, during a debrief, PS Adams (commander of the armed operation at the scene) raised his concerns about the fact that crime scene photographs taken after his exit from the scene, showed Sheila’s body in a different position on the bedroom floor that when he had viewed it at around 9am, that morning. PS Adams told senior officers at the debrief that he was not happy with the fact that someone had disturbed the body and placed a rifle on top of it and a bible next to the body, which were not there when he saw the body that morning..

     When PS Adams saw the body at around 9am, there was not a un on the body at all..

     When PS Adams saw the body at around 9am, the bible was elsewhere on the bedroom floor some 18 inches or more away from the victims waist, but in the crime scene photographs, the bible was shown to be resting slightly on top of the upper part of Sheila’s upper arm..

     When PS Adams saw the body at around 9am, the victims head was further away from the bedside cabinet, but now according to the crime scene photographs, taken by PC Bird, at 10 O’clock that morning, the victims head was against the bedside cabinet and slightly twisted to one side of it..

     PS Adams was not happy that the victims body (Sheila0 had been moved after he left the scene and stage managed with use of the gun and the bible and the positioning of the body, which must have taken place in between him leaving the scene at around 9am, and the taking of the crime scene photographs at 10 O’clock, by PC Bird..

     PS Adams made a witness statement to the COLP investigators in 1992, outlining his concerns about the body of Sheila having been stage managed after he had left the scene - let no-one be in any doubt, therefore, that it was the police who stage managed Sheila’s body in the main bedroom, not Jeremy and certainly not any would be, or unidentified killer..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/5/2009 @ 4:21 am

139. (Georgie Anderson - NOTHING places jeremy at the scene.convicted because of a woman scorned.any fool could read the trial transcripts and work that out for themselves.jeremy rotting in hell because of her jelousy! )…

     There is little or no scientific or forensic evidence to link Jeremy to the scene of these crimes at the time they were committed, or to any of the five bodies that were killed during the incident..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/5/2009 @ 4:31 am

140. (Kevin - A few facts you may consider, none of which appear above of course:

     Neville Bamber took a very bad beating before being gunned down. Neville Bamber was 6 foot 4 and as a hard working farmer, very strong. Does anybody seriously believe that the waif like, slightly built, Ms Caffell would be capable od administering such a beating?

     Jeremy Bamber allegedly recieved a call from his father, telling him that ‘ Shiela had gone crazy and had a gun’ , or words to those effect. Now Neville Bamber is an intelligent man, why would he phone Jeremy Bamber before the Police? What could Jeremy Bamber possibly do to help, when the Police have a trained firearms team?

     Why did Jeremy Bamber dial the local Police station number instead of 999? It was after all an emergency…

     Jeremy Bamber cycled round to his parents home instead of jumping in his car. Why did he do this, in such an dramatic situation?

     What would anyone do after suffering such an awful tradgedy?

     Would you

     (a) Grieve
     (b) Take off on a holiday abroad, having a great time while your at it. Upon return try to sell photo’s of your dead sister to the tabloids.

     Jeremy Bamber is GUILTY. I am very confident he will never be released and that has to be a good thing. Rot in hell Jeremy.

     Jeremy bamber

     Devestated by the death of his sister and family, Bamber tried to sell photo’s of his ex model sister to a downmarket tabloid )…

     ——————————————————————————————————————————-

     Yes, it is possible for someone like Sheila, as small as she was, to have overpowered a badly wounded giant of a man like Ralph Bamber, I do not see anything to suggest that Sheila could not have overpowered Ralph in view of the fact that Ralph was already badly wounded, and that Sheila had possession of the loaded gun. Imagine how immobile you would be if someone shot you four times with a .22 rifle?

     Sheila then appears to have used the rifle like a club to batter Ralph into submission..

     Imagine being shot four times and then being struck with the rifle which is being used like a club to batter you into submission - I think Sheila was more than capable of doing all of this under the circumstances..

     But Ralph did call the police - that is the point..

     He called the police 10 minutes (3:27am) before jeremy did (3:37am)..

     The call which Jeremy made to Witham police station rather than by 999, was immediately redirected to the control room, as though it had been a 999 call, and made no difference whatsoever to the fact that the police were deployed to the scene, as soon as possible. Furthermore, the police were already on their way to the scene before jeremy made his call to the police at 3:37am, as confirmed by the court of appeal judgment where the appellate court were puzzled as to why the police appear to have been deployed to the scene before Jeremy made his call? The reason the police were deployed before Jeremy made his call to the police, is because they were responding to Ralph call which took place 10 minutes earlier (3:27am)..

     Jeremy did not cycle around to is parents home, he used his car, as confirmed by the police who attended the scene..

     Jeremy was suffering from shock and he was under medication from his doctor. This coupled with use of illicit drugs and alcohol, took its toll on him, and I do not think you can make someone guilty of crimes such as these just because he behaved in a manner which does not suit everyone’s taste..

     My view is..

     That Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and that there is no direct evidence to link him to the scene, at the time any these murders, or the suicide, was s committed..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/5/2009 @ 4:47 am

141. There should be a public inquiry into the handling of this case by Essex police and the CPS, who are deliberately withholding evidence that proves Jeremy did not kill his sister in the main bedroom at whf, because the police found her body in the kitchen when they first entered the house and she did not die until around 8:30am,and senior police officers, including DCI Jones, DCI Gibbons, DCI Harris, PI Montgomery, DI Cook, PI Miller and ACC Peter Simpson, should all be arrested for perverting the course of justice and falsifying evidence relating to the circumstances of Sheila’s death at the scene.

     Sheila should not have died in the main bedroom at the scene - its as simple as that really..

     The police covered up the true circumstances of her death and they stage managed Sheila’s body by introducing a rifle and a bible upon or against it, and they allowed the blame for what they did to be pinned on an innocent man - Jeremy Bamber..

     It would appear that in this case, the state can be responsible for someones death, and blame someone else for doing it, and get away with withholding evidence under their control which is capable of proving that Jeremy Bamber is innocent..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/5/2009 @ 1:41 pm

142. According to information received, the relatives have information and evidence in their possession which Jeremy and his legal team are prevented from having access to under pii rules - a blood stained bible with the bloodied hand print of the killer is understood to have been handed over to the relatives by the police

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/5/2009 @ 6:12 pm

143. I am due to visit jeremy next week-end..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/6/2009 @ 1:20 pm

144. The police were aware that the family may have contaminated the silencer, according to a recently disclosed memo sent by DI Cook (SOC) - yet this information was deliberately kept from the court by the police and the CPS..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/7/2009 @ 3:51 pm

145. Two of the five victims had 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry wounds, Ralph (3) and June (2), and one 8mm bullet case was found in an outbuilding at the scene, but the police found no weapon inside the house that was capable of firing bullets that made 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry holes, and or, any weapon that was capable of firing the 8mm bullet case that was also found at the scene?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/9/2009 @ 11:09 am

146. There may have been an error in the court process, since, after the jury had been sent out to deliberate their verdict, they sent a handwritten note to the judge, asking:-

     “What are the chances of the blood in the silencer being a mixture from the parents”? and “we need to hear blood experts evidence again” …

     At this time, it was cl;ear that the jury had doubt in their minds about whose blood was found inside the silencer - this would normally have been sufficient for them to return a “NOT GUILTY” verdict, but the trial judge called the jury back into court and gave them his interpretation of the blood evidence and he also introduced a ruler into the equation (which was not an exhibit) which effectively confused the jury even more, and ended up with the jury finding Jeremy “guilty” by a 10 / 2 majority verdict..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/11/2009 @ 4:39 pm

147. What everyone does not know is that there was a dispute between the relatives and Jeremy concerning a £40,000 loan that had been advanced to the relatives by Ralph Bamber to enable the relatives to pay off a huge debt to some university or other for a plot of land which had been leased. Ralph Bamber ended up purchasing the 50 acres from the university for £100,000, and he loaned the relatives £40,000, which Jeremy had an argument with them on Friday, 9th August 1985,saying that the loan needed to be repaid because of death duties, otherwise jeremy would have to sell property belonging to his parents estates to raise the monies himself..

     A clearer picture is now beginning to emerge concerning the debts which the relatives found themselves in at the time of the whf tragedy..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/12/2009 @ 1:13 pm

148. MIKE,I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU,THERE NOW HAS TO BE A RE-TRIAL INTO THIS CASE.YOUR INSIGHT HAS CLEARLY MADE ME SEE EVIDENCE THAT I DID’NT KNOW EXISTED.THE ONLY WAY TO GET THIS IN THE OPEN IS A T.V. DOCUMENTARY WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN JUDGE THE EVIDENCE FOR THEMSELVES.SURELY YOU MUST KNOW PEOPLE WHO CAN HELP WITH THIS.YOU SEE THE PUBLIC ONLY KNOW THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PORTRAYED AT THE TIME AND YOU SEEM INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO OPEN THIS UP.WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS ARE MADE PUBLIC IT SEEMS TO MOVE THE AUTHORITIES TO WAKE-UP AS IT WERE.REMEMBER SION JENKINS,EVERYBODY THOUGHT HE WAS GUILTY BUT WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE PUBLIC IT WAS OBVIOUS HE WAS NOT THE KILLER.AFTER READING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY I MUST SAY JEREMY DESERVES A RE-TRIAL BECAUSE TOO MUCH HAS BEEN HIDDEN.NOW,AFTER SAYING ALL THIS I STILL FEEL HE IS INVOLVED,BECAUSE I KEEP COMING BACK TO CERTAIN THINGS I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT.1.MUGFORDS TESTIMONY 2.JEREMY SAYING THAT NEVILLE TOLD HER SHEILA’S GOING MAD WITH THE GUN WHEN OFFICERS SEE A MALE AT THE WINDOW WHICH THEY THOUGHT WAS AGUN AND SOMEONE WALKING AWAY FROM THE FARM AT 4.45AM,SO THE TESTIMONY IS SOMEWHAT PUZZLING IN THE LEAST AND IF SHEILA WAS SHOT BY POLICE UPON ENTERING THE HOUSE WHY WAS THE WOUND A CONTACT WOUND TO THE NECK,SURELY A POLICE MARKSMAN WOULD SHOOT FROM A DISTANCE IF HE FELT THREATENED BY SHEILA’S ACTIONS,BUT I MUST CONCLUDE A RE-TRIAL WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.IHOPE YOU ARE SUCCESFUL MIKE,AS YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND ENDEAVOUR DESERVES THIS.WILL YOU KEEP ME UPDATED IF YOU HAVE ANY SUCCESS AND I AM SORRY IF I HAVE SOMETIMES BEEN SARCASTIC IN SOME OF MY COMMENTS BECAUSE YOU DON’T DESERVE IT.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/13/2009 @ 10:54 pm

149. (John) -

     You do not have to apologize for anything. I remember when I first met Jeremy back in 1989, I didn’t know anything at all about the crimes he was convicted of committing,I didn’t know him from Adam, and when I first heard the evidence which he told me about that was relied upon at his trial, I reasoned with myself that I thought the jury had got the right verdict. I was happy for jeremy to be convicted for these five murders, because I could not see any other possibility that anyone else could have committed these crimes. I had Sheila out of the equation simply because of the fact that with the silencer fitted to the end of the rifles barrel it would have been too long for her to have shot herself and she could not have removed the silencer after she was already dead upstairs in the bedroom, and she could not have taken it downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, and then go back upstairs and lay back down dead again..

     There was nobody else in the frame so to speak, in my mind at that time, because it had been Jeremy who had alerted the police to the fact that something was wrong at the farm - he told the police, as you say, that his father had told him that “Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly”…

     I do not think there is anything wrong with people forming opinions based on the available material placed before them..

     This is what juries do..

     and as individuals, what we all do..

     If vital information, or evidence, or material, is held back and not introduced by one party or another, people can jump to the wrong conclusion - I myself have been guilty of this many times..

     At the very least, as you say, Jeremy deserves to have a retrial, and a jury needs to consider this new material, evidence, information etc..

     If he is found guilty after all the new evidence has been placed before the court and consider by it, then he can have no argument that would be of any substance, but at the monment I feel that he does have a case for arguing that he did not receive a fair trial back in October 1986..

     If Jeremy were to be convicted after a re-trial for these five murders, I would be resigned to the fact that he must be guilty of committing them, but until this new material is heard by a court, I cannot at the moment bring myself to accept that he is guilty at all..

     From the position he is now in, with all this new material which Essex police failed to disclose at the time of his original trial, I do not believe that he could have killed his sister even if he had wanted to, because there exists clear unambiguous evidence, that the police first discovered Sheila’s body in the kitchen along with the body of Ralph. I feel certain that jeremy and his legal team will be able to prove that Sheila was very much still alive after the time the police first entered the house and that her body was not in the bedroom where it later ended up. Something went dramatically wrong inside the farmhouse which Essex police did not want anyone to find out about and they chose to cover it up by stage managing Sheila’s body in the main bedroom to make out a case for her having killed herself there. If she killed herself there, why did the police stage manage the scene to promote the idea that she had killed herself if she did?

     The only reason I can see why the police at the scene would stage manage her body to make out a case for Sheila to have killed herself, was if she had not done it voluntarily..

     And by that, I mean that the police played some role in her death inside the main bedroom..

     You only have to look at the disturbing manner with which bullet (PV/20) recovered from the side of Sheila’s neck by the pathologist, Dr Peter Venezis, being a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, when he performed his autopsy upon her, and that by 20 September 1985, it had altered or changed into a whole bullet, which the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, was able to positively link to the .22 semi-automatic rifle as being the weapon that fired that (changed) bullet, to know that something wrong has been going on here..

     Why did the police tamper with one of the two bullets that wounded Sheila?

     There is now ample evidence to prove and establish in the minds of any potential jury, that the police did find two bodies upon entry into the kitchen at 7:37am, that morning..

     Voices from the police entering the kitchen were overheard on an eavesdrop (via the kitchen phones handset being off its cradle)confirming that the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female was found upon entry - this was further confirmed by way of police radio messages passed from the scene to the incident room at around the same time..

     Within minutes of discovering two dead bodies inside the kitchen a further message was passed from the scene requesting that the police surgeon and the coroners officer be contacted regarding TWO DEAD BODIES..

     The next police message of any interest passed from the scene at 8:10am, states that “after a thorough search of the premises, a further three dead bodies had been found UPSTAIRS, making five dead in total”..

     A fourth body was not found upstairs by that stage and there is no message passed at all from the scene regarding the discovery of a fourth body upstairs at all - the evidence about Sheila’s body being found upstairs appeared first of all in witness statements made by members of the raid tam who ere instructed by senior police officers at a debriefing held that evening, to write up their notes as though they were dealing with a straight forward case of four murders and a suicide, not four murders and an incident where the police shot and killed the fifth victim..

     Sheila did not die inside the main bedroom until after the police had first called the building to be “thoroughly searched, secure, and safe to enter, at 8:10am..

     The police stage managed the scene inside the kitchen and the main bedroom and this can now be proven by reference to previously undisclosed crime scene photographs which Essex police did not want anyone to ever see or find out about..

     I know that this is the correct interpretation for what took place at the scene that morning - nothing Essex police can say or do will ever alter my interpretation of the events that day..

     Essex police cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what took place, since some 24 years have already elapsed and in all that time, they have kept these dark secrets all to themselves..

     Jeremy does not deserve to be in prison for doing something he did not and could not have done..

     I will answer your good points (1.MUGFORDS TESTIMONY 2.JEREMY SAYING THAT NEVILLE TOLD HER SHEILA’S GOING MAD WITH THE GUN WHEN OFFICERS SEE A MALE AT THE WINDOW WHICH THEY THOUGHT WAS AGUN AND SOMEONE WALKING AWAY FROM THE FARM AT 4.45AM,SO THE TESTIMONY IS SOMEWHAT PUZZLING IN THE LEAST AND IF SHEILA WAS SHOT BY POLICE UPON ENTERING THE HOUSE WHY WAS THE WOUND A CONTACT WOUND TO THE NECK,SURELY A POLICE MARKSMAN WOULD SHOOT FROM A DISTANCE IF HE FELT THREATENED BY SHEILA’S ACTIONS) in my next post.

     Mike.

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/15/2009 @ 3:02 pm

150. Evidence exists to establish in the minds of the ordinary people, that the police have not told the truth about where they originally found the body of Sheila Caffell upon entry into the building..

     (1) Downstairs in the kitchen..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/16/2009 @ 3:25 pm

151. The police have covered up how a situation whereby two dead bodies downstairs and three further bodies upstairs by 8:10am, turned into a situation where there was only one dead body downstairs and four other bodies upstairs by 8:30am, that morning..

     It was this deception which forced the relatives to wrongly suspect jeremy of being involved in the killings, since if the police had simply told the truth about originally finding Sheila’;s body in the kitchen (7:37am) and that she had regained consciousness and fled upstairs where she eventually died (in whatever circumstances) the relatives would have had to accept that jeremy did not kill anyone at the scene or stage manage Sheila’s body in the main bedroom..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/16/2009 @ 3:32 pm

152. I am going to be giving my explanation about Julie Mugford next..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/17/2009 @ 3:31 pm

153. (John - MUGFORDS TESTIMONY)..
     —————————-

     What do I make of Julie Mugfords testimony at Jeremy’s trial?

     Well, to begin with, you have got to remember that she did not go to the police voluntarily as has been claimed?

     Julie was coerced to go to the police by her close friend, Susan Battesby - after Susan had confessed to Julie that jeremy had been sleeping with her, behind Julies back (Susan Battesby was supposed to be Julie Mugfords best friend)..

     It was Susan Battesby who contacted Ds Jones and told him that Julie wanted to speak to the police?

     So unsure about what to tell the police, Battesby went along with Julie to the police station with DS Jones, and both were put up in digs whilst Battesby told DS Jones what Julie was wanting to say? Susan Battesby help Julie to make her first statement to the police which caused something of a stir because later investigations conducted into the role played by Mugford in this case, could not quite understand why Julie Mugfords first confession was written in the third person - well the answer to that was because the wording in the first statement (confession) originated from Battesby’s mouth, not Mugfords..

     Both Mugford and battesby were put up in police digs whilst between them, Battesby and Mugford conspired to place jeremy in the minds of the police, as a killer..

     The police even paid both of them their expenses for having to come to the police station in the first place..

     It would take over 31 separate interviews of Mugford by the police before she got her story right and when she attended the trial to testify, she knew exactly what to say and what was expected of her to say, to help convict Jeremy for murders he could not have committed and which he did not commit..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/17/2009 @ 5:48 pm

154. The reason why Susan Battesby went along with Julie to speak to the police - was because after Jeremy and Julie split up, Julie met Susan and over a drink of coffee in a cafe or somewhere, Julie broke the news to Susan about her split from Jeremy? It was at this point, that Battesby confessed to her relationship with jeremy which had been going on behind Mugfords back, and that at this stage the two of them (Mugford and Battesby) started to speculate about Jeremy’s possible involvement in the shootings? They speculated that Jeremy must have paid someone to carry out the killings and between them, Mugford and Battesby came up with the name of a local man, Mathew MacDonald, who had a reputation of having been a mercenary..

     When Battesby and Mugford went to the police station, with DS Jones, it was Battesby who told the police about Mathew MacDonald, not Mugford..

     She was able to do this, by a reliance upon the suggestion that Julie had supposedly confided in her all about what jeremy had been up to? Battesby simply told DS “Stan” Jones, what she thought could have happened, and this resulted in the police eventually arresting Mathew McDonald in the role of Bambers accomplice, who was questioned about his possible involvement in the killings, and subsequently released without charge..

     Julie Mugfords first “Confession” statement was worded by Battesby, who told the police what Julie is supposed to hav told her about the role Jeremy played in the killings, when all along, she told the police what she and Mugford had been speculating could have happened?

     Both Mugford and battesby had been having a relatuionship with Jeremy, and both felt like they had been deceived by him, in one way or another..

     The term “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” applied to the two of them, to Battesby and to Mugford, who devised a plan to get their own back on jeremy, by making false allegation’s about him to the police ..

     This is the true state of affairs, as I understand them to be..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/18/2009 @ 1:55 am

155. The references at post 153, to the involvement of Susan Battesby, are incorrect, it should read, the involvement of Elizabeth Rimington - my error..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/18/2009 @ 4:21 pm

156. Same mistake applies to post 154 - it was not Susan Battesby, but rather Elizabeth Rimington..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/18/2009 @ 4:22 pm

157. Mike, if it’s true that these two women devised a plan between them to get their own back then that’s despicable. Feeling angry and hurt about being deceived by a man often causes women to want some sort of revenge or closure to the situation but to help put someone in prison for a crime that person did not commit is extreme to say the least. I read somewhere that Julie Mugford had told Jeremy Bamber if she couldn’t have a relationship with him then she would make sure nobody could. That is not ‘love’, it’s unnatural obsession!

     Comment by Leigh — 7/20/2009 @ 3:31 pm

158. (Leigh - I read somewhere that Julie Mugford had told Jeremy Bamber if she couldn’t have a relationship with him then she would make sure nobody could. That is not ‘love’, it’s unnatural obsession!)…

     Yes, the circumstances of how this came about were that Jeremy received a telephone call from someone who he asked out for a date and at this time Julie overheard the conversation and she quite literally went berserk. She threw something at jeremy which missed him and smashed the dressing table mirror and then she grabbed the pillow and put it over his head and tried to suffocate him, screaming at Jeremy that if she could not have him then nobody else was going to have him?

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/21/2009 @ 3:52 pm

159. New photographic material has recently come to light which establishes that someone scratched the mantelpiece around the aga with the silencer, after the police took the original crime scene photographs?

     Jeremy now has possession of the original crime scene photographs taken by the police inside the kitchen at whf which does not show scratch marks on the aga surround - yet after the relatives found the silencer three days after the shootings, they handed the silencer to the police and pointed out scratch marks on the mantelpiece..

     At Bambers trial (1986) it was claimed that these scratch marks had been made by the end of the silencer coming into contact with the mantelpiece during the struggle in the kitchen between Ralph Bamber and his killer - but now it looks like this part of the evidence was fabricated..

     Jeremy has made an official complaint to Essex police about this matter and has asked for the relatives to be arrested and questioned over these developments..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/23/2009 @ 2:45 pm

160. Well isn’t that attempted murder? I guess it would be one person’s word against another.

     Comment by Leigh — 7/24/2009 @ 6:32 pm

161. Author Scott Lomax, has written to the CCRC asking them to refer Jeremy Bambers case back to the court of appeal and requests that the unusual step of granting him bail apply because of disturbing new evidence..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/25/2009 @ 2:26 pm

162. A rifle that was spotted at the bedroom window at 7:15am, before armed police officers forced their way into the farmhouse, could not have been there, and on the body of Sheila Caffell, in the same bedroom, at the same time - Essex police say there was only one gun found inside the main bedroom at the time they physically discovered Sheila’s body there..

     Comment by mike tesko — 7/26/2009 @ 10:37 pm

163. I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME SEE HOW THEY CAN REFUSE JEREMY A RE-TRIAL MIKE,AS I SAY A T.V. DOCUMENTARY WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THIS UP TO THE PUBLIC AND THEN THE WEIGHT OF PUBLIC OPINION WOULD FORCE THE POWERA THAT BE TO STOP BURYING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND.I SAW A DOCUMENTARY THE OTHER NIGHT WHICH STILL PORTRAYS THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ASTOUNDED TO SEE BOUTFLOUR GRINNING THROUGH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW. EVEN MY WIFE COMMENTED ABOUT HIS ODD BEHAVOUIR AND THAT WHY DIDN’T ANYBODY COMMENT ABOUT THE NEW EVIDENCE IN THE PROGRAMME. METHINKS TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH TO LOSE,AND MUGFORD AND BATTERSBY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. IF JEREMY IS FOUND NOT TO HAVE COMMITTED THESE CRIMES THEN AFORMENTIONED AS WELL AS THE RELATIVES SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.ANOTHER DOCUMENTARY SHOWED NEVILL’S SECRETARY GIVING A TOUR OF THE FARMHOUSE BUT NEGLECTED TO SAY HOW SHE AND THE OTHER RELATIVES PROFITTED FROM THE INCARCERATION OF JEREMY.I HOPE HE GETS A RE-TRIAL AND FINALLY PUT THIS TO REST. MIKE YOU MUST TRY TO COMMISSION A DOCUMENTARY AS I FEEL IT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO STIR UP SHITSTORM AND GET TO THE TRUTH ONCE AND FOR ALL.GOOD LUCK.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/30/2009 @ 5:22 am

164. LEIGH,I MUST AGREE WITH MOST OF YOUR OPINIONS NOW I HAVE SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE MIKE TESCO HAS PUT FORWARD.I APOLOGISEFOR ANY RUDE COMMENTS I MAY HAVE MADE ABOUT YOUR POSTS AS I CAN SEE THERE IS NOW A REAASONABLE DOUBT THAT JEREMY DID NOT COMMIT THESE CRIMES.

     Comment by john hughes — 7/30/2009 @ 5:29 am

165. John, thankyou for your comment but there’s no need to apologise to me. I don’t feel that it’s my place to go into any extensive explanations of why I think Jeremy Bamber is innocent as I’m not connected to the case or to those involved. It’s not my intention to interfere in things that don’t concern me, it just makes me feel angry and saddened that there are people who spend years in prison, wrongly convicted due to the failings of the criminal justice system and police error. Maybe it’s me who should apologise for making short posts, and I tend to refer to possible psychological aspects rather than anaylsis of crime scene evidence. I only speak as a member of the public, having read what information is available. I hope that Jeremy Bamber will finally get a re-trail and that Scott Lomax’s letter to the CCRC will have a successful outcome.

     Comment by Leigh — 7/31/2009 @ 2:01 pm

166. It has recently been discovered that one of the SOC officers, DS Davidson, was contacted at 7:45am, on the morning of the incident, 7 August 1985, and told that the police at whf were dealing with “A MURDER and A SUICIDE” and he arranged to meet DC Hammersley at police SOC office. This is interesting, since by 7:45am, the raid team had only just ebnetered the kktchen at the scene and had not yet ventured upstairs to enable them to find Sheila’s body in the main bedroom. During interviews by COLP in 1991, DS Davidson told them that when he arrived at the police station at 8:15am, that same morning, he was told at that stage that the police at the scene were now dealing with “FOUR MURDERS and A SUICIDE”..

     The truth of the matter is…

     That the police were dealing with a suicide, before the raid team even got upstairs..

     Ds Davidson confirms that the contents of the police radio and communication logs, where two bodies had been found downstairs, was true and accurate..

     This is what Essex police have sought to cover up during the past 24 years..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/3/2009 @ 5:07 pm

167. Let no-one be in any sort of doubt about this case, the relatives were fooled by the police handling of this investigation, as much as Jeremy is now baffled by it..

     The cover up by Essex police is what led the relatives to suspect Jeremy as the killer - in much the same way that Jeremy has been forced to conclude that the relatives were engaged in a conspiracy to frame him for the murders…

     If the police had not doctored the evidence, and they had not sought to cover up what they did wrong at the scene, Jeremy Bamber would never have stood trial and he would not now be convicted of these murders, and the relatives would not have been suspecting that Jeremy killed anyone. Furthermore, his former Girlfriend, Julie Mugford, would not h ave needed to fabricate information to place Jeremy in a poor light and she would not have benefited financially from receiving monies from the press for her exclusive story upon Jeremy being convicted for the murders..

     This is the true explanation, for what took place, and why..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/4/2009 @ 8:11 am

168. yes leigh,i am also just a member of the public and have probably made the same errors but he must now have a re-trial so all the evidence can be made public and someone can get to the truth. i feel i must apologise to you and mike as the more i read yours’ and mike’s posts it gradually dawned on me that that so much evidence was concealed and i realised that there is too much of a reasonable doubt that jeremy is innocent and he must have his day in court.i would love to hear the police’s and the relatives explanations for what they conspired to do,let alone mugford and battersby’s testimony when cross-examined.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/4/2009 @ 8:13 am

169. JUST TO NOTE SOMETHING THAT’S BEEN BOTHERING ME.THE PERSON SEEN AT THE WINDOW BY OFFICERS AND JEREMY SURELY MUST BE THE PERSON SEEN LEAVING THE GROUNDS SOMETIME LATER. NOW WHY WOULD THIS PERSON LEAVE SHEILA ALIVE, BECAUSE WE MUST DEDUCE THIS PERSON IS INVOLVED IN THE SHOOTINGS TO A DEGREE, MAYBE AS AN ACCOMPLICE. IT’S ALL VERY CONFUSING AS JEREMY IS ADAMANT THAT HIS FATHER INFORMED HIM IT WAS SHEIKA WHO WAS THE PERSON WITH THE GUN AND NO MENTION OF ANYBODY ELSE IN THE HOUSE WITH A RIFLE.THE MORE I TRY TO TAKE IN ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THE MORE I BECOME DAZZLED WITH IT ALL. I AM SURE THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING WHICH WOULD TIE EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND IT WOULD MAKE THINGS CLEARER.SUFFICE TO SAY THER IS ENOUGH TO FORM THE BASIS OF A RE-TRIAL,BUT MY GUT INSTINCT,WHICH MAY MEAN NOTHING AT ALL,TELLS ME JEREMY IS INVOLVED SOMEWAY.ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO CONCEDE ALL THE WITHELD EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WHEN PRESENTED TO A FRESH JURY SHOULD BRING A DIFFERENT VERDICT THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE.TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE WITHOLDING EVIDENCE NOT TO SEE THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR A RE-TRIAL.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/5/2009 @ 11:33 pm

170. MIKE,I KEEP COMING BACK TO IT,BUT BECAUSE POLICE MESSED UP THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE TOTALLY,COULDN’T THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING SHEILA’S WOUNDS AND THE LOGS REGARDING THE BODIES IN THE KITCHEN BE WRONG BECAUSE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE HAS SERIOUS DOUBTS AND FOR LOTS OF REASONS I KEEP COMING BACK TO JEREMY AS THE CATALYST FOR THESE MURDERS.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/5/2009 @ 11:44 pm

171. John, Dont be fooled by debatable theories put forward by Mike. Jeremy Bamber committed these murders. His supporters often try to muddy the waters with ‘evidence’ Let me state openly that there is no ‘new evidence’ and nor has there ever been any. What there is, are nothing more than strained constraints of the truth often put forward by Bamber and/or his supporters.
     To reach any formative conclusion in this appalling case we must take a step back and look at the scene and the supporting evidence.Moreover, we must look closely at the two people at the centre of the case; Bamber and his sister Sheila.
     Both were clearly unhappy with their parents - for differing reasons. However, at the scene Bamber fell over himself in his attempts to paint Sheila as a ‘nutter’ He set the scene with the police - who I might add - were completely in the dark over what had taken place, and utterly confused. In other words they were extremely susceptable to Bamber’s suggestions. Therefore the scene was already set. The police followed the script to the letter both before and after the discovery of the bodies.
     I have been studying this case for a number of years and have often been asked for my views on what I think happened that dreadful night.
     I believe that Bamber forced the catch on the bathroom window with a hacksaw blade to gain entry into the house. He retrived the fully loaded .22 rifle he had so conveniently left on the settle the evening before, crept up the stairs and burst into the main bedroom containing both Ralf and June. He shot June from the bedroom door (this explains why some of the bullets missed or grazed her) He then shot and deliberately wounded Ralph. This made him unable to mount any serious challenge to Bamber’s plan. Whereupon Bamber frogmarched Ralph down the stairs, witnessed by the circular marks later found on the back of Ralph’s neck. Ralph was frogmarched downstairs to later provide Bamber with an plausable alibi about Ralph’s phonecall to Jeremy. Ralph obviously knew he was about to die and mounted a spirited, yet futile fight for his life. He made a grab for the rifle with his one good hand. Enraged, Bamber proceeded to turn the rifle around and batter him with the butt-end, swinging it like a club. Until finally the fight went out of Ralph. Bamber brutally fired fatal shots to Ralph’s head killing him instantly. Leaving him where he lay Bamber proceeeded to travel upstairs, where astonishingly June had desparately managed to crawl to the bedroom door. Bamber stood over June and fired a lethal shot to her forehead killing her instantly.
     Bamber then went to a heavy sedated Sheila’s bedroom and coaxed her out of bed. In her drug-induced stupor he coaxed her to lie down on the floor (he could have told her anything at this point) he put the rifle under her chin and pulled the trigger. Believing her to be dead, he then proceeeded to the twins bedroom where he cold-bloodedly shot both children while they slept. Surveying his work Bamber realised that Sheila was not yet dead. Maybe he detected movement or shallow breathing. He again stuck the rifle under her chin and pulled the trigger a second time, killing her instantly. He then proceeeded to arrange the scene to make it look like a suicide. Unfortuntely for him, as he placed the rifle on Sheila’s chest he found that with the silencer fitted it was too long for her fingers to reach the trigger and for it to be placed under her chin simultaneously. He therefore, unscrewed the silencer, cleaned it with cotton wool, and placed it back into the gun cupboard. He may then of washed himself down carefully in the bathroom, painstakingly and with detail washing any blood away (this would have been picked up if the police at the time had, had access to the blood-exposing chemical, Luminol) He then went downstairs climbed onto the kitchen sink (the housekeeper later discovered that the kitchen sink utensils had been moved from there original position) opened the fan-light and larger lower window. He climbed out, and closed the window by means of the fan-light, which he then closed giving it a sharp tap to allow the catch to fall back into place (something he admitted to have done many times) He then rode home on June’s bicycle via the dark back tracks that criss-cross this area, along the sea wall and back to his cottage. Whereupon he phoned Julie Mugford with his ‘everything’s going well, I haven’t had any sleep all night’ call. He then waited and phoned the police with his ‘My father just phoned me, my sisters gone crazy and has got the gun’ call.
     This is what the evidence tells us. This is probably how Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family for money coupled with his desire to be free of any form of moral constraint by them. Committing what he thought in his infinate arrogance as the ‘perfect murder’.
     There is no police conspiracy or third party involvement. This is an act of desperation put forward by seemingly intelligent people that really should know better. This was in essence, an appalling and horrifying set of murders committed by a greedy, scheming and evil psychopath. Pure and simple.

     Comment by Ian — 8/13/2009 @ 6:53 am

172. There are other factors that challenge the supporters cliams of Bamber’s ‘innocence’. It appears that Ralph was beaten, among other places, around the head and face. The pathologist stated that There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. Does this not, put a huge question mark over whether Ralph really made that phone call to the police?
     Bamber supporters have claimed that his injuries could have been sustained after he made the phonecall. If this were so - and we have to remember that Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs in the bedroom - why wasn’t there a single spot of blood found on the telephone? Furthermore, the telephone receiver in the kitchen was found to be lying on the kitchen counter next to the the main base, on it’s left hand side. Nevill was right-handed and had been severely wounded in the left arm. Just as damning was the claim that Bamber stated that the phone ‘went dead’ and then he had tried to immediately phone back but got an ‘engaged tone’ There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by Bamber. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, Bamber would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone. Put basically, the phonecall from Ralph looks extremely unlikely to have ever taken place. If it did not take place, then Bamber is lying. The ONLY reason to lie, is that he himself had committed the murders.

     Comment by Ian — 8/13/2009 @ 8:13 am

173. It always astonishes me that in any murder scene there is invariably a ‘man seen walking or lurking near the scene’ This is total codswallop and a complete red herring. It is another attempt to muddy the waters and obscure the fact that Bamber committed the murders. In a rural location such as this any number of people could have been near or on the scene. Let me remind the reader that this was August, harvest, a time of frantic activity in the countryside. Farms are often busy places with any number of workers casual and permanent in the area from dawn until dusk.
     Furthermore, let me address this issue of a ‘person being seen at the window’ The police clearly stated in their report that in the early morning light it was nothing more than a ‘glint of the glass of the window’ given by the rising summer sun. Bamber’s supporters have leapt on this as ‘proof’ that someone, other than Bamber was present in the house. Utter nonsense! There is absolutely NO proof that anyone had entered or left the house that morning other than by surreptious means.
     If they did, they had to have prior knowledge of the house - highly unlikely. Again this is another blatent attempt to cast doubt, to bamboozle, to confuse and shift blame to anyone but Bamber.
     Now the thorny issue of the so-called ‘radio logs’. It has been a shining beacon of hope to all Bamber supporters that the log contained a small reference to ‘one female and one male’ being seen in the kitchen. Bare with me on this if you will. The logs suggest that Ralph and either Sheila or June were seen in the kitchen upon arrival of the Tactical Firearms Team that morning just before they made their entry into the Farmhouse that morning (around 7:30AM) Now we must remind ourselves what A police log actually is. A radio log is basically a recorded transcipt made from communication beween a designated HQ (in this case 25 miles away) and the team using the radios on the scene. My belief is this; in the total chaos and utter confusion of that morning, the police were highly agitated and nervous - This is hardly surprising considering that they had been given intelligence (by Bamber)that their was a crazed woman running amok with a loaded rifle. An officer claimed that he saw ‘one male and one female’ in the kitchen as he approached the back door. It was later learned that the kitchen in fact had a ‘blind spot’. This spot was exactly where the body of Ralph Bamber actually lay. Put simply the offer COULD NOT have seen what he claimed from where he stood.
     This was later verified by the fact that absolutely no mention of any woman being seen in the kitchen was found in the logs after the team had entered the house. This then beggars the question: did Sheila, in her psychotic state, run up the stairs, into the bedroom, lay down and shoot herself a second time? Hardly! The woman was mortally wounded with a bullet lodged in her neck. Moreover, if this were the case then one would expect there to be copious amounts of blood both in the kitchen AND leaving a heavy blood-stained trail to the bedroom. No such trail was ever found. Not what one would expect if someone is shot through the carotid artery!
     Put simply, this is utter bunkum. There was no woman in the kitchen - no matter how the evidence is interpreted. The officer simply made an error, the first of many that day.
     In addition. It might be prudent to say here that the body of Sheila Caffell showed clear signs that it had been staged. One of the most alarming things - that police initally failed to notice was this; Her nightdress was found to be ‘ruffled up’ at the back, underneath her body. Bloodstains found near her ankles suggest that she was grabbed by the ankles either before or after the fatal second shot, and pulled by them into the position she was later found. Sheila simply could not have done this herself. Her body had been stage managed into that position. I believe that Jeremy Shot Sheila when she was in an inclining position. He then realised that she was still alive, shot her again. He then, pulling her to the horizontal and, in the process, ruffling the back of her nightdress, stage managed her body by placing the rifle across her chest to try to make it look like she took her own life. This was a carefully thought out, but ultimately flawed plan to shift the blame onto a woman that he knew could not be questioned. In doing so he made several fatal mistakes that pointed clearly to him as being the killer.

     Comment by Ian — 8/13/2009 @ 9:15 am

174. (John) :- MIKE,I KEEP COMING BACK TO IT,BUT BECAUSE POLICE MESSED UP THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE TOTALLY,COULDN’T THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING SHEILA’S WOUNDS AND THE LOGS REGARDING THE BODIES IN THE KITCHEN BE WRONG BECAUSE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE HAS SERIOUS DOUBTS AND FOR LOTS OF REASONS I KEEP COMING BACK TO JEREMY AS THE CATALYST FOR THESE MURDERS…

     ————

     Thanks John for your query - I know it has been said many times by many different people that the police messed up the investigation, in particularly, the forensics side of things? I personally do not believe this to be true, but prefer to believe that the police did a remarkably thorough examination of the crime scene… There were two parts to this investigation, SC/688/85 and SC/786/85, where one part (SC/688/85) dealt with the case of four murders and a suicide, whilst the latter case (SC/786/85) dealt with five murders…

     If you examine the evidence that was seemingly gathered as part of the SC/786/85 file, it looks like the police botched the investigation, but if you got access to the SC/688/85, file, you would soon realize that the police at the scene, were very thorough indeed…

     For these reasons I would suggest that you do not get fooled by the “Bamber is guilty brigade” who keep using the argument that the police botched their handling and the investigation of this case. The truth of the matter is that this case was investigated very thoroughly, and that the police went out of their way to make it appear as though the operation was botched, when in fact it had not been.

     Jeremy Bamber had an arrogant personality which has led to some people believing, that he carried out these murders, but the truth is that he could not have done and he did not…

     The “Bamber is guilty brigade” can put forward as many theories as they like for trying to justify that Bamber killed his family, but there is absolutely no proof one way or the other that he could have done so, or that he in fact did so - it is all speculation…

     Speculation is not evidence…

     What counts as evidence in this and in any other case, is documentation, photographs, and forensics…

     Police records show that the police stage managed Sheila’s body and that the police tampered with the crime scene ammunition and these are the facts upon which this case should be judged. You are entitled to believe what you want about this case, and I cannot fault you for doing that, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about anything…

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 4:16 pm

175. (Ian) :- John, Dont be fooled by debatable theories put forward by Mike. Jeremy Bamber committed these murders. His supporters often try to muddy the waters with ‘evidence’ Let me state openly that there is no ‘new evidence’ and nor has there ever been any. What there is, are nothing more than strained constraints of the truth often put forward by Bamber and/or his supporters.

     ——————————————————————————————————————————

     In response to the above, I do not personally believe that Jeremy Bamber committed these, or any other murders, and there is absolutely no concrete indisputable evidence to support such a contention - if there is then I would appreciate being told exactly what it is that makes him the killer? Fact of the matter is that according to the police surgeon, Dr Craig, Sheila only had one wound to her throat at 8:42am that morning, a feature supported by police inspector “Bob” Miller. You will remember that it was PI Miller who told the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila had killed the others and that she had then t5aken her own life by shooting herself once under the chin..

     Remember also, that because of this report given by PI Miller at the opening of the inquest on 14 August 1985, that the Deputy Coroner authorized the release of the bodies, including the body of Sheila, to allow them to be disposed of?

     Why did PI Miller lie to the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, about the number of times that Sheila had been shot?

     More disturbingly…

     why did the deputy coroner accept what he was being told by PI Miller about the suggestion that Sheila had only been shot once, when in fact she had been shot twice?

     Fact of the matter is, that Essex police lied about the bullets which killed Sheila, and they lied to the Deputy Corner, to enable the bodies to be released for disposal, which effectively prevented Bamber and his legal team from getting an independent autopsy performed upon the body of Sheila to establish exactly how she had died…

     The “Bamber is guilty brigade” can suggest as much as they like, that my theories are debatable, but the truth of the matter is, that the issues I am raising make the prosecutions case problematic…

     Debatable or not, these are the facts, which Essex police and the prosecution have so far failed to answer in any sort of cohesive or reasonable manner…

     Jeremy did not commit these murders, and there can be no doubt at all about that fact..

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 4:33 pm

176. (Ian):- Whereupon Bamber frogmarched Ralph down the stairs, witnessed by the circular marks later found on the back of Ralph’s neck. Ralph was frogmarched downstairs to later provide Bamber with an plausable alibi about Ralph’s phonecall to Jeremy.
     —————————————————————————–

     To be pondered, is that if the barrel of the gun made the marks on the back of Ralph’s neck, as he was frogmarched downstairs to the kitchen, under what circumstances did the silencer get put back onto the end of the rifles barrel, to enable Jeremy to shoot and kill Sheila in the main bedroom? Why would there have been a need to put the silencer back on the end of the guns barrel, after he had supposedly frogmarched Ralph downstairs, since by reference to the “Bamber is guilty brigades” theory, everyone else inside the house, except Sheila, was already dead by that stage? Why put the silencer back on the end of the guns barrel, after Ralph had been frogmarched downstairs and killed in the kitchen? It is meaningless and unnecessary if Sheila was the only person still alive inside the house by that stage? You would not put a silencer back on the end of the guns barrel to shoot Sheila, and then remove it after you had shot her and take it downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, I mean what would be the purpose of doing such a thing?

     The marks made on the back of Ralph’s neck do not correspond to the detail from the end of the silencer - the marks had different dimensions than those applicable to the end of the silencer, and so we can be absolutely sure that the silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel, at the time the marks were made on the back of Ralph’s neck…

     How do the “Bamber is guilty brigade” explain this anomaly?

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 4:57 pm

177. (Ian):- Bamber then went to a heavy sedated Sheila’s bedroom and coaxed her out of bed. In her drug-induced stupor he coaxed her to lie down on the floor (he could have told her anything at this point) he put the rifle under her chin and pulled the trigger. Believing her to be dead, he then proceeeded to the twins bedroom where he cold-bloodedly shot both children while they slept. Surveying his work Bamber realised that Sheila was not yet dead. Maybe he detected movement or shallow breathing. He again stuck the rifle under her chin and pulled the trigger a second time, killing her instantly. He then proceeeded to arrange the scene to make it look like a suicide. Unfortuntely for him, as he placed the rifle on Sheila’s chest he found that with the silencer fitted it was too long for her fingers to reach the trigger and for it to be placed under her chin simultaneously. He therefore, unscrewed the silencer, cleaned it with cotton wool, and placed it back into the gun cupboard.
     ——————————————————————————————————————————–
     The reference in this theory to the fact that the rifle was placed twice under the chin is a very interesting one, since officially, the victim was wounded initially by the rifle being applied to the right side of the neck/throat, and the second shot was inflicted with the barrel of the weapon positioned directly under the chin…

     I prefer to believe that both shots were fired when the weapon was positioned beneath the chin, or in that sort of general area, and therefore, I am in agreement with the suggestion that the weapon which fired both shots, was placed under the chin (the difference only becoming apparent once the autopsy was performed)…

     How did Jeremy manage to get Sheila to lie still so that he could shoot her in the throat?

     Why was there no scientific or forensic evidence to prove that this is what took place?

     The bedroom carpet was covered in multiple spots of June Bambers blood and yet none of this appears to have been smudged or disturbed in any sort of way by the supposed involvement of Jeremy in the shootings and killing of Sheila? I cannot bring myself to accept or believe that Sheila would have complied with anyone suggesting to her that she should lay back and prepare to die without any sort of a struggle taking place? For this reason I reject this theory altogether - I cannot accept that anyone would just lay back and let someone shoot them deliberately under the chin with a loaded rifle, without putting up some sort of a struggle…

     The police at the scene stage managed Sheila’s body - and this is confirmed by the commander of the armed operation at the scene, who told COLP that Sheila’s body was in a totally different position to that shown in PC Birds crime scene photographs, and that at the time he viewed the body in the main bedroom at about 9 O’clock, that morning, her body was in a totally different position than that shown in the crime scene photographs, and that at the time he saw the body there was no gun upon it and a bible was elsewhere on the bedroom carpet…

     I suppose Bamber could be blamed for the commander of the armed police operation, suggesting that police officers, from his own force, had moved and disturbed the body of the victim on the bedroom floor, after he left the scene?

     Additionally, although I personally do not think or believe that the silencer was used at all, when Sheila was shot for the second time, the suggestion that with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel would have made it too long to allow her to shoot herself by use of the weapon, so configured, even if she had wanted to, is a deliberate lie and falsehood, since it was proved and established that the overall length of the weapon so configured would not have prevented Sheila from shooting herself even if she had wanted to, during those experiments which were all photographed and videoed - anyone who has any doubts about this issue can see the photographs which were taken during experiments performed at Birdwell armoury in 2003, where such experiments establish beyond reasonable doubt, that anyone, including Sheila, could have reached the trigger of the gun, with the silencer fitted to the barrel of the gun - anyone who is remotely interested in the truth regarding this matter, go now to Sleuthing for justice.com, to view the pictures taken during the experiments, and only then will you come to realize, that the “Bamber is guilty brigade” will say anything to portray Bamber in a poor light…

     As far as I know, no fibers of cotton wool were ever found inside the silencer when it was scientifically examined at5 the lab’ - if I am wrong point me to the evidence so that I may consider it?

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 5:22 pm

178. (Ian) :- This is probably how Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family for money coupled with his desire to be free of any form of moral constraint by them. Committing what he thought in his infinate arrogance as the ‘perfect murder’.
     ————————————————————

     Lets put things into perspective, it was never established in a legal context, that jeremy would have stood to inherit the entire Bamber estate - since the order of death would have determined that? If Sheila died last, or the twins died last, how could Bamber have been the only beneficiary to the Bamber estate? Other beneficiaries would certainly have come into the equation if Sheila, or the twins died last of all…

     As it turned out the relatives benefited from the Bamber estate - and as we know they were principle prosecution witlessness, who all mistakenly believed that jeremy killed his entire family…

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 5:32 pm

179. (Ian):- There is no police conspiracy or third party involvement. This is an act of desperation put forward by seemingly intelligent people that really should know better. This was in essence, an appalling and horrifying set of murders committed by a greedy, scheming and evil psychopath. Pure and simple.
     ————————————————————————————————————————————

     Unfortunately - there was a police conspiracy, and that conspiracy was designed to cover up for the way Sheila was killed, inside the main bedroom at whf…

     The evidence is there for all to see within the context of the police radio and communication logs, which Essex police tried desperately hard to conceal - they succeeded for almost 20 years, in keeping the lid on that information. If there was no sinister motive involved in how the police radio, and communication logs were compiled, then why keep them a secret from Bamber, and his legal team, and why not allow the jury to consider the contents, and the implication of its contents? If the explanation for this new information was a simple one, then why not release that information and the explanation to Bamber and his legal team and to the court which tried Bamber for these murders - it is all well and good claiming now at this late stage that there is nothing sinister in this material, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I for one believe that the contents of thee police radio and communication logs are true and accurate..

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 5:43 pm

180. (Ian) :- It appears that Ralph was beaten, among other places, around the head and face.
     —————————————————————————————–
     Yes, Ralph had injuries which were consistent, with him being beaten around the head, or his head striking against some hard and sharp object or surface or other - Some of the bruising to his face and head were caused when the police toppled his body, from the wooden chair, behind the door at the time the armed officers were trying to gain access to the kitchen…

     He may also have been struck by Sheila who was wielding the gun and using it like a club upon a badly wounded 64 year old man, who she had shot several times, already…

     Nobody can say with a degree of certainty that all the injuries were inflicted upon Ralph’s head and face before he was shot and killed - it is just as likely if not probable that some of these injuries could have been inflicted after Ralph was killed and therefore unable to resist. Under such circumstances, how can it be said that someone of Sheila’s height and build could not have caused the injuries spoken about?

     The fact that Ralph was beaten around the head and face, does not of itself prove or establish, that jeremy killed Ralph Bamber, unless I have missed something somewhere that makes it so?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/13/2009 @ 7:15 pm

181. Mike, the investigation was a total cock-up. You know and I know it. You are just highlighting mistakes. If you look hard into any murder investigation you will find in many of the cases mistakes were made. So OK they didnt examine the body as thoroughly as they should have. This does NOT point to a conspiracy nor does this prove Jeremy innocent.I havent seen the evidence that you are eluding to.
     OK what makes him a killer? The fact that the silencer was left in the cupboard. The fact that he made a phone call to police instead of dialling 999. The fact that evidence dictates that Ralph could NOT have made that phone call because of his extensive injuries. The lack of blood on the phone used to make that phone call. The fact that Ralph was battered with a rifle - it is stretching belief that a waif like Sheila - who had never fired a gun before - could cause such extensive injuries to a man twice her size - no matter how deranged or injured Ralph was. The fact that he phoned Mugford instead of doing the right thing and dialling 999. The fact that Bamber failed to phone the farm workers who lived close by. The fact that witnesses have stated his intensions. The fact that Julie Muford’s evidence was far more believable that that of Bamber’s (regardless of what has been suggested) The fact that all of the points he made in his failed 2002 appeal were completely destroyed on closer examination.
     Separately, I grant you the evidence appears to be insufficient. However, put them all together and you have an overwhelming circumstantial wealth of evidence that points to just one person…………..Jeremy Bamber.
     In any murder case, it is not necessary for the Crown to prove a motive. But one must ask three things:
     Who had the motive?
     Who had the means to carry out the murders?
     Who benefitted by their deaths?
     There is ONLY one answer to these important questions…………Jeremy Bamber
     The Crown, as is right, also took Bamber’s personality into consideration. This is a key factor in any prosecution case in order to establish what kind of person Bamber was, and whether he was capable to committing these appalling acts. The defense failed miserably in this aspect as the psychiatrist called in by the defense to ‘prove’ that Bamber was not suffering from any mental illness or personality disorder that would have facilitated the crimes, actually labelled Bamber as……and I quote, ‘a psychopath’ Now you can, if you wish dispute this finding. But it is highly suspicious that a person is diagnosed with this disorder, even though he was called in by the defense. Put simply the psychiatrist could not come to any other conclusion.
     If you take the view that this man was correct, then what are the chances of all this circumstantial evidence combined with the fact that there was a psychopath who had made murderous threats towards his family, shamelessly attempted to hawk his dead sisters naked pictures to a Sun Reporter, behaved with utter callousness after the deaths……..and he is innocent? Mike there is NO way. This case was NOT soley about hard forensic evidence, it was also about human beings, characterisation, probability - all things a jury must take into the wider picture. This is the view 10 out of the 12 members of the Jury took in October 1986. What I have highlighted here is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other little nuances that further point to his guilt. Bamber supporters have attempted to nit-pick, split hairs and twist the facts. Mugford is a liar, others were involved, it was a police conspiracy, it was a family conspiracy, the police shot Sheila, anything but Bamber. The supporters have tried to make capitial from an initially botched investigation. I have read preposterous theories forwarded by Bamber supporters that DCI ‘Taff’ Jones was at first, ‘correct and ‘he knew the truth’ Then, when that line of enqiry failed, it became ‘He was involved in the police conspiracy to cover-up Sheila’s murder’ You can see Mike why Bamber and his supporters have lost any form of credibility. It seems their theories change as often as prudence allows.
     The silencer WAS used in the murders - something that was key to Bamber’s conviction. The silencer was attached to the rifle during the fight in the kitchen (as seen by the scatch marks found on the shelf above the AGA stove) It WAS used to fire the first shot into Sheila’s neck. It then mysteriously re-appears back in the downstairs gun cupboard - post mortem. Mike, I have yet to hear of a dead person getting up, walking down the stairs, placing a silencer back into a cupboard, then walking back upstairs, place the rifle across their body and play dead again, have you? Now I have listened to Bamber supporter’s theories of tampering, it wasn’t Sheila’s blood found in the silencer, it wasn’t used in the murders. None of which hold any credibility whatsoever. It was Bamber’s fatal mistake. I have absolutely NO doubts that Jeremy Bamber committed these appalling murders and thought he’d got clean away with it. It was a set of murders, he hoped in his infinate arrogance, would never be discovered. In that he was sorely wrong. My personal opinion is this: Bamber really should hold up his hands and admit and take responsibility for the dreadful crimes he willfully committed. But readers……..don’t hold your breath. True to form, he believes he can try to get away with it yet again. In that, again he is woefully mistaken.

     Comment by Ian — 8/14/2009 @ 5:59 am

182. IAN,EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID IN YOUR RECENT POSTS IS EVERYTHING I HAVE BEEN STATING ALL ALONG, BUT YOU USE MORE DETAIL IN YOUR ANALASYS. EVERYTHING YOU AND I BELIEVE MAY BE ACTUALLY TRUE, ISTILL BELIEVE JEREMY COMMITTED THESE MURDERS BUT I HAVE TO CONCEDE MIKE HAS GATHERED SOME IMPORTANT EVIDENCE TO AT LEAST GRANT A RE-TRIAL. MIKE YOU STATE THAT POLICE DID A GOOD JOB BUT THEN MUDDY THE WATERS BY SAYING THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IN YOUR POSTS.IFEEL THAT ALL OF US HAVE GOOD POINTS,BY US I MEAN MIKE,YOURSELF IAN,LEIGH AND ME BUT THERE HAS TO BE A RE-TRIAL SO ALL SIDES CAN BE HEARD.MIKE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH FIRST HAND ACCESS TO THE MOUNTAIN OF CONFUSING EVIDENCE AND THIS IS WHY THERE IS SUCH DEBATE RAGING BECAUSEIN THE FINAL ANALASYS THE ONLY WAY TO SETTLE THIS WOULD BE A RE-TRIAL.BUT IAN IHAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN MY HEART AND MY GUT AND I KNOW IT’S NOT EVIDENCE,BUT IFEEL I KEEP COMING BACK TO JEREMY AS THE KILLER BECAUSE I DON’T FEEL SHEILA WAS CAPABLE.IF IN MY CONCLUSION I DON’T THINK SHEILA COMMITTED THESE ACTS, THEN I MUST CONCLUDE JEREMY WAS THE PERPERTRAITOR,BECAUSE YOU MUST REMEMBER MIKE,IT WAS JEREMY WHO SAID THAT SHEILA WAS GOING MAD WITH A GUN.EVERYBODY HAS GOOD POINTS WHEN DEBATING THIS CASE,BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS AND ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS TO HEARD IN COURT TO GET TO THE REAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER.THERE HAS TO BE A RE-TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE DOUBT AND WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT IAN BAMBER MAY JUST BE FREED BECAUSE POLICE HAVE WITHELD SO MUCH EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY FROM BATTERSBY AND MUGFORD HAS TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/14/2009 @ 6:59 am

183. IN THE END THE COMMON DENOMINATOR WAS TO PUT IT SIMPLY, MONEY.THIS WAS A RICH FAMILY AND IF THEY HAD BEEN POOR NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT JEREMY WAS A CASH COW AND WANTED MONEY NOW.THE PROBLEM BEING IT ALL BACKFIRED AND NOW THE RELATIVES ARE REAPING THE REWARDS OF THE BAMBERS ESTATE.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/14/2009 @ 7:10 am

184. (Ian) :- The pathologist stated that There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. Does this not, put a huge question mark over whether Ralph really made that phone call to the police?
     ——————————————-

     There is no evidence to support the contention that Ralph was shot in the jaw, before he made the call to Jeremy…

     If he made the call first - the argument that he would not have been able to speak would not be an issue worth any sort of consideration, its as simple as that…

     The prosecution at Bambers trial were able to wrongly suggest that the location of 13 bullet cases found in and around the main bedroom helped to establish that Ralph must have been shot at least four times before he went downstairs, and by virtue of the pathologist stating that Ralph had four non fatal wounds and four other wounds which were immediately fatal, that Ralph must have been shot four times upstairs in the bedroom before he was frogmarched downstairs to the kitchen where he was finished off by being shot a further four times fatally. This of course would mean that Ralph had been shot in the jaw and consequently, he would mot have been able to speak on the telephone to jeremy…

     There is a major problem with this theory…

     PI Miller drafted up a handwritten report in which he instructed various witnesses, to alter the contents of their witness statements…

     One part of Millers report, dealt with the evidence given by DC Hammersely (SOC) instructing him to transfer the original exhibits, marked, DRHJ/1, DRH/2, DRHJ/3 and DRH/4 to DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, respectively, so that four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) could be introduced into the main bedroom scenario…

     Let me run that by you all again, so that you can be left in absolutely no doubt about what the police did with regards to the number of bullet cases which were originally found inside the main bedroom - the police did not recover 13 bullet cases from the vicinity of the main bedroom, only 9…

     The introduction of four bullet cases, under the exhibit references DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, into the main bedroom scenario, establish that somebody may not have been shot four times at all, inside the main bedroom, but rather that they were shot elsewhere…

     We now know, for example, that two of these additional bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were positioned as though they had been found and recovered from underneath and next to the body of Sheila (this was done because the circumstances of how Sheila had actually died inside the main bedroom, were falsified and covered up. If you take those four bullet cases back out of the equation in the main bedroom, there would not be any corresponding bullet cases to account for Sheila having been shot twice inside the main bedroom, and so we can be sure that they were introduced into the main bedroom scenario to lend support to the suggestion that Sheila had been shot twice in the main bedroom when she could nopt have been…

     This leaves two additional bullet cases (DRH/3 and DRH/4) both of which were introduced into the main bedroom scenario, to enable the prosecution to suggest that Ralph had been shot four times non fatally there, when at most he could only have been shot twice, or once…

     Remove the four bullet cases, (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) from the main bedroom, the four bullet cases that PI Miller instructed DC Hammersley to introduce into the equation, and you have four less shots to refer to which occurred or took place inside the bedroom - its as simple as that…

     Under these circumstances, it remains possible if not highly probable that Ralph may not have been wounded non fatally up to four times whilst he was present inside the main bedroom, and in particular, he was not wounded by a bullet penetrating the jaw and preventing him from being able to speak to Jeremy on the phone…

     Before the “Bamber is guilty brigade” gets on its high horse, first of all allow me to say that Jeremy Bamber had nothing to do with PI Millers report where he instructed DC Hammersely to falsify his account about where the bullet cases(DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)had been found?

     Why did the police falsify this account about these four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/14/2009 @ 10:35 am

185. (Ian) :- we have to remember that Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs in the bedroom - why wasn’t there a single spot of blood found on the telephone? Furthermore, the telephone receiver in the kitchen was found to be lying on the kitchen counter next to the the main base, on it’s left hand side. Nevill was right-handed and had been severely wounded in the left arm.
     ———————————

     I have already dealt with the displaced four bullet cases which PI Miller instructed DC Hammersley to include as exhibits he had found in the main bedroom under exhibit references, marked, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, and how this impacts upon the suggestion that Ralph was shot four times whilst he was present inside the main bedroom…

     It becomes necessary at this point, to remind everyone that not one single spot of blood was identified and or found inside the main bedroom which belonged to, or originated from Ralph Bamber…

     A complete absence of any blood from Ralph Bamber, inside the main bedroom, does not bode very well for the suggestion that Ralph was shot four times non fatally inside the same bedroom?

     Not one single, solitary spot, not one tiny, microscopic trace of Ralph’s blood at all found inside the main bedroom - and so, I am not only reluctant to entertain the idea that Ralph got shot by no less than four bullets whilst he was present inside the main bedroom, I am prepared to say that it would have been somewhat impossible for him to have been shot there at all? Otherwise. some of his blood would have been found there and identified as having originated from him in that locality…

     The suggestion that Ralph got shot four times inside the main bedroom, before he was frogmarched downstairs at gun point, is hogwash and codswallop, and was put forward in such a fanciful way, as to portray Jeremy in a poor light - by suggesting that Ralph would not have been able to talk by the time he got down to the kitchen, because it was alleged he had been shot no less than four times, once through the lip which fractured his jaw etc…

     The same persons who advocate Bambers guilt, then harp on about Sheila being so small, and fragile, that it would not have been possible for her to overpower such a giant of a man, as was Ralph, in the kitchen at whf during the alleged struggle, yet they forget that in the same breath, they are relying upon the suggestion that Ralph was shot four times already before he even got downstairs into the kitchen? The “Bamber is guilty brigade” can’t have their own way whichever way they choose to present their arguments, since, either Ralph was shot four times already upstairs before he was frogmarched downstairs to the kitchen and he was then overpowered by the crazed Sheila, or he was not shot four times upstairs in the bedroom, and in those circumstances, there might be some doubt as to the possibility that Sheila could not have overpowered Ralph who was bigger and stronger than she was ((With Ralph unwounded)…

     As for the phone being positioned on the kitchen worktop as though someone who was left handed had set the phone is concerned, and Ralph being right handed, let us not forget that DCI Harris used that same telephone in the kitchen to contact ACC Peter Simpson at DHQ, and that Harris spent over 15 minutes using that phone whilst updating Simpson about the displacement of Sheila’s body from the kitchen to the bedroom…

     The position of the telephone in the kktchen as shown in PC Birds crime scene photographs does not reflect the true position the phone was found in by the raid team when they first entered the farmhouse, it only represents the position of the phone from 10 O’clock that morning…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/14/2009 @ 12:10 pm

186. (Ian) :- Just as damning was the claim that Bamber stated that the phone ‘went dead’ and then he had tried to immediately phone back but got an ‘engaged tone’ There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by Bamber. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, Bamber would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone. Put basically, the phonecall from Ralph looks extremely unlikely to have ever taken place. If it did not take place, then Bamber is lying. The ONLY reason to lie, is that he himself had committed the murders.
     ———————–
     Let us remind ourselves that if the cradle of the round finger dial telephone, had been depressed, and held down momentarily, that the line between whf and the cottage at Head street, Goldhanger, would have been terminated. Once the cradle had been released again, and the handset of the phone left off the cradle, Jeremy would have been able to make calls from his cottage. If Jeremy tried to call whf back after this had been done, he would have been met by the engaged tone, which is precisely what he said happened on that occasion…

     You do not need to be a BT engineer or expert, to know that this is true and possible…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/14/2009 @ 12:55 pm

187. (Ian) :- It always astonishes me that in any murder scene there is invariably a ‘man seen walking or lurking near the scene’ This is total codswallop and a complete red herring. It is another attempt to muddy the waters and obscure the fact that Bamber committed the murders. In a rural location such as this any number of people could have been near or on the scene. Let me remind the reader that this was August, harvest, a time of frantic activity in the countryside. Farms are often busy places with any number of workers casual and permanent in the area from dawn until dusk.
     ——————————————————————–

     To begin with, according to Kim Serengupta (journalist for daily Express 1985) an article was published which states “Who was the scruffy looking hunched up man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the scene”? What you have to remember is that this was mentioned at the time when the police were accepting that Sheila had killed the other four victims and that she had taken her own life…

     Secondly, a postman who was delivering mail to the farmhouse and neighboring farm cottages, reported to a policeman who was on duty at the back of the farmhouse that he had seen an unidentified man climb through the hedge and go into the grounds of the house. The policeman concerned then proceeded to check the grounds of the house, but did not find the intruder - this information is contained in two undisclosed Essex police witness statements, one made by the postman, and the other by the police officer, and so Bamber or his supporters can hardly be accused of making up such stories..

     Additionally…

     There exists an official Essex police major incident project, detailing every witness and or motor vehicle which the police were trying to locate and identify in connection with the five deaths, once the matter changed from four murders and a suicide (SC/688/85)into a full scale murder investigation (SC/786/85) - the very first entry in that major incident project document concerns interest in an unidentified male who was seen loitering at whf at 3:45am, on the morning of the murders, and it specifically states that this unidentified male was seen by PC Myall…

     Are we to assume that the police falsified this document to facilitate a theory that would later be relied upon by supporters of Bamber to suggest that someone else, a third party, may have been involved in one or more of these murders as an accomplice?

     Finally, the silhouetted figure seen at the bedroom window by PC Myall, PS Bews and Jeremy whilst all three of them were inside the grounds of whf shortly before 4am, that morning?

     Let us be specific about what is being said here…

     The two police officers and jeremy did see a person inside the bedroom through the bedroom window at this time, and as a result of this sighting, the three of them raced out from the grounds of the house, back to the patrol car which was parked up in pages lane, and a radio message was passed via the vehicle radio to DHQ control regarding what had just been witnessed, along with a request for armed police officers to be dispatched to the scene because the person seen at the bedroom window could have been armed, and the situation might turn into a siege…

     Lets get this matter sorted out once and for all…

     Why don’t Essex police release a copy of the taped radio message, or a transcript of the words used, when this message was passed from the scene, to the control room?

     A copy of the tape and or a copy of a transcript of what was said by the police at this stage, will never be produced because to do so, would be equivalent to the police admitting that they saw someone who was still very much alive inside the house, at a time when Bamber was outside the house and in the company of two police officers…

     Until Essex police produce a transcript of what was said at this time, by the police at the scene to the control room, everyone should assume that the police were positive at that stage, that a person who may have been armed was seen at the bedroom window - Let us be even more specific, why is it that the three police officers at the scene who were all present at the patrol car, when this crucial message was passed (PC Myall, PS Bews, PS Saxby)refuse to comment upon what was said at this point, because they know that to confirm what was said would be evidence to prove that there was someone still very much alive inside whf at that stage, and therefore, jeremy could not possibly have killed that person…

     Jeremy had the perfect alibi at that stage, to prove that he did not kill everyone inside the farmhouse, as alleged against him, because although there was someone alive inside the bedroom, jeremy was outside and in the company of two police officers (Myall and Bews) inside the grounds of the house…

     The “Bamber is guilty brigade” can say what they want about the figure seen in the bedroom through the bedroom window, but until a transcript is produced by Essex police confirming what was said when the crucial radio message from the scene was passed, after the two police officers (Myall and Bews) returned to the patrol car after seeing the figure at the bedroom window, everyone should proceed on the basis that a person was seen who was very much alive inside the house, and that jeremy could not possibly have murdered that person - Jeremy had the perfect alibi for him not being the murderer, its as simple as that…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/14/2009 @ 1:23 pm

188. (Ian) :- Now the thorny issue of the so-called ‘radio logs’. It has been a shining beacon of hope to all Bamber supporters that the log contained a small reference to ‘one female and one male’ being seen in the kitchen. Bare with me on this if you will. The logs suggest that Ralph and either Sheila or June were seen in the kitchen upon arrival of the Tactical Firearms Team that morning just before they made their entry into the Farmhouse that morning (around 7:30AM) Now we must remind ourselves what A police log actually is. A radio log is basically a recorded transcipt made from communication beween a designated HQ (in this case 25 miles away) and the team using the radios on the scene. My belief is this; in the total chaos and utter confusion of that morning, the police were highly agitated and nervous - This is hardly surprising considering that they had been given intelligence (by Bamber)that their was a crazed woman running amok with a loaded rifle. An officer claimed that he saw ‘one male and one female’ in the kitchen as he approached the back door. It was later learned that the kitchen in fact had a ‘blind spot’. This spot was exactly where the body of Ralph Bamber actually lay. Put simply the offer COULD NOT have seen what he claimed from where he stood.
     This was later verified by the fact that absolutely no mention of any woman being seen in the kitchen was found in the logs after the team had entered the house.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

     Lets get the facts right…

     At 7:15am, WPC Jeepes reported what she says was a rifle that was leaning against the main bedroom window - this rifle had not been seen there despite over 20 armed and highly trained police officers surrounding the building up to that stage…

     How did that rifle get into that position against that bedroom widow, if no-one was alive inside the house after 3 am?

     Did the rifle at the bedroom window simply materialize there by teleportation, so conveniently, to enable WPC Julia Jeapes, to see it there, at the precise moment in time? Some 15 minutes before the raid team commenced its approach to enter the farm house?

     Of course not, somebody who was still very much alive, inside the farmhouse, put the gun against the bedroom window, at that point…

     In any event…

     As the raid team commenced its approach to enter the farmhouse, at around 7:30am, one of the raid team looked in through the kitchen window, and reported that he could see the body of a dead female behind the door? Well, before we go any further, it is important to identify which door to which the officer concerned was referring to? To be specific, he could not have been referring to the door which led between the back passage and the kitchen because that door was situated in a blind spot, and so it was not possible for the policeman to mistakenly identify the body of Ralph Bamber which was sat perched upon a wooden chair behind that door, because the body of Ralph could not be seen from the vantage point of the kktchen window…

     The only door which could be seen when viewed from the vantage point of the kitchen window looking into the kitchen, was the pantry door - the body of the dead female was seen therefore behind the pantry door on the far side of the kitchen…

     A crime scene photograph exists which was taken by PC Bird, which shows loose sand which has been spread over the pantry floor which was designed to cover up a bloodstain on the pantry floor where the body of the female was originally seen…

     Once the external house door was forced open by use of the sledgehammer, there was some delay whilst the raid team displaced Ralph’s body and the wooden chair upon which his body was sat perched behind the doorway through which the police had to eventually enter the kitchen. This resulted in the police taking several minutes before they were able to topple over Ralph’s body, and the chair, sending both crashing to the kitchen floor, in the region of the corner of the aga…

     Some of the injuries and bruising which was eventually found to be present upon the face and head of Ralph, by the time of his autopsy, were caused when his body was toppled over at this time. For example, marks were made upon his head and face, when these came into direct contact with the rim of a metal coal bucket, into which Ralph’s face and head fell…

     It was 7:37am - police passed a message from inside the house “the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen”. It is important to remember that the reference to a dead male was followed by an additional reference to a dead female and that both had been found in the kitchen upon entry to the premises…

     Next message, timed at 7:38am - “one dead male, one dead female”. This is confirmation that two bodies, one dead male and one dead female was found inside the kitchen, upon entry to the premises by the armed officers…

     Next message, timed at 7:41am - “could someone contact the police surgeon, and the coroners officer, regarding two dead bodies”? If anyone was in any doubt about how many bodies the police found upon entry into the kitchen, here was proof positive that not only did the police find two dead bodies in the region of the kitchen by 7:41am, but each body was identified, one dead male and one dead female body…

     At 7:45am, DC Hammersley (SOC) was contacted by the control room and told that there was an incident at whf and that they were dealing with (a) a murder and (b) a suicide…

     By this stage the police inside the house had not yet completed searching and clearing the downstairs rooms at the farmhouse, and therefore, how could the police in the control room possibly know about a suicide upstairs in the main bedroom, since the police by 7:45am, had not even begun to think about searching any of the upstairs rooms, they had to use a special mirrored device to proceed beyond the main stairs at the front of the house before they could have got anywhere near to the entrance of the main bedroom…

     Next message, timed at 8:10am - “after a thorough search of the premises a further three bodies have been found upstairs - five dead in total”. Lets get real and lets not beat about the bush, the police had by this stage found two dead bodies downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and further three bodies upstairs by 8:10am…

     A fourth body was never reportedly found upstairs at all by reference to any police radio or communication log contents…

     By the time DC Hammersely arrived at the control room (8:15am) he was updated that to the effect that “the investigation had now turned into four murders and a suicide”…

     The contents of these police radio and communication logs, are recorded coherently, and they make complete sense, nothing that is reported in any of them is disjointed or doesn’t add up. The contents are believable, and in my opinion, true and accurate. Essex police chose to withhold these message logs and their contents, for almost 20 years, thereby depriving Bamber, and his legal team, and the court which tried Bamber for thee murders, of considering their content, and any implications that can be associated with any part of them?

     The truth of the matter is that the body of a dead female was made from the vantage point of the kitchen window by PC Collins, before the raid team entered the house, and later several times after the police entered the kitchen…

     These are the facts, which Essex police have sought to cover up…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/14/2009 @ 2:07 pm

189. A file belonging to Bambers former Ballistic Expert (relied upon in the build up to his case)has now been obtained, containing new material, which is expected to bolster up the case for the crime scene ammunition having been doctored and tampered with, in Jeremy’s prosecution. This file is currently in Jeremy’s legal teams possession, and includes photographs of the crime scene ammunition which Major Mead took at the time he visited the Lab’ at Huntingdon, in 1986…

     Each of the 25 crime scene bullets were photographed by Major Mead and these images are now being enlarged and examined with a view to establishing a number of points, including for the fact that one of the tw9 bullets removed from the body of Sheila by the pathologist on 7 August 1985, was a fragmented bullet at that stage, but by the time it was submitted to the Lab’ at Huntingdon on 20 September 1985, it had become transformed into a whole bullet…

     The X-ray of the fragmented bullet when it was still inside Sheila’s neck and the new photograohs taken of the same bullet at the Lab’ by Major Mead in 1986, will form part o0f a presentation to prove and establish that the police tampered with one of the two bullets which wounded and killed Sheila, and that this was done to make out a false case that only one gun was used in her shooting - when two different guns were used…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/15/2009 @ 9:23 am

190. (Ian) :- There was no woman in the kitchen - no matter how the evidence is interpreted. The officer simply made an error, the first of many that day.
     ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

     Unfortunateley, there was a female body in the kitchen, as confirnmed by the contents of, and by reference to, The witness statement of PC Collins (who reported that he could see the body of a dead woman through the kitchen window before the raid team enetered the building) and also once the raid team actually entered the building, byy reference to the contaents of the police radio and communication logs, where at 7:37am, it states “the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female found in kitchen”, followed by a second message times at 7:38am ” one dead male, one dead female”, followed four minutes later by a third message timed at 7:42am ” can someone please contact the police surgeon and the coroners officer regarding two dead bodies”, followed by the reference in DC Hammersleys witnsess statement that he made to ther COLP investigators (1991) where he states that at 7:45am (I was contacted by the ciontrol room and informed that we were dealing with (a) a murder, and (b) a suicide”, followed by another police message which was passe from the scene, timed at 8:10am “after a thorough search of the premises, a further three bodies have been found upstiars, five dead in total”, followwed by anotjer rgference in DC hammersley’s statement that he made to the COLP investigators, timed at 8:15am ” upon arrival at the control room, I was updatedto the effect that we were now dealing with (a) four murders and (b) a suicide”…

     A fourth body was never reported to have been found upstairs at all according to the messages which were passwed from the scene…

     It is all well and good, the “Bamber is guilty brigade” allegging that these messages were being passed by officers several miles away from the scene etc, but how can anyone honestly say that if true, such officers would make up false details about what had been found once the raid team got into and entered the farmhouse? Information was passwedd by te armed officers inside the house and that information was relayed to various other officers, there would be no call for that information to be altered with a view to misleadinmg other police officers who were required to attend the scene…

     By 7:45am, the control room knew about a suicide, and so where did that information come from?

     Did they make it up, and was it just a coincidence that there turned out to be a suicide, later on in the upstairs bedroom?

     I do not think so, somehow…

     A female body was found downstairs, and seen there, before the armed officers entered the house, and afterwards once they had entered the house, and we can be sure that that female body was Sheila Caffell…

     The fact that a female body was found downstairs at the scene uis backed up by documentary evidence in the form of police radio and communication log entries which are all bona fide sources of admissible evidence. The “bamber is guilty Brigade” can say all they want to, but the fact of the matter is, that the contents of these radioo and communication logs is admissible evidence which are capable of belief and they make absolute sense of the circumstances being reported upon at that time.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 9:22 am

191. (Ian) :- This then beggars the question: did Sheila, in her psychotic state, run up the stairs, into the bedroom, lay down and shoot herself a second time? Hardly! The woman was mortally wounded with a bullet lodged in her neck. Moreover, if this were the case then one would expect there to be copious amounts of blood both in the kitchen AND leaving a heavy blood-stained trail to the bedroom. No such trail was ever found. Not what one would expect if someone is shot through the carotid artery!
     Put simply, this is utter bunkum. There was no woman in the kitchen - no matter how the evidence is interpreted. The officer simply made an error, the first of many that day.
     —————————————————————–
     There is evidence in many other cases, that people who are suffering with, and from a psychotic state, are clearly able and capable, of committing the kind of violent crimes, that wee are talking about here. It is not entirely clear that she did shoot herself as you suggest, since it remains possible that the police shot her. It is all well and good trying to ridicule the possibility that the police couldhave shot her, but ask yourself this question, and I would invite everyone else to ask themselves the same question, why did the police tamper with bullet PV/20? Now bullet PV/20 was a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, when the pathologist removed it from the neck of Sheila - it had fragmented into three separate parts (as confirmed by the X-ray taken that same day), yet by the time the nature of the inmvestigation changed from four murders and a suicide (SC/688/85) into a full scale murder investigation (SC/786/85) it had become transformed into a whole bullet which the ballistic expert matched as having been fired via the family owned rifle…

     Now if Sheila shot herself with that gun, why would the police seek to substitute the bullet?

     If someone other than a police officer shot sheila with that gun, why would the police substitute that bullet?

     On the other hand, if the police shot and killed Sheila in the bedroom by use of one of their own guns, using their own ammunition, one could see the need for the police to believe that they might get away with it by substituting the bullet, with a substituted bullet, to make out a false case that Sheila had been shot by use of a different gun, because otherwise, if they did not substitute the bullet, one of their own bullets for a control bullet, fired via that rifle during an unreported test firing of the family owned rifle, the cat woukld be out of the bag that Sheila was shot and killed after the police entered the house, not beforehand…

     Additionally, four bullet cases, marked, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were introduced into the main bedroom scenario, to make out a false case that 13 bullet cases had been found and recovered from there, whehnj in truth only 9 bullet cases had been found there…

     PI Miller prodeuced a handwritten report instructing variopus witnesses to alter their statements, including for DC hammersely to change the priginal exhibits that were marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, and to introduce four bullet cases, marked, DRH/1, DRH.2 DRH/3 and DRH/4, in their place…

     Two of these revised bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2, were supoposwedly found next to the body of Sheila on the bedroom carpet beneath her and to the left side of her body, but ask yourself this question, how could bullet case DRH/1, have been found under her body, if it was not introduced by PI Miller until a month or so after the shootings into the scenario as directed by the contents of his report?

     These two added bullet cvases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) into the bedroom scenario, prove conclusively that Sheila was not shot twice inside the main bedroom, and I would invite the members of the “Bamber is guilty brigade” to examine their consciences, and aske themselves if they were charged with a crime and this type of evidence was being used to support their prosecution how would they feel and how would they react if the police had deliberately doctored the crime scene by altering bullets and introducing bullet cases to make out a false case against them?

     If Bambner was guilty, there would have been no need to substitute bullet PV/20, befofre it giot sent to the Lab’ on 20 September 1985, and there would have been no need to introduce four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)into the bedroom scenario, so that two of these bullet cvases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) could be referred to as belonging to and originating from the two bullets that were supposedly fired into Sheila’s neck and throat in that same bedroom?

     I am sorry, but the truth is there for all to asee, and by that i mean by anyone who is prepared to search for the truth regarding these five deaths, in particular, the death of Sheila Caffell,there are some amongst us who know that therre exist certain police officers in various cases from time to time, who are corrupt and dishonest, and in this case, it seems like it had its fair share…

     No stane will be left unturned until the truth is exposed regarding the circumstancxes of how Sheila died, and unfortunately, if it means exposing the corrupt actions of police officers at the scene, and later when the cover up was put into operation, then so be it…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 9:53 am

192. (Ian):- It might be prudent to say here that the body of Sheila Caffell showed clear signs that it had been staged. One of the most alarming things - that police initally failed to notice was this; Her nightdress was found to be ‘ruffled up’ at the back, underneath her body. Bloodstains found near her ankles suggest that she was grabbed by the ankles either before or after the fatal second shot, and pulled by them into the position she was later found. Sheila simply could not have done this herself. Her body had been stage managed into that position.
     ————————————————————————
     Yes, the body depicted in PC Birds crime scene photographs did show that Sheila’s body had been staged, but it would be wrong to say that the stage managing was done by Jeremy, since he was not inside the farmhouse at the time Sheila arrived in the main bedroom, and he could not have picked up the rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window by 7:15am (WPC Jeepes) and he could not have placed it onto the body as alleged by the prosecution…

     The police did not fail to notice that Sheila’s body had been staged, because they themselves had staged it…

     There exist no bloodstains near to Sheila’s ankles, and so this is something of a fabrication, if some did exist before the police staged the scene, then they obviously wiped them clean before PC Bird took his crucial photographs at 10 O’clock…

     The ruffled nightdress beneath Sheila’s body came about as a result of the police at the scene staging her body to try and make out a false case that she had committed suicide in circumstances which she had not committed suicide, in. The ruffling up of her nightdress does not prove that Jeremy killed anyone, because if we go by that feature then the police killed Sheila, because they stage managed the body, not Jeremy…

     It is absolutely true that Sheila’s body was stage managed into that position, but the stage managing was at the hands of the police at the scene, after most of the firearms officers had already kleft the scene…

     Photographic evidence is now in the hands of Jeremy’s legal team which prove conclusively that police at the scene stage managed Sheila Caffels body, and in particular, that the police police have told deliberate and misleading lies about the sequence with which they took crime scene pictures of her body…

     An expert witness, who I shall refer to as KODAK MAN, has uncovered corrupt practices relating to the alleged sequencing with which PC Bird alleges he took all of the crime scene photographs…

     Lets get a few facts right, according to Essex police they took 223 photographs at the crime scene and during the autopsies which were all supposed to have been contained in an album known as the master copy album, but it turns out that KODAK MAN has uncovered evidence that they took 548 photographs in total and that the balance of these pictures were concealed from Bamber, his legal; team, and the court which tried him, because they contain images which are proof positive that the police at the scene stage managed Sheila’s body even whilst the photographs were still being taken - these damning images were placed in a secret album which became known as the “Senior Investigating Officers album” which was kept under lock and key in ACC Peter Simpsons office safe…

     KODAK MAN will be the undoing of this conspiracy by Essex police…

     Make no mistake - Sheila’s body was stage managed and it was done by the police as confirmed by the photographic evidence that they took as they were going about the job of actually stage managing it…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 11:37 am

193. Mike, again hearsay evidence. You say that there was no evidence that Nevill was shot in the jaw? No-one ever suggested that he was. What I stated was that he was severely beaten. Probably with the gun.
     All your points have the look and indeed feel, of someone pouring over these documents deparately trying to find errors or something, anything that supporters can jemmy open in order to try to ‘prove’ innocence. Mike this is EASILY done in ANY murder investigation. A classic example is your statement about Officer Jeepes seeing a rifle propped up against a window. Seeing as though you scarcely believe any of the police evidence or believe there is some kind of cover-up, it is highly suspicious that you choose to believe this - you choose to believe ONLY the evidence that helps Bamber’s case. Do you not see the hypocracy in what you are stating?
     Furthermore, you seem to be relying a whole lot in what was said at the crime scene when it suits you. The point I found most astonishing is that you can claim that Nevill’s injuries could have been caused when his body was toppled over by the TFG upon effecting their entry into the house. Mike anyone with one iota of comon sense knows that dead bodies DONT bruise. What you get is simply a release of blood from internal torn tissue - depending on how long thye person had been dead. One thing is perfectly clear is that it is NOT bruising. It smacks of someone trying to make things ‘fit’ the scene.
     It seems to me that you are making an awful lot of nonsense out of the fact that it was a very confused and tense crime scene.
     This will not secure Bamber a new trial, but highlights the desparation of his supporters.
     Alot of the material you have stated is nothing more than unsubstantiated reports, half-baked theory, hearsay or rumour. There is no new evidence here at all.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 11:38 am

194. Mike, let us return to the point you made about Ralph’s body being ‘toppled’ over by the entry of the TFG. I can find absolutely no evidence at all for what you are suggesting. Ralph’s body was found to be ‘precariously balanced on a chair’ with his head resting on the top of a metal coal scuttle. From the evidence that is available the blood on the coal scuttle is largely congealed. This is entirely consistent with his body being there for a number of hours. NOT a short time.
     Mike we already know the initial investigation was a total cock up, so trying to use what was said or done at this time to try to prove someone else committed these murders is utterly pointless. The police originally thought (details given by Bamber himself) that they were dealing with four murders and a suicide. Despite suspicions, only later with the ensuing investigation was it thought to be otherwise. Your whole claim seems to be set on or during these initial phases of a clearly botched investigation. This ploy is not going to work.
     You state that ‘A crime scene photograph exists which was taken by PC Bird, which shows loose sand which has been spread over the pantry floor which was designed to cover up a bloodstain on the pantry floor where the body of the female was originally seen’ May I ask how you know this was sand? How do you know what it covered up? How do you know that it wasnt dog mess or cooking oil or any other kitchen hazard that was spilt on the floor? There are a number of perfectly normal explanations. You choose to believe what you like.
     Second point you state that ‘Kim Serengupta (journalist for daily Express 1985) an article was published which states “Who was the scruffy looking hunched up man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the scene’ Are you telling me that you believe a police conspiracy existed between high-ranking police officers, that they covered-up crucial evidence, lied and tampered with evidence, and then in the same breath choose to believe that a tabloid newpaper reporter, who’s best interests are sensationalising a story in order to boost sales of their newspapers?
     Mike, this is a good example ’selective evidence’ Choosing to believe anything that diverts the taint of guilt away from the real culprit.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 12:01 pm

195. (Ian):- I believe that Jeremy Shot Sheila when she was in an inclining position. He then realised that she was still alive, shot her again.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
     For this to be true, the running, leaking, flowing , oozing blood that can be seen to be exiting both wounds upon her neck/throat would not be running parallel to one another as is shown in the actual photographs that were taken after the police stage managed the body…

     Close scrutiny of the photographs depicting these injuries and the consequent flow of blood from the two wounds, indicates that the bleeding which can be seen was not the original blood which leaked from the wounds at the time both shots had been inflicted. A bloodied fingerprint can be seen to be present around the upper bullet entry wound as if someone had been holding that wound trying to stem the flow of blood from it, a feature which is absent around the lower wound…

     If Sheila. had been shot whilst she was inclined the blood would have ran out of the wound in a different direction…

     The bleeding from the two wounds shown in the crime scene photographs appears to have started or commenced once Sheila’s body was moved into its last resting position and came about because of the displacement of the body from one position to another, by reliance upon gravity…

     It is now believed that Sheila did not receive the second shot until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had examined her body and mistakenly assumed she was dead at 8:42am, since in his statement the police surgeon reports that at the time he carried out these responsibilities that tyhere was only one bullet wound to the victims neck (a matter which is confirmed by PI Miller in his own statement and Miller was the police officer who showed Dr Craig around the scene at the time he verified death in each of the five cases)…

     Let us be more specific…

     On 14 August 1985, at the opening of the inquest, PI Miller told the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila had killed the other four, and then turned the gun upon herself and that she had a solitary wound to the underside of her chin…

     You can all make of this what you will, but it seems to suggest that at the time of Dr Craigs visit to the scene and in particular when he assumed Sheila to be dead at 8:42am, that she may not have been and more disturbingly, she received a second shot afterward once Dr Craig had left the scene…

     Questions have to be raised about the lengthy delay before SOC were able to take full control of the crime scene, since it was not until 10 O’clock that morning that SOC eventually took control of the farmhouse - it too that long for senior officer inside the house with the help of others to decide what they were going to do regarding the circumstances of how sheila had actually died at the scene…

     The delay in SOC taking control of the crime scene, and the stage managing of Sheila’s body, go hand in hand together, and the withholding of the crime scene photographs that were taken whilst the police were tampering with the scene,are proof enough that Jeremy did not kill his sister and he most definitely did not stage manage her body in the main bedroom, because the armed officers actually found her body downstairs in the kitchen, upon entry (presumed dead)and she did not end upstairs in the bedroom until some point after 8:10am…

     People can choose to believe what they want but these are the true circumstances surrounding how Sheila died inside whf…

     Jeremy and his supporters have not invented anything - the information and material he and they are seeking to rely upon was produced by the police themselves and he could have played no role in any of it being produced…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 12:05 pm

196. To all readers that are interested in this case, there are some other cases with striking similarities. It may help to understand the psychology of a person able to murder their entire family or attempt to for financial reasons.
     The first is the case of a son (Christopher Porco) of a well-to-do-family. You decide. Watch it on YouTube
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lad1zN3rrM0
     Second is the case of Dana Ewell the son of a wealthy family. Watch it on YouTube
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ws1JVddog
     It may help to understand the case of Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders and get a better prospective.
     I would be interested to know your thoughts and what judgement -if any - you can draw from them. Particularly the personality of the those involved, and the seemingly contentious issues often raised by those that continue to protest their ‘innocence’.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 12:20 pm

197. (Ian) :- he made several fatal mistakes that pointed clearly to him as being the killer.
     —————————————————————————————-
     The mistakes which have been alluded to are imaginary in my opinion…

     How can you make mistakes if you did not have anything to do with the death of Sheila Caffell?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 2:16 pm

198. Mike, you stated that ‘The only door which could be seen when viewed from the vantage point of the kitchen window looking into the kitchen, was the pantry door - the body of the dead female was seen therefore behind the pantry door on the far side of the kitchen’
     Mike, forgive me if I am wrong, but there are two doors that can be seen from the window. One to the left and one to the right on the far back wall. If you have any photos of the layout of the interior of the kitchen I would be grateful.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 2:39 pm

199. Mike, the point you made about the telephone is nonsense. You stated;
     ‘Let us remind ourselves that if the cradle of the round finger dial telephone, had been depressed, and held down momentarily, that the line between whf and the cottage at Head street, Goldhanger, would have been terminated. Once the cradle had been released again, and the handset of the phone left off the cradle, Jeremy would have been able to make calls from his cottage. If Jeremy tried to call whf back after this had been done, he would have been met by the engaged tone, which is precisely what he said happened on that occasion…
     You do not need to be a BT engineer or expert, to know that this is true and possible’
     No Mike, anyone that has been on a phone that has the receiver prongs momentarily depressed is NOT going to be disconnected. The live connection continues until the receiver has also put down the phone. Next time try it. Place your finger on the cut-off button while the call is live, and then lift it off - see what happens.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 2:47 pm

200. On a further note Mike, it is all very well stating you have this document and that document. If there is to be ANY fair debate over this case, do you not think it prudent to reveal such evidence, so that it can be open to scutiny and fair debate?
     Now dont get me wrong, the readers do not want to request ‘evidence’ that may help or hinder any future appeal case if there is one. We can all see that it may be sensitive and in-situ. What is important is that any arguments brought to this forum by you need to be looked at fairly. What I ask for is that you open the evidence that you are using to justify your arguments on this board. May I remind you, that this is an open forum, and you have rightly brought those arguments to it, for all to see. Would it not therefore be equally right to disclose the evidence on which you base or hinge your arguments? I believe that the reader has the right to argue it’s merit.
     The evidence I have has been gleaned from reading several books on the case and internet research, all of which is freely available for all to see. Would it be asking too much to ask you to do the same? ONLY in this way can we have a sensible, honest and above all, fair debate.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 3:04 pm

201. ‘The two police officers and jeremy did see a person inside the bedroom through the bedroom window at this time, and as a result of this sighting, the three of them raced out from the grounds of the house, back to the patrol car which was parked up in pages lane, and a radio message was passed via the vehicle radio to DHQ control regarding what had just been witnessed, along with a request for armed police officers to be dispatched to the scene because the person seen at the bedroom window could have been armed, and the situation might turn into a siege…
     Lets get this matter sorted out once and for all…’
     Mike this is utter nonsense. I have read exactly what these police officers said they saw. They also claimed it was a ‘glint’ in the window. NOTHING more. It was a highly tense time, people’s senses were on red alert. The mind is ‘overly alert’ How many times in a situation where you are extremely scared or alert have you thought you have seen or heard something? Let’s be honest here and use some common sense. If one person says they saw something, in a situation like that, they are ALL going to react.
     Furthermore, if there were a person in the window, where the hell were they when the police entered the house?
     If you are claiming this to be Sheila or one of the family, why did no-one, not a single soul, hear a gunshot?
     Mike, it total nonsense. It smacks of desparation.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 3:11 pm

202. (Ian):- Mike, the investigation was a total cock-up. You know and I know it. You are just highlighting mistakes. If you look hard into any murder investigation you will find in many of the cases mistakes were made. So OK they didnt examine the body as thoroughly as they should have. This does NOT point to a conspiracy nor does this prove Jeremy innocent.I havent seen the evidence that you are eluding to.
     ————————————————————
     I prefer to believe that the investigation was not the so-called cock up, that you are mentioning, I prefer to refer to the investigation as a very thorough one initially (SC/688/85) which once it altered into (SC/786/85) gave the appearance of a cock up…

     Fact of the matter is…

     That most of the original material which was gathered as part of SC/688/85, was either disposed of altogether or seriously edited and re-written to form part of the second part of the investigation…

     Looking at it from another perspective, if the second file (SC/786/85) had not been created, the entire original file (SC/688/85) would have effectively provided Jeremy with the perfect defense to any of the allegations he was later to be convicted for…

     This is because everything which was gathered under SC/688/85 was done with Sheila being the killer and her having committed suicide in mind…

     What Essex police did once they came under pressure from the relatives (the peak of this activity was the beginning of September 1985)was that they created (SC/786/85) the new file, into which all the edited and re-written and newly presented interpretation of the original handling of the case was put into, which gave the effect that the investigation had been a botched one (when in truth it had been far from being a botched operation)…

     When you start tampering with the crime scene bullets, and bullet cases, because you are trying to cover up for the way and the manner with which Sheila died inside the main bedroom, then in my book, this amounts to there having been a conspiracy by the police to pervert the course of justice. Others might choose to call it something else, but that is up to them, and you…

     When you start telling lies about stage managing the body of a victim and you try to pin the blame wrongfully upon someone else for doing that which you yourself have done, then in my book, this amounts to a conspiracy by the police to pervert the course of justice…

     When you start lying about the number of crime scene photographs that were taken and the order with which they were taken at the scene because you do not want a suspect and his legal team and the court which would later go on to try the suspect for serious crimes such as murder and you falsify the photographic records and conceal crucial photographs from those that should have access to them, in my book that behavior amounts to a conspiracy…

     When you allow bloodstained carpets and bloodstained blankets and mattress and clothing and footwear to be destroyed within days of the tragedy by burning these on a bonfire within the grounds of whf, so that there can be no independent examination of these items to enable anyone to try and reconstruct what had taken place inside that bedroom, in my book this is and was part of the conspiracy by the police to cover up for how Sheila died inside that bedroom at whf…

     When you conceal the very police radio and communication logs and their contents from the suspect and his legal team and the court which tries that suspect for a series of murders, and the contents of the same are capable of shedding doubt on the possibility that Sheila was murdered at all, in my book this is an integral part of the same conspiracy that this group of police officers have chosen to instigate…

     These same police officers lied and conned the relatives during the early days into believing that only five bullets had been fired during the entire episode…

     These same police officers claim there was only one gun in the main bedroom at the time Sheila’s body was supposedly found on the carpet by the side of the bed, and that gun, they say, was on top of her body - when at 7:15am, that same gun was resting up against the bedroom window as observed by WPC Julia Jeepes (a trained firearms instructor)so how had it managed to get from the bedroom window during and between 7:15am and the time or moment the police say they first discovered Sheila’s body in the main bedroom with the gun on top of it?

     How could Jeremy have been inside the bedroom of whf after 7:15am, to use the gun to shoot Sheila, and then stage manage her body by planting the rifle onto it, before the police found her laying on the bedroom carpet upon entry to the bedroom? Exactly how did Jeremy manage to do that, then?

     You cannot have a rifle leaning against the bedroom window, and at the same time a rifle be on top of Sheila’s body, in the main bedroom, if there was only one gun present in that bedroom, or found there when the police entered for the first time…

     One gun, or two guns, inside the main bedroom…

     If two guns, why have the police lied about that?

     Only one of these two guns could have had a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel, because to all intents and purposes, only one silencer was eventually found at the scene, but we are led to believe that this silencer was found downstairs concealed in the gun cupboard, and so even if there were two guns in the bedroom, neither of these could have had the silencer attached or fitted to their barrels…

     Why have Essex police continued to be obstructive to Jeremy and his legal team by failing to disclose a transcript of what was said by the police at the scene when they returned to the patrol car after the figure was seen at the bedroom window? If at that stage, a request was made for the firearms team to be deployed to the scene (in keeping with force policy)how could such a request be justified if the police had not seen someone at the bedroom window? Why did the police and Jeremy run from ther grounds of the house back to the patrol car in fear for their lives?

     Why hasn’t DCI Harris and ACC Peter Simpson made a statement about what they discussed when Harris contacted Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at and between 8:15am and 8:30am? What is so secretive about these conversations that Essex police are frightened to death that to disclose them to jeremy and his legal team, it will open up can of worms, be3cause the topic of conversation was about the person seen at the bedroom window and later about the fact that Sheila had regained consciousness and that she had fled to another part of the house, which as it turns out was a journey from the kitchen to the main bedroom?

     The police at the scene, and others listening in on the eavesdrop via the kitchen telephone, know that Sheila shot herself initially, as the armed officers commenced their approach to enter the farmhouse at about 7:30am that morning. They know that for about 40 minutes Sheila’s body was laid on the pantry floor beyond the door which led from the kitchen to the pantry, and that she was presumed to be dead at that stage. Unfortunately no-one checked for vital signs of life when they first came upon her, and in truth she was only unconscious with a solitary wound to her throat…

     Sheila’s body lay there on the floor slightly upon her right side with the fingers of her right hand pressed against her neck which effectively created a fold in her right arm into which blood pooled from the solitary wound she had on her neck at that time…

     With the passing of 40 minutes since she had first shot herself and the application of her fingers against the solitary bullet hole upon her throat, the wound became sealed with clotted blood and the triangular bloodstain upon the upper part of her nightdress became dried along with a blood stain that was created on the back of her nightdress…

     By the time Sheila became mobile and she was able to flee upstairs to the sanctuary of the main bedroom there would not have been any wet blood to drip onto the floor or the carpets or anywhere, because the wound upon her throat would have become sealed by a plug of clotted blood…

     She may have collapsed again by the time she got to the main bedroom and by the time the police surgeon. Dr Craig arrived upon the scene by 8:42am, he pronounced her as being dead without carrying out any physical examination of her body, and reporting only the presence of one bullet wound to her throat by that stage…

     The second wound could, and probably was inflicted, after DR Craig had verified Sheila as being dead, and perhaps after Dr Craig, had left the scene…

     The fresh looking blood which was photographed oozing from both wounds upon Sheila’s throat at 10 O’clock that morning, may be evidence that Sheila did not die until a long time after the armed officers entered the house at around 7:30am..

     One thing is for certain and that is that Sheila’s body was not laid there on the bedroom carpet from as long ago as 3 am, and she would have had to have been there from that time, if jeremy killed her there? The blood would not be so fresh and red looking if Sheila had already been dead seven hours or more, previous to the occasion when PC Bird took that crucial photograph showing the wet looking blood oozing from the two wounds…

     There was a police conspiracy, there can be absolutely no doubt at all about that…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 3:11 pm

203. One question that has always bothered me MIke. Let us be frank about this. Sheila Cafell’s nails were perfectly manicured. She was upposedly in a fight with her father - who was 6ft 4″ tall and twice her weight. You explain to me how someone could
     A) Fire 25 shots - all on target, which meant reloading the gun at least twice (with a very stiff catch) and still have a perfectly manicured finger nails?
     B) Been in this struggle for life and death, and not have a single mark on her to prove this happened?
     Mike, Sheila Cafell could not, and did not kill her family. The readers can then decide for themselves without getting bogged down in pointless and mind-numbing documents. It is people and NOT paperwork that decided Bamber’s guilt.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 3:21 pm

204. One last question here. Who’s blood was found on Sheila Cafell nightdress apart from her own?
     If she had clamly walked throught the house murdering her mother, her two twin boys and been in a mortal struggle with her large father, there would have been copious amounts of their blood on her white nightdress would there not?
     These are simple facts.

     Comment by Ian — 8/16/2009 @ 3:30 pm

205. (Ian):- One question that has always bothered me MIke. Let us be frank about this. Sheila Cafell’s nails were perfectly manicured. She was upposedly in a fight with her father - who was 6ft 4″ tall and twice her weight. You explain to me how someone could
     A) Fire 25 shots - all on target, which meant reloading the gun at least twice (with a very stiff catch) and still have a perfectly manicured finger nails?
     B) Been in this struggle for life and death, and not have a single mark on her to prove this happened?
     Mike, Sheila Cafell could not, and did not kill her family. The readers can then decide for themselves without getting bogged down in pointless and mind-numbing documents. It is people and NOT paperwork that decided Bamber’s guilt.
     ———————————————————————-

     I will start to try and answer the points you have made by dealing with the point you list at B) firstly:-

     It is not true that Sheila did not have any injuries at all, or any marks upon her body at all, which could be evidence that she was engaged in some sort of a struggle with her father, Ralph, in the kitchen. I would seek to strongly dispute and oppose anyone who says that Sheila was not injured in any sort of way during this episode. Sheila did have injuries which were consistent with her having been involved in a fierce struggle with someone prior to her death. Photographic material exists to confirm that Sheila had scratch and gouge marks, upon her right forearm and the top part of her right hand, and these injuries drew blood which has been captured in photographic images which the police originally withheld from Jeremy and his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders. These photographs were released to Jeremy and his legal team, too late to have any influence upon the verdict of the jury. I have seen these photographs and you or anyone can see them for yourselves if you visit “sleuthing for justice” where most of the material to which I am referring to is available for all to see and consider…

     Sheila had injuries which came about when she was involved in a struggle with someone before she died…

     Linked to this…

     was the fact that Ralph also had gouge marks upon his right forearm which, again were photographed, these photographs were as you can imagine, were not disclosed to jeremy, or his legal team, or to the court which tried him for these murders, and so at the time of the trial in 1986, neither he nor his legal team could refer to such injuries, to support the contention that Sheila and Ralph had fought with each other, at some stage before both died…

     Handwritten notes exist made by the pathologist, who commented upon the existence and possible cause of the scratch and gouge marks upon Sheila’s right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, as opposed to the gouge marks that were present upon Ralph’s right forearm? You may be surprised to learn that he concluded that someone with longish fingernails were responsible for making the gouge marks upon Ralph’s right forearm, and that someone with shorter fingernails, was responsible for making the scratch and gouge marks upon Sheila’s right forearm, and the top part of her right hand. DR Peter Venezis was prepared to accept that Ralph made the marks on Sheila’s arm and the top part of her right hand, and that Sheila made the deeper scratch marks upon Ralph’s right forearm…

     Something else you should take into account which a lot of people are not aware of, and that is that 17 samples, which have been described as body samples, were destroyed upon receipt at the Lab’ on 9 August 1985, at the same time the original hand swabs were rejected by the Lab’ because of the possibility that they may have been contaminated - because the hand swabs arrived at the Lab’ in the same exhibits bag as a number of weapons which were also being submitted to the Lab in connection with another incident…

     It is believed that some of the samples which were destroyed at the lab’ upon receipt on 9 August 1985, were scrapings from behind the fingernails of Sheila and Ralph Bamber..

     The truth of the matter is that Sheila and Ralph both had scratch and or gouge marks on their arms, which came about when both struggled together during the incident, and evidence exists, and existed to prove that this was, and is true…

     I will answer your other points sometime tomorrow because i have to leave no to go to the north of Scotland..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/16/2009 @ 6:01 pm

206. Ian, both Christopher Porco and Dana Ewell had quite a long history of compulsive lying and making up fantasy stories prior to the crimes. I can see where you might draw similarities with regards to there being substantial amounts of money involved and perhaps an apparent lack of emotion or at least not the type of emotion one would expect someone who has just lost family members to exhibit. This however does not prove someone’s guilt, people suffering from shock etc may understandably behave in such a way and I wouldn’t say that there are striking similarities. I may be wrong but I think that Dana Ewell admitted his guilt sometime shortly afterwards. Whereas Jeremy Bamber has maintained his innocence for 24 years, also passing a lie detector test. I still think he is telling the truth.

     Comment by Leigh — 8/16/2009 @ 10:24 pm

207. An interesting point Mike,
     However, two people involved in a life or death struggle would - and there is NO doubt about this - have far more extensive injuries than a few arm scratches. There are any number of explanations why these could have gotten there. Mike, someone that is fighting for their very life would leave far more clues than this. Let’s face it, all Ralph had to do was fall on the waif-like Sheila to incapacitate her. Sheila did not even show signs of bruising. I find this unbelievable if there was a struggle between herself and her father. How anyone can extrapolate that Sheila had a ‘fierce struggle with someone prior to her death’ beggars belief. There was none of Ralph’s or anyone else’s blood on her nightdress, she was not injured in the way one expects her to be. This doesn’t add up Mike.

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 3:20 am

208. Mike, I beg to differ. I think the original investigation was a total cock-up. They allowed vital evidence to be destroyed - a fact that would surely have pointed them to the real killer much more quickly. Vital evidence was missed or destroyed. The crime scene wasn’t secured properly. They allowed Bamber to have evidence destroyed after the fact.
     Furthermore, if they had these initial suspicions, Mugford could have been wired to record Bamber’s conversation with her that strongly implicated him in the crime. Wiring was beginning to be common practice in the 1980s.
     I think the police desparately wanted to see this case as ’self-solving’ rather than another mystery like that of the murder of Diane Jones a few years before. A high profile case which the police were unable to solve and caused much consternation and embarrassment to them. To use the slang of the time ‘ to do a Bamber’ came for a while to mean making a real mess of something.
     Mike, it was a total mess, one the Essex Police managed to salvage only when the leader of the investigation DCI ‘Taff’ Jones was replaced and the suspicions of DS Stan Jones and several other colleagues were finally listened to and acknowledged.
     In doing so the true culprit of these appalling acts was exposed and apprehended.

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 3:57 am

209. Mike, you stated…. ‘Lets put things into perspective, it was never established in a legal context, that jeremy would have stood to inherit the entire Bamber estate - since the order of death would have determined that? If Sheila died last, or the twins died last, how could Bamber have been the only beneficiary to the Bamber estate? Other beneficiaries would certainly have come into the equation if Sheila, or the twins died last of all’
     Mike this is utter codswollop. The truth is, is that Bamber did not know this information until he visited the Estate Executor Basil Cock. It was simply not something he’d thought of. He obviously thought that by murdering his entire immediate family that he would be sole beneficiary to the estate.
     Is this not, a case of after-the-fact knowledge used in order to boost claims of innocence?

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 7:12 am

210. The hard evidence at the crime scene clearly suggested that Sheila Cafell could not have killed her family. There is NO credible evidence that she did. In fact, her death clearly pointed to the fact that she had been murdered and that her body had been staged. What the police failed to do was a thorough forensic examination of the scene. An interesting fact has come to light regarding the shooting of the twin boys. To be more specific, the angle from which they were shot. This can be ascertained from the crime scene photos of the boys in their beds. Now I am led to believe that Sheila Cafell stood 5ft 7 inches tall. Jeremy Bamber stood appromimately 6ft 1 inches tall, a clear 5 inches taller than Sheila. This means that the higher the angle of the shots the more likely it was that a person taller that Sheila pulled the trigger. If it can be proven that the angle of at least one of the shots fired into the head of the twins was higher than that of a person of Sheila’s height i.e higher than her eyeline, then it stands to reason that she could NOT have been the person responsible for the death of the twins. This may equally apply to the other victims - especially those with contact wounds. It is perfectly possible to trace the angle of the rifle when it was fired. Is there any autopsy report available that traces the tracks of the bullet wounds?
     If so, it is perfectly feasible - using simple trigonometry - to find out the height of the killer. I am 100% sure the answer will be that the killer was significantly taller than Sheila. The readers can make their own judgements from that.

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 7:31 am

211. Mike this is clealy nonsense. You stated that
     ‘What this leads me to suspect is that Ralph could have been initially shot once (and only once) in the main bedroom, before he fled the immediate vicinity of the bedroom, being pursued by Sheila with the gun, and that he managed to make the call to the police (3:27am) before Sheila cornered him at the point of a gun and he was forced to make the call to jeremy with a view of trying to lure him to the scene (exactly like DCI Jones said)’
     Does it not stand to reason that if you are trying to lure someone to a scene you DONT say that there is a person present who is crazy and armed with a rifle! What on earth was this supposed to have achieved? That Jeremy would then make his way to a house in which a deranged woman is lying in wait? Sheila would have known - even in a deranged state that Bamber would call the police. This theory of yours makes absolutely no sense at all.
     What is far more likely is that Ralph did NOT phone the police at all, but was all part of the devious plan that Bamber had drawn up to clearly allude to the fact that Bamber was not present at the farmhouse at the supposed time of the call to the police.

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 7:51 am

212. (Ian) :- Let us be frank about this. Sheila Cafell’s nails were perfectly manicured.
     ————————————————————————————–

     No photographic evidence exists to prove or confirm that her fingernails were perfectly manicured, if it does why didn’t the police and the CPS ever produce it to confirm the point? Considering the amount of blood that ran and leaked from the wound on the upper [part of her right hand I do not necessarily agree with the suggestion that her fingernails were spotlessly clean and uncontaminated. Until I see photographic evidence confirming one way or the other, whether Sheila’;s fingernails were perfectly manicured, I would choose to disregard such a suggestion…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/17/2009 @ 2:52 pm

213. Mike, I consider this highly strange why you chose to ‘disregard’ this. There are clear statements by those present at the scene (and I take it you were not) that suggest Sheila’s hands were perfectly clean and well-manicured. Perhaps a crime scene photo will end your doubts once and for all. I would like to ask. Do you have photographic evidence for everything you suggest?
     I have copies of two sworn statements by those present
     FIRST SWORN STATEMENT - From the firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted:
     ‘that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition’
     SECOND SWORN STATEMENT - DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer
     ‘I placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell’s hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. I saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to my eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased’s feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.
     Mike, you believe what you want to. I choose to believe those that were present at the scene.

     Comment by Ian — 8/17/2009 @ 5:09 pm

214. (Ian) :- A) Fire 25 shots - all on target, which meant reloading the gun at least twice (with a very stiff catch) and still have a perfectly manicured finger nails?
     ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
     First of all, it would not be as difficult as you are trying to suggest for anyone to hit the target with all 25 bullets, if for example, as confirmed by the prosecutions ballistic expert. Malcolm Fletcher, most of the shots were either from contact, or close contact, within a matter of inches, or feet from the victims, at the time each shot was inflicted…

     It would be more difficult to miss than to hit the target under such conditions and at such close quarters…

     You are clearly trying to make out a false case that whoever fired all of these shots was a marksman, which unfortunately was not the case.

     With the loaded weapon soo close to the victims at the time it was fired, even a blind man could not have failed to hit the target…

     If you accept that only one gun was used in these shootings (and it is not absolutely clear that only one gun was used, but rather that two or more different guns were used in the shootings)then you are trying to make out a false case that all 25 shots would have needed to be discharged from the gun in a rapid manner, where as soon as one magazine was emptied, Sheila would have very quickly needed to reload the magazine again, to fire the next 10 bullets, and very quickly again, reload the magazine of the same gun with another 5 bullets more…

     If we are going to proceed along the lines that there was only one gun used in the entire shooting frenzy, then what I would seek to say is that there would be no great urgency of the type you are advocating, for the gun to have been reloaded at all, once, June was shot five times in the bedroom, and Ralph was shot five times - since Sheila might not have felt threatened by either herself or her children by that stage…

     There is no evidence that Sheila shot the twins, or herself, before she wounded and killed her parents…

     It would only have taken 10 bullets to incapacitate her parents, and I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that this is where your argument falls flat on its face - since you are trying to make something out of nothing, by claiming that Sheila would not have had time or been capable of reloading a gun twice more, which may not have needed to be reloaded (twice more) in the time sequence which you are alluding to…

     Lets be specific…

     A fully loaded Anshulz rifle could hold 11 bullets - 10 in the magazine and another in the breach…

     Work it out for yourself - June was shot and killed by the time she received the sixth bullet and Ralph was dead by the time he received the fifth bullet (making 11 bullets in total). The loaded gun when loaded to its full capacity had enough bullets inside it to kill June and Ralph, outright, and so this sort of puts the dampeners on your theory, do you not think so? With Sheila using the gun which had already got 11 bullets loaded into it, and she fired all of these 11 bullets, and by the time she had fired all 11 of these bullets, her parents (both of them) were already dead, how would this have compromised the condition of her perfectly well manicured fingernails, since, in these circumstances, Sheila would not have had to load a single, solitary bullet into the gun, contrary to what you are alleging…

     Neither you, nor Essex police, or any of its experts can disprove that the aforementioned sequence of events, did not occur or take place - 11 bullets were capable within the circumstances of this case, of ending the lives of Ralph and June Bamber, period.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 2:37 pm

215. (Ian) ;- An interesting point Mike,However, two people involved in a life or death struggle would - and there is NO doubt about this - have far more extensive injuries than a few arm scratches. There are any number of explanations why these could have gotten there. Mike, someone that is fighting for their very life would leave far more clues than this. Let’s face it, all Ralph had to do was fall on the waif-like Sheila to incapacitate her. Sheila did not even show signs of bruising. I find this unbelievable if there was a struggle between herself and her father. How anyone can extrapolate that Sheila had a ‘fierce struggle with someone prior to her death’ beggars belief. There was none of Ralph’s or anyone else’s blood on her nightdress, she was not injured in the way one expects her to be. This doesn’t add up Mike.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————-

     We are both in agreement that Ralph may have been involved in a life or death struggle, yet for some reason you do not seem to accept that the injuries sustained in the form of deep gouge marks upon his right forearm, and similar shallow gouge marks on the top part of Sheila’s right hand, could not have been made by one and the same person? In the original hand written pathology notes compiled by Pathologist, Peter Venezis, he mentions that the injuries spoken about upon Ralph’s forearm and upon the top part of Sheila’s right hand, were made by someone with different lengthen fingernails. These details were omitted from the typed version of Peter venezis’s statement, since, it was a necessary and misleading part of the prosecutions case, that Sheila had got absolutely no injuries at all, a bit like what you are trying to suggest, but let me tell you something, the crime scene photographs which were deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, to Jeremy, his legal team, and the the court which tried him for these murders,clearly show that Sheila did have such injuries. How did Sheila get those injuries that she was not supposed to have had? Why di Essex police and its experts and the CPS try to conceal for the fact that Sheila had got these types of injuries, if she had them?

     Work it out for yourself…

     You are trying to suggest that Jeremy fought and struggled with Ralph in this last fight to the death, but as you clearly are aware, no-one saw any sort of injuries at all on Jeremy at any stage after the deaths took place or occurred, so if Jeremy was involved in this last ditrch fight to the death as described by you, what happened to all the injuries he would have suistained if your argument had any sembleance of truth attached or associated with it?

     Ralph and Sheila had injuries which were consistent with both having struggled with each other at some point during the incident, but Jeremy did not - why do you and the readers think that is?

     DI Cook (SOC) told the COLP investigators that when he first entered the scene at whf (9;20am) he did not get the impression that there had been the sort of violent struggle which has been suggested because he was told that any disturbance in the kitchen was caused at the time the armed officers rushed into the kitchen at the start of the operation. For 4xample it was the police who knocked over stools and furniture and it was the armed officers who were responsible for broken crockery which was knocked from the table in those first moments of the operation inside the house - the police knocked over a bowl of sugar which spilled out over the kitchen floor etc…

     This is something else which jeremy got blamed for doing…

     As for your suggestion that Sheila did not show any signs of bruising is concerned - no photographs of her naked body were taken and so we do not know if she had bruises on various parts of her body or not. You cannot rely upon the non suggestion that she had such injuries upon her body by the pathologist because his original statement has been edited, and his original handwritten folder which dealt with his autopsy upon her body was stolen so rather conveniently during a burglary…

     The police, its experts, and the CPS, and anybody else will need to produce photographic proof that Sheila did not have any bruising anywhere upon her body, before I will be convinced that what you are alluding to, could possibly be true…

     You nor anybody else can say with any degree of certainty, that non of Ralph’s blood was found, upon Sheila’s nightdress, since all of the blood that was present upon it was not analyzed?

     If you know different, provide the evidence so that Jeremy, his legal team, and the CCRC, can examine such material…

     For all we know, Ralph’s blood was found upon Sheila’s nightdress, and some of Sheila’s blood would have been found upon Ralph’s body and pajamas…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:04 pm

216. (Ian) ;- An interesting point Mike,However, two people involved in a life or death struggle would - and there is NO doubt about this - have far more extensive injuries than a few arm scratches. There are any number of explanations why these could have gotten there. Mike, someone that is fighting for their very life would leave far more clues than this. Let’s face it, all Ralph had to do was fall on the waif-like Sheila to incapacitate her. Sheila did not even show signs of bruising. I find this unbelievable if there was a struggle between herself and her father. How anyone can extrapolate that Sheila had a ‘fierce struggle with someone prior to her death’ beggars belief. There was none of Ralph’s or anyone else’s blood on her nightdress, she was not injured in the way one expects her to be. This doesn’t add up Mike.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————-

     We are both in agreement that Ralph may have been involved in a life or death struggle, yet for some reason you do not seem to accept that the injuries sustained in the form of deep gouge marks upon his right forearm, and similar shallow gouge marks on the top part of Sheila’s right hand, could not have been made by one and the same person? In the original hand written pathology notes compiled by Pathologist, Peter Venezis, he mentions that the injuries spoken about upon Ralph’s forearm and upon the top part of Sheila’s right hand, were made by someone with different lengthen fingernails. These details were omitted from the typed version of Peter venezis’s statement, since, it was a necessary and misleading part of the prosecutions case, that Sheila had got absolutely no injuries at all, a bit like what you are trying to suggest, but let me tell you something, the crime scene photographs which were deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, to Jeremy, his legal team, and the the court which tried him for these murders,clearly show that Sheila did have such injuries. How did Sheila get those injuries that she was not supposed to have had? Why di Essex police and its experts and the CPS try to conceal for the fact that Sheila had got these types of injuries, if she had them?

     Work it out for yourself…

     You are trying to suggest that Jeremy fought and struggled with Ralph in this last fight to the death, but as you clearly are aware, no-one saw any sort of injuries at all on Jeremy at any stage after the deaths took place or occurred, so if Jeremy was involved in this last ditrch fight to the death as described by you, what happened to all the injuries he would have suistained if your argument had any sembleance of truth attached or associated with it?

     Ralph and Sheila had injuries which were consistent with both having struggled with each other at some point during the incident, but Jeremy did not - why do you and the readers think that is?

     DI Cook (SOC) told the COLP investigators that when he first entered the scene at whf (9;20am) he did not get the impression that there had been the sort of violent struggle which has been suggested because he was told that any disturbance in the kitchen was caused at the time the armed officers rushed into the kitchen at the start of the operation. For 4xample it was the police who knocked over stools and furniture and it was the armed officers who were responsible for broken crockery which was knocked from the table in those first moments of the operation inside the house - the police knocked over a bowl of sugar which spilled out over the kitchen floor etc…

     This is something else which jeremy got blamed for doing…

     As for your suggestion that Sheila did not show any signs of bruising is concerned - no photographs of her naked body were taken and so we do not know if she had bruises on various parts of her body or not. You cannot rely upon the non suggestion that she had such injuries upon her body by the pathologist because his original statement has been edited, and his original handwritten folder which dealt with his autopsy upon her body was stolen so rather conveniently during a burglary…

     The police, its experts, and the CPS, and anybody else will need to produce photographic proof that Sheila did not have any bruising anywhere upon her body, before I will be convinced that what you are alluding to, could possibly be true…

     You nor anybody else can say with any degree of certainty, that non of Ralph’s blood was found, upon Sheila’s nightdress, since all of the blood that was present upon it was not analyzed?

     If you know different, provide the evidence so that Jeremy, his legal team, and the CCRC, can examine such material…

     For all we know, Ralph’s blood was found upon Sheila’s nightdress, and some of Sheila’s blood would have been found upon Ralph’s body and pajamas…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:04 pm

217. (Ian) ;- Mike, I beg to differ. I think the original investigation was a total cock-up. They allowed vital evidence to be destroyed - a fact that would surely have pointed them to the real killer much more quickly. Vital evidence was missed or destroyed. The crime scene wasn’t secured properly.
     —————————————————————————————————————————-

     The original investigation (SC/688/85) was not as you put it, “a total cock up”, it was a very thorough and far reaching investigation. The police did not allow evidence to be destroyed, they wanted it to be destroyed, because not to do so would have left valuable clues for someone to come along at a later date, and to reconstruct what had taken place. I would suggest that there is a big difference between your interpretation of the events, and mine, and that your theory is an attempt to ridicule the police handling of the investigation during those early stages, whereas my theory tries to deal with the reasons why the police deliberately sought to destroy that same evidence? Your theory is introduced to try and make Jeremy into the killer that he is not, and mine is introduced with a view to finding out what took place and why?

     Jeremy gets the blame for everything in your theories, whereas, I think that approach is a bit over the top, where you seek to blame everything and anything upon his shoulders, as though he had any power over how the police conducted their investigations at the scene and elsewhere, even on occasions when he was not present where you and others allege he influenced the police? To be perfectly honest, I think such suggestions are pathetic. Jeremy did not do anything to fool or influence the police, the police knew what they were doing and they knew why they did what they did at the scene in trying to cover up exactly how Sheila had died in that bedroom at whf that morning…

     If it looks to anyone that the police were made to look like bungling fools in this case, then it is because they choose to be portrayed in that manner because of the fact that they covered up the true circumstances of how Sheila died…

     This is the truth, but you and anybody else can choose to believe what you want to, in my book Jeremy killed no-one and there is absolutely no positive proof that he killed anyone, its all speculation and a bit like playing Chinese whispers…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:20 pm

218. (Ian) :- They allowed Bamber to have evidence destroyed after the fact.
     ————————————————————————
     Jeremy destroyed nothing at all, if you have any information to the contrary, then please introduce it so that jeremy, his legal team and the CCRC can investigate and consider it?

     On the other hand, The relatives removed vital evidence from the scene of the crime after the keys were handed back on 9 August 1985, it was the relatives who destroyed evidence at the scene and it was the relatives who were responsible for removing vital pieces of evidence from the scene, such as the heavily bloodstained knickers that had been soiled by Sheila who was having her period at the time she died…

     Why would the relatives want to remove and take away from the scene a pair of heavily bloodstained panties that belonged to one of the victims who had been menstruating at the time prior to her death? You answer me that question and then all of us can think about it for a while?

     The relatives had the silencer, and the relatives had Sheila’s panties, which were heavily bloodstained with Sheila’s blood - if you put the blood from the bloodstained panties to the silencer, hey presto…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:33 pm

219. (Ian) :- Mugford could have been wired to record Bamber’s conversation with her that strongly implicated him in the crime.
     —————————————————————————————————————————
     If Mugford had been wired, as you put it, it may have proved that Jeremy did not say the things which Mugford claims he said, because the fact is that she was not wired and so we will never know one way or the other, whether Mugford was telling the truth, with a view to getting her hands on the £25,000 fee for her exclusive story in the News of the World, if Jeremy got convicted…

     Let us remind ourselves that during the trial when she was asked if she had a contract with the News of the world to receive a £25,000 fee for her story if Jeremy was convicted, she told the court “NO”, but later on 1991 when she was interviewed by COLP, she admitted that she had had a contract at the time and that the News of the world had put her mother and herself up in a five star hotel during the trial etc…

     It was in Mugfords best financial interests, to elaborate when she testified, so that she got her reward…

     Some people believe that “money is the root of all evil”, and in Mugfords case, this may or may not be true - so why lie to the court about the financial incentive should jeremy be convicted as the killer?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:43 pm

220. (Ian) :- Other beneficiaries would certainly have come into the equation if Sheila, or the twins died last of all’
     Mike this is utter codswollop. The truth is, is that Bamber did not know this information until he visited the Estate Executor Basil Cock.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————
     This is where you are wrong - you are making out a false case that because he did not know about the order of death and any effect it might have on who might become a beneficiary, you are making him out to be the killer he is not. Let me also remind you that there exists a witness statement made by Robert Boutflour, that he also sought legal advice about the effect which the order of death, might have on any potential beneficiaries? Yet, you do not seek to point the finger of suspicion at him in the same way you do in Jeremy’s case…

     Let me also remind you and everyone else…

     Sheila Caffell and Robert Boutflour, had exactly the same blood groups, as one another…

     A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1 - the same results which were obtained from examination of the silencer…

     There may be some amongst us, who might look at the fact that Robert Boutflour was making inquiries about the order of death in this case, with a view to finding out about entitlement to part or whole of the Bamber estate, and the fact that he had the same blood groups as Sheila, and that if you put these together in the same argument it might make out a strong case that the silencer could have been contaminated with blood belonging to him, rather than blood which was unique and exclusive to Sheila (as alleged during the trial by the prosecution)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/18/2009 @ 3:55 pm

221. Mike, it is just as probable that Boutflour was trying to discover the sequence in which they were killed for reasons other than that with a financial motive, such as trying to find out exactly what happened in the house. Like most people who have lost their loved ones in such appalling circumstances, it would be only natural to find out exactly what happened. To try to look for any ulterior motive on his part Mike is, quite frankly, obsurd. Why would I point the finger of suspicion at Boutflour? He was not at the scene of the crime, no evidence to suggest that he was. He did not make murderous threats towards them - as Bamber did. It seems to me that you have an unhealthy interest in trying to shift blame here onto the relatives Mike. It is also apparent that Bamber had a unhealthy dislike of his relatives. Strange coincidence?

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 4:16 am

222. Mike, you stated that ‘Your theory is introduced to try and make Jeremy into the killer that he is not, and mine is introduced with a view to finding out what took place and why?’
     This is NOT the impression I have of your ‘theories’ All of them repeatedly state Bamber’s ‘innocence’ Let’s not try to pull the wool over people’s eyes Mike. I have said from the start that I am 100% convinced of Bamber’s guilt. I believe he committed these murders, deliberately and wilfully. He planned them far in advance and believed he would get clean away with it.
     He murdered Ralph, June, Sheila and the two twin boys. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he did so.
     The Jury felt that he did, the police in the second investigation believed that he did and the relatives believed that he did.
     My position is absolutely clear on this. If you wanted to find out what took place and why - you have certainly gone about it in a wholly unbalanced and biased manner. I cannot see anywhere from you, any serious questions pertaining to Bamber’s possible involvement in the murders. One would expect this if you were trying to ‘find out what took place and why’

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 4:40 am

223. Mike, you said that ‘Why would the relatives want to remove and take away from the scene a pair of heavily bloodstained panties that belonged to one of the victims who had been menstruating at the time prior to her death? You answer me that question and then all of us can think about it for a while?’
     Mike, correct me if I am wrong but this was no longer a crime scene by that date. If it was the police would not have handed the keys back. It was thought by them that if was 4 murders and a suicide - case closed.
     The removal of the blood-stained knickers could merely be an act of cleaning up to remove an embarrassing item that was on display. I concur that it was not the most prudent thing to do, but at this stage the crime scene had already been examined - albeit somewhat haphazardly, by SOC officers.
     You state that Jeremy destroyed nothing. On whose advice/instructions was it that certain items were burnt and destroyed?
     Mike, there were witnesses that state that Jeremy Bamber had ordered blood-soaked bed clothing etc to be burnt. Are you suggesting that this did not occur?

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 5:08 am

224. Mike, lets get this aspect of the story straight. You quoted ‘If Mugford had been wired, as you put it, it may have proved that Jeremy did not say the things which Mugford claims he said, because the fact is that she was not wired and so we will never know one way or the other, whether Mugford was telling the truth, with a view to getting her hands on the £25,000 fee for her exclusive story in the News of the World, if Jeremy got convicted’
     Now correct me if I am wrong but Bamber was ALSO offered a large sum of money for his ’story’ by a tabloid newspaper, should he receive a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ BOTH were offered payments by scurrilous Fleet Street tabloids. Let us make this quite clear and unequivocal. I think it says more of the morals of the British tabloids than any reflection on the course of the case itself.
     However, remind me Mike, who was it that tried to shamelessly hawk his own dead sisters nude photographs to reporter Mike Fielding of The Sun?
     Do not get me wrong, I am absolutely no supporter of these immoral hacks, but the fact remains that Bamber’s behaviour was true-to-form, absolutely callous and appalling in the extreme.

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 7:26 am

225. (Ian):- The hard evidence at the crime scene clearly suggested that Sheila Cafell could not have killed her family. There is NO credible evidence that she did. In fact, her death clearly pointed to the fact that she had been murdered and that her body had been staged.
     ———————————————————————————————–
     The non-disclosed evidence contained in the original file, clearly establishes Sheila’s guilt in these matters, she did kill the others and she tried to kill herself (Downstairs in the kitchen). If she was murdered, the only people who could have murdered her based on all the new material which is now available, was the armed police inside the house…

     And, “Yes” her body was staged, but not by Jeremy or anyone else, but rather by the police at the scene prior to and during the taking of the crime scene photographs…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/19/2009 @ 2:47 pm

226. (Ian) :- If so, it is perfectly feasible - using simple trigonometry - to find out the height of the killer. I am 100% sure the answer will be that the killer was significantly taller than Sheila. The readers can make their own judgements from that.
     —————————————————————————————
     This is an interesting idea which we looked into in 2003…

     It is problematic, because it cannot be established at what precise position the shooter held the weapon at the time each shot was fired? You wrongly assume that the shooter held the gun at eye level but you were not there at the scene, and so you could be and are probably wrong about that. It is just as likely that the shooter held the gun at shoulder height, or chest height, or waist height?

     Additionally, you do not know the position of the victims (with the exception of the children in bed) at the time that they were shot?

     Were the other victims stood up?

     Crouched?

     Laid down?

     As you can see, the reliance upon trigonometry would not necessary provide definitive evidence, relating to the height of the killer / shooter…

     If some existed you can bet your bottom dollar that the prosecution would have called it, and relied upon it, during Jeremy’s trial, but as we know no such evidence was produced or relied upon…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/19/2009 @ 3:03 pm

227. Mike there are some serious problems with you reasoning here. You said that ‘Cook (SOC) told the COLP investigators that when he first entered the scene at whf (9;20am) he did not get the impression that there had been the sort of violent struggle which has been suggested because he was told that any disturbance in the kitchen was caused at the time the armed officers rushed into the kitchen at the start of the operation. For 4xample it was the police who knocked over stools and furniture and it was the armed officers who were responsible for broken crockery which was knocked from the table in those first moments of the operation inside the house - the police knocked over a bowl of sugar which spilled out over the kitchen floor etc…
     If this were true, how on earth was there a broken glass lightshade in the kitchen? Now unless the TFG carried their firearms way above their heads when they entered the kitchen, it is total nonsense.
     Moreover, what of the deep scratchmarks found in the woodwork of the mantlepiece? are you suggesting that the TFG did this as well? A statement by PC Collins and PC Delgado who were the first officers at the scene clearly suggests otherwise. I quote “On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room”. Just as damning to your theory Mike, is DI Cook’s full statement in which he said “I later learned that the chairs and brown sugar had been knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila”.
     Mike, Cook used the words ‘later learned’. This was clearly nothing more than hearsay or ‘hearsay upon hearsay’ evidence and was later rightly and totally dismissed.
     Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Ralph’s body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Ralph, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Ralph’s watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
     Put simply Mike, there was a struggle in the kitchen. There is no doubt about it in my mind. The fight was between two men, NOT a man and a woman half his size. The man attacking Ralph in the kitchen was none other than Jeremy Bamber.

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 3:23 pm

228. (Ian) :- Mike, I consider this highly strange why you chose to ‘disregard’ this. There are clear statements by those present at the scene (and I take it you were not) that suggest Sheila’s hands were perfectly clean and well-manicured. Perhaps a crime scene photo will end your doubts once and for all. I would like to ask. Do you have photographic evidence for everything you suggest?
     I have copies of two sworn statements by those present
     FIRST SWORN STATEMENT - From the firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted:
     ‘that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition’
     ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

     What date were these statements made? And please name the officers you are referring to so that I can lay my hands on the specific statements you are talking about? Lets not forget that according to officers who first entered the kitchen, that they state that the kitchen table was overturned with broken crockery on the kitchen floor, yet by the time PC Bird started to take his crime scene photographs at 10 O’clock, the kitchen table was photographed back upon its legs with crockery and utensils and other things on top of the table. The police say that they did not move or touch anything with the exception of a couple of wooden stools which the police moved out of the way for safety reasons, and so these same officers that you refer to as saying that Sheila’s hands and feet were perfectly clean, lied about the position of the kitchen table upon entry, so why should anyone believe what they say about the state of Sheila’s hands and feet?

     Or is it your position that the evidence of these officers should be treated selectively, for example, if it supports the prosecutions case allow it, if it is capable of undermining the prosecutions case, ignore it?

     Allow me to say that ever since new material has come to the fore, suggesting that Sheila’s body was originally found in the kitchen, in accordance with the contents of the police radio, and communication logs, not one of the armed police officers who entered the scene at the material time has come forward to say that the radio log contents are not true…

     Why is that?

     Why haven’t we heard from PC Collins, PS Woodcock, and all the others, who first set foot into that kitchen, saying that the contents of these non disclosed logs are not true…

     They daren’t come forward and say anything which will put them in a far worse position, than they are already in…

     We haven’t heard from the police any explanation about how the discrepancies contained in the police radio and communication logs, and the contents of their statements, with regards to the position of the bodies were found upon entry to the scene, sit disjointed against each other?

     The public need to hear from each and every one of these police officers about these confusing and contradictory and ambiguous details surrounding the fact that two bodies were found downstairs, by 7:42am, and how the police in the control room knew by 7:45am, that the police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide…

     The police inside the house had not even got upstairs by that stage, so how could they have known there was a suicide at the scene by 7:45am,to enable the control room to inform DC Hammersely that the police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide by 7:45am?

     The police at the scene have not told the truth in their statements…

     It is my firm belief that each and every one of them will live to regret falsifying the contents of their witness statements at the behest of senior officers…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/19/2009 @ 3:29 pm

229. (Ian) :- SECOND SWORN STATEMENT - DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer
     ‘I placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell’s hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. I saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to my eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased’s feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————————————

     Dc Hammersley falsified his statement at the behest of suggestions put to him, by police inspector Miller, regarding bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4 - you will remember that Hammersley originally had four other exhibits marked, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4,m which he subsequently altered to DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53…

     Also…

     The hand swabs (DRH/33) item number 17, which were sent to the lab’ on 9 August 1985, were rejected by the lab’ because of the possibility that the hand swabs may have been contaminated because they arrived at the Lab’ inside the same plastic evidence bag as firearms from a different matter…

     Two months later, these same hand swabs were resubmitted back to the lab’ under a different exhibit reference (DRH/44) and lab’ item number (75)and examined for the presence of lead deposit upon them?

     It was an absence of lead deposit upon these resubmitted hand swabs, that has allowed the prosecution, and its supporters to wrongly suggest that Sheila could not have handled any bullets, otherwise, evidence would have been present…

     What I would like to know, is how did these hand swabs which were rejected on 9 August 1985 at the lab because of possible contamination, end up being resubmitted back to the lab’ two months later, under a different exhibit reference, and lab’ item number, and then be relied upon to support a significant part of the prosecutions case?

     DC Hammersely wa that officer who supposedly had involvement in the production of this dodgy evidence…

     He cried his eyes out when he was interviewed by COLP in 1991, and he had every reason to be d]crying to the investigating officers at that time - rest assured that the next time he is interviewed he will be needing a box full of tissues…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/19/2009 @ 3:44 pm

230. Mike, I’d like to bring to your attention your comments…..and I quote ‘First of all, it would not be as difficult as you are trying to suggest for anyone to hit the target with all 25 bullets, if for example, as confirmed by the prosecutions ballistic expert. Malcolm Fletcher, most of the shots were either from contact, or close contact, within a matter of inches, or feet from the victims, at the time each shot was inflicted…

     It would be more difficult to miss than to hit the target under such conditions and at such close quarters…

     You are clearly trying to make out a false case that whoever fired all of these shots was a marksman, which unfortunately was not the case.
     I would argue that I suggested nothing of the sort. I stated that some of the round that were fired - such as in Ralph’s and June’s bedroom, were actually fired from a distance. If you had read my theory on how I believed the crime unfolded then you would not have any doubts on my thoughts about this. I will state again, that I believe Bamber burst in to the main bedroom and fired from the bedroom door directly onto the bed where June was laying - possibly Ralph also. As a result, some of the bullets were not as accurate as those fired from close range. They may also have been fired in haste and in quick succession. It is obvious, even to the casual reader that you do not ‘graze’ people with a contact shot or at very close range. The shooter had to have been looking down the barrel of the weapon to fire it with any form of accuracy. I suggest that in the initial shots in the main bedroom were fired from a fair distance and in haste, but is does not take a ‘marksman’ as you so eloquently tried to suggest I stated.

     Comment by Ian — 8/19/2009 @ 3:45 pm

231. The fingers of Sheila’s right hand were soaked in blood which contaminated the front lower part of her nightdress when the police at the scene moved the victims hand and repositioned it elsewhere upon her nightdress…

     Under the circumstances, how could blood on Sheila’s right hand make the bloodied mark on the front of her nightdress and yet be perfectly clean if we believe what DC Hammersely has said?

     Sheila’s right hand cannot have been bloodstained to cause the blood staining on the nightdress, and yet be absolutely clean when observed by DC hammersley to support the suggestion that she had not handled any bullets?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/19/2009 @ 3:49 pm

232. (Ian) :- You are clearly trying to make out a false case that whoever fired all of these shots was a marksman, which unfortunately was not the case.
     I would argue that I suggested nothing of the sort. I stated that some of the round that were fired - such as in Ralph’s and June’s bedroom, were actually fired from a distance. If you had read my theory on how I believed the crime unfolded then you would not have any doubts on my thoughts about this. I will state again, that I believe Bamber burst in to the main bedroom and fired from the bedroom door directly onto the bed where June was laying - possibly Ralph also. As a result, some of the bullets were not as accurate as those fired from close range. They may also have been fired in haste and in quick succession. It is obvious, even to the casual reader that you do not ‘graze’ people with a contact shot or at very close range. The shooter had to have been looking down the barrel of the weapon to fire it with any form of accuracy. I suggest that in the initial shots in the main bedroom were fired from a fair distance and in haste, but is does not take a ‘marksman’ as you so eloquently tried to suggest I stated.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

     My interpretation of what you were saying about trigonometry, led me to believe that you were relying upon the rifle being held with the shooter looking down the barrel, and this was suggestive that the shooter took deliberate and purposeful aim, in a pose normally adopted by a marksmen, and my reply should be read as a response to that point - I do not think it is possible in the circumstances of this case, to say how the gun was held by the shooter, what stance the shooter took at the time each shot was fired, and with the exception of the child victims, who were laid in their beds, the stance or position of the other victims at the time they got wounded…

     In order for trigonometry to be useful, you would need to know with a degree of certainty, (1) the position of the victim at the time each shot was fired, (2) the position and stance adopted by the shooter at the time shots were individually fired, (3) the angle or plane of the bullets trajectory between (a) and (b)…

     In the case of Ralph Bamber, this combination of features would have to apply 8 times, 7 times in Junes case, 5 times in Daniels case, and 3 times in the case of Nicholas…

     As far as I know there is no consistent angle, relevant to all of these shots, and this is without taking into account, the position and stance of each victim at the material time, or the stance and position of the shooter at the material time - you will appreciate how difficult it would become to try and predict the height of the shooter from the available facts ?

     I hope this clarifies your concern about my comments…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/20/2009 @ 3:10 pm

233. Lets get a few facts right - after the debriefing which took place that evening involving the firearms officers, SOC and senior officers,two police officers were selected to deal with the firearms side of the operation that date, these two police officers, were PC Collins and PC Delgado (both made witness statements that date, 7 August 1985)…

     The other armed officers did not make statements until after the investigation altered from SC/688/85, into SC/786/85 - and most were dated on or around 20 September 1985, the date when the ballistic expert first received possession of the crime scene bullets, bullet cases,control ammunition etc…

     It is on record that the armed officers moved two wooden stools out of the way for safety reasons upon entering the kitchen, to enable them to make a quick escape if confronted by anyone with a gun and the sugar bowl was knocked over and displaced by the police officers rushing about in the kitchen - ask yourself why not one grain of sugar was found upon the feet of Ralph Bamber?

     An absence of any sugar at all on the soles of Ralph Bambers feet, informs the uneducated that there was no sugar on the kitchen floor during the supposed struggle that took place between his killer and he, otherwise we would surely have heard about the presence of such evidence during the 1985, trial and since?

     It is not clear who was responsible for the broken lampshade, but I am prepared to accept that it could have got broken before the police entered the kitchen , but this does not prove that Jeremy killed everyone, including Sheila…

     Let me take the matter further - a pair of cotton trousers were placed on the blood that was oozing and leaking from the metal coal bucket into which had been placed Ralph’s head, and as far as I know, there was no presence of any sugar granules found upon them? In addition, a large white towel was also placed on the floor next to the cotton trousers, again used to try and prevent the pooled blood from spreading further afield on the kitchen floor - and as far as i know there were found no granules of sugar upon this towel…

     Ralph was wearing pajamas at the time he died, and the bottoms were found around his ankles and his body was twisted in a grotesque manner on top of an overturned wooden chair, and yet, no sugar granules were found to be present anywhere upon the pajamas when they were sent to the lab?

     No sugar granules were found on top of the kitchen table - odd that, if it got knocked over whilst it was on top of it?

     Why didn’t the police photograph the extent of the sugar granules distributed all over of the place?

     The reason they did not do this was because they knew that it was the police who knocked the sugar bowl over. Lets get something else straight, it was the police who used the pair of cotton trousers and the large white towel to try and stem the flow of blood from around the base of the metal coal bucket…

     The police moved the two wooden stools…

     It was the police who displaced a very large and heavy wooden chair directly behind the kitchen door (where Ralph’s body had originally been sat and perched)to prevent anyone walking into the kitchen from that doorway - yet officially the police moved and touched nothing (save for the two stools) whilst inside the house…

     Sugar on the kitchen floor, broken crockery, the broken lampshade and an up righted kitchen table, with utensils, and other items on top of it by the time PC Bird started to take his crime scene photographs, is not evidence that Jeremy Bamber killed anyone…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/20/2009 @ 3:41 pm

234. (Ian) :- there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle
     —————————————————————————————————————————

     When did the scour marks appear on the forward facing panel of the red aga surround?

     More importantly - who was responsible for making them?

     More significantly, why are these scour marks on the forward facing panel of the red aga surround absent in the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird on that morning in the kitchen, yet visible a few days later when New photographs were taken in the kitchen?

     Who deliberately contaminated the aga surround with the end of the silencer?

     Lets put things into sequential order, so we can be sure about what we are talking about - (1) on the morning of the shootings there was no scour mark on the forward facing panel of the aga, (2) the silencer was not handed over to the police until the evening of 12 August 1985, (3) the relatives had the silencer, (4) the relatives had the keys to whf, (5) the relatives brought the attention of the silencer and the red paint from the aga ingrained onto the end of the silencer, to the attention of the police, (6) the mark on the forward facing panel of the aga surround appeared there, later…

     Lets be specific - photographic evidence now exists to prove that someone deliberately marked the red painted aga surround with the end of the silencer at some stage after the shootings, and the red paint on the end of the silencer was not officially found there until the second occasion when the silencer went to the lab’ on 30 August 1985 (it had originally been submitted to the lab’ on 13 August 1985, and at that stage the presence of red paint on the end of the silencer had not been noted, indeed, neither had the presence of Sheila’s unique and specific blood been found upon or inside the silencer by that stage)…

     The mark on the forward facing panel of the aga surround, appeared there, later…

     Work it out for yourself, how did it get there, who did it, and why?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/20/2009 @ 4:00 pm

235. The fingers of Sheila’s right hand were bloodied - the blood on the fingers of her right hand contaminated the bullets she may have loaded into the guns barrel after she killed Ralph and June, and certainly after Ralph injured Sheila’s right forearm and the top part of her right hand in the struggle both were involved in, a bloodstained solitary bullet was recover by the police from the kitchen worktop next to the kitchen - How did it get there?

     Blood from the fingers of Sheila’s right hand were duplicated and photographed by the police on the front lower part of her nightdress…

     Sheila’s bloodied hand print was found upon the pages of the bible (DRH/44)…

     Sheila’s bloodied hand and fingerprints were found on the edge of the kitchen worktop and photographed there by the police…

     Blood from the gouge marks made by Ralph to the top part of Sheila’s right hand were photographed and are now available to prove that blood was present upon Sheila’s hand and fingers, despite claims made by the police, that her hands were spotlessly clean etc…

     Why have the police lied and why did the CPS prosecute jeremy for these murders knowing that the case they were building against him was a false one?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/20/2009 @ 4:11 pm

236. Mike you stated that……’Allow me to say that ever since new material has come to the fore, suggesting that Sheila’s body was originally found in the kitchen, in accordance with the contents of the police radio, and communication logs, not one of the armed police officers who entered the scene at the material time has come forward to say that the radio log contents are not true…
     Why is that?’
     Mike why should they? This is a closed case as far as they are concerned. Do you honestly expect police officers to come forward in a closed case that is 24 years old to confirm or deny evidence? I really wouldnt hold your breath on that one.

     Comment by Ian — 8/20/2009 @ 4:34 pm

237. Your point 231. ‘The fingers of Sheila’s right hand were soaked in blood which contaminated the front lower part of her nightdress when the police at the scene moved the victims hand and repositioned it elsewhere upon her nightdress’
     Mike this is ridiculous. You have absolutely NO evidence that the police moved anything. Again you are theorising and then using it as a fact.

     Comment by Ian — 8/20/2009 @ 4:37 pm

238. Leigh……..you stated ‘206.Ian, both Christopher Porco and Dana Ewell had quite a long history of compulsive lying and making up fantasy stories prior to the crimes. I can see where you might draw similarities with regards to there being substantial amounts of money involved and perhaps an apparent lack of emotion or at least not the type of emotion one would expect someone who has just lost family members to exhibit. This however does not prove someone’s guilt, people suffering from shock etc may understandably behave in such a way and I wouldn’t say that there are striking similarities. I may be wrong but I think that Dana Ewell admitted his guilt sometime shortly afterwards. Whereas Jeremy Bamber has maintained his innocence for 24 years, also passing a lie detector test. I still think he is telling the truth.
     I will argue that there are incredible similarities between them. Bamber supporters have used the exact same excuse for his lack of emotion as you have. However, I would argue that this is acceptable up to a point. It is then that one has to start asking questions. It was his seemingly emotionless behaviour, and callous lack of concern that led some investigators to become suspicious in the first place. I agree we all act differently in moments of stress, but this idea does not disqualify him from suspicion. Of course it does not ‘prove’ that he committed these appalling crimes either, but I never suggested that it did. However, it makes it far more probable. Suspicion is a very personal and human thing. There are certain signs and actions that well-trained detectives can spot. It is highly subjective. Nothing that can be proven, just an instinct. This is base one for the detective. The next step is to gather the physical and circumstantial evidence to back those suspicions up.
     To put it into perpective Leigh……if there has been a murder of an entire family…..the son then goes on a jolly up to Amsterdam buying drugs and living the high life, immediately goes to see the estate executor, then tries to sell his dead sisters nude photos to a tabloid newspaper,……you are not going to start suspecting the butler. This was good application of common sense.
     Incidently, BOTH Ewell and Porco have NEVER admitted their guilt. This is one of the traits of a psychopath. They cannot and will not accept responsibility for their actions. Just because Bamber has denied it, does not in any way prove innocence. I would argue that if he ever did, what on earth will he have to gain from it? He will never be released regardless of admission of guilt. He knows his ONLY chance at freedom is bamboozling a Court of Appeal into setting him free under a technicality. He has tried in two appeals. Both of which were completely destroyed as nothing more than ‘constained restraints of the evidence’

     Comment by Ian — 8/20/2009 @ 5:08 pm

239. Mike, You stated that……’Under the circumstances, how could blood on Sheila’s right hand make the bloodied mark on the front of her nightdress and yet be perfectly clean if we believe what DC Hammersely has said?
     I REPEAT HAMMERSLEY’S STATEMENT:
     DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer ‘I placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell’s hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. I SAW SOME BLOOD-STAINING TO THE BACK OF THE RIGHT HAND’, but apart from that the hands, to my eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased’s feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar’
     Mike please read the statements carefully. You are trying to make points that are clearly at odds with the evidence and sworn statements of those present. If you have a problem with the credibility of PC Hammersley’s statement then that is another matter.

     Comment by Ian — 8/20/2009 @ 5:18 pm

240. Mike, I fail to see the logic in your theory ……You stated that ‘It would only have taken 10 bullets to incapacitate her parents, and I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that this is where your argument falls flat on its face - since you are trying to make something out of nothing, by claiming that Sheila would not have had time or been capable of reloading a gun twice more, which may not have needed to be reloaded (twice more) in the time sequence which you are alluding to…’

     What time sequence? Bamber burst into the bedroom fired at June and Ralph. This, by simple common sense had to be done with a certain amount of speed and surprise. The ONLY real physical threat to Bamber (or even if you take the view that Sheila was responsible) was Ralph. Common sense dictates that the greatest threat is neutralised FIRST, and guess who was right next to Ralph at the time he was fired upon and wounded?…..yup June. So both were dealt with very quickly. The rest of the family were no real threat at all and no great hurry needed. Why would there be? Bamber knew Sheila was probably sedated and that leaves two small children. Hardly any threat there I think you’ll agree. It stands to reason that Ralph and June were shot first, otherwise they would have been alerted by the sound of gunfire - and the evidence shows that June was initally shot in her bed - hardly a place to be when gunshots are sounding off in the house!
     I don’t believe Sheila ‘reloaded’ anything. The is NO evidence that she fired the weapon.
     Ralph was shot a total of 8 times, June was shot 7 times, Sheila twice, Daniel 5 times and Nicholas 3 times. This equates to 25 shots in total.
     Now Ralph had 4 fatal wounds to his head and I quote from the pathologists report ‘The effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation’ Ralph was killed in the kitchen. That means that they were inflicted in the kitchen. Fatally wounded people who are shot in the head do not walk downstairs and be able to fight off an attacker.
     That leaves the question - how many bullets were fired in the bedroom. Let us assume for a moment that June received all 7 shots (I do not believe that she did) in the bedroom and Ralph 4 shots. That is 11 shots or a full magazine - with one in the breach. At this point the rifle would have been empty. This does not jibe with probability - as Ralph was still very much alive. It would have meant reloading - a very risky thing to do in front of a large wounded and very likely,angry man.I believe that Bamber shot June 6 times and Ralph 4 times - frog-marched a wounded Ralph to the kitchen -with one remaining bullet in the breach and reloaded there - this accounts for the .22 shells found next to the phone. It was at this point I believe that Ralph made a grab for the gun. The struggle ensued and Bamber used the rifle as a club to neutralise Ralph. He reloaded and finished him off with four shots to the head. He then went upstairs and fired a single shot into June’s forehead while she was postrate on the floor - but still moving.
     This is how I believe events unfolded. It is perfectly plausible according to the evidence found at the scene. Unless by some miracle Bamber comes clean - we shall never know for sure.

     Comment by Ian — 8/20/2009 @ 6:18 pm

241. It would be extremely interesting to look into Bamber’s background, especially his travels in New Zealand. Specifically why he had to leave the country in a hurry and what his motives were.
     On this note, it would be interesting to get the views of New Zealander Brett Collins. He is a key witness to events immediately before and after the murders. At this distance in time it might provide a refreshing insight.

     Comment by Ian — 8/21/2009 @ 6:09 am

242. (Ian):- Mike you stated that……’Allow me to say that ever since new material has come to the fore, suggesting that Sheila’s body was originally found in the kitchen, in accordance with the contents of the police radio, and communication logs, not one of the armed police officers who entered the scene at the material time has come forward to say that the radio log contents are not true…
     Why is that?’
     Mike why should they? This is a closed case as far as they are concerned. Do you honestly expect police officers to come forward in a closed case that is 24 years old to confirm or deny evidence? I really wouldnt hold your breath on that one.
     ————————————————————————–
     There is a very good reason why they should be made to comment on this new material - since, it was suppressed from Jeremy and his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders, and it contradicts the prosecutions case relied upon during that prosecution. At the very least, each and every one of those armed officers who went into that farmhouse should be made to give clear unambiguous accounts about the discrepancies between what they say in their witness statements and what is recorded in these police radio and communication logs…

     At the time of the trial the prosecutions case was - one body downstairs, four bodies upstairs…

     Since that time, the contents of the police radio and communications logs, place two dead bodies downstairs, and three further bodies upstairs…

     In order for justice to be seen to be done, and because the public have a right to know the truth regarding this matter, and because by not seeking to find clear answers to these serious discrepancies, the criminal justice system has been brought into disrepute, and until matters like these are resolved, one way or the other, nobody can have any faith in the police, the courts or the criminal justice system in general. It is absolutely disgraceful the way Jeremy’s case has been mishandled by the police, the courts, and his extended family members…

     Fact of the matter is - that this is not a closed case, so you are very wrong about that, it is very much a live case, and I feel sure there is going to be another massive police investigation into the new material which has recently surfaced. At least there should be a new investigation. More and more people are coming to realize that there is something dramatically wrong with Jeremy’s convictions…

     Whether you, Essex police,or the extended family like it or not…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/21/2009 @ 4:52 pm

243. (Ian) :- Your point 231. ‘The fingers of Sheila’s right hand were soaked in blood which contaminated the front lower part of her nightdress when the police at the scene moved the victims hand and repositioned it elsewhere upon her nightdress’
     Mike this is ridiculous. You have absolutely NO evidence that the police moved anything. Again you are theorising and then using it as a fact.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————

     “Don’t speak too soon for the wheels still in spin” (Bob Dylan - the times they are a changin’)…

     You had better wish, that I and Jeremy, and his legal team, and the CCRC, do not have any evidence to prove or establish that the police did move things at the scene…

     If I were a betting man, which incidentally, I am, I would be prepared to put good money on that fact - THE POLICE DID MOVE THINGS AT THE SCENE, BOTH IN THE KITCHEN, PANTRY, and THE MAIN BEDROOM. They also moved and displaced the bodies of Ralph in the kitchen, June at the doorway to the bedroom and Sheila in the bedroom…

     Photographic material taken at the time the scene was actually being stage managed (by the police) exists and will be produced at the material time to settle this matter once and for all, in due course.

     You cannot get any better evidence than that which exists taken by the police at the time the bodies were still in situ at the crime scene, and with jeremy at home in Goldhanger, and so, how Jeremy is going to get the blame for this, I await to see …

     The police are caught “Bang to rights” as far as the stage managing of the scene is concerned, and I feel sure that once the general public see the weight of evidence regarding these activities by the police, supported by photographic material taken by the police themselves, that the authorities will be breaking their necks to get Jeremy’s case back to the court of appeal, with a view to quashing his convictions?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/21/2009 @ 5:04 pm

244. (Ian) :- Mike, I fail to see the logic in your theory ……You stated that ‘It would only have taken 10 bullets to incapacitate her parents, and I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that this is where your argument falls flat on its face - since you are trying to make something out of nothing, by claiming that Sheila would not have had time or been capable of reloading a gun twice more, which may not have needed to be reloaded (twice more) in the time sequence which you are alluding to…’
     —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
     You misunderstood…

     There would not necessarily have been any urgency needed to reload the gun a second or third time, once Ralph and June were already incapacitated, or dead, and or alternatively, other bullets may have already been loaded into the other guns before the shootings commenced? If you fully load guns with bullets before the shootings commence, there would not be any need to reload them once the shootings started…

     One shot was fired once the raid team began its approach to enter the house, at around 7:30am, and the other took place after the police surgeon pronounced Sheila as being dead, at 8:42am. Ralph and June could have already been dead by the time the police first arrived at the scene at about 3:51am…

     I hope that clarifies that point for you?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/21/2009 @ 5:13 pm

245. (Ian) :- Mike, You stated that……’Under the circumstances, how could blood on Sheila’s right hand make the bloodied mark on the front of her nightdress and yet be perfectly clean if we believe what DC Hammersely has said?
     I REPEAT HAMMERSLEY’S STATEMENT:
     DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer ‘I placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell’s hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. I SAW SOME BLOOD-STAINING TO THE BACK OF THE RIGHT HAND’, but apart from that the hands, to my eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased’s feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar’
     Mike please read the statements carefully. You are trying to make points that are clearly at odds with the evidence and sworn statements of those present. If you have a problem with the credibility of PC Hammersley’s statement then that is another matter.
     ————————————————————————————–
     There is good evidence, and there is bad evidence, good evidence is made by honest witnesses who do not falsify the contents of their statements, at the behest of a senior police officer (for instance, PI Miller)…

     Why did DC Hammersley falsify his account in his statement, of where he says he found the four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, DRH/4, in the main bedroom?

     If we go by what DC Hammersley said in his statements, four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, DRH/4) were not found in the main bedroom, but they must have been found somewhere else at the scene? I would urge the public to disregard anything what DC Hammersley has got to say since he is clearly involved in a conspiracy with other officers to falsify evidence relating to the crime scene and this willingness is associated with the fact that police officers at the scene stage managed the scene in the kitchen, pantry and main bedroom, and photographic material exists to prove and confirm this to be true, whether you or anyone likes it or not…

     I have read all of DC Hammersleys statements, and I have read PI MIllers instruction asking him to introduce four bullet cases into the bedroom scenario, taken together in the same context, I think it makes out a good case for this particular officer to have been directly involved in the stage managing of the scene, if only by introducing four bullets cases into the bedroom which were obviously not there in the first place…

     Under the circumstances why should anyone believe what DC Hammersley has to say about Sheila’s hands being spotlessly clean?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/21/2009 @ 5:25 pm

246. Ian - send me an email address, where I can send you photographic proof, that Sheila’s bloodied hand contaminated the nightdress, her throat, and the worktop in the kitchen…

     and how the police stage managed the scene…

     How they moved the gun about on the body…

     The second shot went off when the police at the scene were moving the gun off, and back onto the body…

     After 8:42am…

     By that stage, the ambulance and its crews had already been dispersed from the scene…

     Imagine that - Sheila need not have died at all…

     I can be contacted at:-

     Miketesko@yahoo.co.uk

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/21/2009 @ 5:32 pm

247. The police lied about finding 13 bullet cases inside the bedroom, there was only 9…

     the other four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were added into the equation at the behest of police inspector Miller, who alos misled the Deputy Coroner, on 14 August 1985 (opening of the inquest into the five deaths) that Sheila only had one wound…

     You do not need to add four bullets into the m,ain bedroom equation if there was already 13 bullet cases there, unless you are substituting other bullet cases that were fired from another gun?

     Work it out for yourself…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 5:08 am

248. There were only 9 bullet cases originally found in the bedroom - seven of these relate to June, so who does the other two bullet cases relate to?

     (Do not include the other four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, since, police insopector Miller instructed DC Hammersley to include these into the bedroom scenario at a much later date)…

     Severn bullet cases for the seven wounds received by June in the main bedroom leaves only two other bullet cases, now either Ralph got shot twice in the main bedroom, or Sheila got shot twice in the main bedroom, or Ralph got shot once in the main bedroom and Sheila got shot once in the main bedroom…

     You decide which sequence of events took place?

     One thing is certain, Ralph could not have been shot and wounded four times whilst in the bedroom as suggested by the police and the prosecutions case at Jeremy’s trial - it would have been logistically impossible…

     The mathematics involved in the bedroom bullet cases (9) establishes this for a 100% certainty…

     Why did Essex police fabricate the evidence regarding the alleged recovery of the 13 bullet cases from the main bedroom?

     Ask DC Hammersley and PI Miller…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 6:45 am

249. Mike, a few questions. You stated that; ‘ My interpretation of what you were saying about trigonometry, led me to believe that you were relying upon the rifle being held with the shooter looking down the barrel, and this was suggestive that the shooter took deliberate and purposeful aim, in a pose normally adopted by a marksmen, and my reply should be read as a response to that point - I do not think it is possible in the circumstances of this case, to say how the gun was held by the shooter, what stance the shooter took at the time each shot was fired, and with the exception of the child victims, who were laid in their beds, the stance or position of the other victims at the time they got wounded…’
     This is not the point I was making Mike. If you have a contact wound - and I am led to believe there may have been several - It may be entirely possible to track the tadjectory of the bullet, and therefore the angle of the rifle when the said bullet was fired. I am led to believe that the twins were shot in their beds and died instantly - all of head wounds. Daniel had 5 fatal shots fired into his skull in an arc-ing manner. The pathologist stated that they were fired in quick succession - as they were very close to each other. Now, the shots could have been fired from the height of the eye or the lower, and more acute angle of the hips. So we have an area between the hips and the eyeline as a working model. It is highly improbable that they were fired in any other manner. I would argue that the lowest or highest angle of the fired rounds (you can take a mean average) will give you 1. The lowest possible angle in which the shots were fired. 2. The highest possible angle in which these were fired. If the mean average were more than say 70 degrees, then you have a person that is X height or taller than Sheila. Therefore highly improbable that she was the killer. However, anymore than say 70 degrees discounts Bamber as the shooter as he would have to have been 1. in an elevated position at the time of the shot (such as on the stairs or standing on a level higher than they would normally stand - and no shots seem to have been fired from any of these positions) 2. Is taller than Bamber.
     Now I understand that Ralph was shot twice in the top of the head - probably as he was lying postrate in the position he was finally found - as the two from the right side of his head were fatal. It is probable that the two to the right side were fired first as it was only when he was in a prostrate position could the last two have been administered.
     Of course there is a problem with this, in that the distance between the shooter and Ralph is unknown - but using the law of averages it may be possible to ascertain this. Of course the calculations would have to be done using diagrams using distance- to-angle ratios. But it is possible. There have been other cases solved using this mathematical approach - most noticeable in a murder or suicide case several years ago in the States, where a woman was found lying on her back with a rifle near her body. The wound was found oddly in her stomach. This led investgators to doubt the story of her husband. To ut a long story short he was arrested, tried and convicted of her murder. However, on appeal ballistics experts using simple trigonometry were able to prove that she had indeed fired the rifle using her big toe. The bullet travelled through her body and into the wall behind her. The tradjectory of the bullet between woman and wall proved, that unless the husband was laying flat on his front at at impossibly low angle, immediately in front of his wife and shot her, then it was extremely unlikely that he fired the rifle.
     The result was an outright acquittal. If you can prove that any of the shots fired at the family were more than say 70 degrees - it cannot have been Bamber. I very much doubt whether any were, and I believe that Bamber was indeed the killer, but this is a mute point.

     Comment by Ian — 8/22/2009 @ 8:28 am

250. Relative, David Boutflour, told COLP in 1991, that he had used a razor blade to scrape a small flake of dried blood from the end cap if the silencer - what happened to that flake of blood?

     Why did Boutflour tamper with the silencer before the police got chance to forensically examine it?

     Why didn’t Boutflour make any mention of what he had done with regards to this flake, in a witness statement, or refer to it at the time he testified at Jeremy’s trial?

     Why haven’t Essex police interested themselves in this flake of dried blood which Boutflour took from the silencer?

     Boutflour has got a lot of explaining to do?

     The court should have been told that Boutflour tampered with the silencer before it was handed to the police and before it was scientifically examined, on 13 August 1985…

     The silencer evidence is dodgy to say the least..

     I do not think it would have been admissible evidence in this day and age, because of the delay between when it was found, and the fact that the relatives had access to the mantelpiece and the silencer and that Boutflour tampered with it by removing the small flake of blood from the end of the silencer before it was handed over to the police. If, for example, that flake of blood which Boutflour had removed originated from June or Ralph, it would have been game over as far as the jury was concerned, because they were being asked to decide whether or not the blood found inside the silencer originated from Sheila or if it was a mixture of the parents blood types?

     Does anyone agree that it was legitimate for Boutflour to tamper with the silencer as he did, and to keep quiet about what he did because to admit to it would have rendered the silencer evidence null and void?

     In my view, the integrity of the silencer has been seriously compromised by all manner of events, now known about…

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 9:24 am

251. There was a delay between the completion of the police operation inside the house at around 8:30am, and the time SOC took over the farmhouse at 10 O’clock, because of developments relating to Sheila being shot for a second time…

     During this one and a half hour delay - Sheila was shot for a second time, and police officers at the scene were engaged in trying to find a way of dealing with this, which included for the fact that the crime scene was stage managed to make out a false case that Sheila had been shot twice (rather than once) when her body was originally found…

     The fact that her body had originally been found downstairs in the kitchen was covered up and a false case that the police found her body upstairs in the main bedroom was introduced…

     It is now almost fully understood what took place and how the police went about trying to cover up what went wrong?

     If the police continue to lie about these matters they are only making matters worse for themselves because there will surely come a time when those responsible will have to face the music, and the more lies they continue to tell, will be perceived as evidence of the fact that they are guilty of perjury, perverting the course of justice, and manslaughter…

     Who killed Sheila Jean “Bambi” Caffell?

     The police did.

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 9:38 am

252. I have two crime scene photographs, which show the position of the barrel of the gun in two entirely different position against Sheila’s neck/throat - I will provide to anyone who requests of me to send copies of these, access to these two crime scene pictuires taken by the police whilst the body Of Sheila was still in situ on the bedroom caroet by the side of the bed in the main bedroom. Anyone who listens to what Ian is saying about the police nmot moving or touching anything at the scene, and that the police did not touch or move anything can make their own minds up, once they have seen the images I am prepared to make available in the interests of justice…

     The “Bamber is guilty Brigade” cannot be allowed to keep spreading mis-truths and lies about what the police at the scene did…

     Look at the pictures, see for yourselves, and make your own minds up…

     Send me your email addresses, where you can be contacted, and I will post back copies of the relevant pictures…

     You be the judge of who did what, and when, and why?

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 9:44 am

253. Once Ralph and June had been disposed of, there would have been no rush to reload the gun, since, the only other victims to die, were the children and Sheila herself…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 10:36 am

254. Can anyone out there, arrange for me to meet the relatives to discuss the case?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 10:37 am

255. It has recently been established that Essex police falsified the photographic records of the examination at the scene, by creating a false record of the number of crime scene pictures which were taken - an expert who shall be referred to as KODAKMAN, has uncovered evidence to expose the cover up…

     Originally Essex police said only 223 photographs existed in connection with the investigation which were contained in what became known as the master copy album, but KODAKMAN has uncovered evidence that they took 581 photographs…

     Not only that…

     KODAKMAN has produced new evidence to show when each of these 581 photographs were taken, and the exact time they were taken - in sequential order…

     The fact that Essex police tampered with the bodies at the scene has bee uncovered by reference to these undisclosed photographs, and the lies which have been told and relied upon by Essex police to make out a false case for Jeremy to have stage managed Sheila’s boy, when in fact the police at the scene did (backed up by photographic evidence which was taken by the police, and concealed from Jeermy, his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 6:53 pm

256. The police deliberately misled the relatives at the beginning of this investigation (SC/688/85) which caused them to wrongly suspect Jeremy of being involved in the shootings..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 8:50 pm

257. Ian, you have not taken up my offer to produce photographic evidence, that Sheila’s right hand was bloodstained, and that the blood upon it contaminated her nightdress, a bible, her neck/throat, and the edge of the worktop in he kitchen…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 9:01 pm

258. (Ian) :- It would be extremely interesting to look into Bamber’s background, especially his travels in New Zealand. Specifically why he had to leave the country in a hurry and what his motives were.
     On this note, it would be interesting to get the views of New Zealander Brett Collins. He is a key witness to events immediately before and after the murders. At this distance in time it might provide a refreshing insight.
     ———————————————————
     Yes, he simply ran out of money, and had to ask his parents, to send him the fare home.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/22/2009 @ 9:03 pm

259. Who was the person who the firearms team were in conversation with, from inside the farm at 5:25am? It couldn’t have been Jeremy because he is referred to as the Son in all other messages recorded in the logs, and he was not inside the farm at 5:25am. If there was someone still alive inside the house who was holding a conversation with the firearms officers at that time, Jeremy could not have already killed them, its as simple as that really…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 5:20 am

260. I believe that Sheila’s illness may have been mismanaged by her doctors…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 8:51 am

261. It remains possible that Sheila’s illness was misdiagnosed, and that the medication she was prescribed, contributed to her killing the other four victims, during the tragedy at whf, on 7 August 1985

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 8:59 am

262. It remains possible that Sheila’s illness was misdiagnosed, and that the medication she was prescribed, contributed to her killing the other four victims, during the tragedy at whf, on 7 August 1985

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 8:59 am

263. Let us question the notion of Bamber’s innocence. he has, for the last 24 years, maintained his innocence and had vehemently denied being responsible for murdering his family. Personally, I do not place too much emphasis on claims of innocence for two reasons. In capital murder cases, the punishment is a mandatory life sentence. In Bamber’s case with a recommendation from Lord Justice Drake that her serve a minimum of 25 years. This is a powerful enough incentive to persistently deny any form of guilt. Secondly, is Bamber’s personality. I believe without any doubt that Bamber is a psychopath, utterly incapable of accepting any form of responsibility for his appalling crimes. I have heard the argument that if Bamber was responsible he would have come clean and in all likihood, be released at some point. Therefore he must be innocent. I dont but this argument for a single moment.
     Bamber knows that if he should come clean now, he would have absolutely zero chance of being released. He knows that the judicial system would highlight the fact that he lied repeatedly, showed no remorse and deliberately and callously mis-led supporters, whom he manipulated for a number of years. Therefore, his ONLY option is to maintain innocence.
     It is a similar to the case of James Hanratty. A man who was tried and convicted and hanged for the murder of Michael Gregsten and rape and attempted murder of Gregsten’s girlfriend Valerie Storie. The infamous A6 murder.
     Hanratty continued to maintain his innocence throughout his trail. Insisting that he was elsewhere at the time of the murder.
     His family launched a campaign to exonerate him, all without success. Hanratty was hanged in Bedford Prison on 4th April 1962.
     Very soon an ‘A6 Commitee’ was formed in support of Hanratty and calling on the government to overturn his conviction. The commitee included famous celebrities such as John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Hanratty’s father - a tireless campaigner, sadly dies still fighting for his son’s innocence in 1971.
     The furore went on unabated until May of 2002 - some 40 years after Hanratty was executed. However, following an appeal by his family, modern testing of DNA from his exhumed corpse and members of his family. Subsequent DNA tests on the remains showed that Hanratty was indeed responsible for the A6 murders. Forensic experts testified that “The chances that the DNA came from someone else are millions to one” Put simply - James Hanratty was guilty all along. He had lied to his friends, lied to his family, lied to his supporters. He was a cold-blooded murderer, liar and rapist. A psychopath totally incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions. Hanratty’s supporters - some of which still, incredibly maintain his innocence - felt totally betrayed.These were Hanratty’s final victims.
     However, some claim that there was a possibility that the DNA was contaminated. So what of cross-contamination? Could skin cells, for example, from some of Hanratty’s own clothing have been transferred to crucial exhibits? Forensic scientists who worked on the case say this is highly unlikely - and in any case, they found no other profile. If James Hanratty was not the killer, then where was the killer’s DNA? This convinced Court of Appeal judges in 2002 that his guilt was proved “beyond doubt”
     I have used this case as an example to show that denials are often extremely misleading. I believe strongly that Bamber will never admit his guilt and continue to maintain his ‘innocence’ So excuse me if I dont believe a single word of it.

     Comment by Ian — 8/23/2009 @ 10:05 am

264. How do we know who owned the silencer which is at the center of this case?

     According to what was known about the firearms, ammunition’s and accessories held at whf, there should have been two identical Parker hale silencers held at the scene at the material time:-

     One owned by Ralph Bamber for the anshulz rifle
     One owned by Anthony Pargeter for his .22 bolt action rifle

     Now, which silencer was it that had the paint upon it, and the blood inside it?

     What happened to the second silencer?

     Why haven’t the relatives been inquiring about what happened to this second silencer?

     Who moved it, when and how?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 11:51 am

265. Ann Eaton was told by a police officer, at the beginning of the investigation into these deaths, that Sheila’s body was found on the bed, along with Junes body next to it, and the gun in between both bodies…

     If Sheila’s body and the body of June were found on the bed, why are both in a totally different position by the time PC Bird (SOC) started to take his crime scene photographs at around 10 O’clock?

     If the two bodies were not found on the bed, why did the police lie to Ann Eaton about it?

     Why did the police burn and destroy the mattress of that bed, and the blankets and sheets?

     It does not hold water to suggest that Jeremy told the police that he wanted all of this evidence burning and destroying - since, if it had any evidential value, the police should have retained it. It would appear that the police were keen to destroy certain exhibits which might permit someone at a later date of being able to reconstruct what actually happened in that bedroom. It is also known, for example, supported by documentary evidence, that the police asked Ann Eaton and the relatives to clean up the mess at the house, but that she and the other relatives refused to do it. These are the circumstances of how vital bloodstained exhibits became destroyed by being burned on a bonfire in the grounds of whf. It is true that the police got authorization by way of a signature to allow the police to dispose of the evidence in that manner on that occasion, but if jeremy had any incline that he would become a suspect at a later date, I feel sure that he would have refused to sign the consent form for obvious reasons.

     Another thing…

     When jeremy was informed that everyone inside the house was dead, by the police, he accused the armed officers of shooting them dead…

     A police officer made a witness statement covering this matter and it took some time for Jeremy to come to terms with what he had been told. He was adamant that the police had shot members of his family, a complaint which Essex police never investigated…

     When someone makes such a serious complaint that the police have shot and killed your entire family, including Sheila, and the police fail to carry out an investigation into that allegation, there has to be a good reason for it?

     I believe that they did not carry out an investigation into Jeremy’s allegation that the police inside the house had shot and killed members of his family, was because by that stage, the police inside the house knew that they had made an error upon entry into the house wrongly presuming Sheila to be dead in the region of the kitchen, downstairs. When she regained consciousness and fled up the spiral stairs in the corner of the kitchen, which afforded her access to the upstairs part of the house in the region of her parents bedroom, and collapsed yet again, there…

     Once more she was mistakenly assumed to be dead, and by this time Jeremy was informed, at which stage he made the complaint outlined…

     Little did jeremy know, that the police surgeon had erred by pronouncing Sheila as being dead at 8:42am that morning, with only one bullet wound to her throat, and that the second wound to Sheila’s throat did not occur until after the police surgeon had left the scene, and it came about because the police were trying to fathom out which weapon had been used to inflict the only shot upon her throat by that stage? They had a good idea which gun had fired the first shot (Anshulz rifle) downstairs, and by some strange coincidence, it had some red paint ingrained near to the end of its barrel, in the region of the fore-site. This rifle was brought upstairs and laid upon the body and then taken back off again. This was done to confirm that the solitary wound to her throat was caused by use of that rifle…

     it would appear that another weapon was offered into position against the victims throat, with a view to establishing that such a weapon had not been used to make the original wound to the neck, and that this weapon accidentally discharged and caused the second wound upon Sheila’s throat…

     The identity of this second gun is not yet known to Jeremy and his legal team, because Essex police are refusing to release information about the types of weapons issued to all members of the firearms team and ammunition issued to the same officers before they went to the scene, and if any was missing or unaccounted for upon their return to the force armoury, afterward?

     PS Adams visited the main bedroom and noticed that there was not a rifle on the body of Sheila at all, there was still no rifle on the body by the time he left the scene (before the arrival of SOC at 9:20am). PS Adams left the scene around about 9 O’clock that morning…

     By the time PC Bird (SOC) started to take is crime scene pictures of Sheila’s body, the anshulz rifle was now planted firmly on top of it.

     Officially the police did not remove the gun from the body until 11:15am, that morning (by PS Woodcock)…

     Once DCI “Taff” Jones arrived at the scene, he set about postulating how the two wounds u[pon Sheila’s throat could be best explained?

     This is what led to the anshulz rifle being placed and photographed on top of Sheila’s body, and a reliance upon recoil being put forward and accepted as the means by which the two wounds had been inflected. The semi-automatic rifle was the only weapon at the scene that morning which was owned by the family which was capable of producing the phenomena of recoil, to explain the presence of the two wounds there, where there had only previously been one.

     The anshulz rifle definately did not fire the seciond bullet which wounded Sheila in the throat, otherwise there would have been no need to sustitute bullet PV/20, and to introduce the two bullet cases, marked, DRHJ/1

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 1:51 pm

266. The anshulz rifle definitely did not fire the second bullet which wounded Sheila in the throat, otherwise there would have been no need to substitute bullet PV/20, and to introduce the two bullet cases, marked, DRH/1 and DRH/2, into the bedroom equation. These two bullet cases needed to be introduced into the bedroom, because they contained the marks from the anshulz rifle obtained during an unofficial test firing of that weapon and control ammunition some time around 12 September 1985. Two bullet cases which originally formed part and parcel of the control ammunition, were loaded into the anshulz rifle and test fired, the bullets cases were then used to introduce them (with two other bullet cases, marked DRH/3 and DRH/4)into the bedroom scenario, so that a false case could be made out that Sheila had been shot by use of the anshulz rifle in the main bedroom when in reality she could not have been. since, she was originally shot and wounded downstairs, possibly by use of the anshulz, and secondly, upstairs in the main bedroom, by an as yet unidentified weapon. There should have been no bullet cases upstairs in the main bedroom next to the body of Sheila which related to the two wounds inflicted upon her by one means or another - this is why DRH/1, DRH/2 were introduced at the behest of PI Miller.

     There was never 13 bullet cases found in the main bedroom - only 9…

     Not only that…

     but trauma evidence exists around the lower wound, which suggests that Sheila was still very much alive, at the time the second shot was inflicted…

     This means that Sheila was not dead in the kitchen, and she was not dead upstairs in the bedroom, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronounced her as being officially dead timed at 8:42am, but that she was very much still alive by that stage. Matters were not helped because Dr Craig did not feel it was necessary to carry out a physical examination of Sheila’s body to verify physically that she was in fact dead…

     These are the true circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death inside the bedroom at whf, and Essex police continue to deny it.

     Jeremy Bamber was not responsible for causing Sheila’s death at the scene - the police inside the house, at various stages of the operation caused her death…

     Jeremy is completely innocent - it would have been impossible for him to have killed Sheila, and no evidence exists to prove that he did…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 2:04 pm

267. THIS CASE HAS ME PONDERING OVER ALL THE POINTS EVERYBODY MAKES A CASE FOR.BUT A COUPLE OF ISSUES HAVE SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME AND THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.EVERYBODY THINK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHAT I’M GOING TO SAY.1.DO YOU ALL HAVE YOUR LOCAL POLICE OFFICE NUMBER AT HAND OR MEMORISED? 2.IS IT TOO MUCH TO BELIEVE THAT BOTH NEVILLE AND JEREMY BOTH PHONED THE LOCAL POLICE STATION AND NOT 999? HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE CASE FROM IT’S INCEPTION. ON POINT 2,I CAN SMELL CONSPIRACY IN IT’S INFANCY BECAUSE IT’S OBVIOUS TO ME IF A PHONE CALL EXISTS FROM THE FARM TO THE POLICE JEREMY BAMBER MUST HAVE AN ACCOMPLICE AT THE FARM BECAUSE BOTH PHONE THE LOCAL STATION,1.FARM TO POLICE STATION 2.BAMBER TO POLICE STATION.IT REEKS OF CONSPIRACY.ALL I CAN SAY IS IF YOUR LIFE IS UNDER EXTREME THREAT,PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS PEOPLE,WOULD YOU PHONE 999 OR WOULD YOU SPEND TIME LOOKING FOR THE LOCAL NUMBER? THEN WOULD YOU WASTE MORE TIME CONTACTING YOUR GIRLFRIEND WHEN THERE ARE FAR MORE PRESSING THINGS TO DO? THINK ABOUT THESE POINTS FOR THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT WHEN DETERMINING WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE HIDEOUS MURDERS.THE PERSON OR PERSONS RESPONSIBLE AND I STILL BELIEVE JEREMY BAMBER IS INVOLVED HAVE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE IN NOT THINKING THE TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS IS THEIR UNDOING.IN WEIGHING UP THE EVIDENCE SURROUNDING WHERE NEVILLE WAS SHOT AND THE INCAPACITATING INJURIES HE RECIEVED I CANNOT SEE HOW HE COULD HAVE MADE 2 CALLS LET ALONE 1, AND ANYBODY WITH COMMON SENSE MUST COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.MIKE TESCO DOES MAKE SOME GOOD POINTS IN TRYING TO SHOW BAMBER MAY BE INNOCENT. BUT THESE ARE ALL AFTER THE FACT.FROM THE VERY START A CONSPIRACY UNFOLDED IN JEREMY BAMBER’S MIND WITH SOMEONE ELSE. TO ME WHAT HAPPENNED AFTERWARDS BECAME A GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE BETWEEN POLICE,RELATIVES AND BAMBER.THE MORE YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE YOU MUST GO BACK TO IT’S VERY INCEPTION TO FIND THE KEY.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/23/2009 @ 2:52 pm

268. IF YOU ARE PHONING A LOCAL POLICE STATION YOU ARE DIALLING A 6 FIGURE NO. IF YOU PHONE 999 THIS CUTS YOUR DIALLING TIME IN HALF. IF NEVILLE’S LIFE IS UNDER THREAT THEN SURELY YOU WOULD DIAL 999.THERE IS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR DOING OTHERWISE.LIKEWISE UPON HEARING THAT HIS FATHER’S LIFE IS UNDER THREAT SURELY YOU WOULD DIAL A 3 FIGURE NO. AND NOT A 6 FIGURE NO. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE,THERE WAS NO URGENCY BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS PRE-PLANNED AND THERE WAS THE COSTLY MISTAKE IN MY EYES. I KNOW I HAVE MADE THE SAME POINTS IN MY 2 POSTS BUT I MUST EMPHASISE THE PHONE CALLS TO SHOW IN THE FINAL ANALASYS JEREMY MUST BE THE KILLER AND I CAN’T SEE ANY OTHER WAY THE MURDERS WERE THE WORK OF ANYBODY ELSE.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/23/2009 @ 3:13 pm

269. HAVING SAID WHAT I HAD TO SAY IN MY 2 PREVIOUS POSTS I STILL BELIEVE A RE-TRIAL IS IN EVERYBODY’S INTERESTS SO ALL SIDES CAN BE HEARD AND ALL THE RELATIVE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. I STILL FEEL A LOT OF THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS TAINTED BECAUSE OF THE BOTCHED POLICE INVESTIGATION AND MAY NEVER GET TO THE UNDILUTED TRUTH AS TO WHAT HAPPENNED THAT NIGHT,EXCEPT TO SAY THE KEY LIES IN IT’S BEGINNINGS CULMINATING IN THE PHONE CALLS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TRANSPIRED. WE ONLY KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT JEREMY PHONED POLICE THAT NIGHT BUT DID NOT DIAL 999 FOR REASONS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.YOU ONLY DIAL999 IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY,AND IT TRANSPIRED THIS WAS ALL PRE-PLANNED AND ALL THE KILLINGS HAD OCCURED BY THE TIME OF BAMBER’S CALL TO POLICE,NEGATING THE NEED FOR REAL URGENCY. IT HAS TO BE KEPT SIMPLISTIC OR EVERYTHING GETS LOST IN THE MIX.WE CANNOT RELY ON THE COMPLICATED FORENSICS AS I’VE SAID BEFORE BECAUSE POLICE MADE SUCH A MESS WITH IT ALL.I’M AFRAID WE MAY HAVE TO RELY ON BEHAVIOUR BUT THEN THAT IS NOT CONCRETE EVIDENCE.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/23/2009 @ 4:29 pm

270. At least 11 bullet cases were compared against control ammunition which had been unofficially test fired via the anshulz rifle, before 20 September 1985, this is confirmed by reference to details contained on 11 general examination records, pertaining to these 11 crime scene bullet cases. The odd thing about this, is that according to the official explanation, the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not receive the anshulz rifle, silencer and control ammunition, along with the batches of crime scene bullets and bullet cases, until 20 September 1985, in which to carry out the official test firing of the gun. The official test firing of the anshulz rifle commenced on and after 20 September 1985, but as I say there exist details contained on 11 general examination records at the Lab’, which confirm that a large number of comparison examinations took place, on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, involving these 11 crime scene bullet cases, which as everyone can see was before the date when the ballistic expert officially received them. Worse still, the ballistic experts signature appears against these earlier entries in the general examination records being spoken about, and therefore, it can be shown that he knew there had been earlier test firings…

     This same ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, produced two exhibits in connection with this investigation, marked MDF/1 a cloth pull through which was taken from the guns barrel after the unofficial test firing of the rifle had been undertaken, and MDF/100, which are 14 spent bullet cases…

     For some reason, Fletcher does not provide a list of what the intervening exhibits marked MDF/2 to MDF/99 were or could have been?

     From the inquiries I have been able to make regarding these issues, it is somewhat puzzling that MDF/100 do not have a Lab’ item reference number, but MDF/1 does. However the Lab’ item number for MDF/1 is out of sequence with other Lab’ exhibits which came into existence before the completion of the official test firing had taken place on and after 20 September 1985, this suggests that the evidence of the cloth pull-through has been doctored to suggest that it was taken sooner rather than later, or in other words that the cloth pull-through test took place before the official test firing of the gun and ammunition, rather than after it, or after any unofficial test firing of the gun which is now known to have taken place?

     If you add the 11 bullet cases which were compared against control ammunition on dates, 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985, to the 14 bullet cases which form part and parcel of MDF/100, it produces 25 bullet cases. I have a suspicion that these 25 bullet cases could be the original 25 crime scene bullet cases and that the ballistics expert substituted some of these with bullet cases which were fired during the unofficial test firings with bullet cases which were loaded into the anshulz rifle and fired from it during those unofficial test firings, so that he could say that all the 25 bullet cases had been loaded and fired via the anshulz rifle, when in truth the original 25 bullet cases may not have been. By adopting this approach, it was possible to allow the ballistic expert to wrongly suggest that all of the 25 bullets which wounded the five victims had been fired via the anshulz rifle, which PC Bird photographed on top of Sheila’s body at and from 10 O’clock that morning (7 August 1985)…

     We know for example, that officially, the ballistics expert could only link 15 bullets to the gun, the other 10 bullets he could not link to the gun conclusively to the exclusion of all other guns, and so obviously he saw the way forward to advance the prosecutions case, by a reliance upon proving that all 25 bullet cases had been loaded and fired via the gun in question (Anshulz)…

     Bullet PV/20 which we now know started off life as a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, when the pathologist removed it from Sheila’s neck / throat, had for some reason miraculously turned into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, and more alarmingly, bullet PV/20 was one of the 15 bullets which the ballistic expert said he could positively link to the rifle. Fact of the matter is, that there would have been no need to substitute bullet PV/20, if it had been fired via the rifle, and so we can be sure that because it was substituted, that the original bullet bearing the mark PV/20 could not have been linked positively to the rifle, and therefore the ratio of bullets which could be linked and matched, and those which could not, needed to be recalculated, from the ratio of 15 which could and 10 which could not, to 14 which could and to 11 which could not…

     We also know, for example, that five of the bullet entry wounds on these victims, measured half an inch in diameter, and could not have been caused by use of .22 bullets fired at such close quarters. It may be possible that the original five heavy bullets were substituted along with bullet PV/20, to facilitate the cover up further…

     Five of the 25 bullet cases had got double magazine markings upon them…

     Twelve of the 25 crime scene bullets were described by the ballistic expert as being whole in appearance, with seven of these being too heavy to have originated from the batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point bullets, and the other five being too light to have originated from the same batch…

     There were nine other nearly whole bullets, three fragmented bullets and a half bullet…

     The ballistic expert could not tell if any of the 25 bullets had been fired through the gun whilst it had the silencer attached…

     He could not and did not link any of the 25 bullets to any of the 25 bullet cases, only 25 bullet cases to the rifle and by a reliance upon that, was able to conclude that all the 25 wounds which were inflicted upon the five victims had been caused by bullets fired from the anshulz rifle, even though he could not link 11 of the crime scene bullets to the gun, to the exclusion of all other weapons?

     There are several ways that the ballistic expert could have tried to link and match the bullets, to the bullet cases, but for some reason he chose not to pursue such methods…

     It is now possible to reconstruct what was done to make out a false case that the anshulz rifle fired all 25 bullets which wounded the five victims, and why it was felt necessary to produce a false report identifying one gun as the weapon whch fired all the 25 bullets, when it did not…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/23/2009 @ 5:08 pm

271. It should also be pointed out that at one stage the police suspected the relatives of trying to frame Jeremy for the murders, and that one of the relatives had the same blood groups as Sheila, and the police suspected that this relatives blood had been used to contaminate the silencer?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:32 am

272. In addition, the families favorite police officer, detective Sergeant “Stan” Jones, doctored his pocketbook entries tom accommodate the evidence of the silencer being handed over to him on 12 August 1985 - the start date on the front cover of his pocketbook has got three different dates written upon it.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:34 am

273. The silencer - has got three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, depending upon which part of the investigations you are referring to, and at least two different Lab’ item numbers, 22 and 23, which were subsequently reverted back to 23, once they settled for the exhibit reference to be DRB/1.,,

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:36 am

274. Detective sergeant Jones, seized four exhibits from the scene, on the morning of 7 August 1985, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 (which were items from the downstairs toilet and the kitchen)these items were recorded in an earlier property register which the police compiled in connection with the original investigation (SC/688/845) but vanished from inclusion once the nature of the investigation changed in SC/786/85. It must follow therefore, that DS Jones also seized SBJ/1, that morning (the silencer) and perhaps this was one of the reasons why he re-wrote his pocketbook regarding this investigation…

     On 9 August 1985, DCI “Taff” Jones and DS “Stan” Jones went to 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, where Jeremy lived in his cottage, and questioned him about DS Jones suspicion that Jeremy might have got something to do with the shootings. One iof the things they asked him at that time was about the silencer, which is odd because the police are saying that they did not officially find the silencer and it was not supposedly found until Saturday, 10 August 1985, by David Boutflour. Police records show that on 9 August 1985, the police knew about the silencer and that they asked Jeremy if it was on the gun on the evening before the shootings? I am convinced by what I have uncovered that the police did find the second silencer at the scene in the form of SBJ/1, and that in fact, DS Jones took possession of it on the morning 7 August 1985, from the downstairs toilet, where it was originally kept by the other relative for his .22 gun. The relatives found the other silencer in the gun cupboard, which became known as DRB/1…

     There exists clear evidence that the silencer which the relatives handed to the police did not get sent to the Lab’ until after blood which has been described as being Sheila’s blood was identified as being present inside it - for example, on 25 September 1985, a silencer was submitted to the Lab’ by Essex police to be checked for the presence of blood, and fibers from a tampon ( the relatives suspected that the silencer had been used in the shootings and that jeremy had used a tampon to wipe it clean of blood before he concealed it in the gun cupboard)…

     Why were the police submitting a silencer to the Lab’ on 25 September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers from a tampon, if the silencer was already at the Lab’ with Sheila’s blood found inside it?

     The silencer evidence has clearly been doctored, and references to the two silencers from the scene, have been merged into one, between the two files, SC/688/85 and SC/786/85..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:53 am

275. I believe that Sheila may have been suffering with a condition known as Akathisia, and that the medication she had been prescribed for Schizophrenia, contributed to her mental state at the time she killed the other four victims. If true, the doctors are responsible for misdiagnosing her illness and for prescribing her the wrong drugs…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 8:32 am

276. What a coincidence it would be that Sheila’s illness was misdiagnosed, and that she was prescribed the wrong type of medication (Haldol and Anafrenil)with the added feature that days before she shot and killed the others, that the dosage for her Haldol had been reduced from 200mg to 100mg, without any increase or reduction in the dosage of the other medication (Anafrenil) which she was on, and the suggestion that Jeremy should choose this precise moment to want to kill all of his family, including Sheila? At the end of the day, the doctors who were responsible for the management of her illness, may have been guilty of misdiagnosing her condition, and providing her with a lethal cocktail of drugs…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 11:11 am

277. Ian, you say “Incidently, BOTH Ewell and Porco have NEVER admitted their guilt. This is one of the traits of a psychopath. They cannot and will not accept responsibility for their actions. Just because Bamber has denied it, does not in any way prove innocence. I would argue that if he ever did, what on earth will he have to gain from it? He will never be released regardless of admission of guilt. He knows his ONLY chance at freedom is bamboozling a Court of Appeal into setting him free under a technicality. He has tried in two appeals. Both of which were completely destroyed as nothing more than ‘constained restraints of the evidence’”

     I did read somewhere that one of these people admitted guilt in letters but I can’t find the information again so that’s why I said “I may be wrong”. You make some interesting and detailed points and I feel that it’s wrong of me to try and get involved in a case that doesn’t concern me directly, I’m sure a lot of other people feel the same, so it’s difficult to comment. But consider this, Psychopathy, refers to a cluster of deviant personality traits and behaviours that do not necessarily include criminal activity. Yes a ‘psychopath’ will most likely be incapable of feeling guilt or remorse for anything they’ve done because they can’t empathise with others. However, many people have one or two psychopathic traits without being psychopathic, and those under extreme stress, suffering from mental illness or abusing substances may manifest many of the symptoms without being psychopathic by nature.

     If the evidence does not prove beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber is quilty and the conviction has not been fair then he should be released.

     Comment by Leigh — 8/24/2009 @ 11:34 am

278. The truth is - that Sheila killed the others and then tried to take her own life…

     It was no coincidence that these shootings should taken place after a family dispute relating to the possible involvement of a social worker to help Sheila to look after the children, and or the fact that June missed her normal Tuesday evening bible class, because of her concern for Sheila’s well-being. Neither is it a coincidence that Tuesday 6 August 1985, was a christian festival date, “The transfiguration of God”…

     June and Sheila were badly effected by all manner of religious fervor…

     I disagree with anybody who says that Sheila was so small that she would not have been able to overpower Ralph…

     Evidence will eventually be produced to confirm that in Sheila’s state of mind, it would have been possible, if not inevitable that she did so…

     I am not convinced, however, that she took her own life, although I accept that she did intend to…

     The truth about this shocking and disturbing affair, is that Sheila Jean “Bambi” Caffell, need not have died inside that bedroom at whf that morning…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:42 pm

279. It would have only taken a gun full of bullets to kill both Ralph and June Bamber - and consequently there would have been no rush or urgency for Sheila to reload the gun quickly. I have already said that by the time Ralph was shot five times he was dead, and by the time June was shot the sixth time, she too was already dead. This means that before Sheila had any need to reload the gun at all, both her parents could have been shot and killed without the need or requirement to load extra bullets into the gun…

     After this…

     and if only one gun was used in the shootings (which is not true) but if it were, there would only be the unpleasant business of shooting her children 8 times, and herself twice…

     Ralph could have been shot a further three times at any stage after that, and June could also have been shot once after that as well?

     Sheila had between about 3am and 7:30am, to carry out any additional shootings which were required after the initial emptying of the loaded gun during the first shootings of Ralph and June, who I believe were both killed outright by the time the gun was emptied for the first time…

     Sheila was much stronger and more violent that anyone can imagine…

     She derived this energy and aggression from the illness she was suffering from and the fact that her doctors had misdiagnosed her condition and had been giving her a cocktail of drugs which had a negative effect upon her life. The fact that they reduced her dosage of Haloperidol (Haldol) and not her dosage of Anafrenil, was a recipe for disaster waiting to happen…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 1:57 pm

280. I would like to hear what Sheila’s doctors might say about the possibility that they misdiagnosed her illness as schizophrenia, rather than suffering with a condition known as Akathisia…

     I would like to hear what these experts have to say about the possibility that the cocktail of drugs which they prescribed her, and the way that her dosage of Haldol was reduced from 200mg to 100mg days before she killed everyone, but no such reduction or increase in the dosage of Anafrenil, and how this might have impacted upon Sheila’s behavior?

     It was known in 1985, for example, that doctors all over the world had been misdiagnosing patients as suffering from Schizophrenia when they suffered from a condition known as Akathisia, and that these patients were being prescribed lethal cocktails of drugs which were capable of making them commit extreme acts of violence which were totally out of character, in some instances leading to suicide and homicide etc…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/24/2009 @ 2:08 pm

281. Not to be forgotten, is that not only did the police at the scene believe that Sheila was responsible and that she killed the others, but so did the pathologist, and the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/25/2009 @ 9:32 am

282. According to the available evidence, the silencer was handed over twice to the police, once by Peter Eaton, on 12 August 1985, and on a second occasion, by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985. The funny thing is, Essex police maintain that they never handed the silencer back to the family once it was in their possession from 12 August 1985 - the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey, on 11 September 1985,was subsequently forwarded to Huntington Lab’ to be examined and checked form blood and fibers from a tampon which the relatives believed Jeremy had used after the shootings to wipe the silencer clean before hiding it in the gun cupboard?

     The odd thing is…

     Sheila’s blood had already been supposedly found inside the silencer and analyzed between 12th and 20th September 1985, so why was the same silencer being resubmitted to be checked for blood again, on 25 September 1985?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/25/2009 @ 9:38 am

283. The pathologist was never shown all the crime scene photographs which PC Bird took of Sheila’s body at the scene…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/25/2009 @ 2:36 pm

284. Mike, you stated that…….’ When jeremy was informed that everyone inside the house was dead, by the police, he accused the armed officers of shooting them dead…

     A police officer made a witness statement covering this matter and it took some time for Jeremy to come to terms with what he had been told. He was adamant that the police had shot members of his family, a complaint which Essex police never investigated…
     I would argue that this is absolutely preposterous. It lacks any credibility whatsoever.
     I can find absolutely no evidence that Bamber said this or intimated to this at the time. Even if he did, his ludicrous accusations were based on what exactly? The sound of gunfire?……..erm no……..He overheard police saying that they had shot the family?…..erm no. The only plausible explanation, if Bamber did indeed accuse the police……was just another pathetic attempt to divert the finger of suspicion away from himself.
     Mike, it truly beggars belief that you, an obviously intelligent person could even contemplate such a fairy tale. Children would struggle to believe it.

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 6:13 pm

285. Mike…a big problem with your theory. I have spent some time on this and have asked ex-army colleagues to confirm my suspicions.
     Frequently in the past I fired many guns, including .22 calibre rifle - of differing makes including an Anschutz. We often fired in a closed indoor rifle range with ventilation turned on. We’d often fire short or longer bursts at targets as part of our weapons training. We would have a break from this to take up other duties often lasting several hours. On our return to the range the whole place still had a very strong smell of gunpowder. This was confirmed by a single colleague firing a rifle who also stated that gunpowder was strongly smelt after several hours.
     Now, I have looked through all the police statements and not one of them has mentioned smelling gunpowder when they entered the house. NOT ONE. I find this absolutely unbelievable if, as you state Sheila had shot herself moments before police arrived. Let us remember that the windows in the kitchen - where Ralph was shot numerous times - were all tightly shut - therefore no ventilation. In total 25 shots were fired and yet no-one could smell gunpowder when they entered the scene. In fact I find it hard to believe that any rifle was fired within hours of the police entering the farmhouse at 7:30.
     I conclude and would strongly argue that the rifle was fired HOURS earlier. Way before the police had arrived.
     I will conduct some more experiments to prove that these shots were fired much earlier than you state that they were. It is a very simple process. Fire 25 shots and judge the amount of time before the gunpowder can no longer be smelt. This will give a timeframe. I will let you and all readers know the results. I am confident that it will prove that your theory is totally erroneous and impractical.

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 6:45 pm

286. Mike…..you stated that ‘I would like to hear what Sheila’s doctors might say about the possibility that they misdiagnosed her illness as schizophrenia, rather than suffering with a condition known as Akathisia…’
     How do you know that she was suffering from this condition as opposed to suffering from schizophrenia? Where is the evidence?
     I was unaware that Sheila’s medical records were public knowledge and ’suppositions’ about what her illness could or could not have been. Also how on earth - considering that she is dead- could this ever be proven?

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 6:53 pm

287. Mike……….again more problems. You stated that ‘Anyone who listens to what Ian is saying about the police not moving or touching anything at the scene, and that the police did not touch or move anything can make their own minds up, once they have seen the images I am prepared to make available in the interests of justice…’
     I am in NO WAY suggesting that the police didnt move anything. Of course they did. They had to check that Sheila was dead and if she needed medical treatment - AND if the gun was loaded. NEVER make the mistake of trying to twist this into a police conspiracy that it was they who shot Sheila. That is absolutely ridiculous and a theory that smacks of desparation. It truly beggars belief that you expect any sane person with an iota of common sense to believe that the police shot Sheila under the chin and then staged her body to make it look like suicide. Mike this theory is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme even the extremely gullible will have trouble it.

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 7:11 pm

288. John……..You have made some excellent observations on the case, in particular that phone call. I do not believe for a single moment that Ralph phoned the police - I would like Mike to produce evidence of this before we can proceed further with this point.
     The fact is, is that Bamber DID waste urgent time in looking-up and phoning the local police station. Anyone knows from 9 to 90 that in an emergency you phone 999. You think ‘threat’ ‘danger’ ‘my family is under threat’. You IMMEDIATELY phone 999. You DO NOT phone the local police station. Furthermore, it beggars the question- if his family were in mortal danger - why didn’t he phone Len Foakes, who worked at the farm and had a cottage situated far closer to the farm than the police station was?
     The phone calls were Bamber’s fatal mistake.
     1. If Julie Mugford is to be believed - and there is no reason not to - he phones her at around 9:50PM on the evening before the murders saying he was ‘pissed off and had been thinking about the crime all day’and that it was going to be “tonight or never”.
     2. He phones his girlfriend, Julie Mugford between 3:00 and 3:30am BEFORE he calls police and wastes vital time looking up the local 6-digit number.
     3. He claims he had a call from Ralph that, he claims was dramatically ended. This goes against evidence that points to the fact that he cannot have received an engaged tone in such a short amount of time. His story completely lacks any credibility.
     PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby drove from Witham Police Station passing Bamber in his car on their way to the farm. He was travelling at a speed very much slower than their vehicle. Ann Eaton’s evidence was that Bamber was normally “a very, very fast driver”. Bamber’s car arrived at the farmhouse 1-2 minutes after the police car. Ask yourself why? For Bamber it was a very short drive of only a few minutes, how come the police car overtook Bamber on their way to the farm?
     The answer was obvious. He wanted the police to arrive FIRST. If Bamber had arrived earlier and had waited for the police - it would have left him open to accusations that he was present at the farm where the murders occurred. I have heard Bamber supporters claim that Bamber was ’scared’ that Sheila may of been lying in wait for him should he arrive. This is total nonsense.
     He could have easily have waited at the entrance road leading to the farm or nearby.
     Put simply, there are far too many implausible actions on the night of the murder by Bamber. This case appears to the casual observer as one of ‘plausible denial’ by Bamber. I would agree, that one or two of his actions may look and sound completely plausible or have a reasonable explanation. However, one must look at the whole picture. There are far too many inconsistencies and implausible actions and reactions which, looked at with any scrutiny, both before and after the murders to believe that anyone else apart from Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these appalling crimes. His guilt is equal to the total sum of his actions.

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 7:54 pm

289. Mike……..another problem. You stated that ‘It was no coincidence that these shootings should taken place after a family dispute relating to the possible involvement of a social worker to help Sheila to look after the children’

     Who’s word do we have that this conversation ever took place? - Jeremy Bamber.
     There is NO evidence that this ’social worker, boys put into care’ discussion ever took place. In fact I believe that this was a total fabrication by Bamber. Colin Cafell, the twins father, has categorically denied that his children were EVER even considered for adoption. If they were he was NEVER consulted over it. Now considering he is their father and rightly guardian I find Bamber’s version of events highly unlikely. He invented this story as a ruse to justify an his story about an argument between the family and make Sheila’s involvement sound all the more plausible.

     Comment by Ian — 8/25/2009 @ 8:04 pm

290. Mike………You said that ‘Bullet PV/20 which we now know started off life as a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, when the pathologist removed it from Sheila’s neck / throat, had for some reason miraculously turned into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, and more alarmingly, bullet PV/20 was one of the 15 bullets which the ballistic expert said he could positively link to the rifle’
     Where is your evidence that this bullet started off life as a ‘fragmented’ bullet? Who then, disproved this?
     So that we are ’singing from the same hymn sheet’ as it were, what other problems have you found with this pathologist’s findings? I ask this because I have noticed that you seem to ‘dip into’ the pathologists report to find possible anomalies when it suits your argument, while at the same time using his findings as evidence to support your theories.
     Cards on the table Mike, I need to establish exactly whether you concur with his report, or you dont. You cannot have it both ways.

     Comment by Ian — 8/26/2009 @ 5:54 am

291. Mike…You stated that ‘The police are caught “Bang to rights” as far as the stage managing of the scene is concerned, and I feel sure that once the general public see the weight of evidence regarding these activities by the police, supported by photographic material taken by the police themselves, that the authorities will be breaking their necks to get Jeremy’s case back to the court of appeal, with a view to quashing his convictions? ‘
     I seriously doubt whether you could prove a thing. The bodies were not ’stage-managed’by the police as you so eloquently put it. The ONLY person to have stage-managed anything was Bamber himself - incidently no stranger to stage-managing a scene is he?
     Remind the readers who it was that stage-managed a crime scene to make it look like someone else had committed the crime? and later admitted to it?
     I fail to see any logic in your argument Mike. It is a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees. There is a strong suspect - many testify to Bamber being the culprit. The scene has clearly been stage-managed - something he admits to doing only recently in another crime- and you point the finger squarely at the police! Mike it wont wash with any logical thinking person.
     Bamber or his supporters seems to have a knack of pointing the finger of suspicion at others - his sister, his relatives, a conspiracy involving unknown persons, the police. In fact ANYONE but Bamber.
     The police didnt do it, the relatives didnt do it, Sheila certainly didn’t do it, there were no strange, mysterious hitmen. So that kind of narrows it down. On a lighter note, the only living thing to emerge from White House Farm that morning was a dog. I am also certain that the dog didnt do it either. Bamber spared the dogs life - albeit briefly - safe in the knowledge that the dog wasn’t about to grass him up. No doubt probably a fact that the dog later bitterly regretted.

     Comment by Ian — 8/26/2009 @ 6:19 am

292. The only people who stage managed anything at the scene were the police who covered up the true circumstances of how Sheila died inside that bedroom evidence exists to prove that this was and is the case. The police planted the gun onto Sheila’s body and they allowed crucial exhibits which would have enabled a reconstruction at a later date, to be destroyed. The police allowed for the crime scene bullets and bullet cases to be fabricated to lend support for Jeremy to be prosecuted. Exhibit references were altered to accommodate this doctored evidence. Lies have been told about the number of crime scene photographs that were taken and the court at Jeremy’s 1986 crown court trial have been well and truly duped and misled by the prosecutions case. Imagine if all this new previously undisclosed material had been disclosed before Jeremy’s trial what effect it would have had on an already inconsistent verdict (10/2), since as everyone is aware two members of the jury did not obviously think or believe that Jeremy was guilty, they actually believed that Jeremy was “Not Guilty” and this was based on everything which the prosecution could throw at Jeremy to suggest that he was the killer. Imagine the effect it would have had upon the minds of those existing 10 members of the jury if Julie Mugford had been exposed as the liar she is, and how the relatives had handed over two silencers on two different dates, 12 August 1985v and 11 September 1985, and how David Boutflour, had deliberately tampered with the silencer by scraping off a flake of blood by use of a razor blade, which he retained and kept to himself, before he handed that silencer to the police? Imagine, what effect it would have had on those 10 members of the jury, if they had known that the silencer had had three different exhibit references, whilst in the possession of Essex police (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1)? Imagine what effect it would have had upon the jury if they had been told that bullet PV/20 which started off life on 7 August 1985, had become transformed into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, to enable the ballistic expert to link it to the gun which the police planted upon Sheila’s body, so that they could make out a false case that there had only been one gun or weapon used in the shootings? Imagine if the court had been told that there had been an unofficial and unreported test firing of the gun and control bullets before the date when the ballistic expert says he received them all from the police, and how it was possible within the circumstances of this case, for Sheila’s blood to have got into the silencer without her necessarily having been shot at all? Imagine that, there are at least three other explanations for how Sheila’s blood could have got into that silencer, which were all concealed, and not taken into consideration, because to do so, would have certainly resulted in the silencer evidence being ruled inadmissible. Imagine the effect of the police radio and communication logs, and the FACT that two bodies were found downstairs and only three bodies upstairs by 8:10am that morning? Imagine the court being aware that DC Hammersley added four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the bedroom scenario so that the police could accommodate the suggestion that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom and or that Ralph must have been shot four times in the bedroom before he went downstairs? Imaginable the impact of the fact that DS woodcock (special branch officer) falsified the contents of his 13 page statement, by removing 4 pages which deals with entry into the kitchen, and the insertion of a re-typed page (6) which purports to deal with the finding of Ralphs body on the kitchen floor by the corner of the aga? On and on, the list and possibilities are endless and more importantly, highly relevant and significant, to show and prove that the case relied upon to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these murders, was a false and malicious one…

     Anyone who thinks that all of these matters, and others which have not yet been mentioned, would not have effected the verdict of the jury, should look at their own sanity?

     Any ordinary members of the public would be swayed by the wealth of material which is now available, which was deliberately concealed and not disclosed to Jeremy, his legal team or to the court which tried him for these murders, into rejecting the prosecutions case, which was relied upon to secure the convictions for these murders against Jeremy. Members of the public would not be fooled into accepting or believing anything the police or its witnesses had to say as being an honest account of what took place, because they have all misled the court about specific points and matters upon which the prosecutions case was pursued…

     Jeremy Bamber is innocent, he was back in 1985, 1986, 2002 and he is still innocent and there is no evidence to prove or establish that he killed anyone, only fictional information, that anyone could get out of a comic book..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 4:21 am

293. Imagine if the jury had seem the undisclosed image taken by PC Bird, (SOC), which shows fresh bright red blood leaking from the two wounds on Sheila’s neck which was taken after 10 O’clock that morning, and they were being asked to consider that Jeremy had killed his sister over seven hours beforehand and that he had stage managed her body?

     Imagine all the line of questioning of the police witnesses that would have followed, regarding the presence of this fresh blood coming out of the two wounds seven hours later? Why have none of the police at the scene commented upon the fact that at 10 O’clock, the blood was still fresh and red looking and still coming out from the wounds, if Sheila was dead from as long ago as 3am?

     I do not think a jury would have been fooled by the prosecutions case, if all of this material had been disclosed and considered?

     Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister…

     That is a fact.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 4:38 am

294. According to the official version of events, PS Woodcock did not remove the gun from Sheila’s body to check to make sure it was safe, until 11:15am, that morning…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 4:44 am

295. IAN, I DIDN’T KNOW FARMWORKERS LIVED NEARBY WHICH ONLY GOES TO PROVE MY POINT CONCERNING THE CALLS.YOUR INSIGHT ON THE CASE IS EVERY BIT AS GOOD ON THE CASE AS MIKE’S BUT YOUR INSIGHT CARRIES A LOT OF COMMON SENSE WHEN DEALING WITH THESE MURDERS AND IFEEL YOU AND I ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/27/2009 @ 6:30 am

296. Leigh,
     Thank you for your insightful comments. You stated that ‘If the evidence does not prove beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty and the conviction has not been fair then he should be released’
     The first trial proved beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for murdering his family. The ‘doubts’ surrounding this case, I would strongly argue are nothing more than strained constraints of the truth. Let us put it another way. Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated since his final arrest in September 1985, some 24 years. During which he and his supporters have pored over 1000s of documents looking for the slightest anomaly, the merest suggestion of error (you can look into most well-written and proof-read books and find significant errors) In this case they found NONE that has stood the test of time or even stood up to any form of legal scrutiny. His last appeal was totally and comprehensively destroyed on ALL 15 points in which Bamber made his case for freedom. There are points in the case that Bamber and his supporters cannot explain away with any plausibility.
     Their case has now therefore - and in desparation - headed down the path of complete fiction. I’ll give you some example’s of it.
     It has been claimed by Mike Tesko in the past that ‘Sheila shot herself in the kitchen, the wound somehow plugged itself or ’scabbed over’ (presumably to explain the lack of Sheila’s blood found in the kitchen) She awoke from her unconscious state when police entered the house and ran upstairs to 1. shoot herself or 2. was shot by police. (depending which interpreation is given on any given day)
     Leigh I kid you not. This is the kind of utter nonsense that has been used by them in the past.
     Now we have the ‘police did it theory’ A truly unbelievable scenario wehere the Essex Police actually shot Sheila to cover up the fact that the initial police operation was botched.
     There are some points however, that do require more clarification on this case and Mike has rightly highlighted them. It has been argued that the police touched the gun that was found on Sheila’s body. Presumably to check that the weapon was safe, and also touched Sheila - presumably to check for life-signs. The supporters claim that they have photographic evidence and a query by a police officer to prove that Sheila’s body was moved. I have yet to see any of the photos to which they are alluding to. One must remember, that the police at this stage suspected Sheila was the murderer and as matter of course had to check the body to make the building safe.
     None of this of course, exonerates Bamber. What it has done is provide him with a kind of legal loophole to challenge the police’s version of events. I seriously doubt whether it will be proven that the police moved the body one way or the other.
     The circumstantial evidence implicating Bamber is overwhelming.

     Comment by Ian — 8/27/2009 @ 7:20 am

297. (Ian) ;- You stated that ‘It was no coincidence that these shootings should taken place after a family dispute relating to the possible involvement of a social worker to help Sheila to look after the children’

     Who’s word do we have that this conversation ever took place? - Jeremy Bamber.
     There is NO evidence that this ’social worker, boys put into care’ discussion ever took place. In fact I believe that this was a total fabrication by Bamber. Colin Cafell, the twins father, has categorically denied that his children were EVER even considered for adoption. If they were he was NEVER consulted over it. Now considering he is their father and rightly guardian I find Bamber’s version of events highly unlikely. He invented this story as a ruse to justify an his story about an argument between the family and make Sheila’s involvement sound all the more plausible.
     —————————————————————–

     A non disclosed witness statement exists which clearly shows that Sheila was under the supervision of a social worker with regards to her ability to look after her children, and so I do not feel there is any point saying anything further about that, other than to say that if Colin Caffell did not know about this, then it would be apparent that social services were not doing their job right and Sheila and the Bamber Parents must have kept this information from him. Just because Colin Caffell did not know anything about this, does not prove one way or the other that there was a conversation or a heated discussion between family members about the possibility that Sheila might have to get some help with looking after the children as discussed around the family supper table on the evening, 6 August 1985?

     Also, do not overlook the fact that when June Bamber spoke to her sister (Pamela Boutflour) on that last occasion, Tuesday night at around 10pm, June told Pamela that she wanted to speak to her about Sheila who had been behaving very oddly recently…

     Fact of the matter is, a social worker was attached to Sheila and the children, and it is more than likely that the type of discussion said to have occurred between Sheila and her parents around the supper table did take place as mentioned. Extended family members have gone on recorsd as saying that June and Ralph would never contemplate involving social services or a social worker with regards to the welfare of the children, but I am afraid that they are wrong about that and Essex police obtained a witness statement from a social worker, who was in charge of handling Sheila and the children…

     Unfortunately for you, and the family, there was involvement by the social services in Sheila’s and the children lives…

     The relatives should speak to Essex police or social services about this matter if they are interested at all in finding out the truth, rather than making up stories which are fiction…

     Not only was Jeremy’s version of the events true, but it can be backed up by reference to the non disclosed witness statement which Essex police obtained as part of their enquiries (SC/688/85)..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 9:57 am

298. (Ian);- So that we are ’singing from the same hymn sheet’ as it were, what other problems have you found with this pathologist’s findings? I ask this because I have noticed that you seem to ‘dip into’ the pathologists report to find possible anomalies when it suits your argument, while at the same time using his findings as evidence to support your theories.
     Cards on the table Mike, I need to establish exactly whether you concur with his report, or you dont. You cannot have it both ways.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————–
     It would have been more acceptable under the circumstances if Sheila’s body had not been released for cremation, and a second independent autopsy had been carried out on her body, since there is evidence in the form of a handwritten note, made by DI Cook (SOC) to the effect that the ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) and the pathologist (Peter Venezis) had sorted out their differences of opinion. It is not known exactly what these differences of opinion were, but it becomes clear that the two of them colluded together to make out a particular case, when it might not have been anything of the sort. Also, do not loose sight of the fact that it was the pathologist who removed bullet PV/20 from the neck of Sheila. on 7 August 1985, which at that stage was a fragmented bullet, namely that this bullet had fragmented into a whole bullet upon striking the fourth vertebrae in her neck, backed up by x-ray which shows the bullet broken up into three separate pieces whilst it is still present inside Sheila’s neck (before Venezis removed it). This is supposed to be the same bullet (PV/20) which the ballistic expert, claims was a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, and what I and Jeremy, and his legal team, and everybody else who is interested in this case, would like to know, is how could a bullet which was fragmented into three separate pieces on 7 August 1985, which was removed from the victims body, could end up as a whole bullet, by 20 September 19785?

     The ballistic expert, Fletcher, has shot himself in the foot, unfortunately, because in 1986, Jeremy’s ballistic expert, Major Mead, visited the Lab’ and took photographs of all the crime scene ammunition, including bullet PV/20..

     The CCRC are having these images blown up and there is going to be an attempt to match the images contained in the x-ray with the bullet at the Lab’ marked PV/20 which Major Mead photographed in May 1986 when he visited the Lab’. We will then see where all of this is going to lead to…

     Somebody switched the bullet - it was not Jeremy, it could only have been either the police or the ballistic expert,or both…

     Work it out for yourself why they should like to do such a thing?

     The jury would have liked to have considered this feature, during the trial but this information was kept back from the court, and the jury was misled about bullet PV/20…

     Tampering with the crime scene ammunition is very serious, and will be the downfall of the police, and the ballistic expert, in this case..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 10:13 am

299. (Ian) ;- You stated that ‘Anyone who listens to what Ian is saying about the police not moving or touching anything at the scene, and that the police did not touch or move anything can make their own minds up, once they have seen the images I am prepared to make available in the interests of justice…’
     I am in NO WAY suggesting that the police didnt move anything. Of course they did. They had to check that Sheila was dead and if she needed medical treatment - AND if the gun was loaded. NEVER make the mistake of trying to twist this into a police conspiracy that it was they who shot Sheila. That is absolutely ridiculous and a theory that smacks of desparation. It truly beggars belief that you expect any sane person with an iota of common sense to believe that the police shot Sheila under the chin and then staged her body to make it look like suicide. Mike this theory is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme even the extremely gullible will have trouble it.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
     According to the official Essex police version of events, nobody touched anything at the scene until after PC Bird completed taking all of his crime scene photographs? Nobody moved or touched Sheila’s body, nobody checked to see if their were any vital signs of life, no-one moved the gun from the body until 11:15am, that morning. There was no mention of the police checking Sheila’s body to see if she needed any medical attention? The police surgeon (Dr Craig) admits that he did not do any physical checks upon Sheila’s body to verify and confirm that she was dead, and let us also not forget that at the time the police surgeon viewed Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor at 8:42am, Sheila only had one wound to her throat by that stage. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the police surgeon not to see the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat by that stage, if there were two wounds upon her throat by that stage, by reference to the crime scene photographs which PC Bird took at around and from 10 O’clock that morning…

     Let no-one forget either, that when the police produced a court album for the attention of the jury consisting of 50 preselected pictures which supported the prosecutions case, supposedly selected from the 223 crime scene photographs that formed part of the dodgy master copy album - dodgy because in truth, 223 photographs were not the total of pictures taken with regards to this matter, since it can now be proven that 581 pictures had been taken. Think about that for a moment? Another 358 pictures which the police concealed from Jeremy, his legal team, and from the court which tried this case? Think about that fact for a moment - why did the police lie about the number of crime scene photographs (223) which were taken in connection with the case (when 581 pictures had been taken)?

     More significantly, the jury were led to believe that the images they were shown of Sheila’s body, were pictures which showed how her body had been found (undisturbed), when we now know and can prove by reference to some of these previously undisclosed 358 photographs, that the police did move, and had moved her body, and the gun and everything else they moved, and touched…

     The jury were therefore conned into believing that the crime scene pictuires they were shown showed Sheila’s body undisturbed, yet it had been stage managed by the police at the scene…

     Imagine that…

     The police at the scene stage managing Sheila’s body and leading the court to wrongly assume and believe that this was exactly how Sheila’s body had been found upon entry to the scene, undisturbed…

     Jeremy got the blame for doing something which the police themselves were guilty of doing - moving the body and planting the gun upon it, and the bible up against the outside of her upper and outer right arm?

     The jury had a right to know that the police moved the body, and how it was moved, and when it was moved, but these facts were deliberately kept from the court - imagine that?

     Does anyone agree that it is alright for the police to stage manage the body, and to mislead the jury about what had happened to the body, and the gun, and the bible up to the point when PC Bird took the crucial photographs?

     If the police did stage manage the body, was the court deceived, and more importantly, did Jeremy Bamber receive a fair trial?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 10:39 am

300. (Ian);- I have spent some time on this and have asked ex-army colleagues to confirm my suspicions.
     Frequently in the past I fired many guns, including .22 calibre rifle - of differing makes including an Anschutz. We often fired in a closed indoor rifle range with ventilation turned on. We’d often fire short or longer bursts at targets as part of our weapons training. We would have a break from this to take up other duties often lasting several hours. On our return to the range the whole place still had a very strong smell of gunpowder. This was confirmed by a single colleague firing a rifle who also stated that gunpowder was strongly smelt after several hours.
     Now, I have looked through all the police statements and not one of them has mentioned smelling gunpowder when they entered the house. NOT ONE. I find this absolutely unbelievable if, as you state Sheila had shot herself moments before police arrived. Let us remember that the windows in the kitchen - where Ralph was shot numerous times - were all tightly shut - therefore no ventilation. In total 25 shots were fired and yet no-one could smell gunpowder when they entered the scene. In fact I find it hard to believe that any rifle was fired within hours of the police entering the farmhouse at 7:30.
     I conclude and would strongly argue that the rifle was fired HOURS earlier. Way before the police had arrived.
     I will conduct some more experiments to prove that these shots were fired much earlier than you state that they were. It is a very simple process. Fire 25 shots and judge the amount of time before the gunpowder can no longer be smelt. This will give a timeframe. I will let you and all readers know the results. I am confident that it will prove that your theory is totally erroneous and impractical.
     ———————————————————–
     You are going to have problems, particularly because you do not have your facts right about windows which were open in the kitchen, and the pantry…

     Another problem you are going to be faced with, is the fact that it was not part of my argument and it never has been, that 25 shots were fired just before the police entered the kitchen? We are in fact, talking about a solitary shot that was discharged from a gun just before the police approached the farmhouse just before 7:30am. This shot was discharged into the throat of Sheila when she was inside the pantry, just inside the door which leads from the pantry to the kitchen…

     Evidence exists in the form of witness statements made by police officers that two windows were open downstairs at the farm before they forced entry, at around 7:30am, as described…

     There was at least a seven minute delay, (7:30 to 7:37am) before the armed officers eventually got into the kitchen, this delay was caused by the presence of Ralph Bambers body which was sat upon a wooden chair behind the internal door through which the armed officers had to pass, in order to get onto the right side of the house, to enebale them to find the bodies of the five victims. Once isnide the kktchen they reported the finding of “One dead male” and One dead female” these are believed to have been the bodies of Ralph and Sheila?

     There was obviously ventilation between the pantry and the kkthcen, and the delay of about seven minutes would almost veratinly have allowed any gases or smell of gun powder, to evapourate to t5he extent that it would not seem to relate to a shot that had just been fired. There was no need for any of the police to refer to the smell of gun powder when they found Sheila’s body in the pantry part of the kitchen, because the shot which was fired was overheard via the telephone intercept anmd information about this was relayed to the forward control point at the scene and on to the armed officers who were members of the raid team - thiis is what caused PC Collins to peer into the kitchen window and he reportedly saw the dead female body…

     An open window in the kitchen, in the form of the fanlight, and an open window in the pantry, provided the perfect flow of air…

     It is also interesting that despite some 30 different unathorised police officers traipzing through the scene before SOC took control of the premises, at around 10 O’clock, that morning, including members of the raid team, themselves, do not mention an absence of the smell of gun powder at the time they first entered the kitchen, which could be just as important as your suggestion, that it should have been possible to smell it?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 11:01 am

301. One of the very first news reports published in the papers suggested that June Bamber, had shot her husband, Ralph Bamber, her daughter Sheila, and her two children before turning the gun upon herself, and them committing suicide…

     At a press conference which was held after the convictions for murder were secured against jeremy, a journalist asked questions about where this information had originally come from and senior officers denied that they knew anything at all about such a story? When it was pointed out that the information had been supplied by Essex police, the senior officers changed the subject immediately and did not comment any further upon it…

     What was all this about, then?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 11:29 am

302. (John);- THIS CASE HAS ME PONDERING OVER ALL THE POINTS EVERYBODY MAKES A CASE FOR.BUT A COUPLE OF ISSUES HAVE SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME AND THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.EVERYBODY THINK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHAT I’M GOING TO SAY.1.DO YOU ALL HAVE YOUR LOCAL POLICE OFFICE NUMBER AT HAND OR MEMORISED? 2.IS IT TOO MUCH TO BELIEVE THAT BOTH NEVILLE AND JEREMY BOTH PHONED THE LOCAL POLICE STATION AND NOT 999? HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE CASE FROM IT’S INCEPTION. ON POINT 2,I CAN SMELL CONSPIRACY IN IT’S INFANCY BECAUSE IT’S OBVIOUS TO ME IF A PHONE CALL EXISTS FROM THE FARM TO THE POLICE JEREMY BAMBER MUST HAVE AN ACCOMPLICE AT THE FARM BECAUSE BOTH PHONE THE LOCAL STATION,1.FARM TO POLICE STATION 2.BAMBER TO POLICE STATION.IT REEKS OF CONSPIRACY.ALL I CAN SAY IS IF YOUR LIFE IS UNDER EXTREME THREAT,PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS PEOPLE,WOULD YOU PHONE 999 OR WOULD YOU SPEND TIME LOOKING FOR THE LOCAL NUMBER? THEN WOULD YOU WASTE MORE TIME CONTACTING YOUR GIRLFRIEND WHEN THERE ARE FAR MORE PRESSING THINGS TO DO? THINK ABOUT THESE POINTS FOR THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT WHEN DETERMINING WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE HIDEOUS MURDERS.THE PERSON OR PERSONS RESPONSIBLE AND I STILL BELIEVE JEREMY BAMBER IS INVOLVED HAVE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE IN NOT THINKING THE TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS IS THEIR UNDOING.IN WEIGHING UP THE EVIDENCE SURROUNDING WHERE NEVILLE WAS SHOT AND THE INCAPACITATING INJURIES HE RECIEVED I CANNOT SEE HOW HE COULD HAVE MADE 2 CALLS LET ALONE 1, AND ANYBODY WITH COMMON SENSE MUST COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.MIKE TESCO DOES MAKE SOME GOOD POINTS IN TRYING TO SHOW BAMBER MAY BE INNOCENT. BUT THESE ARE ALL AFTER THE FACT.FROM THE VERY START A CONSPIRACY UNFOLDED IN JEREMY BAMBER’S MIND WITH SOMEONE ELSE. TO ME WHAT HAPPENNED AFTERWARDS BECAME A GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE BETWEEN POLICE,RELATIVES AND BAMBER.THE MORE YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE YOU MUST GO BACK TO IT’S VERY INCEPTION TO FIND THE KEY.
     ———————————————————————————————————————-

     Ralph Bamber was a local Magistrate and had a panic alarm fitted in his bedroom. This panic alarm was fitted because prior to his death on 7 August 1985, threats were made against his life by a local man, whose son had been sentenced to two years imprisonment, by Ralph Bamber, or a similar sentence, for driving related offenses. The parent of the cobvicted defendant threatened to get even with Mr Bamber and made threats against his life. As a result of this, Ralph stood down from his duties as a Magistrate, and concentrated on his farming occupation. If there had been any imminent threat of attack by anyone other than a family member, he would have activated that alarm which would have sent the police racing to the scene…

     If an intruder had entered whf that evening I feel sure that Ralph would not have had to dial 999 as alleged, he would have simply activated the alarm…

     Fact is, that Ralph did make a telephone call to the police station, and at that time, he told the officer that “My daughter has got hold of one of my guns, and that she had gone berserk” this caused the police to be dispatched to the scene, even before Jeremy made his own call to the police station. During the 2002 appeal hearing, the judges commented upon why the police had been dispatched to the scene before jeremy had even contacted them at 3:37am? The answer is that the police who set off to the scene before Jeremy even made his own call to the police station, were responding to Ralph’s call from whf, not to Jeremy’s, which had not yet even been made…

     Note that in either of the two recorded telephone calls, the one made by Ralph to the police (3:27am) and the one made by Jeremy to the police (3:37am)was it ever mentioned that anyone had been shot by that stage?

     Ralph told the police (3:27am) that “his daughter had gone berserk”…

     Also, that “she had got one of his guns”…

     On the other hand, Jeremy told the police during his call to the police station (3:37am) that his dad had called him to say “Sheila has got the gun” and that “she was going crazy”…

     Before jeremy got chance to contact the police (7:37am) police were already on their way to whf, and so we can be sure that they went there not as a result of the call made by Jeremy, but rather at the behest of Ralph Bamber…

     The officer who received Ralph’s call from whf, (7:27am) would have known that it was not the same person who called at 7:37am, since one was referring to “his daughter” (7:27am) and the other (7:37am) to “his sister”. In Ralph’s call, Ralph referred to “his daughter having possession of one of his guns”, whereas, when Jeremy called, he told the police, that “his dad had told him”, that “Sheila has got the gun”…

     There is absolutely no evidence at all to support any allegation that any shot had been fired between 7:27am and 7:37am…

     Under the circumstances, why would Ralph dial 999, he could have simply activated the alarm…

     There is no evidence that Ralph was wounded at the time he made either of his two calls, one to jeremy, and the one to the police, unless I have missed something somewhere?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 11:53 am

303. It would have made no difference to the speed with which the police reacted and set off to the scene, whether or not the call to the police by Jeremy, was by way of a 999 call, or by a call to the local police station which would be transferred directly to the control room which receives 999 calls. In any event, the police were already on their way to the scene before Jeremy even started to make his call, and so the “Bamber is guilty brigade” are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, when they raise this point, in my opinion…

     The bottom line is that it didn’t particularly matter what method Jeremy used to contact the police, because the police were already on their way to whf, before he made his own call to the police? If Jeremy was part of a conspiracy involving an accomplice, why would Jeremy arrange for the police to be contacted before he contacted them by someone purporting to be Ralph, so that the police were already on their way to the scene, before jeremy made his own call to the police? It just doesn’t make sense for him to have done anything like that?

     It would appear that Jeremy kept getting the engaged tone from his attempts to contact his father at whf, because his father was on the phone speaking to the police…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 12:05 pm

304. There is no evidence to prove that Jeremy killed anyone, none whatsoever…

     Nothing was found at the scene to place him at the scene at the time anyone was shot or killed…

     Nothing was found at his home adress in Goldhanger, to link him to the shootings…

     Nothing found in his car linked him to the murders…

     Nothing on the bike recovered from his cottage link him to the murders…

     Nothing on his clothing can link him to the shootings or the killings…

     Nothing on his footwear can link him to the killings…

     There is no scientific, forensic, fingerprint or any evidence whatsoever to link Jeremy to any of the shootings or to the manner or circumstances involving how Sheila died inside the main bedroom…

     Nothing, plus nothing, equals - Nothing…

     There is nothing and there never has been anything to link Jeremy to these shootings, as the killer or as a conspirator, except evidence which was introduced by his relatives, and former girlfriend, who all had a grudge to bear against him, for one reason or another…

     “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and the relatives, well they stood to benefit from the Bamber estate in the event that jeremy was convicted, so why shouldn’t they have been the ones who appear to have solved this mystery by the so called finding of the bloodstained silencer in the gun cupboard - which the police conveniently missed when four police officers searched that gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings. How could the relatives hand over the same silencer twice? Once on 12 August 1985, and secondly, on 11 September 1985?

     12 August 1985 - Peter Eaton hands silencer to DS Jones?
     11 September 1985 - Ann Eaton hands silencer to DC Oakey?

     The silencer handed over by Peter Eaton to DS Jones, on 12 August 1985, was supposedly submitted to the Lab’ on 13 August 1985, handed back to DI Cook (SOC)which he kept in his personal possession for 17 days until he resubmitted it back to the lab’ on 30 August 1985. At this time the ballistic expert is supposed to have stripped the silencer down and found the crucial flake of blood, belonging exclusively to Sheila, trapped between the baffle plates of the silencer…

     On the other hand…

     The silencer handed to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on 11 September 1985, was fingerprinted by DS Davidson on 13 September 1985, and not submitted to the lab’ for examination, until 25 September 1985. At the time of its submission to the Lab’ on 25 September 1985, the Lab’ was asked to check the silencer for blood and fibers from a tampon…

     What was the silencer being submitted to the lab’ on 25 September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers from a tampon, if it had already been submitted to the LAB’ AND IT WAS ALREADY AT THE lab’ by 30 August 1985? If the silencer had already been stripped down and the crucial flake of Sheila’s blood had already been found inside that silencer, trapped between the baffle plates of that silencer, why was the silencer being resubmitted to the Lab’ to be checked for blood a again? Why have the relatives and the police, and the lAB’, NOT MADE REFERENCE ABOUT THE SUBMISSION OF THE SILENCER TO THE lAB’ ON 25 sEPTEMBER 1985 IN THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS?

     Why doesn’t Ann Eaton make any mention of the fact that she handed over a silencer to DC Oakey on 11 september 1985?

     Why doesn’t DC Oakey mention in a statement that on 11 September 1985, he received the silencer from Ann Eaton?

     Why doesn’t DS Davidson make mention in a statement thjat he fingerprinted the silencer on 13 September 1985?

     Above all else, why do we not hear about the findings which related to the submission of that silencer to the Lab’ on 25 September 1985?

     What happened to the flake which David Boutflour scraped from the end of the silencer by use of a razor blade?

     It is a very important question, since, Boutflour deliberately tampered with the silencer, by anybody’s book…

     Not only did Boutflour tamper with the silencer by deliberately removing blood from the silencer and keeping quiet about what he had done, but he also tried to unscrew the end cap from the silencer?

     When the silencer was fingerprinted, none of his fingerprints were found upon the silencer - yet he handled it, and tampered with it…

     Was the silencer handed back to the relatives and did the flake which Boutflour scrape from the silencer by use of a razor bl;ade get sent to the lab’ on 30 August 1985, and once it was identified as being unique and exclusive to Sheila, the relatives handed over the silencer to the police on 11 September 1985, and at that stage the silencer was fingerprinted, and submitted to the lab’ on 25 September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers from a tampon?

     Is this the correct interpretation of what took place surrounding the silencer?

     Was exhibit SBJ/1 the silencer when it was originally in police possession as [part of SC/688/85?
     Was exhibit DB/1 the flake of blood Boutflour scraped from the silencer by use of a razor blade?
     Was exhibit DRB/1 the silencer which was handed back to the police on 11 September 1985, which did not get sent to the Lab’ until 25 September 1985?

     I think so…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 1:56 pm

305. Unfortunately, it was the police who stage managed the scene and Sheila’s body, backed up by the photographs which the police took at the scene, which they sought to deliberately conceal from Jeremy, his legal team, and the court which tried him for these murders. The police have lied about the number of crime scene photographs that were taken (223). This was not just a case of the police trying to hide and conceal a few pictures, but rather they concealed 358 crucial photographs which depicted exactly what they had done, knowing that if these photographs had been disclosed that they would not have been able to allege that jeremy had stage managed Sheila’s body…

     581 photographs taken…
     223 photographs in master copy album…
     50 photographs in court album…

     358 photographs concealed…

     Why did the police lie about these other 358 crime scene pictures?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 2:48 pm

306. (Ian) ;- NEVER make the mistake of trying to twist this into a police conspiracy that it was they who shot Sheila. That is absolutely ridiculous and a theory that smacks of desparation. It truly beggars belief that you expect any sane person with an iota of common sense to believe that the police shot Sheila under the chin and then staged her body to make it look like suicide. Mike this theory is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme even the extremely gullible will have trouble it.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————-

     The police surgeon (Dr Craig) and PI Miller, viewed the body of Sheila in the main bedroom, at 8:42am that morning. At that stage they report that Sheila only had a solitary wound to her throat…

     On 14 August 1985, at the opening of the inquest, PI Miller told the deputy corner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila had killed the others and that she had then taken her own life with a solitary shot under the chin…

     On 7 August 1985, at around 10 O’clock, PC Bird (SOC) took a series of crime scene photograph showing the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat. Anyone who has ever seen these pictures will be struck by the fact that you can clearly see that sheila has been shot twice - my question is this, why did the police surgeon (Dr Craig) and PI Miller, not see the two wounds on Sheila’s throat, if everybody else can see that she had two wounds there? My next question concerns why PI Miller should tell the deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by a solitary shot to the chin?

     Lets face facts…

     The police lied about the number of shots received by Sheila to her throat…

     Bullet PV/20 became transformed from a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985…

     Four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were deliberately introduced into the bedroom scenario so that the police could lie about the number of bullet cases which were found there, there were only 9 bullet cases, but with the introduction of these other four, the police made out a false case that there had been 13. Two of these bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2, were allegedly found next to the body of Sheila, allowing the police to make out a false case that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom by the same gun…

     You do not tamper with crime scene ammunition, and tell lies at the opening of the inquest, unless you are a police force who is desperate to cover up their involvement in somebodies death..

     By anybodies standard of logic - alarm bells should be ringing, now that we know what the police have done in this case…

     The court which tried Jeremy in 1986, had a right top know about these matters..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/27/2009 @ 3:04 pm

307. Ian, you keep saying the supporters, you say “Their case has now therefore - and in desparation - headed down the path of complete fiction.” So why do these ’supporters’ exist? Why would they want a guilty man to be freed and his name cleared if the evidence points to him as being the killer? Why would they make up fiction, what would they have to gain from it? I don’t know exactly how many supporters there are in comparison to those who believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty but I would think they exist because there is much doubt over this.

     Comment by Leigh — 8/28/2009 @ 12:50 pm

308. What a lot of people do not know is that the police suspected that Jeremy was being framed by the relatives…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/28/2009 @ 3:00 pm

309. The main plank of the prosecution case against Jeremy, was the silencer, with Sheila’s blood found inside it…

     Blood types, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1 (same types as Robert Boutflour)…

     Evidence exists which shows that DS “Stan” Jones, found four exhibits at the scene, on 7 August 1985, bearing the exhi9bit references, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4. These were recovered from the downstairs toilet, and the kitchen, and formed part of the property registers in file SC/688/85…

     By the time file SC/786/85 came into existence (6 September 1985) these four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4) were ommitted…

     The silencer was described as exhibit SBJ/1, in file SC/688/85, and DRB/1 in file SC/786/85…

     Sandwiched in between these, was a reference to the silencer, as exhibit DB/1 (as part of file SC/688/85), but I choose to believe that this referred to the flake which David Boutflour had used a razor blade to scrape from the end cap of the silencer? I choose to believe that Essex police received the flake in question from Boutflour and that on 30 August 1985, Cook submitted it to the Lab’ to be examined…

     By 12 September 1985, onwards, results were obtained from examination of the flake, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)…

     On 25 September 1985, the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11 September 1985, was submitted to the Lab’ top be checked for blood and fibers from a tampon…

     I believe that this is the true reconstruction of what took place regarding the silencer, and blood, associated with it…

     In other words, the silencer was not at the Lab’ on 30 August 1985, and the ballistic expert did not find the crucial flake of blood trapped between its baffle plates, as alleged…

     It has still not been properly explained how the relatives could have handed over the silencer twice, once on 12 August 1985, and secondly, on 11 September 1985…

     Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, do not want to talk about it, and both fail to mention anything about it in any witness statement?

     DS Jones and DC Oakey do not want to talk about how the silencer could have been handed over twice…

     DS Davidson (SOC) does not want to talk about when he fingerprinted the silencer on 13 September 1985, or his findings…

     How do we know that the original silencer (SBJ/1) was the silencer which was submitted to the lab’ on 25 September 1985?

     What happened to the grey hair that was supposed to have been attached to the silencer when it was first handed over to the police by Peter Eaton on 12 August 1985?

     How could the same silencer have three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1?

     How could the silencer have two different lab’ item numbers, 22, (13 August 1985) 23, (30 August 1985) and back to 22 (after 25 September 1985)?

     According to the ballistic expert, he could not tell if any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired via the gun with the silencer attached…

     There were no fingerprints found upon the silencer despite it having been extensively handled by the relatives…

     On 29 August 1985, when DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the silencer, the baffle plates were found to be the wrong way around inside it (Cook photographed the baffles as he removed them during his experiments)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/28/2009 @ 3:27 pm

310. (Ian);- During which he and his supporters have pored over 1000s of documents looking for the slightest anomaly, the merest suggestion of error (you can look into most well-written and proof-read books and find significant errors) In this case they found NONE that has stood the test of time or even stood up to any form of legal scrutiny. His last appeal was totally and comprehensively destroyed on ALL 15 points in which Bamber made his case for freedom.
     ———————————————————————————————————————

     At the moment the CCRC are considering a great deal of new information, and so you obviously do not know as much as you think about this case. Why don’t you wait and see what the CCRC conclusions are? As for the 15 points which those representing Jeremy at his last appeal hearing is concerned, the fact is that no evidence was called during the hearing in support of most of these points, although a brief outline at the opening of the appeal to these 15 points was made orally. It would be wrong to suggest that all 15 points were therefore comprehensively destroyed, since a better explanation of what took place was that most of the matters were simply not pursued, because the defense were concentrating upon the new DNA evidence belonging to June Bamber, which was found to be present inside the silencer…

     The only reason Jeremy’s appeal failed on that occasion was because the court concluded that although June Bambers DNA was present inside the silencer (and none from Sheila) it could have got there by accidental contamination, and it was not derived from blood…

     How odd that June Bambers DNA should be present all over the place inside the silencer,and yet none from Sheila, considering that Sheila’s blood was supposed to have been found inside it? The same Lab’ experts who handled June Bambers clothing also handled Sheila’s clothing, and so why there was no presence of Sheila’s DNA in the silencer beggars belief?

     Selective contamination?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/28/2009 @ 4:41 pm

311. Whilst on the subject of contamination…

     How strange that the court of appeal judgment (2002) should conclude that June Bambers DNA got into the silencer by a process of innocent or accidental contamination through being mishandled by lab’ personnel, and yet they ignored for the possibility that Sheila’s blood could also have got into the silencer by a similar process of contamination?

     Once contaminated, the silencer evidence should have been ruled inadmissible…

     But the court chose to rely upon June Bambers DNA being there, as a result of contamination, but the blood from Sheila was not?

     How convenient was this?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/28/2009 @ 4:46 pm

312. The court of appeal (2002) stated that if it could be proven that the police moved, or disturbed the scene , that they would not hesitate to quash the convictions…

     We will soon see if what they said was true…

     Police moved bodies and items at the scene, and showed the resulting photographs taken afterward, to the jury as if the scene had been found, undisturbed, upon entry into the premises, by armed officers…

     Make no mistake about it - the police say they touched and moved nothing, and yet now the “Bamber is guilty brigade” are acknowledging that the police did move the gun and things at the scene? What will the court of appeal make of this new material? Will they quash the convictions as they said they would if it could be shown that the police moved or touched things at the scene, including bodies?

     Is it alright for the police to tamper with the crime scene and then take photographs to show to the jury making out a false case that this was exactly how the bodies at the scene in the various rooms were found, undisturbed? Why should Jeremy be held responsible for doing something which the police themselves were responsible for doing?

     Not only did the police stage manage the scene, by all manner of actions, but they also tampered with the crime scene ammunition, by substituting bullet PV20, and introducing four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario..

     If this doesn’t equate to the criminal justice system having been brought into disrepute, I will eat my hat…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/28/2009 @ 4:58 pm

313. Two out of the three guns, which were known to have been used, in one form or another, during the incident, had Sheila Caffels fingerprints upon them…

     12 Bore shotgun found in the gun cupboard where the relatives also found the silencer, and her fingerprints on the rifle which PC Bird photographed on top of her body from 10 O’clock onwards, that morning…

     How did Sheila Caffells fingerprints end up on the shotgun in the gun cupboard?

     Why did Essex police suppress this evidence and mislead the court about how many guns they knew she had handled at the scene?

     The identity of the third weapon, which by the way, WPC Julia Jeapes, a trained firearms instructor, saw at the bedroom window, some fifth teen minutes before the armed officers, forced their way into the premises,has still not yet been divulged by Essex police, despite some 24 years having elapsed since the time of these events. As a result, we do not yet know if Sheila’s fingerprints had been found upon that gun either?

     What is of concern to me, as I feel sure would be of some concern to everyone else, is why were so many weapons and ammunition laying around all over the place, upstairs and downstairs, when two mentally ill adults were living there, and two small children? Why did Essex police firearms licensing Department issue shotgun certificates and a firearms licenses for Ralph Bamber, and Anthony Pargeter, to keep all of these guns, and ammunition’s at whf, in view of the fact that Ralph’s wife (June) and his daughter (Sheila) had both been treated in hospital for mental illnesses? It would appear that they were somewhat negligent in this respect…

     Lets review what we now know about where the police found guns and ammunition’s at the scene:-

     (1) Inside the gun cupboard which was just a space under the backstairs in the downstairs office, which did not have a lockable door to it…
     (2) in the kitchen on the worktop (live rounds)
     (3) Downstairs toilet where Pargeter kept a selection of shotguns and rifles and ammunition’s for both…
     (4) on the small spiral staircase that led from the kitchen to the upstairs landing, a shotgun and a bandoleer containing live shotgun cartridges was found…
     (5) a shotgun in the upstairs office..
     (6) a gun that was found somewhere downstairs with red paint on the end of its barrel…
     (7) the rifle leaning against the bedroom window…
     (8) the rifle photographed on top of Sheila’s body by PC Bird at and from 10 O’clock that morning…

     Lets get the facts right so that nobody can be in any doubt about the amount of firepower, and ammunition’s, which were present inside that farmhouse - over 2000 live rounds of ammunition of varying types and size, plus many many live (Raker) shotgun cartridges…

     WHF was a tragedy waiting to happen, it was inevitable that sooner or later something would go wrong, considering the fact that two mentally disturbed adults lived and resided or stayed and lived their, and that two innocent little children were being brought up in that dangerous environment…

     I have no doubt in my mind, that if Essex police forearms licensing department had known about the mental history of June and Sheila, that they would not have allowed Ralph or Antony Pargeter, to keep firearms at the farm, along with thousands of rounds of live ammunition. I do not think Social services would have allowed or permitted Sheila to stay at the farm along with her two venerable children. I do not think the childrens father, Colin Caffell, would have permitted his two sons, Daniel and Nicholas, to visit or stay at the farm if he had known of the carefree and irresponsible way that firearms and ammunition were strewn about the house - the children could have picked them up and accidentally shot someone with them…

     The relatives appear not to have known about this, or been at all concerned, with the exception of Ralph, and Anthony Pargeter, who had these weapons and ammunition licensed to them by the police…

     I suppose Jeremy will get the blame for the fact that all of these weapons, and ammunition, which were left carelessly about the place, all the way around the house?

     As I say, a disaster waiting ton happen…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 4:59 am

314. (Ian);- It has been claimed by Mike Tesko in the past that ‘Sheila shot herself in the kitchen, the wound somehow plugged itself or ’scabbed over’ (presumably to explain the lack of Sheila’s blood found in the kitchen) She awoke from her unconscious state when police entered the house and ran upstairs to 1. shoot herself or 2. was shot by police. (depending which interpreation is given on any given day)
     ——————————————————————-
     Evidence exists in the form of a crime scene photograph which the police failed to disclose to Jeremy, his legal team, or to the court which tried him for these murders, which conclusively and comprehensively shows that the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat, had at some stage been plugged, or scabbed over, by coagulated blood which had at some stage been displaced, to other parts of her neck and throat, and so this point cannot easily be ignored…

     The court was mistakenly led to believe that blood leaked from the two wounds, as a result of Sheila being shot twice, there and then, and that she fell back into the position which PC Bird eventually photographed her body in?

     All this without so much as an explanation about how her nightdress became stained with her own blood in the form of a triangular bloodstain on the upper right part of her nightdress etc…

     A great deal of blood was found to be present in the kitchen, which was not analyzed or checked…

     You only have to look at the crime scene photographs which are now available to see the extent of the blood staining there, yet so few samples were officially taken, according to the SC/786/85 file?

     Don’t get too carried away, by relying on the suggestion that no blood belonging to anyone but Ralph, from the kitchen, has been found, since, as I say, not all the results from all of the blood was analyzed, and if it was, the results have not yet been disclosed…

     Large pools of blood were covered up by the police placing clothing and a towel over it to prevent it from contaminating other areas of the kitchen floor, and so you do not know whose blood was beneath these items of clothing etc…

     Furthermore, and rather significantly, the police did not retain these items of clothing and the towel, as exhibits, and so Jeremy, his legal team, nor the court that tried jeremy for these murders, will ever know whose blood these items or garments soaked up?

     There was blood everywhere in the kitchen, and no-one can say for sure, that all of it originated from Ralph Bamber, alone?

     I would like to see what it says about all the blood found in the kitchen in the SC/688/85 file (which is currently being withheld under pii rules)?

     Imagine that - all the material which is capable of proving and establishing that Jeremy was and is innocent, is being deliberately withheld and concealed under pii rules (this is the se information and evidence which the relatives challenged at the beginning of this investigation which was relied upon by the police, the pathologist, and the coroners court, to establish Sheila’s culpability)…

     This man, Jeremy Bamber, certainly did not receive a fair trial, and like everyone else, who commits an alleged crime, who gets charged and stands trial before judge and jury, he was entitled to receive one, whether the police, the courts or anybody else likes it or not…

     It is everyone’s basic human right to expect to be tried fairly and have access to all the available evidence and information gathered by the police and other agencies, if that information, or evidence, or material, is capable of effecting the verdict of the jury…

     In this case, the police an the CPS only allowed access to the parts which they say prove and establish Jeremy’s guilt, they concealed and withheld all the material which they had gathered originally under SC/688/85, because they knew that to disclose it, would almost certainly have led to jeremy Bamber being acquitted on all charges alleged against him, with regards to all of these matters..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 5:23 am

315. Jeremy also passed a lie detector test, and the expert who performed the test has publicly stated that he believes jeremy to be completely innocent and that he did not play any role in any of the deaths at whf and that for example, he was not present when anyone got shot, and that he did not employ the services of a hit-man, or an accomplice…

     The home office now rely upon the use of polygraph tests to monitor sex offenders in various parts of the UK, and so, here is another example, of evidence which is capable of leading one to the truth which to date has not and is not being acted upon…

     The relatives and certain police officers involved in this investigation, should take a polygraph tst to see if they pass, so that we can all see what they have been up to, and responsible for?

     Bring on Julie Mugford…

     “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, the honest prosecution witness, who lied about being paid £25,000 by the News of the World, in the event that Jeremy was convicted, and many other things…

     Bring on DS Jones, the police officer who had three different start dates (written on the front cover)for the pocketbook, which contained his evidence about the WHF case, let him take a polygraph test?

     Bring on DC Hammersley, and PI Miller, so that they can be questioned about inserting references to four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, into the main bedroom scenario, lets see what the results from a polygraph test produced when they are questioned about this?

     Bring on the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and let him be questioned about bullet PV/20 which was substituted to allow him to say that he could match it as having been fired from the anshulz rifle?

     Bring on members of the raid team, let them take a polygraph test so that we can fond out once and for all how many bodies were found downstairs in the kitchen and upstairs - two downstairs and three upstairs, or one downstairs and four upstairs?

     Bring on PC Bird and let him be questioned about the number’s of photographs he took at the scene, 223 or 581?

     Bring them all on, let them all be tested, lets see the results, lets get to the bottom of this once and for all…

     The fact is, they don’t have to, and chances are, they would all refuse to do so, because they all lied, and they know that by taking such a test, the fact that they oied would be exposed..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 5:42 am

316. MIKE,IF DR.CRAIG STATES THAT SHEILA HAD ONLY ONE BULLET WOUND AT 8.42AM,AND WE MUST PRESUME SHE WAS ALREADY DEAD AT THIS TIME,WHY WOULD THERE BE A NEED TO SHOOT HER AGAIN BECAUSE ONE BULLET WOUND WOULD RE-INFORCE THE MURDER/SUICIDE THEORY? ICAN SEE YOUR ENDEAVOUR IN TRYING TO SHOOT DOWN THEORIES WHICH PURPORT TO SHOW JEREMY’S GUILT AND YOUR WORK AND EFFORT MUST BE COMMENDED BUT I SEE YOU HAVE THE UPPER HAND BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AT YOUR DISPOSAL SO IT SEEMS WE ARE ALWAYS IN ARREARS WHEN DISCUSSING THE CASE. I MUST EMPHASISE MIKE THAT A RE-TRIAL IS SURELY IMMINENT SO WE CAN FINALLY GET TO THE TRUTH.

     Comment by john hughes — 8/29/2009 @ 6:12 am

317. Mike, some good points,
     However, the Court of Appeal requires a far more substantial evidence than this. What you are proposing has no physical evidence whatsoever. You are reaching, in most of these points.
     Most of what you are stating can easily be explained away by the police. What witnesses are there to back up what you are saying?
     You claim evidence contamination, well Mike that can work both ways. It could so easily be claimed that stored evidence has become contaminated over the years and therefore inadmissable. Unless you are able to subpeona various police officers that were present on the day then you have no case.
     How exactly, do you intend to ‘prove’ that the police moved or stage-managed the scene? Old photos? If, what you said had taken place do you not think those responsible would have had them destroyed?
     Mike, I get the sense that you are trying to get Bamber off on a technicality. His guilt or innocence seems irrelevant over you trying desparately to ‘prove’ police misconduct.
     I have a ingrained sense of justice. I am 100% convinced that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family that night. Appallingly a dead woman who cannot speak for herself was blamed, castigated in the press at the time, ridiculed and shamed.
     So I will ask you point blank………WHAT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT CONVINCES YOU THAT SHEILA IS THE MURDERER?
     And equally so……….WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT BAMBER IS COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF THIS CRIME?
     I would also like the readers to know about Bamber’s police interview with DS Jones. Jones stated that Bamber was extremely ‘evasive’ in his answers. Taking sips of water when asked difficult questions to allow himself time to think. Trying not to get pinned down on certain points. Now Mike, I have read some of the transcipt of that interview and believe you me that is EXACTLY the impression anyone would get from reading it. At one point Bamber was answering the questions in a ’sing, song’ yeeesssss, noooooooo, manner while ‘twanging’ a thread from a woollen jumper beween his teeth!
     Mike, no matter how you choose to interpret this………..the fact remains that innocent people do not have to be evasive and need time to think of an appropriate answer. Bamber’s utter callousness shocked Jones. ‘He behaved as though he could not have cared less’ he stated. He was caught out on a few occasions concerning the timing of the phone call to Julie Mugford. Jones knew that he had his man.
     Jones also lamented that ‘if the members of the jury would have seen a videotape of that questioning session, they would have been totally shocked at his callous nature and the suspicious manner in which he evaded the serious questions put to him’ Alas it was not taped as it was just before the law was changed regarding police interviews.
     Mike, to put in plainly you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see through Bamber and to recognise his guilt.
     In court he was exposed for what he really is; a psychopathic, murdering monster. Readers of this thread might like to see world reknown psychologist Dr Hare’s checklist. It is the psycho-diagnostic tool most commonly used to assess psychopathy.

     THE LIST OF FACTORS
     Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
     Highly arrogant in manner
     Lack of realistic, long-term goals
     Promiscuous sexual behavior
     Glibness/superficial charm
     Grandiose sense of self-worth
     Pathological lying
     Conning/manipulative
     Lack of remorse or guilt
     Shallow affect
     Callous/lack of empathy
     Failure to accept responsibility for own actions/Prone to blame others
     A word here to the readers. Just because someone exhibits the personality traits does not necessarily make them a psychopath. Rather it is the accumulation of these traits that make it far more likely.
     Now just by reading books on the case, watching documentaries and reasearching the case one can see immediately that Bamber ticks virtually ALL the boxes listed above. It is small wonder that the council for the defense at his original trial were in dismay after their psychologist firmly diagnosed Bamber unequivically and without hesistation as a ‘psychopath’
     This in itself does not prove that Bamber is responsible for the murders. But I ask the readers to consider these important questions:
     1. What are the chances of a man that CLEARLY loathes his family (witnesses at his trial testified to this)
     2.Was diagnosed as a ‘psychopath’ by his own defense team’s psychologist
     3. Made murderous threats against his family (Julie Mugford’s statement)Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Julie Mugford that Bamber disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie’s mother) said Bamber had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad
     4. Knew and was skilled with the use of firearms
     5.Stood to inherit nearly half a million pounds on the death of his family
     6. His whereabouts could not be proven to exclude him from the scene of the crime
     7. He told the police that there were occasions when he gained entry to his parents’ home by way of a number of the downstairs windows including those in the kitchen and the bathroom. He explained that he used a knife to move the catches in order that the window could be opened from the outside.
     8. Bamber’s account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
     a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
     b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
     c) As a matter of common sense, Ralph would have called the police before Bamber did;
     d) Had Bamber really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
     e) Sheila could NOT have been responsible for the murders because her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged. Save for Bamber nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so. Furthermore, she would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6ft 4″ tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen.
     So I ask the readers what are the chances of Jeremy Bamber NOT being the murderer? A psychopath that had made murderous threats against his family, is good with a gun, is athletic and strong, had the motive and the means, and then the family turn up dead - all of them except Bamber. It does not take a Hercule Poirot or a Sherlock Holmes to work out that the murderer is Jeremy Bamber.
     Evidence can be twisted, misinterpreted. The blame shifted and deflected against a person that has no voice, no representation.
     Theories can be put forward and points of view can be aired. Splitting hairs over evidence and all associated with a person serving a whole life sentence. But the facts remain. They cannot be explained away as some of Bamber’s supporters have tried to do. We have here a callous, twisted and resentful person that with cunning and over time, planned and executed the murder of his own family. A family that adopted him, gave him a home, an indentity, a want-for-nothing lifestyle, a house, land and a job.
     If Bamber did murder them - and I firmly believe that he did: we must constantly remind ourselves what kind of a ‘person’ we are dealing with here. We must also remind ourselves that we are dealing with 5 dead people - 2 of them innocent little boys that never had the chance to see the age of 6. This is very much a human story and a human tragedy often overlooked by Bamber supporters in their clamour to split-hairs with evidence and defile the reputations of those no-longer able to speak for themselves in order to paint Bamber as ‘innocent’. Many of their assumptions about the family and the intervening case came from the very person who murdered them in the first place. They were not given the benefit of any doubt that Bamber was so entitled to in a court of law. I leave it to the readers to make up their own minds.

     Comment by Ian — 8/29/2009 @ 9:27 am

318. According to the interview notes of PC Bird, when he was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he stated that nobody touched or moved anything, until after he had completed taking pictures in each room at the scene. Once he had completed his duties, the exhibits officers, DC Hammersley, and DS Davidson, collected their exhibits…

     Why then, are there no photographs showing the position of bullet cases, DRH/3 and DRH/4, on the bedroom floor in the vicinity of the door, next to June Bambers body…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 10:32 am

319. If the police had not lied and misled the relatives about how many times the victims had been shot (they led the family to believe that the victims had originally been only shot once each) there would never have been a case against Jeremy in the first place, because it would have been a case that went through the coroners courts, with the bodies being released for disposal, and that would have been that…

     The police told Ann Eaton that the bodies of June, and Sheila, had been found on the bed, with the gun and bibles between them?

     Junes body ended up ion the bedroom carpet by the door and Sheila’s body ended up on the bedroom carpet on the other side of the room next to the bed…

     I wonder what the relatives would think if they knew or had known that the police substituted one of the two bullets that was recovered from Sheila’s neck, and how they had introduced four bullet cases into the bedroom scenario? I wonder what they would think if they had stumbled upon the contents of the police radio and communication logs, which indicate that the police found two bodies downstairs and only three bodies upstairs? What would the relatives have made of the finding of the silencer in the gun cupboard, if they found out or came to the conclusion that the police must have had something to do with the displacement of a female body, in particular, the body of Sheila Caffell, from downstairs to upstairs?

     Who would they have been alleging had removed the silencer from the guns barrel, removed it and put the silencer in the gun cupboard, then?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 12:17 pm

320. (Ian):- Remind the readers who it was that stage-managed a crime scene to make it look like someone else had committed the crime? and later admitted to it?
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
     Yes, Jeremy and Julie Mugford committed a burglary at the family run Osea Road Camp site, about a year or so before the shootings at whf, and over £900 was stolen from the office safe. Jeremy and Julie spent the money from this theft on clothing and going out enjoying themselves. At the time of the burglary, Jeremy told me that although both he and Ann Eaton had equal shares in the camp site, that he felt aggrieved that she was receiving payments from the company accounts, whereas, Jeremy was not, and he felt justified in committing the burglary and stealing the money because he felt it was what he was owed for all the work he had done around the caravan park. Right or wrong, when jeremy was first questioned about this matter by the police, he admitted to what he had done and he gave the police who interviewed him, a clear account of his reasons for doing it. In any event, the fact that he and Julie Mugford committed this burglary at the campsite, does not prove or mean that he killed anyone?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 12:26 pm

321. What no-one appears to want to talk about, or discuss, was the angle of sight, from the vantage point of the kitchen window, to the door which led into the kitchen, from the back passage? The angle was so acute that if there had been anyone sat on a chair directly behind that door, and someone was looking into the kitchen window, they would not be able to see the person sat there…

     What this means…

     is that PC Collins could not have looked through the kitchen window, as claimed, and mistakenly identified Ralph’s body, for a female, one because he would not have been able to see Ralph’s body from the window…

     Similarly, PC Collins could not have realized his mistake once he entered the kitchen and saw Ralph’s body, because he could not have seen Ralph’s body at all behind the door, to enable him to have made the mistake in the first place…

     PC Collins version of events, is therefore, an attempt to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, to try and come up with some sort of an explanation regarding the sighting of the female body, in the kitchen, through the kitchen window

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 12:34 pm

322. On Friday, 9 August 1985, the police gave the keys to whf back to the family…

     On that particular evening, Peter Eaton, took a gun back to the farmhouse (WHF)but its identity has never yet been verified, either by way of a statement made by Peter Eaton, or the police.

     Who owned the gun which Peter Eaton returned to whf?

     Why was it being returned?

     Did Peter Eaton return the Pargeter rifle to the scene that evening - which was licensed to be kept there, but was apparently absent at the time the police entered the building on 7 August 1985…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 12:38 pm

323. Mike, you stated that; ‘The police lied about the number of shots received by Sheila to her throat…’
     Mike, why would the police ‘lie’ when clearly Sheila had suffered two shots to the throat and there are photos to prove it. It is FAR more likely that the Police Surgeon did a totally inept job. It was ‘assumed’ from the start to have been four murders and a suicide. Whether he thought she had one or two wounds to the throat doesn’t alter a thing Mike. Why leap to the conclusion that it was some sort of police conspiracy? It is a well-known fact that initially this was a botched investigation made more surreal and protracted by the insistence of DCI ‘Taff’ Jones that it was four murders and a suicide.
     Why we are on the subject of throat wounds. I have seen (on Bamber’s website) the photo of the wounds to Sheila’s throat and was immediately struck by the lower of the two wounds. This wound does not have the look of it being self-inflicted. It looks as though it was fired at vertical angle inconsistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Sheila would have had to hold the rifle virtually perpendicular to her throat (albeit in a reclining posture) to have fired it and held the rifle out at arms length. This does not add up or is consistent with Sheila taking her own life. Just one of a number of important issues that support the fact that she was murdered.

     Comment by Ian — 8/29/2009 @ 3:25 pm

324. Mike another issue. You said that ‘As for the 15 points which those representing Jeremy at his last appeal hearing is concerned, the fact is that no evidence was called during the hearing in support of most of these points, although a brief outline at the opening of the appeal to these 15 points was made orally. It would be wrong to suggest that all 15 points were therefore comprehensively destroyed, since a better explanation of what took place was that most of the matters were simply not pursued, because the defense were concentrating upon the new DNA evidence belonging to June Bamber, which was found to be present inside the silencer…’
     Mike you cannot defend your argument by saying that his legal team didn’t do their job properly. The TRUTH is, is that ALL points were rejected out of hand. The Appeal judges did not see anything that would have altered the original jury’s decision.
     To clarify any doubts that the reader may have, I have taken the liberty of reproducing the 2002 Appeal Court Hearing final judgement. I quote……
     ‘Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed. Each member of the court has reached the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the matters raised before us that throws doubt upon the safety of these convictions. It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury’s conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury’s verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount’

     Mike this says it all. Bamber lacked any new fresh evidence, his points were weak and could not be substantiated. Let us also remember that key Prosecution evidence of Mr Martyn Ismail, a Senior Scientific Officer and Major Crime Service Manager with the Forensic Science Service was ALSO dismissed because “In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge.”
     Whether we agree with this particular decision or not, it makes for damning evidence that Sheila’s body was moved. Ismail says he can prove it. Ismail stated that from the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
     Bamber supporters claim it was the work of the police. I contend it was the work of Jeremy Bamber for numerous reasons that I have already stated. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the police would have moved Sheila’s body in such a dramatic fashion, especially when you consider that there were a number of people at the scene. I do believe however, that Sheila was touched - her life-signs had to be checked and the gun made ’safe’. This does NOT point to the police actually shooting Sheila, as Mike Tesko contends, but rather a practical, common sense approach in the circumstances.
     Mr Ismail’s testimony was not accepted because this expert evidence was not brought forward at the time of the original trial in 1986, and as such would have had a significant impact on the jury’s decision pointing strongly to the guilt of Bamber. However, I think this is important for readers to weigh this up when judging Bamber’s guilt or innocence. By fair means or foul, should Bamber be given a second trial Mr Ismail’s expert evidence will undoubtedly be called upon by the Prosecution.
     But all this points to the fact that Sheila Cafell did not kill herself. Someone else moved her body - it could NOT have been Sheila herself. If we enter the ether of the imagination of Bamber’s supporters, they contend that Sheila killed her family and then in turn was shot dead by police entering the farmhouse. I would strongly argue that this is utter nonsense.
     Not ONE of the Tactical Firearms Group claimed to have smelt gunpowder, not ONE policeman who entered the scene shortly afterwards and not ONE civilian such as Dr Craig could either. This points very clearly to the fact that Sheila had been dead for hours, the smell of gunpowder long since gone. How is it that Sheila could shoot herself and then leave no tell-tale signs? No gunpowder, no sign that she had been involved in any shooting whatsoever, no sign whatsoever that she had been involved in a desparate fight with her father in the kitchen.
     Readers the evidence is very clear in this case despite the attempt by Bamber supporters at muddying the waters, splitting hairs and twisting facts to suit them. I contend that Jeremy Bamber committed the appalling murders that he was found guilty of. Of that, I am in absolutely NO doubt.

     Comment by Ian — 8/29/2009 @ 4:28 pm

325. Why did the police alter the exhibit reference for Sheila’s nightdress, from ND/6 in file SC/688/85, into ND/5 in file SC/786/85?

     Why was the exhibit reference (ND/5) for June Bambers nightdress,in file SC/688/85, altered into ND/6, in file SC/786/85?

     Did June Bambers nightdress show signs of severe bloodstaining, that came about because she had been engaged in a violent struggle with Ralph Bamber, before both had died?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/29/2009 @ 5:05 pm

326. There were several different ways that the blood from Sheila, could have got into the silencer, rather than the one alluded to, by the prosecutions experts, that for one reason or another, the police and the experts failed to even consider?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/30/2009 @ 1:52 am

327. One of the worlds leading bloodstain and ballistics experts, Professor Leon Herbert McDonnell (New York) has recently seen the new photographic evidence which has been amassed on behalf of Jeremy’s application for the CCRC to refer his case back to the court of appeal, and McDonnell says that the photographic material which was shown to the jury of the crime scene, and in particular, the body of Sheila Caffell, is unreliable, because it is now clear that the police disturbed and stage managed the crime scene, and the bodies, before and during the taking of the crime scene pictures, and that these were presented to the jury as though no-one had moved or touched anything…

     In other words…

     The jury were duped into believing that the photographs showed how the police had found the scene, and they were being asked to accept that Jeremy had stage managed the scene, and the body of his sister, to make out a false case that she had committed suicide? When all along it had been the police who were responsible for doing that…

     Not only that but the police made out a false record of how many crime scene photographs they actually took, saying they only took 223 which were contained in what became known as the master copy album, when in truth there were 581, with 358 contained in a secret album, which became known as the senior investigating officers album, and no-one only the police and the CPS had access to that…

     The vast majority of thee other 358 pictures contained in the senior investigating officers album, were images which confirmed that the police stage managed the scene to make out a false case for Sheila having been responsible and that she committed suicide…

     By anybodies standards this is a shocking and wholly unacceptable course of action for the police to have taken…

     Backed up and supported by the CPS, who knew all about these other photographs and about all of the other stuff which is still being currently withheld under pii rules…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/30/2009 @ 4:19 am

328. Why doesn’t Essex police and its ballistic expert want to talk about the unofficial test firing of the Anshulz rifle and control ammunition which was fired through it, at the lab’ prior to 20 September 1985?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/30/2009 @ 1:26 pm

329. Two members of the raid team who entered the bedroom describe the position of the body of June Bamber differently when laid on the bedroom floor, for example, one says her head was closest to the door, whilst the other describes her feet being closest to the door?

     Now…

     Which was it?

     Head closest or feet closest to the door?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/30/2009 @ 2:45 pm

330. Two members of the raid team who entered the bedroom describe the position of the body of June Bamber differently when laid on the bedroom floor, for example, one says her head was closest to the door, whilst the other describes her feet being closest to the door?

     Now…

     Which was it?

     Head closest or feet closest to the door?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/30/2009 @ 2:45 pm

331. Mike……….you stated ‘307.Ian, you keep saying the supporters, you say “Their case has now therefore - and in desparation - headed down the path of complete fiction.” So why do these ’supporters’ exist? Why would they want a guilty man to be freed and his name cleared if the evidence points to him as being the killer? Why would they make up fiction, what would they have to gain from it? I don’t know exactly how many supporters there are in comparison to those who believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty but I would think they exist because there is much doubt over this.
     I will be honest and straight up from with you on this Mike.
     POINT 1.Is it not the case that Bamber has offered a reward of 1 Million pounds for ANYONE that could provide evidence that will lead to an acquittal?
     Mike this is an awfully BIG incentive to a lot of people. I am not saying for a moment that this is your motivation - let’s make that perfectly clear. However, it will encourage alot of unscrupulous, money-hungry individuals to jump on the band wagon and have a shot at that kind of money.
     POINT 2. There seem to be a whole lot of ’supporters’ that are constantly and deparately known for their pursuit of controversy.
     Bob Wolfenden, Scott Lomax, George Galloway to name but a few. Even Bambers current firm of solicitors are known for this.
     Mike, let us not pretend we are naive children here. Many know full well why these people are behind Bamber. It sells books, newspapers and keeps them in the public eye. I am sure there are a band of hard core supporters with a genuine belief that Bamber is innocent. After all we all remember previous cases where the support was widely publicised such as Hanratty, George Davis and the like - all misguided as it turned out. I believe this case is no different.

     Comment by Anonymous — 8/30/2009 @ 4:07 pm

332. You’d better start eating Mike.

     Comment by Ian — 8/30/2009 @ 4:10 pm

333. Not all the blood found at the scene was examined or analyzed…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 12:58 am

334. The first ever case where DNA was relied upon in a court case, took place ion 1987, which came too late to effect the outcome of the Jeremy Bamber case, which had been tried at Chelmsford Crown court, during October 1986…

     However, by the time of City of London police’s investigation (1990 - 92), and whilst the police still had possession of the crime scene bullets, The police failed to subject these 25 bullets to DNA analysis. It was necessary in the circumstances of this case, for each of the 25 crime scene bullets to be subjected to DNA profiling to establish and confirm to whom each of these bullets related to?

     It should be noted, that prior to Essex police taking it upon themselves to destroy the entire batch of crime scene ammunition in 1996,that none of the 25 crime scene bullets were examined for the presence of DNA profiling…

     By that stage, Essex police, and the CPS, knew full well that Jeremy, and his legal team, were challenging the credibility, or otherwise, of the crime scene ammunition…

     For example, the COLP investigation (1990 - 92) dealt with a series of complaints made by Jeremy, that 10 of the 25 bullets could have been fired by use of a second gun during the incident? Jeremy was still complaining to the Home Office (C3 Division), and still contemplating pursuing anoher appeal - and yet, without consulting anyone, Essex police took it upon themselves to destroy all of the crime scene ammunition,thereby preventing anyone from ever knowing if the 25 bullets which formed of the crime scene ammunition, had been the original bullets which had been removed from the bodies of the victims or recovered from the scene?

     DNA profiling would have established beyond doubt whose body each of the bullets had penetrated, if at all?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 9:50 am

335. (Ian);- I have seen (on Bamber’s website) the photo of the wounds to Sheila’s throat and was immediately struck by the lower of the two wounds. This wound does not have the look of it being self-inflicted. It looks as though it was fired at vertical angle inconsistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Sheila would have had to hold the rifle virtually perpendicular to her throat (albeit in a reclining posture) to have fired it and held the rifle out at arms length. This does not add up or is consistent with Sheila taking her own life. Just one of a number of important issues that support the fact that she was murdered.
     —————————————————————————————————————-

     The angle which you refer to, could relate to the angle which the rifle, or a gun, was held when the police shot Sheila, for the second time in the bedroom…

     We may be in agreement, that Sheila did not inflict this second wound all by herself.

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:09 pm

336. (Ian);- To clarify any doubts that the reader may have, I have taken the liberty of reproducing the 2002 Appeal Court Hearing final judgement. I quote……
     ‘Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed. Each member of the court has reached the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the matters raised before us that throws doubt upon the safety of these convictions. It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury’s conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury’s verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount’
     ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
     The original Birmingham six and Guildford four, appeals, produced similar judgments, which were eventually overturned by a different court…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:19 pm

337. (Ian);- Bamber lacked any new fresh evidence, his points were weak and could not be substantiated.
     ————————————————————————————————-
     When the CPS and Essex police are seeking to withhold 400,000 documents under pii rules, some if not all of which are capable of supporting the argument that jeremy was and is innocent, it becomes something of a struggle to back up some arguments which Jeremy and his legal team would have liked to have placed before the court. Nevertheless, although Jeremy’s 2002 appeal bid failed, the court did say that if it could be shown or proven that the police had moved, or disturbed the scene, or the bodies, that the court would have had no option but to quash the convictions. Well, we will soon see if the court meant what it said, or whwether this was an attempt by the court to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, by claiming one thing, when they meant another…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:27 pm

338. (John Hughes);- MIKE,IF DR.CRAIG STATES THAT SHEILA HAD ONLY ONE BULLET WOUND AT 8.42AM,AND WE MUST PRESUME SHE WAS ALREADY DEAD AT THIS TIME,WHY WOULD THERE BE A NEED TO SHOOT HER AGAIN BECAUSE ONE BULLET WOUND WOULD RE-INFORCE THE MURDER/SUICIDE THEORY?
     ————————————————————————————-
     The point being that she may not have already been dead, as you suggested. The police surgeon, Dr Craig, did not carry out a physical examination of Sheila’s body, he did not make any checks for vital signs of life, and because of this, Sheila might still barely have been alive, it may have been possible to save her life at that stage, but for the fact that she was shot for a second time, not deliberately, perhaps the gun went off whilst they were moving it around on her body, or whilst they were trying to fathom out how she had originally been shot, and the gun went off, producing the second wound. The police at the scene covered up how Sheila received the second wound to her throat, everything points to that having happened. Her body was the female body which the police originally found downstairs, but which ended upstairs in the bedroom…

     This was why PI Miller misled the Deputy coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila only had one wound to her throat…

     An attempt was made to cover up for the fact that Sheila had two wounds, the relatives were even convinced that all the victims only had one wound each, this is what Essex police led the extended family members to believe during the early stages of the investigation…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:41 pm

339. (Ian);- Let us also remember that key Prosecution evidence of Mr Martyn Ismail, a Senior Scientific Officer and Major Crime Service Manager with the Forensic Science Service was ALSO dismissed because “In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons.
     ——————————
     Nothing which Mr Ismail has to say, can distinguish between someone other than jeremy being responsible for doing that which he says was done, and or the police at the scene doing the same?

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:44 pm

340. (Ian);- anyone that has been on a phone that has the receiver prongs momentarily depressed is NOT going to be disconnected. The live connection continues until the receiver has also put down the phone. Next time try it. Place your finger on the cut-off button while the call is live, and then lift it off - see what happens.
     ——————————————————————————————————————————————————
     Two people are talking over the telephone, the cradle at one end gets depressed, and the call is cut off, the person at the other end, taps the cradle of their own phone and tries to get a reconnection - when the original person lets go of the cradle, the line will not remain open, because the connection has been broken or interrupted at both ends, by depression of the cradle of both phones at each end of the line. At this point, a person at either end of the line may use the telephone to ring anyone. If one of these persons rings a separate number, and the other person in the scenario rings the number of the person they were speaking to before the call got cut off, that person will get an engaged tone indicative of the line they are trying to ring being engaged…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:52 pm

341. (Ian);- Most of what you are stating can easily be explained away by the police.
     ——————————————————————————-
     Most of the evidence which has been used to convict Jeremy for these murders can also now be easily explained away…

     The power to explain things away by alternative means, is not a skill that only Essex police officers possess…

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 5:55 pm

342. (Ian);- Sheila Cafell did not kill herself. Someone else moved her body - it could NOT have been Sheila herself.
     —————————————————————————————————————–
     I am in total agreement with you on that point - the police moved her body and if this is to be interpreted as meaning that the persons who moved her body must have been the persons who killed her, then so be it..

     Comment by mike tesko — 8/31/2009 @ 6:01 pm

343. Anonymous, I posted comment 307. I’m not completely anonymous but I only give my middle name on here. Believe it or not I’m not trying to sell books or newspapers, not interested in money, yet I know that there are a lot of ordinary people out there, myself included, who do think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent. My point is what would such people have to gain? Some may be misinformed only knowing bits of information, but others have followed the case for years. Perhaps they are just concerned that an innocent man has been imprisoned for all these years. In that way it is everyone’s concern because it could happen to any one of us one day?

     Comment by Leigh — 8/31/2009 @ 6:58 pm

344. Leigh, You may be unaware of certain situations that exist around Jeremy Bamber and his bid for freedom. Let us speak frankly about why certain people may support the notion that he is ‘innocent’ and why it is in their best interests to do so.
     It is no secret that Jeremy Bamber has offered a ‘reward’ of 1 Million pounds to anyone that comes up with information that leads to an acquittal. That Leigh is an extremely attractive incentive to many unscrupulous individuals. It cannot be disputed that there are some people that will say or do anything to have a shot at earning that kind of money. The moral of the issue aside, I believe many are under the impression that he must be innocent because he has protested his innocence for such a long time.
     Let me make one thing clear here. I am NOT suggesting that Mike, or any of his co-supporters are in anyway involved in trying to collect their ’share’ I do not believe this for one minute. However, I feel there are many attached to the case that have their own best interests at heart. It is no coincidence that people such as journalist, Bob Woffinden. Crime writer S.C Lomax
     and ex-MP George Galloway are all ’supporters’ of Bamber’s innocence. These are people that are no strangers to controversy and seem to court it openly. Although I believe Lomax to be a gifted and articulate writer, he does have a habit of writing books about high profile and media-sensational cases, such as the Jill Dando murder - an exceptional piece of work incidently.
     I would argue that there are many so-called ’supporters’ may have a vested financial and publicity-driven interest in this case.
     Bob Woffinden, again a tireless campaigner for miscarriages of justice has done some sterling work. However, there are many questions about the accuracy of his support for people such as Sion Jenkins (whom I believe was unquestioningly guilty but was acquitted on a technicality) and James Hanratty, whom Woffinden again believed innocent, but DNA evidence proved otherwise.
     Ex-MP George Galloway has made it a life-long effort to court controversy. He famously supported the regime of Saddam Hussain and openly praised the Iraqi leader.
     This is in no-way an indictment of those men. I am a stauch supporter in the freedom of speech and of action. But I want to make it clear, that there are many so called ‘high-profile’ individuals firmly in the supporters camp. Bamber himself seems to have incredible access to the press for a man in his situation. One only has to type in to Google the name ‘Jeremy Bamber’ to see it awash with supporters comments and little, if any, balanced argument.
     I believe that one must keep an open mind as to the motives of some of these people, both for and against a new trail or acquittal. I leave it to the readers to make up their own mind on such issues. But what I will make clear is that this case needs to be looked at in a far wider perspective that what it actually is.
     I have seen absolutely NO evidence that confirms Sheila as the killer. I have seen clear evidence that Bamber WAS. The blood on the sound moderator (I have seen no evidence to the contrary that this was either inadmissable nor implicates Sheila Cafell)
     Contrary to what Mike is suggesting, if Sheila Cafell did NOT kill her family, then Jeremy, by circumstance alone, MUST have.
     He painted himself into the picture by placing the call to the police with the statement ‘My sisters gone nuts with the gun’
     A court of law does NOT solely rely on hard forensic evidence. There is a maxim of ‘probability’ or ‘probable cause’
     If Sheila did not kill her family, then someone else DID.
     At his original trial in October of 1986 the jury had to consider as to was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide. Secondly, whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Ralph Bamber to his son. If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of Bamber’s story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
     It was deemed that no such call took place because it was highly probable that sworn Magistrate, Ralph would have dialled 999 if such an emergency existed. The jury were asked to weigh the evidence of both Bamber and key prosecution witness Julie Mugford.
     Who was telling the truth? Bamber or Mugford? Other evidence aside, this is what the crux of the case came down to.
     Mugford testimony had, what Lord Justice Drake later described as the ‘ring of truth’ about it, some of which was backed up by other witnesses. Bamber version of events before and after the murders was totally at odds with Mugford’s.
     The jury weighed up the evidence of both sides carefully. They chose to believe Mugford. I am 100% convinced they made the right decision. I as much as anyone would not like to see an innocent person convicted. However, it is equally important that a cold-blooded, callous and evil monster should not worm out of his just punishment.

     Comment by Ian — 9/1/2009 @ 9:21 am

345. Mike, you said that…….’Nothing which Mr Ismail has to say, can distinguish between someone other than Jeremy being responsible for doing that which he says was done, and or the police at the scene doing the same’
     I would strongly argue that they can if they can establish a time of death. If it can be established that Sheila was killed before the police arrived at approximately 7:30. Bamber is doomed. How can this be established?
     1. No smell of gunpowder when police entered the scene - highly improbable if Sheila had just shot herself.
     2. The TFG or any other officer or bystander in the vacinity heard a shot nor any other sound save the whimpering of a dog on entering the house at approximately 7:30. Nor did any police officer or Bamber himself claim that they heard any noise eminating from the house from their arrival at around 3:45 to 7:30AM
     3. At 3.35 a.m., Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.This makes it all the more improbable that anyone was alive inside the house at this time - some 3 hours before police finally entered the building.
     I have heard claims that Sheila was alive inside the house and the ‘police were in conversation with someone inside the house’ NONE of these claims have ever been substantiated or verified as fact.
     I would argue that the evidence strongly points to the notion that Sheila was long dead by the time the police arrived at around 3:45. No sound was heard inside the house or outside. No communication with her was ever established or factually verified.
     There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that Sheila Cafell was alive at the time of the arrival of the police.
     If this be the case - and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise - the police will be excluded from moving Sheila’s body. After all, if Sheila was dead what possible motive would the police have had in stage managing her body to make it look like a suicide?
     Mr Ismail’s evidence will therefore be damning to Bamber and place him squarely at the scene BEFORE his arrival with the police earlier that morning. He would have been the only one that could possibly have stage-managed Sheila’s body. And he had every reason to do so.

     Comment by Ian — 9/1/2009 @ 10:07 am

346. Mike, this statement is absolutely unbelievable ‘The point being that she may not have already been dead, as you suggested. The police surgeon, Dr Craig, did not carry out a physical examination of Sheila’s body, he did not make any checks for vital signs of life, and because of this, Sheila might still barely have been alive, it may have been possible to save her life at that stage, but for the fact that she was shot for a second time, not deliberately, perhaps the gun went off whilst they were moving it around on her body, or whilst they were trying to fathom out how she had originally been shot, and the gun went off, producing the second wound. The police at the scene covered up how Sheila received the second wound to her throat, everything points to that having happened. Her body was the female body which the police originally found downstairs, but which ended upstairs in the bedroom…

     This was why PI Miller misled the Deputy coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila only had one wound to her throat…’

     This is ridiculous Mike. If such a thing did happen how come no-one heard a sound? The silencer was not on the gun and would have made a significant amount of noise. Now either every single police officer that was present or in ear-shot was as deaf as a post, or more likely, it’s total bunkum. Mike, this statement beggars belief.

     Comment by Ian — 9/1/2009 @ 10:14 am

347. Mike……’The angle which you refer to, could relate to the angle which the rifle, or a gun, was held when the police shot Sheila, for the second time in the bedroom…

     We may be in agreement, that Sheila did not inflict this second wound all by herself.

     We are in argreement, up to a point. Sheila certainly didn’t fire the first shot either.

     Comment by Ian — 9/1/2009 @ 10:18 am

348. (Ian):- Contrary to what Mike is suggesting, if Sheila Cafell did NOT kill her family, then Jeremy, by circumstance alone, MUST have.
     —————————————————————————————————————————————
     This statement is not factual or accurate, since evidence now exists in the form of police radio and communication log contents, which are admissible evidence, and capable of belief, which points to the fact that the police have not told the exact truth about where the bodies of the five victims were found inside the house upon first entry? In particular, there appears to have been a displacement of one female body, from downstairs, to upstairs, at some point after 8:10am, that morning…

     Whether you or anyone-else likes it or not, the contents of these police radio and communication logs are admissible evidence…

     Jeremy did not invent the contents of these logs, they are messages passed from the scene to the control room, and vice versa, and so on, and so forth…

     How could someone (Kelly) in the control room, have known there was a suicide at the scene by 7:45am, if the police at the scene had not found a body by that stage and reported it as a suicide? Lets get the facts right, Kelly in the control room contacted DS davidson (SOC) and told him “that police at the scene were dealing with a murder and a suicide”…

     Two dead bodies, not one…

     One of these bodies was a murder, and the other, a suicide, or at least believed to have been a suicide at that time…

     This fact alone, discredits the explanation that when PC Collins looked in through the kitchen window he reported seeing what he thought was a dead female body in the kitchen, which turned out to be the body of Ralph, once he got into the kitchen later. How does PC Collins explanation seek top get around the fact that one of these dead bodies was reported to the control room, prior to 7:45am, as a murder, and the other, as a suicide?

     The armed officers were still searching the downstairs rooms by that stage and had not yet managed to get up the main stairs, and so my question is this, how could the control room have known by 7:45am, that the police at the scene were dealing with a suicide, if the police at the scene had not got upstairs by that time? The contents of the police radio and communication logs, make no mention of a suicide, only the fact that one dead male body and one dead female body was found downstairs in the region of the4 m,kitchen, as mentioned at 7:37am, 7:38am, and other references to two dead bodies at 7:42am etc…

     Where did the control room (Kelly ) get the information from about a suicide at the farmhouse, in time for her to relay that information to DS Davidson (SOC) at 7:45am?

     More importantly, is it just a coincidence that one of the five victims supposedly committed suicide upstairs in the main bedroom?

     At 7:45am, the police at the scene could not have known about a suicide upstairs because they had not got upstairs by7 that stage, the only parts of the house the armed officers had searched by that time, was downstairs - we can safely assume therefore, that the police relayed other information back to the control room (KellY) that one of the two dead bodies which had been found downstairs by that stage, was a suicide..

     We are being asked to believe that the police only found one body downstairs, and that was the body of Ralph Bamber,and that the only suicide in the grand scheme of things, was Sheila’s suicide, in the main bedroom, well, as I say, it would have been impossible for the police inside the house to have known about Sheila’s suicide, by 7:45am, and even more impossible for the control room (KellY) to know about a suicide upstairs, by 7:45am, because the first references to any dead bodies having been found upstairs, did not get passed and relayed from the scene, until 8:10am, which simply says, “after a thorough search of the premises, a further three bodies have been found upstairs”…

     How could the police at the scene, and Kelly in the control room, have known about “a suicide” at the scene (upstairs) at 7:45am, if the first references to anyone being found dead upstairs, were not relayed or passed from the scene, until 8:10am?

     Moreover, a fourth body was never found upstairs at all, according to the contents of the police radio and communications log…

     If Sheila did not kill herself, it is not as clear cut as you would have us believe, that the only other person who could have killed her, was Jeremy - since, it would have been impossible for Jeremy to have killed Sheila in the main bedroom, if for example, the police originally found her body downstairs in the kitchen, and later, her body ended upstairs in the bedroom?

     The only logical explanation there could be, if Sheila did not kill herself, under these circumstances, would be for the police to have been responsible for killing her there…

     If the police did not kill Sheila in the main bedroom, then Sheila must have done so herself, because she could not very well have been dead downstairs in the kitchen from as early as 7:37am, and dead in the bedroom upstairs, by 8:30am, and she killed herself twice, in two different places, because she could only have killed herself once in either or,place?

     The way I see it, if Sheila did not kill herself in the main bedroom, then the only other people who could have killed her, were the armed police inside the house…

     It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jeremy to have killed her there…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:00 pm

349. (Ian);- how come no-one heard a sound? The silencer was not on the gun and would have made a significant amount of noise. Now either every single police officer that was present or in ear-shot was as deaf as a post, or more likely, it’s total bunkum. Mike, this statement beggars belief.
     ———————————————————————————————————————–
     The noise of the solitary blast from the .22 semi-automatic rifle was overheard and recorded via the telephone intercept which the operator had patched through to the control room and which was being recorded on audio tapes. Once the shot was heard, which incidentally took place as members of the raid team commenced their approach to enter the farmhouse, at just before 7:30am, that morning. Once information was relayed back to the scene about the shot which was overheard, this caused PC Collins to peer tentatively into the kitchen window, and at that stage he reported seeing Sheila in the kitchen, with the gun next to her body…

     It is not entirely clear whether or not any of the police officers who were present at the scene and surrounding it would necessarily have been able to hear the solitary shot which Shela fired under her chin, since, some of the noise would have been absorbed by the furnishings in the house, the curtains, and the thickness of the old farmhouse walls. This is made more clear by reference to inquiries which were made at neighboring properties, at about 5:30am, when members of the firearms team made house to house inquiries of the occupants, to see if they had heard any shot being fired?

     Nobody heard anything yet 25 shots had been fired…

     The ballistic expert said that he had been unable to tell scientifically, whether or not any of the crime scene 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer attached to the guns barrel…

     Work it out for yourself…

     It was not proven that the silencer was definitely fitted to the guns barrel at the time any of the 25 bullets hat were fired that night had been fired through the silencer, and so, somebody would have heard some of these shots, if the silencer was ot used on the guns barrel, unless the noise made at the time these 25 shots were fired, was absorbed as described…

     The point I would like to make, is that you might not necessarily hear a shot if it was fired inside the house, except by means of the telephone intercept which was being monitored via the phones handset off its cradle, in the kitchen, since the noise would be absorbed as described..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:17 pm

350. (Ian):- Ralph would have dialled 999 if such an emergency existed.
     ——————————————————————

     Ralph would have activated the panic alarm if anyone had been shot by that stage, either by some as yet unidentified killer, or Jeremy, or Sheila, Or June…

     He would not necessarily have dialed 999, as suggested by you or anybody else…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:21 pm

351. (Ian);- If such a thing did happen how come no-one heard a sound? The silencer was not on the gun and would have made a significant amount of noise. Now either every single police officer that was present or in ear-shot was as deaf as a post, or more likely, it’s total bunkum. Mike, this statement beggars belief.
     ———————————————————————————————————————————————-

     The barrel of the gun was put under Sheila’s chin, by Sheila herself, whilst she was downstairs in the kitchen area, and she pulled the trigger…

     Any noise from the blast of the gun, would almost certainly have been somewhat muffled, because the end of the barrel was either in a contact or close contact position against the surface of her neck, and this would have served to minimize the noise greatly, however, not insufficient enough to prevent it being recorded on the audio tape as mentioned previously…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:27 pm

352. (Ian):- Sheila certainly didn’t fire the first shot either.
     ————————————————————
     Oh, but she did…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:28 pm

353. Sheila did fire the first shot, but she did not fire the second shot…

     Whats more, the police have fabricated the ballistics evidence, to make out a false case, that the same gun was used to fire both shots…

     PV/20 bullet which started off life as a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, had become transformed into a whole bullet, by 20 September 1985, to enable the ballistic expert to link it to the gun photographed upon her body…

     Four bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were introduced into the bedroom scenario, to enable the police to make out a false case that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom, when she had only been shot once there…

     When the police surgeon examined Sheila’s body by way of a visual inspection at 7:42am, she only had one wound upon her throat, a fact verified by PI Miller, who would later tell the deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila killed the others and then took her own life by a solitary shot under the chin…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:35 pm

354. When the police surgeon examined Sheila’s body by way of a visual inspection at 8:42am, she only had one wound upon her throat, a fact verified by PI Miller, who would later tell the deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila killed the others and then took her own life by a solitary shot under the chin…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 3:37 pm

355. The relatives were very unhappy with the way that the police had conducted the first investigation under SC/688/85, they were so unhappy that they lodged complaint after compliant against the police,who did not tell them the truth about how many shots had been fired, and received by each of the five victims - the police originally led the extended family members to believe that each victim had only been shot once. Imagine that, ask yourselves why the police should want to misinform the extended family about the number of bullets which had been fired, and how many wounds each of the five victims had got? Additionally, ask yourselves why the police left all manner of firearms and ammunition’s at the scene once they completed their search and examination of the crime scene? There was simply no need for the police to seize all of these weapons and ammunition, because the police were absolutely sure about who had shot who, and how everyone had been killed, including Sheila, who was shot for a second time in the main bedroom, after she had officially been pronounced as being dead at 8:42am, by the police surgeon. The circumstances surrounding how Sheila was shot for the second time, is what Essex police, have sought to conceal and cover up, it was not necessary for Sheila to have died in the bedroom at whf, she could possibly have been saved…

     The police set about stage managing the scene to make it look like Sheila had killed the others, and then taken her own life, by shooting herself twice in the neck / throat, by use of the .22 semi-automatic rifle. The stage managing process involved the substituting of bullet PV/20, and the introduction of the four bullet cases, including, DRH/1 and DRH/2, which were allegedly found next to, or under Sheila’s body, reinforcing the point that Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom, when she was not.

     DCI Jones, allowed the semi-automatic rifle to be brought from Downstairs at the scene, to the bedroom, and for it to be placed upon the body, and photographed there, because it was the only weapon at the scene, capable of producing the phenomena of recoil, needed or required to explain how Sheila could have shot herself twice in quick succession? It was inevitable, that with the displacement of the anshulz rifle from downstairs, to upstairs, that the police would also have to doctor and interfere with the crime scene bullets, in order to make the deception more believable or acceptable…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 5:09 pm

356. It also transpires, that on the same evening that the police gave the relatives the keys to whf back, that Peter Eaton took a gun back to the farmhouse, since this is recorded in some handwritten notes made by his wife (Ann Eaton)? What I would like to know is which gun is Ann Eaton referring to, and why was it felt necessary after the police had completed their examination of the scene at whf on 9 August 1985, to return a gun there?

     The police ought really to have known about this missing gun?

     Did this gun have a silencer attached to its barrel?

     Where at the scene did Peter Eaton return the gun to?

     Why didn’t Ann Eaton, and Peter Eaton make a witness statement, about what they did, and what they knew about this gun?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/2/2009 @ 10:04 pm

357. Mike…I am having problems with your reasoning here. You stated that ‘there appears to have been a displacement of one female body, from downstairs, to upstairs, at some point after 8:10am, that morning…

     Whether you or anyone-else likes it or not, the contents of these police radio and communication logs are admissible evidence…

     What displacement? Are you basing this on a single log mention or did other officers say the same thing? I ask this because this line of argument seems to be your entire raison d’être. I have read through many police statements and all but one of them refer to this. I will be open and honest when I say this: this is a total misinterpretation of what was actually happening. The point ‘one dead male and one dead female found in the kitchen’ was passed on down the line and completely misheard or misinterpreted. It was one small point that has be blown completely out of proportion. I am sure that the officer responsible will probably say exactly the same. Mike, I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill with this line of argument. All the officer has to say in court is ‘ in the excitement and confusion of the time I was mistaken………end of story.
     Furthermore, Mike you said that ‘The way I see it, if Sheila did not kill herself in the main bedroom, then the only other people who could have killed her, were the armed police inside the house…
     It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jeremy to have killed her there…’

     Utter bunkum. Bamber had every possibility to kill her there some hours earlier. The armed police did NOT fire a shot and what’s more, it can be PROVEN. The TFG are issued with a number of ‘live rounds’ The police by checking their issue logs can easily prove that not a single shot was fired by them. For example. If they were issued with 300 live rounds per man and 300 rounds were returned that’s you argument dead in the water. However, you will or may argue that police shot Sheila using the gun that was supposedly in her possession. Good luck trying to prove that!
     It did not happen. Jeremy Bamber fired BOTH shots that killed Sheila Cafell and the rest of the family. This has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt

     Comment by Ian — 9/3/2009 @ 3:46 pm

358. Mike where is your evidence for saying this statement ‘DCI Jones, allowed the semi-automatic rifle to be brought from Downstairs at the scene, to the bedroom, and for it to be placed upon the body, and photographed there, because it was the only weapon at the scene, capable of producing the phenomena of recoil, needed or required to explain how Sheila could have shot herself twice in quick succession? It was inevitable, that with the displacement of the anshulz rifle from downstairs, to upstairs, that the police would also have to doctor and interfere with the crime scene bullets, in order to make the deception more believable or acceptable…’

     I would like to know on what evidence exactly are you making this claim? Your claims seem to be getting more bizarre with time.
     You are trying desparately to tailor your theory fit the known facts. Mike, a square peg does not fit in a round hole. No matter how hard you try.
     Mike, What is your problem with Bamber committing these murders exactly? I fail to see any cogent or reasonable argument or proof that indicates otherwise. You claim a police cover-up? The police actually killed Sheila Cafell?
     You have absolutely NO proof of this. In fact there is far more evidence to support the notion that Bamber killed his family than there ever was to suggest a police involvement in the murder of Sheila. AND yet you believe that Bamber is ‘innocent’
     It amazes me, how any intelligent person to come to such a conclusion unless there are other factors involved. What exactly are those ‘factors’ Mike?

     Comment by Ian — 9/3/2009 @ 4:15 pm

359. Mike….this doesnt add up. You stated that ‘It is not entirely clear whether or not any of the police officers who were present at the scene and surrounding it would necessarily have been able to hear the solitary shot which Shela fired under her chin, since, some of the noise would have been absorbed by the furnishings in the house, the curtains, and the thickness of the old farmhouse walls’

     Come now Mike, this does not stand up to any kind of reason. The rifle had no silencer attached and would have made a loud and distinctive ‘cracking’ sound. If, as you say, Sheila fired a shot, it would certainly have been heard. Furthermore, if as you say Sheila did fire a second and fatal shot, why is it that not a single member of the TFG claimed that they smelt gunpowder?
     Guns, when fired leave a distinct and pungent odour that hangs in the air for a considerable time.
     This strongly points to:
     1. Sheila had obviously died hours earlier that what you are trying to suggest.
     2. Sheila could not have fired the fatal shot that killed her at the time you say she did.
     I will reiterate that Sheila Caffell did NOT kill her family. The evidence clearly exonerates her. Therefore she was murdered.
     Who murdered her and the family? I strongly believe that Jeremy Bamber did.

     Comment by Ian — 9/4/2009 @ 1:19 pm

360. (Ian):- Utter bunkum. Bamber had every possibility to kill her there some hours earlier. The armed police did NOT fire a shot and what’s more, it can be PROVEN. The TFG are issued with a number of ‘live rounds’ The police by checking their issue logs can easily prove that not a single shot was fired by them. For example. If they were issued with 300 live rounds per man and 300 rounds were returned that’s you argument dead in the water. However, you will or may argue that police shot Sheila using the gun that was supposedly in her possession. Good luck trying to prove that!
     It did not happen. Jeremy Bamber fired BOTH shots that killed Sheila Cafell and the rest of the family. This has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
     ————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
     Essex police have refused to co-operate with Bambers solicitors regarding the amount of live ammunition issued to the armed officers who attended this incident. Requests have been made for that information to be released to Jeremy’s solicitors, but Essex police have flatly refused to provide that information. Records kept at the force armory will tell the true state of play regarding this matter, and until the police prove otherwise, it remains possible that at least one or more shots were fired during the incident. Bullet PV/20, which started out life as a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, backed up by x-ray and the pathologists report, somehow managed to metamorphosized into a whole bullet by the the the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, examined on and after 20 September 1985, to enable him to link it as having been fiered via the anshulz rifle which PC Bird photographed on top of Sheila’s body from 10 O’clock, onwards…

     A bullet (PV/20) does not change shape, weight and size, all by itself, after the pathologist has removed it from the victims body…

     There has to be a reason why the bullet was changed or substituted?

     Where did the original bullet (PV/20) come from?

     If it came from the anshulz rifle, why would there be a need to substitute it, with a whole bullet, to allow the ballistic expert, Fletcher, to be able to link it to the rifle, if it was fired from the same gun?

     Bullet PV/20 was obviously, (by anybody’s standard), fired from another gun, it was fired from another gun at the scene which could not have been the anshulz rifle, which Essex police do not want anyone to know about. The identity of that other gun, is known about by the police, and it would be reasonable in these circumstances for the police to have to produce their records from the force armory, to prove that one of their own bullets had not been fired during the operation inside the house…

     If the police choose to refuse to co-operate, by providing basic information to Jeremy’s solicitors, or the CCRC, about the amount of live ammunition issued to its officers, before they went to the scene of this operation, and how much was returned afterward, it remains a possibility that the substituted bullet (PV/20) came from a police gun…

     It is necessary, in my view, for Essex police to come clean, and produce the information about these bullets and the types of gun issued to its officers who took part in this operation, otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume, (by anyone’s standard), that they did fire at least one, but possibly as many as five bullets, during the entire operation…

     If Essex police can prove they did not fire a solitary bullet during this operation, then of course, it will be possible to prove that the identity of another gun which was used in these shootings, has been deliberately covered up and concealed, since, clearly, bullet PV/20 was not and could not have been fired by the anshulz rifle…

     A second gun was used in the shootings - and this is now beyond doubt, supported by the fact that bullet PV/20, was substituted with the knowledge of the police, on or prior to, 20 September 1985, and my suggestion would be this - you would not substitute or swap a crime scene bullet to enable you to link it to the gun if it had been fired from that gun in the first place, unless you knew the original bullet had been fired from another gun which you did not want to be associated with the firing of the second shot which Shela received after she had already been presumed to be dead (in the kitchen) and later upstairs in the bedroom by the police surgeon, Dr Craig, who did not carry out a physical examination of her body, only a visual one, (8:42am), at which time, Sheila only had one wound to her throat / neck…

     The police know that the second shot was NOT FIRED until after Sheila had already been presumed to be dead in the kitchen, and later pronounced as being dead in the bedroom…

     Ordinary people will not be fooled by the police refusing to co-operate regarding the issue of bullets to its officers and the amounts returned to the force armory after the conclusion of the operation, and the fact that bullet PV/20, was substituted…

     Now the substitution came about either as a result of a police bullet being fired at the scene, or another gun found at the scene, having fired this bullet (PV/20)…

     One thing we can be ABSOLUTELY SURE ABOUT and that is that the ANSHULZ RIFLE DID NOT FIRED THE SUBSTITUTED BULLET PV/20…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 3:22 am

361. (Ian);- Mike…I am having problems with your reasoning here. You stated that ‘there appears to have been a displacement of one female body, from downstairs, to upstairs, at some point after 8:10am, that morning…

     Whether you or anyone-else likes it or not, the contents of these police radio and communication logs are admissible evidence…

     What displacement? Are you basing this on a single log mention or did other officers say the same thing? I ask this because this line of argument seems to be your entire raison d’être. I have read through many police statements and all but one of them refer to this. I will be open and honest when I say this: this is a total misinterpretation of what was actually happening. The point ‘one dead male and one dead female found in the kitchen’ was passed on down the line and completely misheard or misinterpreted. It was one small point that has be blown completely out of proportion. I am sure that the officer responsible will probably say exactly the same. Mike, I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill with this line of argument. All the officer has to say in court is ‘ in the excitement and confusion of the time I was mistaken………end of story.
     Furthermore, Mike you said that ‘The way I see it, if Sheila did not kill herself in the main bedroom, then the only other people who could have killed her, were the armed police inside the house…
     It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jeremy to have killed her there…’
     ———————————————————————
     How did “Kelly” in the control room, know about a murder AND A SUICIDE discovered at the scene before 7:45am, to enable her to contact DS Davidson (SOC) to tell him about it, if the armed officers were still searching downstairs at the scene, and they had not yet managed to get upstairs to find Sheila’s body in the bedroom, by that stage? The first reference to finding any dead bodies upstairs was at 8:10am, that morning, and so the only way “Kelly” in the control room could have known about a suicide at the scene, was if and because, a female who was presumed to be dead, was found at the scene, from as early as 7:37am, and this is backed up because the police surgeon (Dr Craig)and the coroners officer (PC Wright) were both contacted about the discovery of two bodies upon entry, at around 7:48am, not just one body…

     Because the police knew about a suicide at the scene, before 7:45am, it means that Sheila’s body was not and could not have been found upstairs at that stage, because it was not until well after 8 O’clock that the armed officers managed to get upstairs, at all…

     The reference to the Suicide mentioned at 7:45am, is one of the big mistakes, which Essex police have overlooked, and the substitution of bullet PV/20, and the introduction of the four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)into the main bedroom scenario…

     Two of these introduced bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were magicked next to the body of Sheila, to make out a false case that she had been shot twice there, when she could not have been and was not shot twice there…

     You do not swap a crime scene bullet (PV/20) and introduce four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the equation, to allow the suggestion to be made that the same gun fired both bullets, which wounded and killed Sheila, and that she was shot twice in the bedroom, by a reliance upon the introduced bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) if it was true - there would be no need to swap the bullet, and there would be no need to introduce bullet cases…

     The tampering with the crime scene ammunition in this manner was done as an act of desperation by police officers, who were responsible for Sheila being shot for the second time in the bedroom (bullet PV/20)and the cover up concerning where her body was originally found upon entry by the police into the premises…

     There is nothing complicated about what the police did, and what they are responsible for doing…

     The known facts are there for everyone to see and consider..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 3:45 am

362. (Anonymous);- Mike……… POINT 1.Is it not the case that Bamber has offered a reward of 1 Million pounds for ANYONE that could provide evidence that will lead to an acquittal?
     Mike this is an awfully BIG incentive to a lot of people. I am not saying for a moment that this is your motivation - let’s make that perfectly clear. However, it will encourage alot of unscrupulous, money-hungry individuals to jump on the band wagon and have a shot at that kind of money.
     POINT 2. There seem to be a whole lot of ’supporters’ that are constantly and deparately known for their pursuit of controversy.
     Bob Wolfenden, Scott Lomax, George Galloway to name but a few. Even Bambers current firm of solicitors are known for this.
     Mike, let us not pretend we are naive children here. Many know full well why these people are behind Bamber. It sells books, newspapers and keeps them in the public eye. I am sure there are a band of hard core supporters with a genuine belief that Bamber is innocent. After all we all remember previous cases where the support was widely publicised such as Hanratty, George Davis and the like - all misguided as it turned out. I believe this case is no different.

     —————————————————————————————————————————-
     £1 million pounds is a lot of money, and as i understand it, the terms specified included for the fact that such a person would have to negotiate with Jeremy’s solicitor, their entitlement to such a reward, in the event that his convictions were quashed. I am not sure what the legal implication of this would been, since, at the time this offer was made to the general public, Jeremy was represented by a different solicitor than he has got now. For example, he was being represented by Ewen Smith, Glaisyers solicitors in Birmingham, and I suppose if anyone was interested, or wanting to stake a claim for the reward spoken about they would have to contact him…

     Ewen Smith is now Commissioner at the CCRC…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 3:55 am

363. I was present at Birdwell armoury in 2003, when certain tests were performed, where .22 LR Eley subsonic hollow point ammunition bullets, were fired through a duplicate Anshulz rifle, and Parker hale silencer (containing 17 internalized baffle plates). These tests were filmed, and those present included Bambers solicitor, his barrister, and an approved Home Office ballistics expert, formally from Huntington laboratory…

     It is not necessary at this stage, to go on about the extent of the tests which were performed a that time, on this occasion, save to say that one of the striking features of the tests, involved the fact that with the weapon fired both with, and without a silencer, attached to its barrel, it was not possible to hear the noises from the blast of the gun, when you were in the next room. This fact was discussed at these tests and it was explained by the ballistics experts that the sound had been absorbed by the walls which separated the rooms where the test firings had been taking place…

     In a nutshell, dependent upon where the shots were being fired, and subject to the thickness of the walls, and other factors, such as furniture, and furnishings, such as carpets and curtains, etc, the sound or noise could be reducible by it becoming absorbed, so that other people elsewhere, may not necessarily hear the sound of the blast from the gun, even when there was no silencer attached to the gun when a bullet is fired?

     I can only report what the circumstances were at the time of these tests in 2003, in the rooms where the test firings took place, and I cannot be 100% sure that the noise or blast from the gun, would have been absorbed in the same way at the scene of this tragedy, it may well be that the potential to absorb the sound was lesser or greater than, at the armory in 2003, and until tests could be performed at whf, we will never know, one way or the other, but it is an established fact that dependent upon where shots are fired, you might not necessarily be able to hear the blast form a .22 rifle, because the sound might be absorbed by the thickness of walls, furniture, and furnishings, such as carpets, and curtains, and things of this nature. Also relevant would be the locations where a person was standing or positioned in relation to the place where the shot was fired?

     I know that the noise from the blast of a .22 rifle may not necessarily be heard, even when you are in the next room, because as I have said, I was there when these tests were being undertaken in 2003, in the presence of a solicitor, a barrister, and an Home office Approved ballistics expert, so I do not nead to hear any accusations that you would, or might definitely hear any shot, which was being fired…

     I know differently, and so does Jeremy’s solicitor, and his barrister, and more importantly, so does the Home Office approved ballistic expert,fact of the matter is that you might not be able to hear the blast from a .22 rifle if you are in another part of the same building, or as the case may be, outside of the building…

     The only way you could know for sure, would be to have witnesses standing outside in the locations or grounds of whf, where the police were standing at the time a shot, may have been fired inside the house, and shots fired in the kitchen were discharged, and to ask the witnesses if they could hear the blast?

     Let me also be specific, and draw everyone’s attention to the fact that it is known that the telephone intercept, via the handset of the telephone in the kitchen, was being recorded on audio tapes…

     Jeremy and his legal team have made many requests of Essex police and the CPS, about having access to this audio tape with a view to proving whether or not a solitary shot was heard just as the armed officers began their approach to enter the house at about 7:30am, that morning…

     Not surprisingly, Essex police, and the CPS refuse to provide access to this audio recording, relying upon Pii rules for access to be denied…

     Work it out for yourself, why would Essex police, and the CPS, refuse access to the audio recording from the scene, if it proved or established that a shot was, or was not fired at the specified time?

     Fact of the matter is, a shot was discharged from the gun just as the police were making their approach to enter the house, and the sound of this gun going off was recorded on the audio recording spoken about and this is what caused PC Collins to peer into the kitchen window at the time he reportedly saw a dead female body behind the door. PC Collins and his colleagues had better be very careful about what they say regarding this matter because evidence is understood to exist in the form of the audio recording which establishes that a shot from inside the building was heard and recorded via the telephone intercept and relayed back to the senior officers at the scene, and in turn passed onto members of the raid team who were going towards the house at that time…

     The shot was discharged…

     The sound of the shot was recorded on audio tape…

     A message was relayed to the scene…

     PC Collins looked in through the kitchen window and he reported that he could see the female body…

     These are the facts and Sheila was the female body he saw downstairs before the police actually got into the building…

     When the police eventually got into the building, they had to displace Ralph’s body from the wooden chair behind the door, and they reported that they had found a dead male body, and a dead female body in the region of the kitchen upon entry…

     A message was passed from the scene, to the effect that one dead male, and one dead female body, had been found in the kitchen,the police surgeon and the coroners officer were both contacted about these two dead bodies, and the control, room contacted DS Davidson about a murder, and suicide, and bullet PV/20 was substituted, and two bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRHJ/2, were added to the main bedroom scenario, to enable the police to falsely suggest that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom, which was not true, and is not true, the police have lied and covered up the true circumstances of what took place surrounding Sheila’s death, there can be absolutely no doubt about that…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 10:09 am

364. (Ian);- What displacement? Are you basing this on a single log mention or did other officers say the same thing? I ask this because this line of argument seems to be your entire raison d’être. I have read through many police statements and all but one of them refer to this. I will be open and honest when I say this: this is a total misinterpretation of what was actually happening. The point ‘one dead male and one dead female found in the kitchen’ was passed on down the line and completely misheard or misinterpreted. It was one small point that has be blown completely out of proportion. I am sure that the officer responsible will probably say exactly the same. Mike, I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill with this line of argument. All the officer has to say in court is ‘ in the excitement and confusion of the time I was mistaken………end of story.
     ——————————————
     And of course he will have a simple explanation for the reason why bullet PV/20 was substituted, and why it was felt necessary to introduce four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the main bedroom scenario, to enable the police to wrongly suggest, as it were, that Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom, when she was only shot once?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 10:32 am

365. (Ian);- All the officer has to say in court is ‘ in the excitement and confusion of the time I was mistaken………end of story.
     ——————————————————————————————————————————-

     I would suggest, not end of story, as you mention, but rather, beginning of story…

     Fact of the matter is…

     PC Collins could not have seen the body of Ralph Bamber sat ion that chair behind the internal kitchen door because the angle was too acute for him to have even seen Ralph’ body there and to mistakenly identify it as a dead female body…

     What I would suggest you do, is go to whf and sit someone on a chair n=behind the door I am talking about and get someone to peer in through the kitchen window, and see whether or not it would have been possible for anyone to mistakenly identify a male body for a female body? You will find that with such a body sat on a chair behind that door, it will not be possible to see it, because the back of the aforementioned door is hidden from view because it exists in a blind spot and cannot be viewed from the vantage point of the window…

     The position at the back of the door and the vantage point from the angle of the kitchen window, are fixed points which can easily be checked, and will be checked at a later date, if necessary by the CCRC, or those instructed to find out the truth in this matter…

     I would just like to remind everyone that when the extended family helped to make that documentary,and the TV crews went to WHF to do some filming, that the camera man, walked into the kitchen, through the very same door, that I am talking about, and you could not see out of the kitchen window, from the vantage point of the doorway. Under the circumstances, you would not be able to see the door from the vantage point of the kitchen window, its as simple as that…

     The explanation given by PC Collins to the effect that he mistakenly identified Ralph’s body as a dead female will not therefore hold any water and he is welcome to say what he has said, since, his explanation will be shot to pieces so to speak…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 10:42 am

366. RE: comment 344
     Ian, thanks for answering my question. I have to agree there are some so-called ’supporters’ who may have a vested financial and publicity-driven interest in this case. I have seen comments from people on various internet sites that, as you say, give no balanced arguement and often they just state things like “Jeremy Bamber will get a massive amount of compensation and the police will be made a complete fool of” and so I do wonder whether or not these particular individuals are genuine, especially when some appear to have later thought about what they have written and either remove or edit the comments where possible. My advice to them would be if it isn’t helpful don’t say it. If you can’t consider other people’s views at all then don’t enter into any debate.
     You seem to have a lot of insight into this, far more than me, as does Mike, but I still have a problem with the evidence of Julie Mugford, which you say you 100% believe. For one thing if she was aware of Jeremy Bamber planning to kill or have his family killed and only went to the police after her relationship with him had ended, shouldn’t she too have been prosecuted? She may not have participated but she could have made some attempt to prevent it from happening. If he had indeed planned the murders and had spoken about it to her it would have been a silly mistake to then dump her shortly afterwards, surely he would leave enough time to make sure he had actually ‘got away with it’. Having taken the relationship seriously I imagine she would have been very angry and upset about discovering that Jeremy was arranging to meet another woman and that she had been cheated on by him in the past, so who can be sure that she didn’t act out of spite and try to get revenge. The jury chose to believe her but lets not forget that a jury is made up of randomly selected people, there was a 10-2 majority on the verdict, so not all agreed.

     Comment by Leigh — 9/5/2009 @ 1:18 pm

367. Why have the extended family said very little about the threats that were directed against Ralph Bamber and his family, by the father of someone who Ralph sent to prison?

     Ralph had to have leave of his duties as a magistrate for a couple of months, because of these threats, and a panic alarm was fitted into the house, in the event that anyone from outside the family might or should attack them…

     Ralph or June would surely have activated this alarm if anyone had broken into the house during the middle of the night, or there had been an intruder…

     Another factor worth considering, is the fact that the family dog would have been alerted, if anyone had entered the farmhouse in the middle of the night, it would have started barking for sure, alerting Ralph and the others, to the fact that there was an intruder…

     The dog didn’t bark and alert anyone because the shootings happened during heated arguments and a dispute amongst family members who were living there, inside the house, it is not exactly clear when the first shot was fired, but what we do know is that Sheila or June, and perhaps Ralph, all may have had possession of at least two or three different guns at the scene before the police eventually arrived there…

     “Sheila’s got the gun”…

     “She has got the gun”…

     “She’s got the gun”…

     What we also know is that by 3:27hrs, Ralph was making a call to the police saying that “his daughter has got one of his guns” ( a record exists to prove that this call did in fact take place))…

     At 3:37am, Jeremy was making his own call to the police, albeit not by making a 999 call, but nevertheless, he did make the call, informing the police that he had been contacted by his father, who told him that his “Sheila has got the gun” or “She Has got the gun” or ” She’s got the gun”. Jeremy told the police that his father had told him that his “sister had got the gun”. There was no mention, either by Ralph when he made is call to the police, or by Jeremy when he made his call to the police, that anyone had been shot by that stage. There is no evidence that anyone had been shot before Ralph and Jeremy made their respective calls to the police, unless I have missed something somewhere…

     Lets face facts, if anyone had been shot by that stage, Ralph would not have been phoning the police, he would have already pressed the panic alarm which would have sent the police racing to whf in response to the earlier threats to kill made against Ralph and his family…

     If anyone had been shot by that stage, Ralph would not have made the call to Jeremy, there would have been no need to because the police and the emergency services would already have been on their way to the scene responding to the panic alarm having been activated…

     Jeremy was aware of the panic alarm that was fitted at the scene and the general circumstances surrounding the threats made against the family, and so did the police who fitted the alarm…

     There was a good reason why Jeremy did not dial 999, but chose to dial the number of the local police station, since, he did not know whether or not it would make any difference how soon the police could get to the scene, and also, he knew that if it had been an emergency where shots had been fired, or anyone had been shot, that his father would have activated the panic alarm…

     Jeremy knew that the police knew there was an alarm fitted at the farmhouse for the reasons given, and I suppose he knew that the police would have expected Ralph or another family member to activate it, if any shootings had occurred by that stage. Under the circumstances, I do not see any problem with the circumstances surrounding how Ralph made the call to Jeremy, how Ralph called the police, and how Jeremy contacted the police regarding this matter…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 2:54 pm

368. (Ian);- You claim a police cover-up? The police actually killed Sheila Cafell?
     You have absolutely NO proof of this. In fact there is far more evidence to support the notion that Bamber killed his family than there ever was to suggest a police involvement in the murder of Sheila.
     ————————————-
     On the contrary, there is absolutely no concrete definitive evidence that Jeremy killed Sheila, or that he stage managed her body in the main bedroom, to make out that she had committed suicide, if anything there exists today, as I speak, far more evidence that the police had some involvement in Sheila’s death, and that they stage managed the body in the bedroom, to make out a false case, that she had committed suicide, in circumstances which were very different, and far removed from the truth. Jeremy did not have anything at all to do with the substituting of bullet PV/20, and he did not have anything to do with introducing four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the main bedroom scenario - let us remind ourselves who were responsible for doing these things, it was the police and blame for doing these things cannot be leveled at Jeremy, like so many other things have been…

     Exactly how the police are going to try an get out of the fix they now find themselves in remains to be seen, but if you tamper with the crime scene ammunition, as described, it kind of places the police in a bad light and I do not think there is a member of the public who would think otherwise, if what I am talking about is true and accurate. If Sheila killed herself, or Jeremy killed her, or some as yet unidentified killer shot her, there would have been absolutely no need for the police to substitute bullet PV/20, or to introduce four bullet cases, (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) into the bedroom scenario, to try and establish a false case that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom, when in fact she had only been shot once there…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/5/2009 @ 3:09 pm

369. Police officers have to make pocketbook entries about their activities on any particular or given day. It is an offence against police discipline, if they do not make entries into their pocketbooks. Let me remind everyone what a police officer is supposed to do when he comes on duty - first of all, the day of the week must be recorded in the book, followed by the date, and any details relating to meal breaks, and all the duties performed during that shift. At the end of the tour of duty the time they finished is to be entered into the same pocketbook. Police officers are not allowed to make up notes into their pocketbooks at a later date, otherwise they will be subject to disciplinary action. They are not allowed or permitted to make notes on foolscap paper which they use to later on copy notes into their books. Each pocketbook has a distinctive serial number which is specific to a particular police officer, the details of which are recorded in a pocketbook issuing register which is kept at the police station. There also exits a separate personalized issuing register into which are recorded the details of all the pocketbooks which a police officer has been issued with. I mention this, because police officers like to refer to notes made up in these pocketbooks when testifying at trials or giving evidence at other hearings. They justify relying upon the notes recorded in these pocketbooks by claiming that the notes were recorded contemporaneously…

     The date when a pocketbook was issued to a police officer is recorded in the aforementioned registers, against the signature of the senior police officer who issued the pocketbook, and also the signature of the police officer who received a particular pocketbook…

     It must follow that a pocketbook bearing a particular serial number, can only be issued once to a police officer, not on two separate occasions, and the pocketbook usually commences on the day of issue, or soon afterward, once the previous book is completed. When a book is completed it is subject to inspection by a senior police officer who will usually countersign the last entry in the book, or stamp it with the official seal of approval for the force concerned…

     There will only be one date at the beginning of such a pocketbook, the date when the first entries into that pocketbook were made…

     Unless you happen to be former DS “Stanley Brian Jones”, since the pocketbook which contains all the information and detail regarding the investigation into the whf case, since, his pocketbook has got three separate start dates…

     The front cover of his pocketbook, number 49, has the official seal of approval of Essex police (stamped and dated)5 November 1984…

     The date, 5 November 1984 is printed on the front cover, in the position where it simply says “Started” (5 November 1984)and another date (where it simply says finished) is recorded the date, 8 May 1986…

     It would appear that DS Jones, had been using this pocketbook, between 5 November 1984 and 8 May 1986, which is a considerable length of time, a period of some 18 months in duration. Let us not beat about the bush here, a pocketbook does not take 18 months to fill up with information that should be recorded inside it on a day to day basis…

     There is something clearly wrong with the way DS Jones has recorded information and evidence in this pocket book (49)…

     The matter does not end there, since the date (5 November 1984) recorded on the front cover at the position “Started” has been crossed out, and another date, 4 April 1985, has been added above it. It would appear that for some reason DS Jones was wanting his pocketbook (49) to commence, five months later than it was issued to him?

     This date (4 April 1985, was also crossed out, and replaced underneath the original start date of 5 November 1984, which another date, namely, 5 April 1985…

     These are the start dates on the front cover of DS Jones pocketbook, serial number 49, which contains all his evidence regarding his involvement in the investigation (whf)…

     Lets face facts, nothing that this police officer can say can now be believable, since he is guilty of making a false record in his pocketbook, serial number 49, which has three different start dates on its front cover, namely, 5 November 1984, 4 April 1985 and 5 April 1985, and one finish date, 8 May 1986…

     It is an offence against police discipline for a police officer not to make notes up contemporaneously in his pocketbook, yet DS Jones and the senior police officer who allowed him to falsify his pocketbook records as described above, have not yet faced disciplinary action regarding any of these matters, and all of this took place,back in 1984 / 1985 / 1986…

     By anybodies standards, DS Jones can now be exposed as someone who was prepared not to tell the truth about uis inv0lvement during the investigation, and let us remind ourselves that tis particular officer, claims thop hyave had some involvement in the recovery of the crucial silencer which was used so effectively to support the prosecution of Jeremy for these murders? Let us remind ourselves that DS Jones seized four separate exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings, from the downstairs toilet and the kitchen, exhibits which were originally marked, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, all of which were items which were recorded in the property register which formed part of the original file, SC/688/85. Exhibit SBJ/1 was originally the identifying mark given to the silencer (original file) which became altered to DB/1, and later altered again to DRB/1 (new file - SC/786/85)…

     Let us remind ourselves that the silencer was handed over twice to the police, once by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on 12 August 1985, and on a second occasion, by Ann Eaton, to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985…

     The police say that the silencer (SBJ/1, DB/1, DRB/1) was never out of their possession after it was handed over to DS Jones on 12 August 1985, by Peter Eaton, yet if this was the case, how could Ann Eaton have possession of it, to enable her to hand it over again, to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985?

     The silencer could not have been handed over twice by the family to the police if the police always had possession of it from as long ago as 12 August 1985, but somehow, they did and records exist in the police files to confirm this. Not only that but the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985, did not get sent to the lab’ to be scientifically examined until 25 September 1985, at which stage it was submitted to be examined for the presence of blood and fibers from a tampon?

     Let us remind ourselves why the police might be interested in the presence of fibers from a tampon, inside the silencer?

     The relatives had a theory that Jeremy used the silencer on the gun to shoot the family and that he removed it from the end of the guns barrel, and wiped it clean by using one of Sheila’s tampons. An empty tampon container was found by the relatives in the lounge at the scene, once the police had given the keys to whf back to Ann Eaton on the evening 9 August 1985. It was the relatives who put the idea of the fibers being inside the silencer from the tampon, and so we can be sure that the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985, was the same silencer the family were all referring to?

     This silencer was not at the Lab’ before 25 September 1985, lab’ records exist to prove this to be true, it was received at the Lab’ on 25 September 1985…

     This same silencer, was fingerprinted, by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, on 13 September 1985 (before it was submitted to the lab’ on 25 September 1985)…

     Therefore, by anybodies standards, the silencer could not have been sent to the Lab’ on 30 August 1985, to enable the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to dismantle it, and to find the small flake of dried blood which has been linked to Sheila, inside it. He could not have found that flake inside that silencer because the silencer was not at the lab’ at that time, the relatives still had possession of it and it was not handed over to the police, until 11 September 1985, as described…

     According to handwritten notes written onto the general examination record for the silencer which was submitted to the lab’ on 13 august 1985, the silencer was resubmitted to the Lab’ again on 30 August 1985, at which stage the ballistic expert stripped it down and found the crucial flake of blood inside it. The silencer remained at the lab’ from that date onwards…

     All lies…

     The silencer could not have been submitted to the lab’ on 30 August 1985 and still be there from that date onwards, otherwise, how could Ann Eaton have possession of it by 11 September 1985, to enable her to hand it over to DC Oakey on that date, and how could DS Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprint it on 13 September 1985, and how could the silencer then be submitted to the lab’ on 25 September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers from the tampon, if the silencer had already been fingerprinted (15th and 23 August 1985) and submitted to the lab’ to be checked for blood on 13th and 30th August 1985?

     The silencer evidence is extremely dodgy by anybodies standards, it was supposed to have been found inside a gun cupboard which the police had already searched extensively - and they could not see it there on 7 August 1985, yet it miraculously materializes there by 10 August 1985, to enable the family to find it there…

     It was given three separate exhibit references in its lifetime, namely SBJ/1, altered to DB/1, and altered again, subsequently to DRB/1…

     Its original Lab’ item number was given as 22, altered to 23 and later back to 22, again…

     It was handed over to the police twice by the relatives (12 August 1985 and 11 September 1985), and by anybodies standards, the family were bot entitled to have possession of it by the time it was handed over to Dc Oakey on 11 September 1985?

     The most peculiar and striking feature of this case, is that the silencer which was not submitted to the lab’ to be examined for the presence of blood and fibers, on 25 September 1985, took place after the flake was supposed to have already been found inside it, by the balistic expoert, which was examined and identified as being blood which was unique to Sheila, and that these tests and resuklts were obntained at the lab’ between 12th and 19th september 1985…

     The silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey did not get sent to the Lab’ to be examined for blood and fibers from the tampon until 25 August 1985, at least six days after the results form the examination of the flake of blood had been obtained?

     Have I missed something here, is there something I have overlooked?

     How could the flake be found inside a silencer which was not yet with the ballistic expert (before 19 September 1985) to enable him to strip it down and find the crucial flake of blood belonging exclusively and uniquely to Sheila, trapped as it were between baffles five and six, or was it baffles one or two?

     It should be obvious to anybody who cares to want to know the truth about this matter, that the flake was not found trapped between the baffle plates as alleged, because the silencer was not even at the Lab’ by that stage…

     So where did the flake of blood which has been attributed to Sheila come from?

     I think we should look no further than the flake of blood which David Boutflour scraped from the end of the silencer, by use of a razor blade whilst the silencer was still in his possession, according to what he told the City of London police. He told COLP that Essex police knew what he had done regarding the removal of this flake and that he had retained possession of it because it fascinated him…

     Imagine that - David Boutflour removed a small flake of dried blood, from the end cap of the silencer, by use of a razor blade, and he retained it because it fascinated him? Yet he made no mention of this at the trial when he testified in support of the prosecutions case? The police made no mention of the fact that they knew and had been aware that he had used a razor blade to remove it from the end of the silencer and retained it? It should be obvious tom anybody that the flake of blood which was eventually examined at the lab’, did not get found inside the silencer at the Lab, but rather it was the flake of blood found in David Boutflours possession, and this must have been submitted to the lab’ under the exhibit reference DB/1, on 30 August 1985. It is as plain as a pike staff that once the Boutflour flake was examined and found to have the same corresponding blood group activity as Sheila (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)and that once this was known the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985, was sent to the Lab’ to be examined for blood and fibers from the tampon…

     The silencer evidence has clearly been doctored and tampered with, it is all too corny and unbelievable,for the police case about and surrounding the silencer and the blood which was supposedly found inside it which belonged exclusively, and uniquely, to Sheila, to be true…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/6/2009 @ 4:40 am

370. IF THE 2 BODIES COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE KITCHEN WINDOW,THEN WHY DOES ONE LOG STATE BY ONE POLICEMAN OUTSIDE OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW “ONE DEAD MALE AND ONE DEAD FEMALE ON THE KITCHEN FLOOR”.

     Comment by john hughes — 9/6/2009 @ 6:22 am

371. IF NEVILLE HAD A PANIC ALARM FITTED,WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO TELEPHONE THE LOCAL POLICE STATION WHICH WAS 6 FIGURE NO.? WE CAN DEBATE ENDLESSLY ABOUT BULLET NOS. AND THE LIKE BUT BEHAVIOUR BEFORE AND AFTER THE EVENT SEALS IT FOR ME.WE CAN TALK FOREVER ABOUT BOTCHED FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND LETS NOT MAKE ANY BONES ABOUT IT THE FORENSICS HAVE ALL BEEN TAMPERED WITH.THE POLICE MISMANAGED THE CASE FROM IT’S INCEPTION IN THEIR BELIEF OF MURDER/SUICIDE AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO PERPETUATE THE MYTH THAT THEY HANDLED THE CASE PROPERLY.WE CAN DEBATE FOREVER ABOUT BULLET CASE PV.WHATEVER BELONGING TO A CERTAIN GUN AND SHOULD BE IN A CERTAIN PLACE,BUT IT’S ALL DRESSING AND IS INADMMISSABLE ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CHAI WILLIN OF EVIDENCE AND THIS IS SADLY LACKING IN THIS CASE.

     Comment by john hughes — 9/6/2009 @ 6:49 am

372. Leigh, thanks for your insightful comments. I totally agree with our thoughts about some of these so-called ’supporters’. It seems that most - if not all - high profile cases seem to attract this type of person. High profile - means exactly that. They can hitch their wagon to it, sell newspapers, books and gain a vast amount of free publicity. However, there have been books published that do offer a balanced insight into the case, notably Roger Wilkes’ ‘Blood Relations, Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders’ He lays the evidence and allows the reader to decide for themselves - unlike S.C Lomax book ‘Jeremy Bamber. Evil Almost Beyond Belief?’ Which has been described as nothing more than a ‘Defense Document’ Although Lomax is a gifted and insightful true crime writer, I feel he has totally been taken in by Bamber (whom he interviewed at length in prison)
     After reading his book I felt incredulous that most of Lomax’s reasoning and ‘evidence’ appears to come from Bamber himself - a hardly reliable, nor trustworthy source!
     Lomax does not include significant prosecution evidence and any consideration of the many witness statements obtained from surviving family relatives and many other people, all of whom deserve to have their input and statements continued to be taken seriously. The statements and all forensic evidence are vital as a contribution to a overall consideration of Bamber’s guilt or innocence.
     Now to your comments and thoughts about the actions and testimony of Julie Mugford. You raise some pertinent and interesting questions. Let us tackle your first point: ‘I still have a problem with the evidence of Julie Mugford, which you say you 100% believe. For one thing if she was aware of Jeremy Bamber planning to kill or have his family killed and only went to the police after her relationship with him had ended, shouldn’t she too have been prosecuted?’
     I’ll be honest and say to you that Mugford was seemingly besotted with Bamber. She appeared to have been a devoted but highly suggestable woman. However, she knew Bamber hated his parents with a passion. She too did not take to them too readily, especially Bamber’s mother June, whom she found overbearing and somewhat annoying. However, she apparently had a good relationship with both Ralph and Sheila though.
     By all accounts Mugford did know the extent to which Bamber loathed his family. However, she was unaware that his hatred had turned into a hardened murder plot. She frequently dismissed what he was saying as ‘ he used to say things to shock people, so I totally disregarded it’ You can see a short documentary about this case by cutting and pasting the link below.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tpkxvVNe8
     It is a very general synopsis but, what is significant about this, is that Julie Mugford gives a brief interview on camera shortly after Bamber was convicted in 1986.
     I believe that Bamber in his infinate arrogance, thought that he’d got clean away with it (his behaviour at the time only serves to strengthen this view) According to Mugford, after a argument between them she had threatened to go the Essex Police, to which Bamber threateningly replied by saying ‘You wont, because they will believe that you had knowledge of it and you’ll get in as much trouble as me. You’re as implicated as I am’
     Telling words indeed. It appears that Mugford protected Bamber for all sorts of reasons. However, once he had betrayed her with another woman, and subsequently called the relationship off, the bond and indeed the stranglehold that Bamber had over Mugford loosened. She shared her suspicions with a close friend who immediately advised her to go straight to the police.
     He thought that Mugford would never go to the police. Mugford recalled a conversation concerning any worries that the police may suspect Bamber. He replied ‘Of course I shall be their prime suspect’ Bamber said, But they shall never be able to prove it’
     It beggars the question of why Mugford didn’t either phone the police or attempt to warn the family after Bamber had phoned her with the ‘It’s tonight or never’ phone call on the night of the murders. I think here, one has to look into the realms of psychology. Firstly there is an element of duty - right or wrong - she may have believed that Bamber was just letting off steam, as he frequently did towards his family. Secondly, she was deeply committed to Bamber. The old adage of ‘love is blind’ certainly holds true here. Psychologically she may have blocked it out and refused to believe it to be true.
     It is only when the bonds are broken that things are seen in a somewhat different light.
     I think Leigh, we have all been down this route to some degree. A girl that we have fallen for can do no wrong, even when others point it out, we refuse to believe it. We protect them and want to believe the opposite. It is a simple case of human nature.
     Acting out of spite or revenge doesnt really add up here. After the trail and conviction Julie Mugford travelled the world and married a Canadian, with whom she had children and a decent family life.
     This also beggars the question: did Julie Mugford lie on the stand and under oath? During Bamber’s 2002 failed Appeal Hearing Mugford was summoned back to the UK as a witness. She readily accepted. As it turned out she was not called on to give evidence. However, I want the readers to understand this simple fact. Would a woman who is now a mother to two children, with a loving husband, a deputy head teacher in a school, risk 10 years imprisonment for purgery?. She was under NO obligation to appear, but volunteered readily because she knew full well that what she said at the original trail was the truth and nothing but the truth.
     Her testimony in 1986 has stood the test of time. Something that sticks in the craw of Bamber’s supporters was the fact that Mugford was offered a payment by a newspaper for her story. They fail to point out that Bamber was offered significantly MORE should he be found not guilty. He had already had dealings with the tabloids having tried - and failed miserably - to callously hawk his dead sisters nude photos to a reporter. So for them to take this tack is somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
     Furthermore you allude to the fact that he was found guilty by a 10-2 majority. This is not an odd or contentious conviction by any means. To get all jurors to agree is somewhat difficult as you are dealing with 12 individuals, 12 ways of interpreting the evidence. A 10-2 Majority is a substantial result. Let us remember that the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe - who admiitted his guilt openly - was also found guilty on a 10-2 majority. It points to the fact that you can rarely get 12 people to agree 100% on anything.
     I am utterly convinced of Bamber’s guilt. He plotted, planned and carried out the murders with an unbelievable, cold-bloodied ruthlessness. In his appalling arrogance he believed that he had committed the ‘perfect murder’ In this he was very much mistaken. But his arrogance still drives him to try to escape the punishment that he so richly deserves.

     Comment by Ian — 9/6/2009 @ 9:04 am

373. Why did DS Jones tamper with his pocketbook, No. 49?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/6/2009 @ 11:49 am

374. Despite over 30 different police officers entering the scene on the morning of the murders, before SOC took control of the building (from 10 O’clock, onwards), not one single police officer, mentions in his statement, the absence of gun powder smell at the scene…

     Not one single police officer has come forward and suggested that there was no smell or stench of gun powder, and what everyone has got to remember is that the police at the scene at that stage were talking about Sheila’s death being a suicide, and so and because some 25 shots had been fired during the incident by one party or another, it would be safe to assume or to presume that the police who were there at the scene, could smell gunpowder and that they did smell gun powder which would have been consistent with shots having been fired at the scene…

     Similarly, however, no police officer states in any witness statement, or pocketbook entry, that they could smell gun powder…

     However, what exists are crime scene photographs which show blood that is still leaking and running from the two wounds upon Sheila Caffells throat and that these pictures were taken at just after 10 O’clock that morning. The blood that was pouring out from the two wounds was fresh looking and consistent with her having very recently just been shot. Once the heart stops beating no oxygen gets pumped around the body and therefore after 15 minutes or so, after being shot, the blood starts to coagulate and dry, changing in colour and eventually drying upon the body and around the wound turning black in colour etc…

     The question of gun powder smell, therefore, can be linked to the state and consistency of the blood when it was photographed by PC Bird at just after 10 O’clock, that morning…

     If we go by the state and the colour of the blood that can be seen to be pouring out of the two wounds, there must have been oxygen circulating in her blood very recently prior to the occasion that these particular crime scene photographs were taken. To suggest that Sheila must have been dead from as long ago as 3 O’clock in the morning, simply does not hold water, based on the state and consistency of the blood coming from the two wounds on view…

     Within 20 minutes of the first photographs taken which show the state and consistency of this fresh looking blood pouring from the two wounds upon Sheila’s neck,the blood sudeenly starts to change colour and consistebncy, it starts to coagulate very rapidly…

     This is bourne out by other photographs which were taken in sequence of Sheila’s body and the two wounds upon her throat…

     How odd that within 20 minutes or so, the blood starts to change in its appearance around the wounds, coagulating and turning black in co,our, yet for what must have been 7 long hours (if Jeremy killed is sister in that bedroom) and despite already being dead, with no heart beat to pump oxygen around the body, her blood had continued to pour from the two wounds, and the corner of her mouth, and continue to bear characteristics of her still being alive, for 7 long hours, and during this time, she was presumed to be dead downstairs in the kitchen by 7:37am, and later in the bedroom upstairs at some stage after 8:10am,and officially verified as being dead by the police surgeon, Dr Craig, at 8:44am that morning…

     Since we now know that PC Bird and the rest of the scenes of crime officers were being deliberately prevented from taking control of the crime scene until 10 Oclock, qwe have to ask ourseves what were the other police officers doing inside the house until SOC took control of the house?

     There was a gap of least 76 minutes between when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced Sheila ass officially being dead (8:44am) and the time PC Bird started to thake the crucial photographs which show the blood still pouring and fersh looking from the two wounds upon her throat / neck…

     We know that at the time Dr Craig officially pronounced Sheila and the others that they were all dead, (8:44am) that Sheila only had one wound to her throat by that time, and so she must have been shot for the second time after 8:44am, or in other words, after the police surgeon had pronounced her as being dead…

     Fresh wet looking blood was leaking and pouring out of the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat and the corner of her mouth at just after 10 O’clock, and within 20 minutes of this, the blood started to change colour and coagulate and turn black in colour…

     We have a marker by reference to the time that PC Bird took the crucial crime scene photographs showing the fresh looking blood coming from the wounds and the mouth, and set against this marker are two time lines, (1) 3 AM if jeremy killed and and stage managed Sheila’s body in the main bedroom, and (2) 8:44anm, the time which DR Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead, and at a time when she only had one wound upon her throat / neck…

     3 AM is some 7 hours prior to the time when the crime scene photographs which show the fresh looking blood to be pouring and leaking and running from the two wounds and the corner of Sheila’s mouth…

     10 AM, is some 76 minutes after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounces Sheila as being dead, at a time when she only had one wound to her throat / neck (not two)…

     By 10:20am, the blood had started to change in appearance, it started to change colour, to coagulate, and eventually it turned from being bright red and fresh looking, to becoming black in colour…

     Once the heart stops beating no more oxygen can be circulated around the body…

     Within 15 minutes or so, there can be no more oxygen at all anywhere in Sheila’s blood, if her blood has not started to coagulate by 10 O’clock, then she was not dead at the time the police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am…

     She was not dead when the raid team eventually came upon her body in the main bedroom at around 8:30am…

     She was not dead when the police found her body downstairs in the region of the kitchen when they presumed her to be dead at 7:37am…

     Sheila must have been shot for the second time, some 15 minutes or so before PC Bird started to take his crime scene photographs, in order for the blood to have the consistency it produced as shown in PC Bird’s crime scene pictures which he took at 10 O’clock that morning…

     The delay in allowing SOC to take control of the scene by 10 O’clock, and the fact that by 8:44am, Sheila only had one wound, seems to suggest that Sheila received the second shot to her throat a short time before PC Bird was allowed or permitted into the house to photograph her body..

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 9/6/2009 @ 1:43 pm

375. above should read chain of evidence

     Comment by john hughes — 9/6/2009 @ 3:35 pm

376. Mike this point seems to be a particular bone of contention with you. ‘PC Collins could not have seen the body of Ralph Bamber sat in that chair behind the internal kitchen door because the angle was too acute for him to have even seen Ralph’ body there and to mistakenly identify it as a dead female body…’
     Now one has to find out exactly when he said this, who recorded it, who else could verify it and how this particular message was passed on.
     As I understand it, PC Collins was part of the Tactical Firearms Group, that stormed the house at approximately 7:30 that morning. For clarity and understanding it must be ascertained exactly what time gap was there from seeing this body to actually storming the house and entering the kitchen. I understand that this could only have been a matter of minutes.
     The glance that PC Collins must have made into the kitchen via the window, must have been - for obvious safety reasons - fleeting. From reports received, they had a potentially dangerous situation with a deranged woman armed with a rifle. The last thing any well-trained police officer would do is make himself a potential target. Now did he physically look through the window or with the aid of a mirror? - this may seem a trivial point, but vital in the context in the validity of what is being suggested. As anyone knows, peering through glass is not as straightforward as one might imagine. One must shield the eyes to obscure glare (try this next time you look into a house through the window) This means putting your hands to the window - very dangerous in terms of risk and movement. Any potential threat can see you far better than you can see them.
     If PC Collins did do this it was incredibly dangerous and unprofessional. On the other hand he may have had his back to the wall to the left-hand side of the window and with the aid of a mirror, managed to glance inside.
     The exact circumstances surrounding PC Collin’s claims need to be looked at in far greater detail Mike, before we fly off into the ether of our imaginations and come up with theories to back up our arguments.
     In final analysis, it may well be that the man was totally mistaken. It is completely plausible under the circumstances.
     He later claimed that ‘the body he initially saw through the kitchen window of what appeared to be a woman, was in fact the body of Mr Bamber’
     Now according to your point Mike, the position of Ralph’s body made it impossible for Collins to have seen him. Now excuse me if I am wrong on this but the body of Ralph was found delicately propped on an upturned chair with his head facing the AGA in the middle of the kitchen. This means that at least Ralph’s head would definately have been in view from the position of the kitchen window, particularly to the right hand side, looking-in. Furthermore, I understand that Ralph’s head was found to be on top of a coal scuttle, face down.
     If one can only see the head (the features of which are clearly obscured) whilst quickly glancing through a window (with or without a mirror) the mistake becomes entirely plausible and completely understandable in the circumstances. There is a deranged WOMAN loose in the house - therefore Collins may of thought just that.
     The mistake became apparent when the TFG entered the kitchen. It was indeed the body of Ralph Bamber.
     Let us tackle the point then, of ‘One dead male and one dead female seen in the kitchen’
     I would strongly argue that this is total hogwash. No matter who claims that they saw two people in the kitchen is either blind, confused or totally mistaken. I say this because the body of Sheila Cafell was found upstairs by the TFG during their sweep of the house that morning. There was NO evidence that she had walked from the kitchen (mortally wounded) to the master bedroom.
     Her nightdress clearly showed this. If she shot herself in the kitchen and then somehow, by some miracle made it upstairs, she would certainly have had tell tale signs of significant blood drop on her white nightdress. She was shot with a .22 round in the neck. There would CERTAINLY be a loss of a significant amount of blood. In a standing postion that blood would have flowed all over the front of her nightdress. NO such blood pattern was found. The wound did not ‘clog nor scab’ during any period of unconsciousness. Anyone that has even nicked themselves shaving would testify to this, much less a .22 bullet going into the neck! Furthermore, there was NO indication that Sheila was in the kitchen at all.
     Lets face facts Mike, your claims about this are imaginative to say the least and do not jibe with the evidence found at the scene. Sheila was shot TWICE in the master bedroom, the spent cartridge cases clearly reinforce this. I believe she was shot at different intervals, one shot with the silencer attached and one without. This fact ALONE excludes her from being the killer. Dead people do not return a silencer to a gun cupboard.
     Mike, no matter how Bamber and his supporters try to be imaginative or inventive with the evidence. The facts speak for themselves. The ONLY possible killer in this appalling massacre was Jeremy Bamber.

     Comment by Ian — 9/6/2009 @ 5:34 pm

377. On a final note Mike, I strongly believe that the first shot would have resulted in immediate unconsciousness, no matter what the pathologist had to say. It looks as though he judged it from the damage the bullet made rather than the concussive force of a sub-sonic missile being fired into her neck. Mike it only take 50 lbs of pressure from a boxers fist to make another completely unconscious. A bullet tearing through flesh at sub-sonic speed would, no doubt render her completely unconscious.
     I would call for a second opinion on the pathologists suggestion that ‘The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time’ ‘STAND UP AND WALK AROUND’? I suppose when dealing with the unknown it is difficult to be specific. I believe the pathologist just wouldnt committed one way or another, as strange things can and do happen. However, I will highlight the word ‘MAY’ in the pathologists statement. Put basically, he didnt know. Bamber and his supporters have taken this as she WOULD have been able to walk around. This then, can be put into some dispute and NOT accepted as fact, as TWO quite different scenarios can be accepted.
     However, what is glaring is that he mentions NOTHING whatsoever of the concussive force of the bullet. A strange omition to say the least. Now let me make this clear, I am no medical expert, but something is not right here. A second expert opinion is needed on that. But common sense tells us that the combined combination of the bullet damage with that of the sub-sonic concussive force from the FIRST bullet probably would have incapacitated her immediately. The implications of this point yet again to Bamber as the killer. However, this must be investigated further.

     Comment by Ian — 9/6/2009 @ 6:09 pm

378. Jeremy could not have killed Sheila as long ago as 3am, and her blood still be pouring out of the two wounds upon her throat / neck and the corners of her mouth some seven hours later, as fresh and red in colour as if she had just been shot at around 10 O’clock…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/7/2009 @ 1:15 pm

379. 20 minutes or so later, after the first photographs were taken showing the fresh looking blood pouring from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat, the blood started to coagulate and blacken in colour…

     This would be consistent with Sheila having died just before 10 O’clock that morning…

     If Sheila had been dead from as long ago as 3am, her heart would have stopped beating, and there would be no oxygen being pumped around her body and yet, at 10 O’clock, there was clearly still some oxygen in the blood pouring out from her body…

     Work it out for yourselves…

     It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jeremy to have killed Sheila, at around 3am, and for there to still be oxygen in Sheila’s blood after 10 O’clock that morning…

     IMPOSSIBLE…

     Sheila got shot for the second time just before 10 O’clock that morning in the main bedroom, at a time when she was clearly very much still alive - despite the police surgeon having attended the scene and pronounced her as being dead (8:44am) by simply casting a casual glance at her body…

     I believe that it will be possible to establish on a scientific basis that Sheila was still alive up to around 15 to 20 minutes before the blood which had been pouring from her wounds in her throat, and the corners of her mouth,(10am)satarted to coagulate and blackern in colour - this started to occur at around 10:25am, that morning…

     This is what Essex police have covered up, it is a dark dark secret which they have kept the lid on for over 23 years, or more…

     Wheh jeremy left the scene that morning to go back to his cottage at head street, Goldghanger, Ralph, June, Daniel and Nicholas were all dead at the scene, but Sheila was still barely alive and did not die in the bedroom until much later (just before 10 O’cllock) when the second shot was fired

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/7/2009 @ 1:26 pm

380. (Ian);- However, it is equally important that a cold-blooded, callous and evil monster should not worm out of his just punishment.
     ————————————————————————————————————————————–
     There was still oxygen in the blood pouring and running and leaking from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat, at around 10 O’clock that morning, so how could Jeremy have killed Sheila at around 3am that morning, and stage managed her body to make it look like a suicide, and despite her heart having stopped beating, blood was still being pumped out of her body, and there was still oxygen in the blood preventing it from coagulating?

     The smell of gun powder and the presence of the fresh looking un-coagulated blood (pouring from the two wounds and the corners of Sheila’s mouth), go hand in hand, and tell its own story…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/7/2009 @ 1:32 pm

381. Jeremy has very recently sent me a copy of the bible page with the bloodied hand print of Sheila’s upon it…

     For some reason, Essex police have avoided mentioning anything about this bloodied hand print on the pages of the bible, or to acknowledge to whom they belonged to or originated from?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/8/2009 @ 2:34 pm

382. THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO SHOOT SHEILA AGAIN AFTER DR.CRAIG PRONOUNCES HER DEAD, IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.I FEEL SOME PEOPLE CAN’T GRASP THAT THE EVIDENCE IS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND VERY CONFUSING AND DOESN’T HELP BAMBER AT ALL.

     Comment by john hughes — 9/9/2009 @ 6:03 am

383. Mike,
     There are elementary problems with what you are stating. You said
     ‘Jeremy could not have killed Sheila as long ago as 3am, and her blood still be pouring out of the two wounds upon her throat / neck and the corners of her mouth some seven hours later, as fresh and red in colour as if she had just been shot at around 10 O’clock… ‘
     My answer to this is quite simple. Medically is is quite possible to carry on bleeding after death. Your body carries aproxiamtely 9 pints of blood. Now using rather simple, but effective logic, if you shoot a hole in something - dead or alive that contains 9 pints of fluid - a whole lot of that is going to leak out.
     Furthermore, I have it on good authority that Sheila was taking medication. It particular she was taking pain killers such as Asprin. Not only does Asprin kill pain but it also has the effect of dramatically thinning the blood out. In effect, the blood’s naturally producing factor 8 clotting agent is significantly prohibited. This is a factor than sufferers of the blood disorder Haemophillia lack. Most if not all pain killer have this ingredient.
     Mike, put basically, Sheila would have carried on bleeding for a significant time after she was dead.

     Comment by Ian — 9/9/2009 @ 2:09 pm

384. Mike I dont want to sound pedantic, but the red colour in blood is mainly caused when the blood meets oxygen i.e the open air!
     Being a former Forces medic, this is something I do know about.
     The protein haemoglobin, which carries oxygen in the blood, changes shape when it binds oxygen. When it changes shape, it absorbs different wavelengths of light, making it change colour. When blood is exposed to air, much more of the haemoglobin
     absorbs oxygen than had in the vein the blood came from (in the veins, the haemoglobin has already given up most of its oxygen to the body). Therefore, the blood turns red.
     Mike, your argument fails to conform to factual evidence. Sheila’s blood would have flowed significantly and produced a bright red colour AFTER death.

     Comment by Ian — 9/9/2009 @ 2:22 pm

385. Mike on a further note, Although normal blood flow stops almost instantly after death, the blood and other fluids are subject to the force of gravity and continue to flow after death. If you watch crime dramas on TV, they often refer to ‘lividity’ to determine the time of death. That is how far has the pooling of fluids have progressed; since that process is a function of time.
     This is why deceased victims of stabbings and shootings are often found with significant amounts of blood surrounding their bodies. They continue to bleed.

     Comment by Ian — 9/9/2009 @ 2:37 pm

386. Although most of their armed officers made witness statements regarding what they found upon entry to whf on and after 20 September 1985, there exist no corresponding notes written into their pocketbooks regarding the same. An absence of contemporaneously handwritten notes, in their respective pocketbooks, which matches the content of their later witness statements, needs some sort of investigation, particularly so, because this group of police officers appear to be saying things about where the body of Sheila was originally found (upstairs)and that she had two wounds to her throat when they first saw the body (when she only had one wound up to the point when all of them, with the exception of PS Woodcock and PI Montgomery, left the scene at about 9 O’clock that morning…

     It is rather odd that all these police officers should all make witness statements on more or less the same dates, 20 September 1985 and later, all saying the same things which none of them had recorded in their pocketbooks at the material time, and that they all forget to mention where Sheila’s body was originally found (Downstairs) and the fact that there was only one wound to her throat by the time they left the scene…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 3:25 am

387. (John Hughes):- IF THE 2 BODIES COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE KITCHEN WINDOW,THEN WHY DOES ONE LOG STATE BY ONE POLICEMAN OUTSIDE OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW “ONE DEAD MALE AND ONE DEAD FEMALE ON THE KITCHEN FLOOR”.
     ———————————–
     A police log does not exist which mentions a police officer seeing two bodies from the vantage point of the kitchen window,this is stated in the form of a witness statement, where it says that upon looking through the kitchen window, he saw the body of a female in the kitchen behind the door, and that later, once police had gained access to the kitcfhen, he relaized that the body he originally thought was a dead female turned out, in fact to be the body of Ralph Bamber…

     The reference to finding “The body of one dead male and one dead female in the kitchen” is recorded in a police radio and communications log, which is a difference source of information, altogether…

     PC Collins looked in through the kitchen window before the raid team smashed the door in, and the time the armed officers got inside the building, whereas, the reference to finding “the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female in the kitchen” which took place at 7:37am, after the police were already inside the building…

     If PC Collins had mistakenly identified Ralph’s body for a dead female at the time he looked through the kitchen window before the police smashed the door down to enter the building, there would not be any mention or reference to finding a dead female body in the kitchen afterward, namely, at 7:37am, there would only have been reference in the police radio and communications log to finding the body of one dead male (Ralph) in the kitchen. Fact of the matter is, the police radio and communications log, clearly states that the police found “the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female” at 7:37am, after the police had got into the house, followed by another message a minute later (7:38am) “One dead male, one dead female”, and followed minutes later (7:42am) by another message “can someone contact the police surgeon, and the coroners officer, regarding two bodies”, followed by another message, timed at 8:10am, “after a thorough search, a further three bodies found upstairs”…

     If PC Collins simply made a mistake identifying Ralph’s body for a dead female (before the police entered the farmhouse) there would be no reason to mention finding a dead female body in the kitchen (7:37am) after the reference to “the finding of the male body” there at 7:37am…

     It is absolutely clear, that the police radio and communication log contents refer to “two bodies”, not one, found in then kitchen, and that this did not come about because of some alleged mix up because one police officer mistakenly identified Ralph’s body as a dead female at a time prior to the police getting into the building, because there are several references afterward, to the fact that the police actually found two dead bodies in the region of the kitchen afterward, once they had actually got into the kitchen…

     You do not pass messages about finding “the body of one dead male AND the body of one dead female in the kitchen” (7:37am) and “one dead male, one dead female” (7:38am) and ask that “the police surgeon and the coroners officer be contacted regarding two bodies” (7:42am) and Kelly in the control room, does not contact DS Davidson (SOC) at 7:45am, to inform him that he is required to attend the scene at whf regarding “A MURDER and A SUICIDE”, and pass another message that “after a thorough search a further three bodies have been found upstairs” (8:10am) if it was all not true…

     Lets put tings into perspective, and let a jury determine what the truth was, and is, let us be perfectly honest about this matter, if any of us were on a jury, and we were given these facts, how many of us would come to the conclusion that only one body was found downstairs, and that the other four other bodies were found upstairs? Would we as a jury rather not come to the conclusion that it ended up with one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs, but it had started off as two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs?

     I feel confident that any reasonable jury would come to the conclusion that the police found “two bodies downstairs” from as early as 7:37am, and “three other bodies upstairs”, by 8:10am, and that something went wrong which changed the configuration of the bodies at the scene, which resulted in a displacement of a female body (by some means) from downstairs to upstairs,by the time the police surgeon, Dr Craig, arrived at the scene to confirm death in all five cases at 8:44am…

     The manner with which the displacement of the female body from downstairs to upstairs, is at the center of debate - and I do not say that the police physically carried Sheila’s body upstairs, from the kitchen, and I do not ask anyone to entertain such an idea, but fact is that her body which was originally found in the kitchen (7:37am) ended upstairs in the bedroom,(8:44am) and from this it can only mean that she was not dead when the police entered the farmhouse, and that jeremy or anybody else (other than the police) could have stage managed her body there…

     The contents of the police radio and communications logs are ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, like any other official documentation, in police, or CPS possession, and the fact is that none of this material was ever considered by the original jury, who convicted Jeremy for these awful murders…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 4:01 am

388. (John Hughes):- IF NEVILLE HAD A PANIC ALARM FITTED,WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO TELEPHONE THE LOCAL POLICE STATION WHICH WAS 6 FIGURE NO.? WE CAN DEBATE ENDLESSLY ABOUT BULLET NOS. AND THE LIKE BUT BEHAVIOUR BEFORE AND AFTER THE EVENT SEALS IT FOR ME.WE CAN TALK FOREVER ABOUT BOTCHED FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND LETS NOT MAKE ANY BONES ABOUT IT THE FORENSICS HAVE ALL BEEN TAMPERED WITH.THE POLICE MISMANAGED THE CASE FROM IT’S INCEPTION IN THEIR BELIEF OF MURDER/SUICIDE AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO PERPETUATE THE MYTH THAT THEY HANDLED THE CASE PROPERLY.WE CAN DEBATE FOREVER ABOUT BULLET CASE PV.WHATEVER BELONGING TO A CERTAIN GUN AND SHOULD BE IN A CERTAIN PLACE,BUT IT’S ALL DRESSING AND IS INADMMISSABLE ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CHAI WILLIN OF EVIDENCE AND THIS IS SADLY LACKING IN THIS CASE.
     —————————————————————————————————————–
     It is not for me to establish, why Ralph did not use the panic alarm which WAS FITTED AT WHF, and why he chose instead to phone the police by use of the phone…

     The FACT IS THAT A PANIC ALARM WAS FITTED AT THE HOUSE, and that RALPH DID MAKE A CALL TO THE POLICE ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER HAVING POSSESSION OF ONE OF HIS GUNS (which is recorded, the details of which are now available to jeremy, and his legal team, which were not available to them or to the court which tried him in 1986 for thee murders)…

     If Jeremy has been convicted on botched forensic evidence, as you put it, then of course, his convictions must be quashed on appeal, and it should be done pretty sharpishly…

     If the police stage managed Sheila’s body in the bedroom, then of course, and similarly, his convictions should be quashed in keeping with the judgment given during the last failed appeal (2002) where the judges stated that if it can be shown or proven that the police tampered with the body of Sheila or the scene in general that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions immediately…

     It would seem to me and to (I would suggest) most other ordinary like minded members of the public, that once all this new material is brought out into the public arena and it is presented at the next appeal, that it will be inevitable that they would conclude that “the forensics were botched” and that “the police did tamper with and stage manage Sheila’s body at the scene” - how, under such circumstances, can these convictions still be said to be correct, safe and valid, remains to be seen…

     If the police tampered with the batch of crime scene ammunition, in particular, by substituting bullet PV/20 (Sheila Caffell) and introducing additional bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRHJ/4) into the bedroom scenario to accommodate the false suggestion relied upon during Jeremy’s trial that Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom, (when she was only shot once there), then of course, this will have a profound effect upon the safety of these convictions (in my opinion)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 4:15 am

389. (John Hughes):- THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO SHOOT SHEILA AGAIN AFTER DR.CRAIG PRONOUNCES HER DEAD, IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.I FEEL SOME PEOPLE CAN’T GRASP THAT THE EVIDENCE IS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND VERY CONFUSING AND DOESN’T HELP BAMBER AT ALL.
     ———————————————————————-
     You are correct, Sheila was shot once after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced Sheila as being dead (without conducting a physical examination to establish it) at 8:44am - it would have been IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE POLICE SURGEON TO HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE WOUND UPON THE THROAT BY THAT (8:44am) STAGE…

     Let us also not forget that at this time (8:44am) the police surgeon was accompanied by PI Miller, who testified at the opening of the inquest (14 August 1985) that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by inflicting a solitary wound under her chin…

     At 8:44am, Sheila only had one wound to her throat / neck, and not only did the police surgeon and PI Miller make witness statements saying this, but the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thomkin, was misled into believing that Sheila only had one wound to her throat / neck at the time she died in the bedroom, and so, here lies the basis for the second shot having been received by Sheila, later…

     On the contrary, this new material certainly would, and does help Jeremy’s case (I would suggest)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 4:24 am

390. (IAN);- The glance that PC Collins must have made into the kitchen via the window, must have been - for obvious safety reasons - fleeting. From reports received, they had a potentially dangerous situation with a deranged woman armed with a rifle. The last thing any well-trained police officer would do is make himself a potential target. Now did he physically look through the window or with the aid of a mirror? - this may seem a trivial point, but vital in the context in the validity of what is being suggested. As anyone knows, peering through glass is not as straightforward as one might imagine. One must shield the eyes to obscure glare (try this next time you look into a house through the window) This means putting your hands to the window - very dangerous in terms of risk and movement. Any potential threat can see you far better than you can see them. If PC Collins did do this it was incredibly dangerous and unprofessional. On the other hand he may have had his back to the wall to the left-hand side of the window and with the aid of a mirror, managed to glance inside.
     The exact circumstances surrounding PC Collin’s claims need to be looked at in far greater detail Mike, before we fly off into the ether of our imaginations and come up with theories to back up our arguments.
     ——————————————
     The facts are, that the sound of a rifle being discharged was overheard via the telephone intercept which the operator, had patched through to the control, room, using the 999 emergency system (verified by witness statement). The control room relayed this information to the scene, in particular, and more specifically, this information was passed to PS Adams and PI Montgomery, who were stationed at the forward control point close to the house (in a nearby farm building). By this stage, the six man raid party had already set off to enter the house and when this message was relayed in turn to them from the senior officer at the forward control, point, PC Collins peered into the kitchen window, and this was when he saw the body he describes as being a dead female behind the door…

     Now, if Ralph’s body was in the middle of the kitchen floor, slumped at that time, as it were over an upturned wooden chair, with is head in a metal coal bucket by the corner of the aga, it could not have been mistaken for a dead female body behind the door…

     The statement in which PC Collins refers to seeing the dead female body behind the door, does not mention how he looked into the kitchen or how long he spent looking at the image which greeted him. He does not say that he used a mirrored device or anything else, but its possible he might have done. Equally, it is also possible that he might not have done. The thing is, he saw the body behind the door and he describes it in his (non disclosed)witness statement that he could see a dead female. If he had a restricted view, or his vision was in some way obscured by the light reflecting upon the glass of the window, then why didn’t he say so in his statement? Why go onto to say that he could see the body of a dead female behind the door? Why not say he could see a body but he could not tell whether or not it was a dead male or a dead flame?

     The fact is, that he saw enough of the body behind the door, to convince him that he was looking at a dead female, not a dead male…

     If the circumstances had been any different to what I am saying, and what he mentions in his non disclosed witness statement, then surely he would have said so…

     But, as we now know, he claims he saw the body of a dead female behind the door, and this is the evidence which has to be addressed and dealt with, not anything else, which anyone might wish to add into his evidence..

     I feel sure that at the forthcoming appeal hearing (should the case be referre3d back to the court of appeal for judgment)the circumstances of what PC Collins saw, and how he made those observations, will be scrutinized in depth, and we will have to await and see what he says, and how matters are progressed once he gives his explanation…

     This explanation about misidentifying Ralph’s body for a dead female simply does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny, simply because the police have Ralph’s body in the middle of the floor slumped over and upturned wooded chair with his head resting conveniently in a coal bucket, not behind any door in the kitchen…

     Not only that, but why wasn’t PC Collins statement disclosed to Jeremy, and his legal team, and to the court which tried him for these murders, back in 1986? Why conceal this explanation for all of these people, if there was a perfectly simply explanation for its contents?

     The reason it was not disclosed, in my opinion, was because to have done so, would have opened up a whole debate in court about the possibility that Sheila did not die inside whf until after the police entered the farmhouse, not before..

     The contents of the police radio and communication logs would have been introduced into the trial and all the arguments which Jeremy is now seeking to rely upon at his forthcoming appeal would have been considered by the jury - but they did not get to hear any of this evidence or information, all of it admissible evidence within the rules of law and evidence, and I feel confident that the jury would almost certainly have come to the conclusion that it was not certain that the police found Sheila’s body for the first time in the bedroom…

     These arguments will of course (subject to a referral back to the court of appeal) be central at the forthcoming appeal…

     PC Collins, and the Essex police, will get their chance, and the opportunity to say what they want, when the time comes…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 5:02 am

391. (Ian);-
     If one can only see the head (the features of which are clearly obscured) whilst quickly glancing through a window (with or without a mirror) the mistake becomes entirely plausible and completely understandable in the circumstances. There is a deranged WOMAN loose in the house - therefore Collins may of thought just that.
     The mistake became apparent when the TFG entered the kitchen. It was indeed the body of Ralph Bamber.
     ——————————————————————————————————
     The view through the kitchen window which involved the sighting of the dead female body behind the door, took place before the police entered the house, and the discovery of Ralph’s body, occurred after the police eventually entered the kitchen. Two different events, two different outcomes, not the same event where the dead body of Ralph was mistakenly identified as a dead female…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 5:09 am

392. (IAN);- Let us tackle the point then, of ‘One dead male and one dead female seen in the kitchen’
     I would strongly argue that this is total hogwash. No matter who claims that they saw two people in the kitchen is either blind, confused or totally mistaken. I say this because the body of Sheila Cafell was found upstairs by the TFG during their sweep of the house that morning. There was NO evidence that she had walked from the kitchen (mortally wounded) to the master bedroom. Her nightdress clearly showed this. If she shot herself in the kitchen and then somehow, by some miracle made it upstairs, she would certainly have had tell tale signs of significant blood drop on her white nightdress. She was shot with a .22 round in the neck. There would CERTAINLY be a loss of a significant amount of blood. In a standing postion that blood would have flowed all over the front of her nightdress. NO such blood pattern was found. The wound did not ‘clog nor scab’ during any period of unconsciousness. Anyone that has even nicked themselves shaving would testify to this, much less a .22 bullet going into the neck! Furthermore, there was NO indication that Sheila was in the kitchen at all.
     ——————————————————————————-
     The police radio and communication log contents, clearly indicate (7:37am) that “the body of one dead male AND the body of one dead female, found in kitchen upon entry” and One dead male, one dead female (7:38am), followed by (7;42am) a request for the police surgeon, and the coroners officer, to be contacted regarding “TWO BODIES”. and “KELLY” in the control room, contracted DS Davidson (SOC) to ask him to attend an incident at WHF involving “A MURDER and a SUICIDE” (7;45am), and at 8:10am, that a further three bodies had been found upstairs…

     If PC Collins simply made a mistake in identifying the body of Ralph, for a dead female body (before the police actually got into the house) how could all this other material come into existence, in such an authentic, independent and reliable manner? The fact is, that all this information exists at many different sources, and it would be impossible for it all to be wrong, and not to be consistent, i.e. the contents of one message, with the contents of all the other messages, if it was not true…

     If there was a mix up, where PC Collins mistakenly identified Ralph’s body for a dead female, then I would suggest that once this was sorted out upon entry to the kitchen, you could not have a situation whereby the police then report (7:37am) the find “The body of one dead male, and THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE FOUND IN KITCHEN”, followed by (7:38am) One dead male, One dead female”, and followed in turn by (7:42am) contact the police surgeon and coroners officer, regarding two bodies”, and “KELLY” in the control room would not be contacting DS Davidson (SOC) about a “MURDER and a SUICIDE” at the scene by 7:45am, and there would not only be a reference to finding three bodies upstairs (8:10am) - there would have been four bodies found upstairs by 8:10am, and so, the term “Hogwash” needs to be retrospectively applied to “PC Collins” explanation given in his “non disclosed witness statement”, because in my view, it is this explanation which does not hold water, and it is this explanation when taking all the other materiel which is now available into account which will not be believed by a jury and this was the reason why its contents were not disclosed to Jeremy, his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders in 1986…

     Rather interestingly, PC Collins gives neither account, about what he saw, or purports to have seen, in his pocketbook entries of the date (7 August 1985)?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 5:28 am

393. (Ian);-
     Lets face facts Mike, your claims about this are imaginative to say the least and do not jibe with the evidence found at the scene. Sheila was shot TWICE in the master bedroom, the spent cartridge cases clearly reinforce this. I believe she was shot at different intervals, one shot with the silencer attached and one without. This fact ALONE excludes her from being the killer. Dead people do not return a silencer to a gun cupboard.
     Mike, no matter how Bamber and his supporters try to be imaginative or inventive with the evidence. The facts speak for themselves. The ONLY possible killer in this appalling massacre was Jeremy Bamber.
     —————————————
     My findings are based upon the known facts relating to this case, backed up by reference to witness statements, reports, crime scene photographs etc.. not disclosed to jeremy, his legal team or to the court which tried him for these murders, all of which is admissible evidence, and for one reason or another Essex police and the CPS did not want jeremy, or his legal tam, or the jury which tried jeremy for these murders to see, or consider back in 1986? I do not believe a reliance upon all of this new material this is being imaginative, all of this material should have been taken into account and considered during the original trial, but it was deliberately withheld by the police, and they know that iof it had been disclosed and it had been considered the verdict might have been that very much different…

     Sheila was not shot twice in the bedroom, only once…

     Once (possibly) with the silencer (kitchen) before the police actually entered the house, and secondly after the police surgeon confirmed her as being dead (8;44am)in the bedroom. If the same gun was used to fire both bullets then the police removed the silencer from the barrel of the gun and they must have placed it inside the gun cupboard on some occasion between 7th and 9th August 1985, to enbale the relatives to find it there on 10 August 1985…

     I persdonally do not think the sdame gun which fired the seciond shot into Sheila’s throat, was inflicted by use of the same gun , because otherwose why substitute bullet PV/20 and why introduce additional bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2 into the bedroom scenario to make out a false case that Sheila was shopt by the same gun twice in the bedroom?

     Dead people do not place silencers into gun cupboards, in different parts of the house, “I agree”, and if the silencer had been inside that gun cupboard on the morning of 7 August 1985, why didn’t the four police officers, including PC Collins, PC Delgado and PS Woodcock, who searched it that morning (and let us remind ourselves that PS Woodcock retrieved a shotgun from the same gun cupboard that morning which was found to have Sheila’s and Ralph fingerprints upon it) find it there?

     We are in agreement about a dead person not being able to place a silencer into the gun cupboard - but I would suggest there was not a silencer at all inside that gun cupboard that morning when the four different police officers looked inside it. It follows on from this, that no-one, whether it be jeremy (as alleged by some) or some as yet unidentified killer, who could have placed the silencer inside that same gun gun cupboard, before they fled the scene, otherwise the four police officers who searched the gun cupboard on the morning of 7 August 1985, would surely have found it there…

     I believe that Sheila was not shot twice upstairs at all, and that the same gun did not fire the two shots which wounded and killed her. She was shot once downstairs, and once (later) upstairs), by use of two different guns. Evidence now exists to support this. It is not clear as suggested by you and others, that the only killer in this case, could have been Jeremy.

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 5:50 am

394. It is rather a peculiar coincidence, that the first photographs taken of Sheila’s body, show the blood which is running and leaking and flowing from the two wounds upon her throat and the corners of her mouth at around 10 O’clock, should be bright red in colour and fresh looking, and that by the time PC Bird took other photographs at the scene, some 20 minutes later, that same blood was black in colour and coagulated - how could the blood which flowed from the two wounds and the mouth, not have dried and blackened in colour beforehand if Sheila was dead from as long ago as 3am…

     Moreover, how come the colour of Sheila’s skin did not change in keeping with the suggestion that she had been dead for over seven long hours?

     I believe that the photographic, and other evidence, produced by PC Bird, establishes that she did not die until shortly before 10 AM that morning…

     She received the second shot just before 10 O’clock that morning…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 7:56 am

395. With respect to your comments Ian, about the flow of blood from a body after death, are you asking me to believe and accept that the blood was flowing for over seven hours and that it did not change in colour and consistency at all, right up to the point or stage when PC David Bird (SOC) took the first crime scene photograph which shows the wet looking blood pouring and running and leaking and flowing from the two wounds upon her neck, and that it would have continued to leak and to run and to pour and top flow from both of these wounds during all that time?

     There is insufficient blood distributed upon her body and the nightdress for Sheila to have been laid there, bleeding for over seven hours, prior to the stage when PC Bird took that first crucial photograph at around 10 O’clock…

     I believe that experts will be able to tell when examining the photograph in question, by referring to the state and consistency of the blood pouring from the wounds and the colour of the victims skin, and the amount of blood staining on the body and the nightdress, and to be able to calculate how long prior to the photograph in question being taken, as to the time of Sheila’s death…

     I believe it will be able to be established by reference to thee factors (and others) that Sheila did not physically die until just before 10 O’clock that morning and that she need not have died inside the main bedroom if her body had been checked properly by the police officers at the scene an the coroners officer and the police surgeon who all for one reason or another failed to carry out any sort of a physical examination to establish whether or not she was actually dead. We are being asked to believe that the police at the scene, and the coroners officer and the police surgeon, could all tell that Sheila was physically dead simply by casting her a quick glance once over so to speak…

     You do not establish someones death simply by casting it a quick glance…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:34 pm

396. One of the five psalms at the center of the killings:-

     Psalm 51

     1 Have mercy on me, O God,
     according to your unfailing love;
     according to your great compassion
     blot out my transgressions.

     2 Wash away all my iniquity
     and cleanse me from my sin.

     3 For I know my transgressions,
     and my sin is always before me.

     4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
     and done what is evil in your sight,
     so that you are proved right when you speak
     and justified when you judge.

     5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
     sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

     6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts (a)
     you teach (b) me wisdom in the inmost place.

     7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
     wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

     8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
     let the bones you have crushed rejoice.

     9 Hide your face from my sins
     and blot out all my iniquity.

     10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
     and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

     11 Do not cast me from your presence
     or take your Holy Spirit from me.

     12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
     and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.

     13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
     and sinners will turn back to you.

     14 Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
     the God who saves me,
     and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.

     15 O Lord, open my lips,
     and my mouth will declare your praise.

     16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
     you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

     17 The sacrifices of God are [c] a broken spirit;
     a broken and contrite heart,
     O God, you will not despise.

     18 In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
     build up the walls of Jerusalem.

     19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
     whole burnt offerings to delight you;
     then bulls will be offered on your altar.

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:40 pm

397. Another Psalm at the center of the killings:-

     Psalm 52

     1 Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man?
     Why do you boast all day long,
     you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?

     2 Your tongue plots destruction;
     it is like a sharpened razor,
     you who practice deceit.

     3 You love evil rather than good,
     falsehood rather than speaking the truth.
     Selah

     4 You love every harmful word,
     O you deceitful tongue!

     5 Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin:
     He will snatch you up and tear you from your tent;
     he will uproot you from the land of the living.
     Selah

     6 The righteous will see and fear;
     they will laugh at him, saying,

     7 “Here now is the man
     who did not make God his stronghold
     but trusted in his great wealth
     and grew strong by destroying others!”

     8 But I am like an olive tree
     flourishing in the house of God;
     I trust in God’s unfailing love
     for ever and ever.

     9 I will praise you forever for what you have done;
     in your name I will hope, for your name is good.
     I will praise you in the presence of your saints.

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:41 pm

398. Another psalm at the center of the killings:-

     Psalm 53

     1 The fool says in his heart,
     “There is no God.”
     They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
     there is no one who does good.

     2 God looks down from heaven
     on the sons of men
     to see if there are any who understand,
     any who seek God.

     3 Everyone has turned away,
     they have together become corrupt;
     there is no one who does good,
     not even one.

     4 Will the evildoers never learn—
     those who devour my people as men eat bread
     and who do not call on God?

     5 There they were, overwhelmed with dread,
     where there was nothing to dread.
     God scattered the bones of those who attacked you;
     you put them to shame, for God despised them.

     6 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
     When God restores the fortunes of his people,
     let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:42 pm

399. Another psalm at the center of the killings:-

     Psalm 54

     1 Save me, O God, by your name;
     vindicate me by your might.

     2 Hear my prayer, O God;
     listen to the words of my mouth.

     3 Strangers are attacking me;
     ruthless men seek my life—
     men without regard for God.
     Selah

     4 Surely God is my help;
     the Lord is the one who sustains me.

     5 Let evil recoil on those who slander me;
     in your faithfulness destroy them.

     6 I will sacrifice a freewill offering to you;
     I will praise your name, O LORD,
     for it is good.

     7 For he has delivered me from all my troubles,
     and my eyes have looked in triumph on my foes.

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:43 pm

400. The last of the five psalms at the center of the killings:-

     Psalm 55

     1 Listen to my prayer, O God,
     do not ignore my plea;

     2 hear me and answer me.
     My thoughts trouble me and I am distraught

     3 at the voice of the enemy,
     at the stares of the wicked;
     for they bring down suffering upon me
     and revile me in their anger.

     4 My heart is in anguish within me;
     the terrors of death assail me.

     5 Fear and trembling have beset me;
     horror has overwhelmed me.

     6 I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!
     I would fly away and be at rest-

     7 I would flee far away
     and stay in the desert;
     Selah

     8 I would hurry to my place of shelter,
     far from the tempest and storm.”

     9 Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech,
     for I see violence and strife in the city.

     10 Day and night they prowl about on its walls;
     malice and abuse are within it.

     11 Destructive forces are at work in the city;
     threats and lies never leave its streets.

     12 If an enemy were insulting me,
     I could endure it;
     if a foe were raising himself against me,
     I could hide from him.

     13 But it is you, a man like myself,
     my companion, my close friend,

     14 with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship
     as we walked with the throng at the house of God.

     15 Let death take my enemies by surprise;
     let them go down alive to the grave, [i]
     for evil finds lodging among them.

     16 But I call to God,
     and the LORD saves me.

     17 Evening, morning and noon
     I cry out in distress,
     and he hears my voice.

     18 He ransoms me unharmed
     from the battle waged against me,
     even though many oppose me.

     19 God, who is enthroned forever,
     will hear them and afflict them—
     Selah
     men who never change their ways
     and have no fear of God.

     20 My companion attacks his friends;
     he violates his covenant.

     21 His speech is smooth as butter,
     yet war is in his heart;
     his words are more soothing than oil,
     yet they are drawn swords.

     22 Cast your cares on the LORD
     and he will sustain you;
     he will never let the righteous fall.

     23 But you, O God, will bring down the wicked
     into the pit of corruption;
     bloodthirsty and deceitful men
     will not live out half their days.
     But as for me, I trust in you.

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:44 pm

401. Sheila’s bloodied hand prit was found on the pages of this bible, upon which were written the aforementioned five psalms - this information formed part and parcel of the original file SC/688/85 which Essex police produced when they were satisfied that Sheila had killed the others and that the police were more than happy to suggest that she had taken her own life by a act of suicide - the truth, however, is that she attempted to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and that she was shot by the police whilst the gun was being moved back and forth onto her body, shortly before 10 O’clock that morning…

     These are the facts of the case, and this is what Essex police have sought to try and cover up…

     Sheila only had one wound to her throat by 8:44am that morning, but by 10 O’clock, she had two wounds there…

     The blood was fresh looking and flowing from the two wounds at 10 O’clock when PC Bird took his first pictures of Sheila because she had only very recently been shot for a second time, after the police surgeon and the coroners officer had already verified her as being dead, and after the ambulance crews had been sent away from the scene…

     Two bodies downstairs and three other bodies upstairs by 8:10am, turned into one body downstairs, and four bodies upstairs by 8:44am…

     This is the true explanation for what took place…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 1:51 pm

402. (Ian):- On a final note Mike, I strongly believe that the first shot would have resulted in immediate unconsciousness, no matter what the pathologist had to say. It looks as though he judged it from the damage the bullet made rather than the concussive force of a sub-sonic missile being fired into her neck. Mike it only take 50 lbs of pressure from a boxers fist to make another completely unconscious. A bullet tearing through flesh at sub-sonic speed would, no doubt render her completely unconscious.
     I would call for a second opinion on the pathologists suggestion that ‘The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time’ ‘STAND UP AND WALK AROUND’? I suppose when dealing with the unknown it is difficult to be specific. I believe the pathologist just wouldnt committed one way or another, as strange things can and do happen. However, I will highlight the word ‘MAY’ in the pathologists statement. Put basically, he didnt know. Bamber and his supporters have taken this as she WOULD have been able to walk around. This then, can be put into some dispute and NOT accepted as fact, as TWO quite different scenarios can be accepted.
     However, what is glaring is that he mentions NOTHING whatsoever of the concussive force of the bullet. A strange omition to say the least. Now let me make this clear, I am no medical expert, but something is not right here. A second expert opinion is needed on that. But common sense tells us that the combined combination of the bullet damage with that of the sub-sonic concussive force from the FIRST bullet probably would have incapacitated her immediately. The implications of this point yet again to Bamber as the killer. However, this must be investigated further.

     ——————————————————-

     I am all for a second opinion, since it may well be established that Sheila might not have died at all as a result of the first wound being inflicted whilst she was downstairs in the region of the kitchen…

     I do not think we should be fooled by the suggestion that the wound beneath her throat was the second wound, rather than the first, it is merely speculation on the part of the pathologist and the ballistics expert?

     It is not 100% clear that the bullet fired under Sheila’s chin would necessarily and automatically have killed her outright, for example, it is a well known fact that in a battle situation, many soldiers have received what appear to have been fatal wounds to the head, only to have survived and been capable of fighting on…

     I am not happy with the suggestion that the wound under the chin was the second shot, but choose to have an open mind and to be alert to the possibility that it could have been the first shot, not the second one at all…

     I arrive at this conclusion because of the fact that the police substituted bullet PV/20, transforming it into a whole bullet, on and by, 20 September 1985, when it had clearly been a fragmented one, a bullet which had broken into three separate pieces upon striking the fourth vertebrae in the left side of Sheila’s neck / throat…at the time of its removal from Sheila’s neck on 7 August 1985…

     I do accept, however that the first wound would have been serious enough as to immediately render her unconscious and dead like in appearance. But that is not to say that she could not, and did not regain consciousness, at some stage or point afterward?

     There appears to be trauma bruising around the lower wound (non fatal) which is absent around the upper wound site, which may need expert opinion to evaluate properly…

     But certainly, Sheila did try to commit suicide whilst downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and she died after receiving the second wound upstairs in the bedroom after 8:44am…

     The police surgeon could not have failed to see the second wound upon Sheila’s throat at 8:44am, if it had been inflicted by that stage, its as simple as that…

     Lets put it this way, anyone who has had the misfortune to see the crime scene photograph we are talking about, cannot help but notice that Sheila had two wounds and that the blood was running and leaking and flowing from both wounds at around 10 O’clock when PC Bird took the photograph, and so I fail to see how the police surgeon, Dr Craig and PI Miller could not see the second wound that should have been visible at that stage, but as Dr Craig later said when he was interviewed by City of London police “I only saw one wound to the throat at that stage” (8:44am)…

     I think we can be absolutely sure that the second wound had not been inflicted to Sheila’s throat by that stage, when the police surgeon who verified Sheila as being dead, says that there was only one wound upon her throat at the time he confirmed her as being dead, and I would choose to believe that he was and is telling the truth about that at least…

     Work it out, if Sheila did not have a second wound by 8:44am, how did she end up with a second wound there, by 10 O’clock when PC Bird took the first crime scene photograph of Sheila’s body and the two wounds upon her throat and neck?

     It’s simple, Sheila was still barely alive at the time the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead, a feature which came about because the police surgeon did not perform any sort of a physical examination of her body to check for vital signs of life, according to the official explanation given by Essex police, no-one moved or touched Sheila’s body at the scene, and so are we being asked to accept that nobody, no police surgeon, no coroners officer, no member of the firearms team and no senior police officer checked to see if Sheila was really dead when they believed she was dead?

     The facts are that Sheila did not die inside whf until after the police surgeon had already pronounced her as being dead and he then left the scene along with the coroners officer. By that stage the ambulances and their crews had also been sent from the scene…

     Lets be specific about what we think we know happened once Sheila was shot by the police on the second occasion - another doctor, by the name of HARRIS” was summoned to the scene, and he carried out a physical examination of Sheila’s body to establish that she was dead (at last). Imagine that, it took three claims that Sheila was dead, before it was physically established that she had in fact died during the incident:-

     (1) Sheila was dead - in the region of the kitchen behind the door (7:37am)
     (2) Sheila was dead in the bedroom when pronounced dead by the police surgeon, Dr Craig (8:44am)
     (3) Sheila was dead in the main bedroom when physically checked by Dr HARRIS, after the police shot Sheila on the second occasion after the gun went off whilst they were moving it back and forth from the body after the police surgeon left the scene..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/10/2009 @ 3:56 pm

403. Mike…..You stated that’Dead people do not place silencers into gun cupboards, in different parts of the house, “I agree”, and if the silencer had been inside that gun cupboard on the morning of 7 August 1985, why didn’t the four police officers, including PC Collins, PC Delgado and PS Woodcock, who searched it that morning (and let us remind ourselves that PS Woodcock retrieved a shotgun from the same gun cupboard that morning which was found to have Sheila’s and Ralph fingerprints upon it) find it there?
     Mike, I think you know as well as I do that the search was, at best, cursory. What the police were looking for were guns - not silencers. How did they know at that stage that a silencer had been used? The search of the house and the resulting follow-up invistigation was described in court by the judge as being ‘pefunctory’ in nature. It was not conducted nor seen-through with the diligence one would expect in a quadruple murder/suicide case. To this day I am appalled at the apparent laxity of the initial search and investigation. So much so that even standard procedures weren’t adhered to. DS Cook neglected to even wear gloves when handling some of the crime scene evidence, and this is a trained SOC Officer!
     One can only conclude that by their apparent lax attitudes towards evidence their minds were already made up - 4 murders and a suicide. No need to conduct a thorough investigation. In their minds in was done and dusted. Something they later bitterly regretted. Evidence was badly handled, burnt and destroyed. Cricial evidence was mislayed or lost (Readers may remember that the silencer was found with a single strand of what appeared to be grey human hair attached to the end)
     In their haste to complete the investigation they allowed evidence to be washed off the walls. Namely blood and possible fingerprints. It was a total calamity. The judge rightly condemned it.
     However, let us not get this confused with the notion that just because it was a poor investgation, does not mean, by any means that they have the wrong man. There is too much evidence that tells us otherwise. Even after the disasterous investigation, it was still apparent who killed the family and why. The second investigation was far more professional - albeit far more difficult since the thorough cleaning up job the police had done at the crime scene, left little in the way of useable evidence. The fact remains that enough was gleaned from the little they had to point the finger of guilt squarely at Bamber.
     Mike, on a further point I seriously do not think there were two weapons used in these killings. I have yet to see any credible evidence that proves otherwise. Moreover, the so-called ‘fresh blood’ that you mentioned that was there at 10 O’Clock was also noted by the TFG when they stormed the house at 7:30 and made their way to the Master bedroom.
     Mike, Sheila was LONG DEAD by the time the TFG found her. I have explained why numerous times. The complete lack of the smell of any gunpowder puts paid to that notion. Not a single witness has stated that they smelt a thing. Furthermore, I have since found out in the course of my research that there were also house-flies present in the master bedroom and the kitchen. A quite unusual phenomenon for that time in the morning. It strongly suggests that Sheila had been dead hours. Enough time for flies to gather.
     This led to another piece of classic stupidity on the part of the police as they appear to have opened a window to get rid of them.

     Comment by Ian — 9/10/2009 @ 4:22 pm

404. (Ian):- Mike…..You stated that’Dead people do not place silencers into gun cupboards, in different parts of the house, “I agree”, and if the silencer had been inside that gun cupboard on the morning of 7 August 1985, why didn’t the four police officers, including PC Collins, PC Delgado and PS Woodcock, who searched it that morning (and let us remind ourselves that PS Woodcock retrieved a shotgun from the same gun cupboard that morning which was found to have Sheila’s and Ralph fingerprints upon it) find it there? Mike, I think you know as well as I do that the search was, at best, cursory. What the police were looking for were guns - not silencers. How did they know at that stage that a silencer had been used? The search of the house and the resulting follow-up invistigation was described in court by the judge as being ‘pefunctory’ in nature. It was not conducted nor seen-through with the diligence one would expect in a quadruple murder/suicide case. To this day I am appalled at the apparent laxity of the initial search and investigation. So much so that even standard procedures weren’t adhered to. DS Cook neglected to even wear gloves when handling some of the crime scene evidence, and this is a trained SOC Officer!
     ————————————————————
     Dead people do not place silencers into gun cupboards, and we do not know for certain that in fact, the silencer was used at all in any of these shootings. Let me draw your attention to the evidence produced or not produced by the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who concluded in one of his reports that he was unable to establish if any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through the rifle (anshulz) with the silencer attached to the end of its barrel? What we have here then, is absolutely no physical evidence or proof that the silencer was used at all in the shootings, other than the presence of blood type A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, purportedly belonging to Sheila…

     I am not convinced that Sheila’s blood could only have got into the silencer by the theory of backspatter, or backsplatter, as it is sometimes referred to…

     The prosecution fooled the jury into believing and accepting that the only way Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer was if the silencer was fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time she was fatally shit under the chin…

     We now know that the prosecutions argument about backspatter was not the only explanation to account for the possible presence of Sheila’s blood found inside the silencer…

     For example, it is highly likely, if not possible, or probable, that Sheila’s blood found its way into the silencer, by a process of contamination - (1) which came about when the police at the scene [placed Sheila’s heavily bloodstained right hand upon the gun on her body, and some of her blood dripped and leaked into the internal mechanism of the rifle and upon and into the ammunition magazine, (2) that some of Sheila’s blood may have been lining the barrel of the rifle and when the silencer was attached to the gun at various stages, for example, by PC WHIDDON and DI COOK, a small flake of Sheila’s blood, was forced into the silencer during unofficial test firings of the gun, and the silencer, and control ammunition,(3) that Sheila loaded bloodstained bullets into the magazine of the rifle and when it was fired at a time with the silencer attached, some of her own blood that had been transferred onto the bullets she had picked up and placed into the gun, was propelled along the barrel of the gun and into the silencer where it became deposited and later found and identified, (4) When DI COOK dismantled the silencer on 29 August 1985, he laid out the exposed baffle plates on the same worktop where he had previously laid out the heavily bloodstained rifle and at this time there was the potential for some of Sheila’s blood to have dried onto the rifle, which detached itself during COOKS experiments, and which were subsequently picked up on the exposed baffle plates and once the silencer was rebuilt by COOK placing the contaminated baffle plates back into the tubing of the silencer and submitted to the Lab’ to be examined, that at this time, a small flake of Sheila’s blood which had originally been present upon the rifle which PC Bird had photographed on top of Sheila’s body, ended up inside the silencer…

     The jury which decided Jeremy’s fate based upon the suggestion that there was only one explanation for how Sheila’s blood could have got into the silencer, and that was by a process of backspatter, and that Sheila was shot with the silencer on the gun, and that the killer removed it afterward, and placed it in the gun cupboard - yet, there were other possible explanations which were never taken into account, as described…

     Members of the firearms team who searched the gun cupboard, told COLP (1991) that there had not been a silencer in the gun cupboard on the morning they searched it (7 August 1985)…

     There should have been two identical silencers at the scene that morning…

     One belonging to the Bamber rifle, and the other belonging to the Pargeter rifle…

     TWO IDENTICAL PARKER HALE SILENCERS, one belonging to Ralph Bamber and the other belonging to Anthony Pargeter, now which silencer was Sheila’s blood found inside?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/11/2009 @ 1:05 pm

405. Anthony Pargeter purchased his 17 baffled silencer in 1980, it was normally kept in the downstairs toilet at whf along with all his other weapons and ammunition’s…

     Ralph Bamber, purchased his 14 baffled silencer on 24 November 1984, and it was normally kept in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office…

     Lets get the facts right so that no-one can be left in any sort of doubt - Sheila’s blood was not found inside the Bamber silencer, because it only had 14 internalized baffles…

     Now if the Bamber silencer was not the silencer with Sheila’s blood found inside it, to whom did the other silencer which did have her blood inside it, belong to?

     Where was the Pargeter silencer at the material time of these shootings?

     Why don’t any of the relatives, or the police want to talk about Pargeters 17 baffled silencer?

     We know and can prove that on the morning 7 August 1985, that DS “Stan” the man, Jones, recovered an exhibit from the downstairs toilet at whf marked SBJ/1, we know this because he recovered three other exhibits marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, from the downstairs toilet, and the kitchen - these details were recorded in the property register linked to the first investigation under SC/688/85, but absent from the property register for the file SC/786/85…

     You will remember that the silencer is supposed to have had three exhibit references at one time or another, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1…

     Can a case be made out for the bloodstained silencer (SBJ/1) to have belonged to Pargeter,and that the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) was introduced to the Lab’ on 25 September 1985, to enable the prosecution to suggest that Sheila’s blood had been found inside the Bamber silencer, not the Pargeter one?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/11/2009 @ 3:46 pm

406. The handing over of the silencer on two separate occasions by the relatives, namely, by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on 12 August 1985, and by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985, could explain how the silencer was switched at the last minute, so that by the time this matter came to be considered at Jeremy’s trial in October 1986, it was being wrongly argued that Sheila’s blood had been found in the Bamber silencer, when it could not have been, because the Bamber silencer only had 14 baffles, not 17…

     The relatives could not have handed over the same silencer twice, once on 12 August 1985, and secondly on 11 September 1985…

     The silencer evidence has clearly been well and truly doctored to lend support for the prosecution of Jeremy in these proceedings, by anybodies standards…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/11/2009 @ 3:55 pm

407. Ian, you say “I have since found out in the course of my research that there were also house-flies present in the master bedroom and the kitchen. A quite unusual phenomenon for that time in the morning. It strongly suggests that Sheila had been dead hours. Enough time for flies to gather.
     This led to another piece of classic stupidity on the part of the police as they appear to have opened a window to get rid of them.”

     Was forensic entomology used in this country in the 1980s? Why would it be unusual for house flies to be present? They do gather around dead bodies within minutes of death but you don’t say approximately how many there were. It’s not uncommon for house flies to be present at that time of year whether early in the morning or not. Also female flies seek almost any warm, moist material with sufficient food for larval development for egg-laying purposes. So why would it strongly suggest that Sheila had been dead for hours? I’ve seen flies gather around and begin to lay eggs on organisms that are not yet dead too.

     Comment by Leigh — 9/11/2009 @ 5:49 pm

408. (Ian):- One can only conclude that by their apparent lax attitudes towards evidence their minds were already made up - 4 murders and a suicide. No need to conduct a thorough investigation. In their minds in was done and dusted. Something they later bitterly regretted. Evidence was badly handled, burnt and destroyed. Cricial evidence was mislayed or lost (Readers may remember that the silencer was found with a single strand of what appeared to be grey human hair attached to the end)
     ——————————————————————————————————————————————

     On the contrary there was a very thorough and far reaching initial investigation, backed up by the taking of hundreds of samples for forensic examination, and evidential purposes, a feature backed up by reference to the contents of the Major Incident property registers, which were compiled during the original investigation under SC/688/85…

     The grey hair that was attached to one of the silencers is nothing but a red herring, and in any event it might only have been a dog hair, and if so, how did the dogs hair get onto the end of the silencer, if it was hidden away out of sight in the gun cupboard?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/11/2009 @ 6:31 pm

409. I would suggest that the police arrived at the conclusions they originally arrived at, because of what they knew once they got into the premises, namely, that four persons were dead, and another who was suspected of being dead, did not die until long after the police first entered the building. Under these circumstances, Jeremy could not and did not influence the reasoning of the police in this matter…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 1:41 am

410. The most striking feature of this case, is and was that the armed police officers found Sheila’s body in the kitchen upon entry, albeit presumed dead, and that later her body ended up in the main bedroom upstairs, and the police (not Jeremy) stage managed it there to promote the idea that she had committed suicide there, and photographic evidence, which was taken by PC Bird, proves and establishes this beyond doubt. Some of these photographs were disclosed in what became known as the master copy album (223 pictures)and the court album (50 preselected pictures taken from the master copy album), whilst others which were and are of a very incriminating nature, were withheld and concealed in what we now know was called “The senior investigating officers album” which had 581 pictures contained inside it…

     It does not take a genius to work out why the police should seek to deliberately conceal and withhold over 351 crucial and explicit photographs connected with the investigation which were all capable of seriously undermining the entire prosecutions case…

     Imagine if the relatives had known about these other 351 pictures and what they contained, they would almost certainly have been jumping on the bandwagon, so to speak, accusing the police of stage managing the scene, and in particular the body of Sheila…

     Essex police mislead the relatives and they deceived the public about the true circumstances surrounding how Sheila had died at the scene, there is and now can be very little doubt about that…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 1:51 am

411. Ian, ,The presence of flies in both the bedroom and the kitchen may not be as significant as you think, since the bodies of Ralph and June were found in both of these locations…

     The point being that the presence of flies, in the bedroom and the kitchen, whether true or not, could be linked to the deaths of the parents, rather than to Sheila, who as I say, died in the main bedroom much later. In particular, after the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead, by reliance upon a cursory glance, mentioning that at that stage, Sheila only had one wound upon her throat - of interest is when the second wound was inflicted?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 10:37 am

412. If the relatives had got access to the police radio and communication log contents, at the beginning of the investigation, I wonder what they would have made of these contents…

     Two bodies found downstairs upon entry to the kitchen?

     Only three bodies found upstairs, by 8:10am?

     They would have raised merry hell, and been the first in line to accuse the police of shooting Sheila, in the bedroom later…

     What would the relatives, Ann Eaton, Peter Eaton, Robert Woodwis Boutflour, David Boutflour, and Anthony Pargeter, have said if they had found out that the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and pi Miller, had only seen one wound upon Sheila’s throat, at the time Sheila was pronounced as being dead, at 8:44am?

     What would these relatives have said if they had been shown the crime scene photograph which was taken by PC Bird which shows the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat at 10 O’clock, with the blood so fresh looking and running and leaking and flowing from the two wounds and the corners of her mouth, if the police had been suggesting that Sheila had been killed from as long ago as 3am that morning?

     We all know what they would have been saying, and we all know they would be unhappy with the suggestion that anybody other than Sheila could have killed herself in the bedroom?

     The displacement of the female body from the region of the kitchen to the main bedroom upstairs, would have been something that all the relatives would have been screaming about in the press and on the media, and they would not have let the matter settle…

     If the relatives found out that all this material had been concealed from them, as part of the original file (SC/688/85), they would have been going ballistic, and accusing the police of a cover up?

     Well, the boot is on the other foot now, and it is Jeremy’s turn to be concerned by all of this…

     I would suggest that every member of the public, should also be concerned by it, even more so, because the police knew before 7:45am, that they were dealing with A MURDER and A SUICIDE, which could only have been true, if they had found Sheila’s body downstairs as confirmed by reference to the contents of the police radio and communications log…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 10:51 am

413. (Ian);- Mike,
     There are elementary problems with what you are stating. You said
     ‘Jeremy could not have killed Sheila as long ago as 3am, and her blood still be pouring out of the two wounds upon her throat / neck and the corners of her mouth some seven hours later, as fresh and red in colour as if she had just been shot at around 10 O’clock… ‘
     My answer to this is quite simple. Medically is is quite possible to carry on bleeding after death. Your body carries aproxiamtely 9 pints of blood. Now using rather simple, but effective logic, if you shoot a hole in something - dead or alive that contains 9 pints of fluid - a whole lot of that is going to leak out.
     Furthermore, I have it on good authority that Sheila was taking medication. It particular she was taking pain killers such as Asprin. Not only does Asprin kill pain but it also has the effect of dramatically thinning the blood out. In effect, the blood’s naturally producing factor 8 clotting agent is significantly prohibited. This is a factor than sufferers of the blood disorder Hemophilia lack. Most if not all pain killer have this ingredient. Mike, put basically, Sheila would have carried on bleeding for a significant time after she was dead.
     —————————————-

     It would have been impossible for Sheila to have bled for over seven hours whilst her body was in the position which the police stage managed it in, and for none of the blood to coagulate at all. It would be impossible for Sheila to be dead, and for her heart not to be beating for over seven long hours and all her blood exit her body and continue to exit her body for over seven long hours, considering that the position of the two wounds upon her throat, were not on the lowest parts of her body, and by reference to the crime scene photographs (some of which Essex police have successfully concealed for almost 24 years) which show blood-staining on her nightdress, and no apparent explanation given for how blood from the two wounds ended up as it did on the nightdress? Sheila was not taking aspirin, and she did not suffer with the condition Hemophilia, and to be precise there was no medical evidene called upon or relied upon to suggest that blood which leaked from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat would not coagulate normally…

     If you or anybody else knows anything different then please provide the evidence…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 11:01 am

414. After jeremy was convicted for these murders, the police handed back TWO SILENCERS TO Robert Boutflour, against signature…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 11:03 am

415. Does anyone know why although the police arrived at the scene at just after 3:45am, no-one went up to the door of the farmhouse and knocked on the door?

     Does anyone know why if everyone was dead inside the farmhouse at that time (as alleged) why the police who had guns and everything else they needed to get into the house, did not try and gain access to the building until just before 7:30am, that morning?

     It would have been the easioest thing in the world to go to the house and break in if everyone was already dead, and there was no sign of life at all (as claimed in the official version of events provided by Essex police)..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 3:36 pm

416. The police at the scene were obviously very alert to the fact that there was someone still alive inside the house who was armed with a loaded gun, and this was the reason why they did not approach the house until just before 7:30am, that morning…

     Sheila was that person with a loaded gun, or two, or more…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 3:40 pm

417. The period between the mid 1980’s, and the beginning of the 1990’s, was a era which involved many cases where miscarriages of justice took place and occurred?

     Jeremy’s case is simply just one of these many cases…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/12/2009 @ 5:39 pm

418. Can anyone explain, why if the silencer was handled so extensively by David Boutflour, that when the police figerprinted it on 15 August 1985 (by oblique light test) and the 23rd August 1985 (by superglue treatment) that they did not find any of his fingerprints upon it?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/13/2009 @ 1:50 am

419. Why did the police seize two bibles from whf and tell Jeremy’s solicitors prior to the commencement of the trial that the bibles had been destroyed and that no photographs existed regarding them?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/13/2009 @ 8:09 am

420. The police at the scene recovered four crucial exhibits which were originally marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, the identity of which only two of the items are known about…

     The two items which have been identified, were renumbered or re-exhibited under the exhibit references DRH/50 and DRH/51…

     It was a very naughty thing to do, that which the police did regarding these two exhibits…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/13/2009 @ 2:32 pm

421. There is expected to be some news in the coming weeks from the CCRC regarding this case..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/14/2009 @ 6:47 pm

422. According to Essex police, they only found ione rifle in the bedroom, and that was on tiop of Sheila’s body, but WPC Jeapes reported that she could see a rifle leaning against the bedroom window at 7:15am, some 15 minutes before the raid team commenced its approach to enter the farmhouse and later PC Bird photographed it there at 10 O’clock that same morning…

     Now, my question is this, was the rifle on Sheila’s body, or leaning against the bedroom window?

     Which position?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/15/2009 @ 5:33 pm

423. It is very peculiar that none of the armed police officers who entered whf as part of the operation that morning (7 August 1985) made any mention or reference to specific times when they performed a particular duty…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/16/2009 @ 1:46 pm

424. No estimated time of death was ever given in connection with the death of Sheila Caffell, either by the police surgeon, Dr Craig, or the pathologist, Dr Peter Venezis..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/18/2009 @ 5:56 pm

425. The pathologist only went as far as to say that Sheila had died several hours prior to the occasion when he performed his autopsy upon her body, which was scheduled to take place at around 3pm, that same day..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/19/2009 @ 6:58 am

426. (John Hughes):- IF THE 2 BODIES COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE KITCHEN WINDOW,THEN WHY DOES ONE LOG STATE BY ONE POLICEMAN OUTSIDE OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW “ONE DEAD MALE AND ONE DEAD FEMALE ON THE KITCHEN FLOOR”.

     ————————————–

     John, with respect, the log does not state that a policeman saw the body of one dead male, and one dead female, from his vantage point outside the kitchen window,this reference is made once the police entered the building and timed at 7:376am, and specifically refers to the fact that these two bodies were found in the kitchen UPON ENTRY…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/19/2009 @ 7:02 am

427. What specific complainants did the relatives make against Essex police during the first part (SC/688/85) investigation?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/19/2009 @ 4:04 pm

428. None of the firearms officers who entered the scene that morning attended court during Jeremy’s trial, to testify and so none of them could be questioned about where they actually found all the five bodies upon entry?

     Comment by Anonymous — 9/20/2009 @ 2:14 pm

429. None of the armed officers who first entered whf appeared at court to testify during Jeremy’s trial and so none of them could be questioned or cross examined about where all the five bodies were found upon entry…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/20/2009 @ 2:16 pm

430. It is strongly suspected that several police officers falsified their pocketbook contents, in the same way that DS Jones falsified his, relating to the events which unfolded at whf that particular morning…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/20/2009 @ 2:19 pm

431. Ask former DS Jones about exhibits SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 which he seized from the scene, on the morning 7 August 1985?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/20/2009 @ 2:20 pm

432. Essex police were convinced, that Sheila had killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life - they believed this for over a month..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:05 pm

433. DCI “Taff” Jones and DS “Stan” the man Jones, knew about the silencer, on 9 August 1985, since they questioned jeremy about it, on that date, (the day before the relatives found it in the gun cupboard|)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:12 pm

434. What were the police doing questioning Jeremy about the silencer, on 9 August 1985, if they did not know anything at all about the silencer by that stage?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:17 pm

435. DCI Jones, and DS Jones questioned jeremy about the silencer, i.e. if it had been fitted to the end of the guns barrel, when they interviewed him on 9 August 1985, afterward, the police handed the keys to whf back to the relatives (Ann Eaton) and the relatives found the silencer on the following date (10 August 1985)…

     Something dodgy was going on, here…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:21 pm

436. It is looking more and more likely that the police put the silencer back in the gun cupboard for the relatives to find?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:41 pm

437. It is too much of a coincidence, that DCI “Taff” Jones, and DS “Stan” the man Jones, should be asking Jeremy, on 9 August 1985, whether or not the silencer was fitted to the end of the guns barrel, on the evening before the shootings, and that they handed the keys to whf back to the relatives, that same evening, and on the following day the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard..

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 3:46 pm

438. The police must have already found the silencer, been told about it, or known about it, on 9 August 1985, to enable them to question Jeremy about it, before the police handed the keys to whf over to the relatives, and prior to the occasion ion the following day (10 August 1985) when the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard?

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/21/2009 @ 4:04 pm

439. RABBITS BLOOD CLUE TO MURDERS (Daily Express Article, 22 September 2009)…

     A HIGH-profile convicted killer is claiming that blood evidence used to jail him may have come from a rabbit.

     The bizarre allegation comes from ­Jeremy Bamber, jailed in 1986 for the murders of five members of his family.

     Bamber – who stood to inherit almost half a million pounds – claimed his sister Sheila Caffell, a paranoid schizophrenic, had shot her mother, father and twin sons before committing suicide at a farmhouse in Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex, the previous year.

     A jury at Chelmsford Crown Court disagreed and found him guilty of murder.He was labelled “wicked”, “callous” and “evil, almost beyond belief” by the judge.

     He has twice appealed against his conviction and last month the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision that he should never be released on parole.

     However, fresh evidencøe could overturn the conviction and end what his ­supporters have always called a mis­carriage of justice.

     A key piece of evidence against him at trial was a flake of dried blood, said to be Sheila’s, found in a gun silencer. The jury were told that the presence of an AK1 enzyme in the blood proved it must have come from Sheila because the blood groups of the other victims did not contain the AK1 component.

     Handwritten notes obtained by Bamber’s legal team offer a different explanation. The notes, written in the run-up to the trial, say the AK1 enzyme is present in many types of animal blood and, importantly, two types of animal blood were found on the end of the silencer. This information was not used at the trial and was omitted from forensic reports.

     Speaking from Full Sutton prison near York, Bamber said: “We don’t know which animal’s blood was on the gun silcncer but it had been used to shoot rabbits so that would be a reasonable assumption. It is possible it wasn’t mentioned by anyone because it wasn’t thought ­relevant to the case but the significance of it is great.”

     SEARCH UK NEWS for:

     Bamber, 49, has written to the Criminal Cases Review Commission asking for an appeal at the earliest opportunity. He says that the blood thought to have been Sheila’s could have come from one of the animals shot on the farm.

     “So the Crown are now in a difficult position because they can no longer assert that it was Sheila’s blood in the gun silencer because of the finding of the AK1 enzyme.”

     The CCRC has been reviewing the case since 2004 and has the power to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

     Bamber’s bid for freedom also rests on 150 pages of legal submissions relating to police documents and photographs that claim to prove Sheila was still alive while Bamber was with the police and therefore she must have been responsible.

     He said: “I genuinely believe at long last that this is it.

     “I believe I should be allowed to argue this issue in court. I’m expecting some sort of decision soon. We’ll see.”

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/22/2009 @ 2:52 pm

440. Blood which was photographed to be running and leaking from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat / neck, may have been mistakenly interpreted as having occurred at the time she was shot twice - when in reality it was merely evidence that the police moved the body 30 minutes or so before PC Bird took the crucial photograph, and thereafter, the rifle was planted upon the body, and her right hand placed on top of the gun…

     Comment by mike tesko — 9/25/2009 @ 3:26 pm

441. Jeremy Bambers original solicitor, Paul Terzon, asked Essex police if they had taken any photographs of the bible and its contents?

     He was told that the bible had unfortunately been destroyed, and that no photographs of it existed…

     Whilst all the while, the police were concealing all such pictures in the senior investigating officers album, which was being kept under lock and key in ACC Peter Simpsons office safe at police DHQ…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/1/2009 @ 2:22 pm

442. When someone (the dialer) calls someone else on the phone, the line will remain open, until the dialer terminates the call, either by depressing the cradle, or replacing the handset upon its receiver. If the person receiving the call (the receiver) depresses the cradle, or he or she replaces the handset upon its cradle, the handset can be picked back up and the line will not have become broken…

     If the dialer depresses the cradle or replaces the handset upon its cradle, the receiver may make other calls providing that he or she depresses the cradle at least once, or that the handset is replaced upon the cradle, and then lifted back of AGAIN, AND A SEPARATE NUMBER DIALED…

     In order for Jerenmy to be able to make other calls, Ralph would have had to depress the cradle of the phone at the kitchen at whf, or replace the handset upon its cradle…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/2/2009 @ 6:36 pm

443. To be pondered, is how the silencer could have ended up inside the gun cupboard by 10 August 1985, to allow David Boutflour to find it there, if it was used in the shootings?

     We know that at least four different police officers looked inside that gun cupboard on the morning of the incident, and that they even removed a 12 bore shotgun from there which they placed against the downstairs office wall. The fingerprints of Ralph and Sheila were subsequently found to be present upon this 12 bore shotgun which had been concealed in the same gun cupboard which the silencer was said to have been subsequently found in, four days later…

     There was nothing unusual about finding the 12 bore shotgun, or ammunition, or even the silencer in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, since this was the official place were all of this equipment and accessories were supposed to have been stored at the farm…

     Sheila’s and Ralph’s fingerprints were found to be present upon the 12 bore shotgun, and Sheila’s and Jeremy’s fingerprints were found to be present upon the silencer…

     What is rather puzzling, is that the fingerprints of the relatives who found the silencer in the gun cupboard on Saturday, 10 August 1985, and who handled it extensively on that occasion, without wearing gloves, was absent from the silencer?

     How could the fingerprints of the relatives who handled the silencer so extensively, not be found upon the silencer when it was examined for fingerprints, on 15th and 23rd August 1985?

     David Boutflour, for example, says he found the silencer in a box inside the gun cupboard, and that once he got it out on the kitchen table at whf he tried to physically unscrew the end cap from it…

     In order to attempt to do such a thing, it would require contact with the silencer by the use of both hands, one hand to hold the silencers tubing, and the other to physically grab hold of the end cap with a view to trying to unscrew it…

     It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for his fingerprints not to have been found upon that silencer once he handled it so extensively…

     The police did not even take his fingerprints for elimination purposes, despite knowing that he had handled it to the extent he handled it, as described…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/3/2009 @ 1:06 pm

444. Essex police and the CPS have duped the relatives, and the court which tried jeremy for these murders, in October 1986, into believing that Jeremy stage managed Sheila’s body to make out a false case that she had taken her own life, when all along it was the police at the scene who are guilty of doing all of these things…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/4/2009 @ 1:48 pm

445. NONE OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER IN THE LIGHT OF NEVILLE HAVING A PANIC ALARM FITTED. ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD USE THIS ALARM IF THEIR LIFE WAS UNDER THREAT.MIKE, YOU SAY IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO PONDER WHY NEVILLE DIDN’T USE THE PANIC ALARM,BUT THIS IS SO CRUCIAL WHEN DEBATING THE EVIDENCE.COMMON SENSE MUST PREVAIL.SURELY MIKE YOU CAN’T TELL ME YOU WOULD’NT USE THIS ALARM IF YOU HAD ONE FITTED.THAT IS WHAT IT IS THERE FOR.

     Comment by john hughes — 10/7/2009 @ 10:51 pm

446. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WOULD’NT USE THE PANIC ALARM WHEN THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING ONE FITTED IS TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY AND ONESELF? AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED,WHOEVER JEREMY’S ACCOMPLICE WAS AT THE FARM THAT NIGHT NEEDED MORE TIME,WHICH IS WHY NEVILLE NEVER PHONED THAT NIGHT BECAUSE TO PRESS THE PANIC ALARM WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE POLICE TO ARRIVE AT THE FARM STRAIGHT AWAY AND ANY SO CALLED ALIBIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TIME TO BE IRONED OUT.I’M SORRY FOLKS BUT JEREMY IS INVOLVED. HE HAD THE MEANS,THE MOTIVE AND THE OPPORTUNITY AND I WILL NOT BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE.HE DID IT ALRIGHT.I HAVE BEEN RELIABLY INFORMED THAT THE MEDICATION SHEILA WAS TAKING WOULD HAVE RENDERED HER INCAPABLE OF THIS CRIME BECAUSE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS.FOR ONE THING SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN DROWSY AND ALL HER SENSES LESSENED TO A LARGE DEGREE.IT WOULD HAVE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO OVERPOWER HER FATHER.

     Comment by john hughes — 10/7/2009 @ 11:17 pm

447. John Hughes:- NONE OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER IN THE LIGHT OF NEVILLE HAVING A PANIC ALARM FITTED. ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD USE THIS ALARM IF THEIR LIFE WAS UNDER THREAT.MIKE, YOU SAY IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO PONDER WHY NEVILLE DIDN’T USE THE PANIC ALARM,BUT THIS IS SO CRUCIAL WHEN DEBATING THE EVIDENCE.COMMON SENSE MUST PREVAIL.SURELY MIKE YOU CAN’T TELL ME YOU WOULD’NT USE THIS ALARM IF YOU HAD ONE FITTED.THAT IS WHAT IT IS THERE FOR.
     ———————————————————————————————————————-

     First of all, we do not know that Ralph did not use the panic alarm.

     It remains possible that the alarm was not working because White house farm had been struck by lightening a day or so before the tragedy, and it knocked out the phone system.

     The panic alarm was lined to the telephone at the farmhouse, and therefore there is no guarantee that the alrm was working at the time of the shootings. This being the case, Ralph would not have been able to activate the alarm, even if he had wanted to.

     I hope this satisfies your curiosity..

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/9/2009 @ 1:55 pm

448. For some reason, Essex police, and the relatives make no mention of the alarm that was fitted at the farmhouse because of threats which had been made against Ralph Bambers, and his families, lives…

     Although Ralph was the Chairman of the Magistrates at Witham magistrates court, his duties got suspended because of the threats made against his life, and in fact he did not participate in any further court case after the threats were made…

     The police knew that someone had made threats against Ralph and his family, but they chose to keep this matter a close secret, and that was why there was no mention of the alarm that was fitted at the house…

     The other thing which not many people know about, is that when Ralph made his call to the police at 3:27am, a police patrol car, CA5 was dispatched to the scene, but another patrol car, CA7 actually arrived there long before it. The mix uop between Ca5 and CA7, is related to the fact that Ralph made a call to the police, and so did Jeremy. One patrol car was dispatched as a result of Ralph’s call to the police, and another patrol car was dispatched responding to Jeremy’s call to the police. CA7 arrived at the scene long before CA5, despite CA5 being deployed to go to the scene before CA7…

     If the alarm was malfunctioning, because of the earlier lightening strike, it would make sense that Ralph would then have used the telephone to contact the police. This is precisely what Ralph Bamber did…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/9/2009 @ 2:20 pm

449. John Hughes:- NONE OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER IN THE LIGHT OF NEVILLE HAVING A PANIC ALARM FITTED. ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD USE THIS ALARM IF THEIR LIFE WAS UNDER THREAT.MIKE, YOU SAY IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO PONDER WHY NEVILLE DIDN’T USE THE PANIC ALARM,BUT THIS IS SO CRUCIAL WHEN DEBATING THE EVIDENCE.COMMON SENSE MUST PREVAIL.SURELY MIKE YOU CAN’T TELL ME YOU WOULD’NT USE THIS ALARM IF YOU HAD ONE FITTED.THAT IS WHAT IT IS THERE FOR.
     ———————————————————————————————————————-
     If the alarm was out of order how could Ralph have used it?

     The next best thing would have been for Ralph to call the police…

     Also, if he had time, for Ralph to call family, or someone who he thought might be able to get to the farm sharpish and help to get Sheila under control?

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/9/2009 @ 5:06 pm

450. For some reason, the relatives did not make any inquiries regarding the threats which had been directed at Ralph, and his family,when carrying out their own investigations…

     Yet, Ralph’s duties as a magistrate were cut short and the panic alarm was fitted because the father of a defendant who Ralph sentenced to a term of imprisonment for driving offenses, threatened to kill Ralph and all of his family, only months before the shootings which took place at whf…

     Instead, the relatives choose to pursue Jeremy as the suspect, and they helped top gather evidence which was used to prosecute Jeremy as the murderer…

     The person who made the threats to kill against Ralph and his family, has ever been arrested or questioned in connection with the shootings at whf, at least if he was, then Essex police have chosen to keep those details a closely guarded secret…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/11/2009 @ 7:00 am

451. John Hughes:- CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WOULD’NT USE THE PANIC ALARM WHEN THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING ONE FITTED IS TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY AND ONESELF? AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED,WHOEVER JEREMY’S ACCOMPLICE WAS AT THE FARM THAT NIGHT NEEDED MORE TIME,WHICH IS WHY NEVILLE NEVER PHONED THAT NIGHT BECAUSE TO PRESS THE PANIC ALARM WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE POLICE TO ARRIVE AT THE FARM STRAIGHT AWAY AND ANY SO CALLED ALIBIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TIME TO BE IRONED OUT.I’M SORRY FOLKS BUT JEREMY IS INVOLVED. HE HAD THE MEANS,THE MOTIVE AND THE OPPORTUNITY AND I WILL NOT BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE.HE DID IT ALRIGHT.I HAVE BEEN RELIABLY INFORMED THAT THE MEDICATION SHEILA WAS TAKING WOULD HAVE RENDERED HER INCAPABLE OF THIS CRIME BECAUSE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS.FOR ONE THING SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN DROWSY AND ALL HER SENSES LESSENED TO A LARGE DEGREE.IT WOULD HAVE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO OVERPOWER HER FATHER.
     ——————————————

     Your informant has got the facts wrong regarding Sheila and the medication she was taking - for a start, June (Bamber) told Pamela (Boutflour) on the telephone whilst speaking to her on the evening before the shootings took place (6 August 1985) that Sheila had not been taking her medication, and that she wanted to speak to her on the following day regarding Sheila’s very odd and strange behavior…

     So, your informant needs to get the facts right…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/11/2009 @ 7:05 am

452. Call sign CA07 was sent to the scene at whf in response to Ralph Bambers distress call, which he made to the police at 3:27am, and this was the police vehicle which sped past Jeremy Bamber en route to the scene, arriving there a couple of minutes before he did…

     CA05 was dispatched to the scene after Jeremy made his own call to the police at 3:37am…

     CA07 arrived at the scene at 3:50am, and CA05 arrived at the scene at 4:22am…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/12/2009 @ 4:00 pm

453. Essex police covered up the fact that Ralph made a call to the police all of his own doing, and that call sign CA07 was dispatched to the scene in response to his call to the police at 3:27am, and another call sign, CA05, was dispatched to the scene once Jeremy made his own call to them at 3:37am…

     The wrong police car overtook Jeremy en route to the scene, namely, call sign CA07, when in fact, CA05 had been dispatched in response to Jeremy’s call…

     The police car which was dispatched in response to Jeremy’s call to the police at 3:37am, (CA05) did not overtake Jeremy en route to the scene, because it did not arrive there until 4:22am, whereas, Jeremy arrived at the scene at 3:52am, two minutes after CA07 arrived…

     The court was given the impression at the time of the trial, that the police who had been dispatched to the scene in response to Jeremy’s call (3:37am) had overtaken him en route to the scene, but this was definitely not the case, since CA07 was responding to a separate call altogether…

     These facts have only very recently been uncovered and can be proven by reference to policer documentation which is now in Jeremy’s possession…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/14/2009 @ 1:44 pm

454. Two phones were in use at whf at the material time, (1) a phone in the kitchen, and (2) another phone in the upstairs office…

     The operator established that the internal line between both of these telephones at the scene, remained open…

     It was never suggested that the operator had found the kitchen phone at whf in an open state connected to another telephone elsewhere, other than inside whf…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/18/2009 @ 11:08 am

455. The stomach contents of Sheila were found to have been partially digested, but the stomach contents of the other four victims was not mentioned or referred to, and so comparison can be made ragarding the possible times of death in relation, on e victim to the other, and vice versa…

     Comment by miketesko — 10/25/2009 @ 10:59 am

456. If Jeremy was the killer, he must have killed Sheila before 3am - and because blood which was bright red and fresh looking was still pouring and running and leaking from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat and the corners of her mouth, at around 10 O’clock that morning without it coagulating, it must surely mean that Jeremy could not and did not kill his sister, its as simple as that really…

     Comment by mike tesko — 10/27/2009 @ 4:25 pm

457. I do not believe that the presence of blood on or inside the silencer, establishes that it was used on the guns barrel at the time of the shootings, in particular, at the time of Sheila Caffells death?

     Similarly, the presence of red paint ingrained into the end of the silencer, does not necessarily prove that the silencer was on the gun when Sheila was shot and killed…

     The only thing which would clinch it for me, was if there was ballistic evidence which linked one or both of the two bullets (PV/19 and PV/20) as having been fired through the silencer whilst it was attached to the guns barrel?

     The prosecution and its experts have failed to prove or establish this point, and because of this, no-one can say with a degree of certainty that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/2/2009 @ 3:18 pm

458. Since there is no ballistic evidence to link the silencer to any of the 25 crime scene bullets, the silencer should be treated as nothing more than a red herring, which was introduced by the prosecution, to paint a false picture, surrounding how Sheila, and the others, had died at the scene…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/5/2009 @ 1:00 pm

459. The bodies of the three adult victims were positioned at the scene so as not to obstruct the police investigation inside the farmhouse:-

     (1) The body of Ralph Bamber was moved from its original position of being found directly behind the kitchen door to its last resting place, crumpled onto an overturned wooden chair by the corner of the Aga…

     (2) June Bambers body is believed to have been moved from the bed to its last resting place by the bedroom door…

     (3) Sheila’s body which was originally found downstairs in the kitchen, ended upstairs in the main bedroom, and is believed to have been positioned next to the bed on the carpet and the police put the family owned .22 semi-automatic rifle upon it…

     It was no coincidence that the three adult bodies ended up in these positions at the scene, since the police inside the house were responsible for doing it, so that they could carry out other duties at the scene, before the bodies of all five victims were removed to Chelmsford hospital mortuary…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/8/2009 @ 2:45 am

460. The police photographed the bodies of the three adults after they had stage managed them at the scene - after they moved each of them…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/8/2009 @ 2:47 am

461. The stage managing of Ralph Bamber’s body - his body was originally found sat perched upon a large wooden chair directly behind the internal kitchen door through which the police had to enter to gain access to the kitchen. As a result of this, the police forced Ralph’s body out of the way, by applying pressure to the door, which in turn toppled Ralph from the chair, and sent his body crashing onto another wooden chair, by the corner of the aga on the kitchen floor. Later on, the police inside the house repositioned Ralph’s head into the coal bucket to try and stem the flow of blood from several head wounds he had sustained. Unfortunately, blood from these wounds continued to pour on the outside of the coal bucket and it began to pool on the kitchen floor, and so the police used items of clothing and a large towel which they placed on the kitchen floor around the area of the coal bucket to try and prevent the blood from spreading further afield. The kitchen table which had been found overturned (and crockery and utensils whuch had been found upon the kitchen floor), was up-righted and crockery, utensils, and bullet cases picked up from the floor, were then placed back onto the top of the table…

     Once this was done…

     The police photographed the scene.

     The images contained in the crime scene photographs taken in the kitchen, show the position of Ralph’s body, and the state of the kitchen in general, after the police had stage managed it, and do not reflect how the scene was found by the police upon entry into the premises…

     A total of 358 other photographs which formed part of a secret album (that actually contained 581 pictures)which became known as the “SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM”, never found their way into the so called “MASTER COPY ALBUM” which only contained 223 pictures. Of these 223 pictures, only 50 preselected ones found there way into the “COURT ALBUM” and these 50 pictures tended to support the case which the prosecutions brought against Jeremy Bamber…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/8/2009 @ 3:03 am

462. Jeremy Bamber is innocent…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/8/2009 @ 10:38 am

463. The jury were only asked to consider two possible suspects in the killings, in particular, that (1) either Sheila killed the others and then took her own life, or (2) that Jeremy killed everyone, including Sheila, and that he stage managed her body to make it appear as though she had taken her own life?

     However, there was a third possible explanation, which the jury did not consider (3) that Sheila shot and killed the others, and that the police played some role in her death in the main bedroom, after they had entered the premises…

     Evidence exists in the form of police radio and communication log contents, and testimony of various police officers who attended the scene, and by a reliance on previously unseen crime scene photographs, which casts doubt, on the original (1) and (2) scenario…

     There is a real possibility that the police played some role in Sheila’s death, and that she did not die inside the bedroom, until after the armed officers entered the building…

     Some evidence exists to support the view that the police inside the premises, stage managed her body to make it appear as though she had taken her own life, when she may not have done…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/11/2009 @ 4:38 pm

464. Essex police and the CPS who were jointly responsible for producing the evidence that was relied upon to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these five murders, deliberately chose to withhold evidence, information, the contents of police radio and communication logs, and crime scene photographs, that would have established that he could not have killed his sister in the main bedroom, at the farmhouse, knew that Jeremy Bamber was being falsely prosecuted for the five murders, on the basis that he killed everyone, including his sister, and that he set the scene to make it appear or look like Sheila had killed the others and that she had then taken her own life…

     Essex police and the CPS knew that this approach was a false and a malicious one…

     To these ends, they deliberately withheld all the information, material, photogra90hs and absolutely anything and everything which might expose the case for what it was - a Witch - hunt…

     The police inside the house (not the ones outside) played a role in the circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died inside the main bedroom at whf, not Jeremy Bamber, or anyone else…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/14/2009 @ 6:45 am

465. It may not be just a coincidence that most of the members of the conspiracy surround the nature and circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died at the scene (whf) on the morning of 7 August 1985, were all Freemasons, and that one of the five victims (Ralph Bamber) was also a Freemason. In addition, ACC Peter Simpson who played an active role in the cover up, was also a Freemason. In addition, the relative (Robert Woodwis Boutflour) who managed to persuade ACC peter Simpson, to instigate a fresh investigation on or around 6 September 1985, was himself a Freemason. The senior police officers who instigated the new investigation under the crime reference number, SC/786/85. were all themselves Freemasons…

     The three appellate judges who sat in judgment at Jeremy Bambers failed appeal (2002) are understood to also have been Freemasons…

     Members of the CPS who helped to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these five murders, are also known or believed to have been Freemasons…

     Home Secretaries, who have helped to secure and maintain these convictions against Bamber, were Freemasons…

     High Court Judges who recently ruled that life must mean life in Jeremy Bambers case, are understood to have been part of the Freemason institution…

     If anyone has got any doubts about why there should appear to be and have been so such bias in this case, one should look no further than the fact that the main participants in helping to secure and maintain the prosecution and convictions are all, or were all, Freemasons…

     This group of individuals were all part of the same circle, all playing their part at different stages of the case or proceedings - those involved directly in the circumstances of how Sheila died at the scene, shall be referred to as the “INNER CIRCLE” and attached to this group, were other senior police officers who were not actually there at the material time, but who instigated and helped to promote the cover up. Once the police decided to go along that road, it snowballed out of control, and this necessitated the involvement of more and more fellow Freemasons in high places…

     The cover up continues to this day - despite the fact that some 24 years have elapsed since the police at the scene participated in the death of Sheila in the main bedroom at the scene…

     Comment by mike tesko — 11/14/2009 @ 7:01 am

466. I am due to visit Jeremy in the next few weeks and will update with the latest news and developments in due course…

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 11/24/2009 @ 6:36 pm

467. Attention is now being focused upon the materialization of scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece of the aga, in the kitchen, at whf, on an occasion after the date when the killings took place or occurred?

     These three scratch marks, were not present there on the morning of the murders, as confirmed by reference to the actual crime scene photographs taken by the police that morning…

     How did these three scratch marks get onto the underside on the aga mantelpiece, on some occasion, afterward?

     Who, was responsible for making those marks, and why?

     What are the consequences of those marks being made, for Jeremy’s convictions, and or for the person, or persons, who were responsible for making them?

     Comment by miketesko — 11/29/2009 @ 9:25 am

468. Mike Tesko…I too believe Jeremy’s innocent… Do you know if there are any crime scene pictures about that we could see..or are there any other sites where we may look?

     Comment by Interested! — 12/3/2009 @ 12:13 pm

469. Bamber was responsible for making them when he savagely attacked Ralph in the kitchen. This was born out when it was discovered that the very same paint was found on the silencer that Bamber had used. What evidence do you possess that shows that the scratch mark were not present when the police took their crime scene photos? Scene of Crimes Officers including DS Cook present reported seeing them on the morning of the discovery. I dont understand your logic here Mike?

     Comment by Ian — 12/4/2009 @ 8:47 am

470. Mike I seriously question your logic with the statement you made concerning Freemasons. You wrote that ‘465.It may not be just a coincidence that most of the members of the conspiracy surround the nature and circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died at the scene (whf) on the morning of 7 August 1985, were all Freemasons, and that one of the five victims (Ralph Bamber) was also a Freemason. In addition, ACC Peter Simpson who played an active role in the cover up, was also a Freemason. In addition, the relative (Robert Woodwis Boutflour) who managed to persuade ACC peter Simpson, to instigate a fresh investigation on or around 6 September 1985, was himself a Freemason. The senior police officers who instigated the new investigation under the crime reference number, SC/786/85. were all themselves Freemasons…’ Unquote.
     Would it have made any difference if they were all Christians, Muslims or Mooneys or members of the local pub darts team?
     Freemasonry is NOT a criminal organisation. The last time I checked it was and still is a perfectly legal organisation. Paranoia surrounding such organisations has never ceased to amaze me. They have been blamed from everything ranging from the crimes of Jack the Ripper to being responsible for 9/11. This is a total red herring designed in order to muddy the waters. What about the officers present who were NOT Freemasons? How do you figure they were kept quiet?
     Not a single officer in 24 years has come forward with any other explanation other than the events submitted at the trial in October 1986 and subsequent Appeal Court Hearings. This theory smacks of desparation Mike. Many could so easily accuse you of much the same conspiracy. A close circle of so-called supporters many of them embittered by their experiences with the Criminal Justice System, getting their heads together to come up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to bamboozle an Appeal Court into getting his conviction quashed on a technicality. The puppet-master none-other than Bamber himself.
     You can see how these things work Mike. It is better to have some common sense and look at the facts.

     Comment by Ian — 12/4/2009 @ 9:10 am

471. In crimes of this appalling magnitude the police often look at something they call an ‘MMO’ - Method, Motive and Opportunity. Both Bamber children had these - albeit Sheila to a far lesser degree than Jeremy. Method - this is clear firearms. Motive - Sheila in her deranged state murdered the family, although evidence does not bare this out. Jeremy murdered the family through a mixture of greed and hatred for his adopted parents. Opportunity - Sheila, it has been claimed was in a deranged state of mind on the night of the 6/7 August 1985 after not taking her prescribed medication, grabbed a fully loaded rifle (left there earlier by Jeremy)and massacred the family. Jeremy planned the massacre for months to coincide with his sisters stay at the farm in order to make her a convenient scapegoat for the killings. Stealthily entered the property and murdered them - something then girlfriend Julie Mugford claimed he later confided in her about.
     This is the essence of the case. However there are cracks in between. These cracks proved that Sheila could not have possibly carried out the killings in which Bamber unashamedly and immediately pointed the finger to. Sheila’s supposed fight in the kitchen with Ralph seems ever-more implausible. The bloody silencer proves beyond any doubt that Sheila could not have shot herself dead and then walked down the stairs and replaced it in the gun cupboard. The two shots to Sheila’s neck showed that it was highly unlikely after the first shot she was capable of walking down stairs. Moreover there was no evidence that Sheila even moved after the first shot was fired.
     Bamber’s behaviour after the murders was highly suspicious to say the least.

     Comment by Ian — 12/5/2009 @ 5:48 am

472. Jeremy is currently in contact with the CCRC awaiting a decision as to whether or not to refer his case will be referred back to the court of appeal…

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/5/2009 @ 2:16 pm

473. If Jeremy was the killer as alleged, why does evidence exist which was suppressed from jeremy and his legal team and the court which tried him for these murders, which establishes that Ralph and Sheila fought and struggled with one another, over the control or possession of a 12 bore shotgun, in the region of the kitchen? The police had evidence that the end of the shotguns barrel was contaminated with paint from the aga, and the fingerprints of Ralph and Sheila were found upon the barrel of the same shotgun, and in addition, Ralph had gouge marks upon his right forearm which could have been made by Sheila, and similarly, Sheila had a gouge mark on the top part of her right hand which could have been made by Ralph…

     Why did Essex police conceal all of this evidence under a different crime file (SC/688/85)?

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/6/2009 @ 12:30 pm

474. Ian, you say “A close circle of so-called supporters many of them embittered by their experiences with the Criminal Justice System, getting their heads together to come up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to bamboozle an Appeal Court into getting his conviction quashed on a technicality.”

     Well again I have to ask, why would they? If the reason was that some of them were embittered by their own past experiences with the Criminal Justice System, how does getting someone else’s conviction quashed make things any better for these individuals now?

     Comment by Leigh — 12/9/2009 @ 11:00 am

475. Response to post below:-

     Bamber was responsible for making them when he savagely attacked Ralph in the kitchen. This was born out when it was discovered that the very same paint was found on the silencer that Bamber had used. What evidence do you possess that shows that the scratch mark were not present when the police took their crime scene photos? Scene of Crimes Officers including DS Cook present reported seeing them on the morning of the discovery. I dont understand your logic here Mike?

     Comment by Ian — 12/4/2009 @ 8:47 am
     ————————————–

     Fact of the matter is, that not all the marks were physically present upon the aga on the morning of the killings, as evidenced by reference to crime scene photographs…

     The marks on the front facing panel of the aga are visible in some of the crime scene pictures taken by the police that morning, but others ion the underside of the mantelpiece are absent, and did not get made there until much later. These additional marks were not made by the police, but came into existence once the keys to whf were handed back over to the family on the evening of 9 August 1985. Lets get the facts into perspective, so that everyone can know what we are talking about - the first time these additional marks were brought to the attention of the police was on 14 August 1985, when Essex police, DI Cook (SOC) no less, asked Ann Eaton to open up whf…

     By that stage, and since 9 August 1985, the relatives had access to the mantelpiece in the kitchen at whf, and what is more, between 10 and the evening of 12 august 1985, they also had control of the silencer…

     How did paint from underneath the mantelpiece of the aga in the kitchen, get onto the end of the silencer?

     At what stage did the marks appear there, for the very first time?

     The relatives brought the attention of the police to the marks on the underside of the aga, and to the paint ingrained into the end of the silencer - in my opinion, this evidence is dodgy and unreliable because of the role played in its existence by the relatives…

     The police did not seen the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen on the morning of the murders, and the crime scene photographs they took that morning do not show such marks to be present, where they would have been if they had been caused during the alleged struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer…

     The only marks which were visible on the morning of the murders, were present on the front face of the aga, and the police at that stage, were satisfied that the end of a guns barrel (not the silencer) had caused such marks (DS Davidson told the COLP investigators in 199 whilst being interviewed about the role he played in the investigation as a SOC officer, that the police had found a gun somewhere at the scene (downstairs) which had paint from the aga ingrained into the end of its barrel. COLP queried whether or not, he was refreshing to the end of the silencer when he mentioned the finding of paint on the end of a guns barrel, and Davidson told them, “No” he repeated that the police at the scene had found a gun downstairs which had paint ingrained into the end of its barrel - so here lies the truth about what marks existed on the aga on the morning of the murders, and the police were satisfied that any marks which were present there at that stage had been made by a guns barrel coming into contact with the aga, not the silencer…

     There were no marks at all on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen on the morning of 7 August 1985, but some existed there by the 14 August 1985, when Ann Eaton showed them to DI Cook (SOC) - work it out for yourself when these marks could have been, and were made, and by whom?

     These additional marks were not made at the material time of the shootings…

     The court was misled on this point…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 4:13 pm

476. The police took a paint sample, RC/1, from the aga on 8 August 1985, with the intention of matching the paint from the aga, to the end of the guns barrel, which DS Davidson mentioned to Colp during his interviews in 1991…

     To all intents and purposes, the marks on the front face of the aga were made by the end of a guns barrel, not by any silencer…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 4:17 pm

477. This paint sample, RC/1, was taken from the aga,on 8 August 1985, two days before the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard on 10 August 1985, and long before the relatives brought the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece to the attention of the police on 14 August 1985…

     The silencer was a prop introduced to make it appear as though it had been used in the shootings, but the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, stated that he could not tell if any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through a silencer at all..

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 4:20 pm

478. The pathologist, Peter Venizis, noted gouge and scratch marks on the right forearm of Ralph Bamber, and the top part of Sheila’s right hand, which were not made by the same person…

     The gouge marks on the top part of Sheila’s right hand were made by someone with relatively short fingernails, whilst the gouge and scratch marks found on Ralph’s right forearm, were made by someone with longish fingernails…

     The same person could not and did not make these marks on both of the victims - this is direct evidence that one person did not kill all the family, as alleged. The injuries sustained by Ralph and Sheila, were and are consistent with them fighting or struggling with each other…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 4:26 pm

479. response to :-

     Mike I seriously question your logic with the statement you made concerning Freemasons. You wrote that ‘465.It may not be just a coincidence that most of the members of the conspiracy surround the nature and circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died at the scene (whf) on the morning of 7 August 1985, were all Freemasons, and that one of the five victims (Ralph Bamber) was also a Freemason. In addition, ACC Peter Simpson who played an active role in the cover up, was also a Freemason. In addition, the relative (Robert Woodwis Boutflour) who managed to persuade ACC peter Simpson, to instigate a fresh investigation on or around 6 September 1985, was himself a Freemason. The senior police officers who instigated the new investigation under the crime reference number, SC/786/85. were all themselves Freemasons…’ Unquote.
     Would it have made any difference if they were all Christians, Muslims or Mooneys or members of the local pub darts team?
     Freemasonry is NOT a criminal organisation. The last time I checked it was and still is a perfectly legal organization. Paranoia surrounding such organisations has never ceased to amaze me. They have been blamed from everything ranging from the crimes of Jack the Ripper to being responsible for 9/11. This is a total red herring designed in order to muddy the waters. What about the officers present who were NOT Freemasons? How do you figure they were kept quiet?

     Ian
     ——————————————
     Fact of the matter is, that there existed a group of police officers who sought to cover up the true circumstances surrounding the actual death of Sheila Caffell at the scene, and that all of them involved in this conspiracy were all freemasons, and the investigation was influenced by other freemasons, namely by one of the senior relatives, Robert Woodwis Boutflour, who used his connection with and to the ACC of Essex police, Peter Simpson, as a fellow freemason, to change the course of the investigation, to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted. If these police officers had all been christians, Muslims, or moonies, as you put it, it would still have been the case, that they all conspired together to cover up the true circumstances of how Sheila died at the scene. Fact of the matter is, these conspirators were mainly police officers who were all freemasons, and the investigation changed its course, by the involvement of another freemason, who was not a police officer…

     Police officers who were present at the scene who were not freemasons, were engaged in duties outside the premises at the time of Sheila Caffels death, and therefore, they had no knowledge of what actually took place inside the farmhouse at the material time that Sheila died inside the bedroom upstairs…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 6:39 pm

480. response to :-

     In crimes of this appalling magnitude the police often look at something they call an ‘MMO’ - Method, Motive and Opportunity. Both Bamber children had these - albeit Sheila to a far lesser degree than Jeremy. Method - this is clear firearms. Motive - Sheila in her deranged state murdered the family, although evidence does not bare this out. Jeremy murdered the family through a mixture of greed and hatred for his adopted parents. Opportunity - Sheila, it has been claimed was in a deranged state of mind on the night of the 6/7 August 1985 after not taking her prescribed medication, grabbed a fully loaded rifle (left there earlier by Jeremy)and massacred the family. Jeremy planned the massacre for months to coincide with his sisters stay at the farm in order to make her a convenient scapegoat for the killings. Stealthily entered the property and murdered them - something then girlfriend Julie Mugford claimed he later confided in her about.
     This is the essence of the case. However there are cracks in between. These cracks proved that Sheila could not have possibly carried out the killings in which Bamber unashamedly and immediately pointed the finger to. Sheila’s supposed fight in the kitchen with Ralph seems ever-more implausible. The bloody silencer proves beyond any doubt that Sheila could not have shot herself dead and then walked down the stairs and replaced it in the gun cupboard. The two shots to Sheila’s neck showed that it was highly unlikely after the first shot she was capable of walking down stairs. Moreover there was no evidence that Sheila even moved after the first shot was fired.
     Bamber’s behaviour after the murders was highly suspicious to say the least.

     Ian
     —————————————
     careful study of the ballistics involved in this case, does not bear out that only one gun was used in the shootings, as alleged, and that for some as yet unknown reason, one of the two bullets removed by the pathologist from the body of Sheila, namely, PV/20, became transformed from a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, into a whole bullet by the time it was submitted to the Lab’ to be examined by the ballistic expert, to enable him to link it to the gun which the police at the scene placed onto Sheila’s body when they stage managed it as part of their cover up…

     The police stage managed Shela’s body, not Jeremy, and not any as yet unidentified killer…

     Newly obtained crime scene photographs, not seen before, taken by the police themselves on the morning of the incident, establishes this for a fact…

     There is no way jeremy had anything at all to do with Sheila’s death, since, she was very much still alive at the time the armed police officers fist entered the farmhouse that morning at just after 7:30am…

     Sheila’s body was originally found downstairs in the kitchen, presumed dead, but she regained consciousness and fled upstiars where she received a second shot and died…

     Police at the scene, inside the house, covered up the true circumstances of how Sheila had died inside the house, with the permission and consent of senior officers who arrived at the scene later, and ACC Peter Simpson, because the police inside the house were ultimately responsible for Sheila receiving the second fatal shot which killed her upstairs. Jeremy could not have killed his sister in the bedroom upstairs because the police found her body downstairs upon entry into the premises, its as simple as that…

     The suggestion that Ralph struggled with Jeremy in the kitchen and that jeremy was strong enough to overpower a wounded Ralph and that he went on to kill Sheila and to stage manage her body upstairs in the bedroom to make it look like or appear as though she had killed the others and then taken her own life, is nothing but a red herring,simply because Sheila tried to take her own life downstairs in the kitchen and that is where the police found her body upon entry into the premises at 7:37am…

     The actual entry into the kitchen at that time was being monitored and recorded on audio tapes via the telephone intercept which the operator had patched through to police control using the 999 emergency system, and therefore, all Essex police have to do, is disclose those recordings and if they did not find Sheila’s body in the kitchen, that will be that…

     Essex police are refusing to release the audio tapes to jeremy or his legal team, and the reason they are refusing to do so, is because these audio tapes contain evidence that Sheila’s body was found in the kitchen upon entry, not upstiars in the bedroom…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/12/2009 @ 6:57 pm

481. To date, thousands and thousands of documents are being withheld under Pii rules, because Essex police and the CPS consider their content to be very damaging to the reputation and integrity of Essex police and the CPS…

     If Essex police and the CPS had got nothing to hide, they they would disclose all the material in their possession connected to these events, if not simply to enable the truth to be told about what exactly went off or took place inside the farmhouse once armed police forced there way in…

     Over 381 photographs are still being deliberately withheld from Jeremy, because the police and the CPS know that if they give him access to these it will spark off another major investigation into the handling of his case, and there exists a huge possibility that many police officers and CPS officials could face prosecution for being involved in a massive conspiracy which was designed to cover up the true circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died inside the house, after the armed police had already found her body downstairs presumed dead…

     Jeremy could not have killed Sheila because she was still very much alive inside the house after the armed police entered at just after 7:30am, that morning…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/13/2009 @ 2:43 pm

482. response to :-

     Not a single officer in 24 years has come forward with any other explanation other than the events submitted at the trial in October 1986 and subsequent Appeal Court Hearings. This theory smacks of desparation Mike. Many could so easily accuse you of much the same conspiracy. A close circle of so-called supporters many of them embittered by their experiences with the Criminal Justice System, getting their heads together to come up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to bamboozle an Appeal Court into getting his conviction quashed on a technicality. The puppet-master none-other than Bamber himself.
     You can see how these things work Mike. It is better to have some common sense and look at the facts.

     Ian
     —————————–

     Not all the police officers who were involved in the cover up regarding the true circumstances surrounding Sheila’s death at the scene, testified at jeremy’s trial, and none has commented publically at all in the meantime, and so your suggestion that no police officer has come forawrad to give a diffferent account than the one offerred during the 1986 trial, is true to a certain extent, but by the same token, because most of the police officers who were actually involved in the conspiracy to cover up the true circumstances of Sheila’s death in the bedroom at the farmhouse, did not testify, and have not come forwatrd since with any account of what actually took place, does not mean to saty bthat had they testified that they would have given the same account that other officers gave during the trial, or since?

     It is just as likely that they would or might have given or give a totrally different acciount which is consistebnt with Sheila’s body having been originally found downstiars in accordance with the ckntent of the police radio and communication log contents - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead femal found in the kitchen upon entry to the premises…

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/13/2009 @ 2:50 pm

483. At what stage did the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen (aga) appear there?

     They were not present on the morning of the shootings when police took crime scene pictures, yet by 14 August 1985, they were there for all to see - who made the marks and why?

     Is it just a coincidence that the prosecution were able to allege that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and that the presence of paint on the end cap of the silencer, established in the minds of the jury that it had struck the underside of the mantelpiece during that same struggle, and that this establishes that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time of the shootings, and that the killer, removed it from the end of the guns barrel, and took it, and hid it in the gun cupboard, where it supposedly remained until it was found on 10 August 1985, by David Boutflour…

     What if the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece had not yet been made there until after 10 August 1985?

     How will all the silencer evidence sit if it is proven that those marks were made later, by a third party, with a view to framing jeremy for the murders?

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/13/2009 @ 2:59 pm

484. If under those circumstances, it can be proven that the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen were not made there until on or after 10 August 1985, would it be enough to suggest that the person, or persons who deliberately contaminated the silencer, on that occasion, were responsible for the five deaths?

     Comment by Mike tesko — 12/13/2009 @ 3:01 pm

485. Jeremy is anxiously awaiting news from the CCRC, the CPS and Essex police, during the next 8 days…

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/14/2009 @ 5:09 pm

486. Newly obtained photographs taken by the police of the feet of Sheila Caffell, show the soles of both feet to be covered in multiple spots of blood, contrary to the argument relied upon during the trial that both her feet were spotlessly clean - why did the police and the CPS mislead the court on this matter?

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/15/2009 @ 6:22 pm

487. A combination of the following facts, helps to establish that Jeremy Bambers convictions are wrong and that they should be set aside…

     (1) figure seen at bedroom window, establishes that there was someone still alive inside farmhouse at a time when he (Jeremy Bamber)was outside in the grounds in the company of two police officers.

     (2) Rifle which was seen leaning against bedroom window by WPC Jeapes at around 7:15 am, ended up on top of Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor after 8:10am - who moved the rifle from the window onto the body, it could only have been moved by someone who was very much still alive inside the farmhouse at that time, and between about 5:30am and 9 O’clock that morning, Jeremy was sat in a patrol car in Pages lane with a police officer, and the only people present inside the farm house from 7:15am, onward, were the five victims, and from about 7:30am, onward, the armed police, and so Jeremy could not have been the person who moved the gun from the window, onto the body.

     (3) police found two bodies in the kitchen upon entry to the premises, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, and another three bodies upstairs by 8:10am, which by the end of the police operation inside the house, turned into a different scenario, of one body downstairs, and four other bodies upstairs - How did a female body migrate from the kitchen downstairs, to the bedroom upstairs, if the police who entered the farmhouse, at around 7:30am, did not move or touch the body?

     (4) photographs taken of Sheila by PC David Bird (SOC) at 10 O’clock that morning, show fresh wet looking blood pouring and running from the two wounds upon her throat and the corners of her mouth which had not coagulated, and suggests that Sheila could only have died a maximum of two hours prior to the time PC Bird photographed her body, as described…

     A combination of one or more of the above facts, helps to establish Bambers innocence with regards to these matters…

     If there was only one gun in the bedroom, how did it move from its original position leaning up against the bedroom window, onto Sheila’s body, if the police didn’t move it? Someone was still alive inside the farmhouse, long after the armed police entered the building at around 7:30am. That person was not and could not have been Jeremy Bamber, since, he was outside in a patrol car with a police officer at the material time…

     Jeremy Bamber truly is innocent…

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/19/2009 @ 6:29 am

488. I just wanted to clarify some facts on this post by Kevin (
     Comment by Kevin — 8/24/2007 @ 12:41 pm ) - All of which are incorrect -

     KEVIN: Neville Bamber took a very bad beating before being gunned down. Neville Bamber was 6 foot 4 and as a hard working farmer, very strong. Does anybody seriously believe that the waif like, slightly built, Ms Caffell would be capable od administering such a beating?

     VICTORIA: The suggestion that Sheila could not have battered Nevill Bamber is innacurate. Nevill had already been shot more than once and it wouldn’t have taken much to over power him - an angry, mentally ill female of 5.’7 would have done this easily. I am sure that the jury and the public also found it hard to believe that a mother would kill her children and family in this way. But times have moved on, we know that women also commit terible crimes - especially those who have severe mental illness.

     KEVIN: Jeremy Bamber allegedly recieved a call from his father, telling him that ‘ Shiela had gone crazy and had a gun’ , or words to those effect. Now Neville Bamber is an intelligent man, why would he phone Jeremy Bamber before the Police? What could Jeremy Bamber possibly do to help, when the Police have a trained firearms team?

     VICTORIA: At this point it is unlikely any shots had been fired - Nevill Bamber was a magistrate and had a public image to uphold - he would have wanted to keep Shelia’s mental illness underwraps (indeed other family members including the Boutflours did not know that Shelia had just left a mental hospital) and did not want anyone to know the state of the Bambers private family affairs.

     KEVIN: Why did Jeremy Bamber dial the local Police station number instead of 999? It was after all an emergency…

     VICTORIA: Jeremy had been called in the middle of the night by his father after working a 12 hour day on the farm - he would have been highly confused having been called in the middle of the night with such news and he would also have been conscious that his father called him and not the police for the reason I just stated above.

     KEVIN: Jeremy Bamber cycled round to his parents home instead of jumping in his car. Why did he do this, in such an dramatic situation?

     VICTORIA: This is incorrect - Jeremy drove around check your facts.

     KEVIN: What would anyone do after suffering such an awful tradgedy?

     VICTORIA: They would drive over - which Jeremy did.

     KEVIN: Would you

     (a) Grieve

     VICTORIA: Jeremy did grieve - you can see his grief at the family funeral - where as Julie Mugford doesnt look upset in the slightest.

     KEVIN: (b) Take off on a holiday abroad, having a great time while your at it.

     VICTORIA: Jeremy did go abroad its true. But in the 1980’s no one was aware of the pressure the paparazzzi put on people in the public eye. Jeremy obviously wanted to be far away from where the tragedy had happened - that is no implication of guilt.

     KEVIN: Upon return try to sell photo’s of your dead sister to the tabloids.

     Did this actually happen? I believe that a Sun Journalist (who said this on a recent documentary) said that Brett Colins contacted him about photo’s of Shelia - not Jeremy.

     ——–

     VICTORIA: Further to other comments: Jeremy Bamber is NOT a psychopath and has ungergone many psychological tests confiming this please check your facts. Had Bamber been a calculating murderer he wouldn’t have left himself with no alibi either and it is time that the public were aware of the facts in the case that were not disclosed at the Bamber trail. This man is innocent and the new evidence in the case will prove this beyond any doubt.

     Victoria

     Comment by Victoria James — 12/21/2009 @ 11:32 am

489. I have received a letter from Jeremy today (24 December 2009)in which he refers to a deal made by Essex police officers, as part of the Barrett enquiry, where they made a deal to provide information about the mishandling of the case, in return for a promise for no police officer to be prosecuted in connection with the matter, or for any discilplinary action to be taken against any officer - to date, Jeremy says that Essex police and the CPS are still withholding over 340,000 documents which cover these matters, all of which deal with matters that would help to establish Jeremy’s innocence…

     Imagine that - 340,000 documents which exist, and which Essex police, and the CPS, know about which cannot be released to Jeremy, or his legal team, because they are currently being withheld under pii rules…

     What kind of justoce is that?

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/24/2009 @ 3:40 pm

490. All the evidence gathered by the police in connection with these five deaths should be released to Bamber and his legal team…

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/24/2009 @ 6:56 pm

491. The orignal material contained in the original file under SC/688/85, was edited and only parts were carried over into the new file, under SC/786/85…

     The Dickinson Report deliberately sought to mislead the intended recipeint of that report, from access to the true facts of the case, and in particular, crucial events which took place at the scene before 7:45am, were ommitted altogether - for example, the timing of the actual entry into the house, by armed police officers was deliberately altered so that they seemingly took place or transpired, after the actual time they occurred. A typical example of this, involves the timing when the police actually entered the farmhouse, which in the Dickinson report suggests that armed police did not get into the house until 7:45am, whilst in reality, they got into the house at 7:30am…

     Displacement of the entry into the farmhouse, from 7:30am, to 7:45am, enabled the police to conceal the true facts concerning the discovery of two dead bodies in the region of the kitchen, as opposed to just one…

     In the opriginal file (SC/688/85) the armed officers enetered the house at 7:30am, and by 7:37am, they discoverdd two dead bodies in the kitchen, one dead male and one dead female, and by 7:38am, a further reference to one dead male and one dead female, and by 7:42am, a request for the police surgeon and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding two bodies? If you move the time of wentry from 7:30am to 7:45am, you do not have to refer to what took place at the scene in the interim period (between 7:30am and 7:45am) - this is precisely what the Dickinson Report did, it moved the goal posts relating to the time of entry to the premises by armed police officers, to enable the cover up to continue, surrounding the actual circumstances of how Sheila caffell ended up being dead inside the bedroom, after she had originally been found (presumed dead) in the kitchen…

     Comment by miketesko — 12/25/2009 @ 9:13 am

492. Not only did the Dickinson report seek to move the time of entry into the building forward by 15 minutes from 7:30am, to 7:45am, but all the members of the raid team which actually entered the building on that occasion, failed to make any mention of specific times in their respective witness statements regarding when they actually entered the farmhouse, or with regards to the timing of their activities within the farmhouse, once they had got inside…

     Comment by mike tesko — 12/28/2009 @ 5:56 am

493. For some reason, the police did not attempt to try and establish who died first to last in this case…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/3/2010 @ 11:10 am

494. The mystery has been solved regarding regarding when and under what circumstances, exhibit 49, the nut from the end of the .22 semi-automatic rifle, was found or recovered from the scene?

     Namely, on 14 September 1985, David Boutflour took DC Oakey, to whf and showed him an empty cartridge box, one solitary cartridge, and a metal cap (end cap to aforementioned rifle)

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/5/2010 @ 6:03 pm

495. IN RESPONSE TO VICTORIA JAMES.YOU ARE BRINGING NOTHING NEW TO THE DEBATE.IF YOU LOOK AT MINE AND OTHERS POSTS YOU WILL SEE IT’S ALL BEEN COVERED IN DEPTH. AS TO THE GRIEF SHOWN AT THE FUNERAL,FAMILY MEMBERS STATED CLEARLY BAMBER WAS ACTING THE ROLE ACCUSTOMED TO AN OSCAR WINNER.AS TO THE STATEMENT HE IS NOT A PHSYCOPATH,MEMBERS OF HIS OWN COUNSEL STATED OTHERWISE. AS TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHO DO YOU THINK GAVE COLLINSTHE ACCESS TO THEM?HIS BEHAVIOUR BEFORE AND AFTER THE MURDERS WAS TO PUT IT MILDLY DISGUSTING AND FULLY IMPLICATES HIM.AS FOR THE ALIBI,WELL HE CLEARLY NEVER THOUGHT IT THROUGH,DID HE.IF YOU APPLY COMMON SENSE YOU WILL SEE THAT SHEILA COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THESE VILE ACTS OF DERAVITY AND GREED WHEN BAMBER CLEARLY STATES IT WAS SHEILA GOING MAD.EVERYBODY SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE STATING THAT IT WAS EITHER JEREMY OR SHEILA,BUT HE WAS CORRECT AS IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT WAS SHEILA THEN YOU MUST CONCLUDE THAT JEREMY WAS THE PERPATRATOR AS IT WAS HE WHO FINGERED HIS SISTER.IF YOU CUT THROUGH ALL THE TAINTED EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENCE CONTINUE TO SAY THAT JEREMY IS INNOCENT YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT BAMBER IS CULPABLE FOR THESE CRIMES.MIKE LOOKS FOR REASONS WHY NEVILLE DIDN’T USE THE PANIC ALARM AND COMES UP WITH AIRY FAIRY REASONS WHY. WHY DIDN’T NEVILLE PHONE FARMWORKERS WHO LIVED NEARBY? ANSWER,SOMEBODY ELSE PHONED FROM THE FARM THAT NIGHT AND IT WAS NOT NEVILLE.YOU SEE,BAMBER NEEDED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MURDERS AND POLICE GETTING TO THE SCENE TO SET UP THE TIMELINE ANDHIS SERIOUSLY FLAWED ALIBI.THE CRUX TO THE CASE LIES IN THE MINUTES BEFORE AND AFTER THE MASSACRE AND ASK YOURSELF WHO WAS IN CONTROL AT THESE VERY CRITICAL POINTS.

     Comment by john hughes — 1/17/2010 @ 4:09 pm

496. John Hughes.

     1. The day that people are convicted by their behaviour after a crime when the evidence points to another person being responsible is the day the justice system of that country is regarded as a joke.
     2. Between british detectives, who have in the past been supported by dodgy prosecutors,Boutflour and the despicable Mugford, this conviction is preposterous.

     3. Convicting people because they are grubs or selfish mongrels is pathetic.

     4. The theories you present waffle, much like the crown theories which were not supported by evidence.

     5. To convict a person of murder on a juries split decision of 10-2 is pathetic. How on earth does that not represent some real, not imaginary, doubt?

     6. I don’t care whether or not he is a mongrel or whatever, but convicting a person like this is dreadful

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 1/19/2010 @ 8:04 pm

497. Mal,
     I am curious to know whether you have actually taken the time to read any of the work that has gone in to making up this thread?
     I ask this because the 6 points you put forward make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please read the thoeies and supporting evidence and you will find the points against Bamber are not so flippant nor truculant as you you are trying to suggest, but are made from insightful deductions directly related to the evidence. Bamber was never convicted on your suggestion that he may be thought of as a ‘grub’ nor ‘mongrel’ but on strong circumstantial evidence. Incidently a 10-2 verdict is sufficient to convict in a court of law. Many similarly appalling cases such as that of the notorious ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ were convicted on a 10-2 verdict (and he admitted it!)

     Comment by Ian — 1/22/2010 @ 11:10 am

498. The mystery as to what took place, and who was responsible for these murders, and in particular Sheila Caffells death, has been resolved, by answering these questions, which I shall put in simple language so that no-one can misunderstand what is being said:-

     Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window, which WPC Julia Jeapes spotted there after she arrived at the scene (7 O’clock) that morning, onto the body of Sheila, to enable the armed officers to find it upon her body there, when they got inside the house, and into the bedroom, upstairs? The police are maintaining that there was only one weapon found or present inside the bedroom, and yet if the evidence of WPC Julia Jeapes is correct, there should have been a rifle at the bedroom window, and a rifle on Sheila’s body…

     Now if there were two weapons present in the bedroom, and the police are lying about that fact, making out a false case that there was only one rifle there, when in fact there were two, why are the police lying?

     Why substitute one of the two bullets (PV/20)that wounded Sheila, by replacing the original fragmented bullet, with a whole one, which the ballistic expert then linked to the family owned semi-automatic rifle,declaring it to be the murder weapon which killed everyone?

     The answer to these questions is what will determine the truth in these murders…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/23/2010 @ 11:08 am

499. Somebody tampered with the batch of crime scene ammunition, and lied about the presence of one gun in the bedroom, when there was two weapons there, to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted for these murders…

     Jeremy has been framed for these murders…

     The police at the scene (inside the farmhouse) stage managed Sheila’s body and they blamed Jeremy for doing what the police did - if the person or persons who stage managed her body were responsible for killing Sheila, then we should be looking no further than the police themselves…

     I suspect that the police stage managed Sheila’s body in the bedroom as part of the cover up regarding how the police had originally found Sheila’s body downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and how they had mistakenly assumed her to be dead, and how she had regained consciousness and fled upstairs where she was killed by a second bullet - this is what the police sought to cover up, and this was why they stage managed the scene in the kitchen and the bedroom…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/23/2010 @ 3:08 pm

500. Putting Sheila Caffells death to one side, for the moment, Essex police were more than satisfied that Sheila had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she was more than capable of doing so, and that she had struggled with Ralph at some stage because there existed marks upon the top part of Sheila’s right hand and the lower part of her right forearm, and there existed corresponding gouge marks which Sheila had made on Ralph’s right forearm, which were consistent with them both struggling with each other…

     Anyone who says that Sheila did not have any marks upon her body which would be consistent with her having struggled with Ralph, or that she would not have been strong enough or capable enough to struggle with him, needs to think again, because crime scene photographs exist which confirm that such injuries did exist and do exist on Sheila’s right hand and arm…

     Sheila’s death has to be treated on its own - did she kill herself, or was someone else responsible for killing her?

     I believe that she may have tried to kill herself, downstairs, but it is debatable whether or not she fired the second shot, which actually killed her upstairs in the bedroom?

     If she did, which gun did she use to shoot herself a second time?

     If not, who could possibly have shot her for a second time, on an occasion after the armed police were already inside the farmhouse?

     If someone shot Sheila for the second time in the bedroom, and it was not her, then the only other persons who it could have been, were the police…

     Is this in some way linked to the fact that bullet PV/20 was substituted by the police before the bullets were submitted to the Lab’ to be examined by the ballistics expert, on 20 September 1985? This bullet (PV/20) was not substituted for nothing, the police did it because they did not want evidence floating around which suggested that a different gun or weapon had been used to fire the second shot. The existence of the second gun, which fired the second bullet which wounded Sheila in the bedroom, was problematic to the police case that Sheila had been shot twice in quick succession, by use of the same gun, and so they attempted to get around this by substituting one of the bullets (PV/20) and replacing it with a control bullet which had been fired via the semi-automatic rifle during unreported test firings of the weapon and control ammunition prior to 12 September 1985…

     The presence of the second weapon in the bedroom, and the fact that bullet PV/20 was a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, but which had become transformed into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, is linked to the circumstances surrounding how the body of Sheila was originally found downstairs in the region of the kitchen, presumed to be dead, as a result of a solitary wound to her neck / throat, but she regained consciousness and fled upstairs to the bedroom, where she was shot a second time by a different weapon…

     Sheila was not shot twice in quick succession by use of the same gun, she was shot twice by two different guns, in different parts of the house, and this is what the police have sought to cover up…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/24/2010 @ 9:43 am

501. MAL HARRISON, YOUR POST DETERMINES THE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE YOU SHOW. INEED NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENT REGARDING YOUR PATHETIC DIATRIBE

     Comment by john hughes — 1/26/2010 @ 1:57 pm

502. MIKE TWO WEAPONS DEMONSTRATE TWO KILLERS IN HOUSE THAT NIGHT,AS I’VE SAID JEREMY LEFT HIS ACCOMPLICE TO CLEAR UP AND MAKE THE CALLS

     Comment by john hughes — 1/26/2010 @ 2:00 pm

503. Ian

     I am truculent in matters like this. You need to discern between what is comment about this case and comment about the British justice system.

     Beyond reasonable doubt cannot possibly be satisfied by a 10-2 verdict. Just because others have been convicted this way does not make it right. (Sutcliffe ran a mental health defence - the difference between murder and manslaughter - not quite relevant to this matter)

     Prosecutors’ theories often ignore, by choice, evidence which points to innocence.

     The strong circumstantial evidence which supports this conviction flies in the face of other circumstantial evidence, which points away from Bamber, which simply cannot be ignored.

     That anyone could accept Boutflour and Mugford as reliable is beyond belief.

     I presume you are the same Ian who has put forward the theory that people embittered by their dealings with the criminal justice system have got their heads together to create increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to bamboozle an Appeal Court is flippant,truculent, ridiculous and devoid of insightful deduction.

     Finally, I believe he was convicted on the basis of his behaviour, post event, and incompetent/dishonest policework rather than any other combination of things.

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 1/27/2010 @ 5:19 am

504. The silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel at the time the second shot which Killed Sheila was fired, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, could not find any evidence that any bullets had been fired through the silencer at all - he only came to this conclusion that the silencer had been used because of the presence of blood inside the silencer, which his colleague the blood expert (John Hayward) said had got Sheila’;s blood inside it, blood which he maintained was unique and exclusive to Sheila..

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/27/2010 @ 11:44 am

505. The blood evidence has now been discredited, in so far as the AK1 part of the result obtained from it, could have derived from an animal…

     If you take the AK1 result out of the equation, it only leaves three other results which means it could have been the blood from the parents, as alleged during the trial by Bambers legal team and blood expert…

     Let us also not forget, that the experts at the lab’ covered up for the fact that two lots of animals blood had been found to be present on the end of the silencer, which suggests that they knew the significance of finding that animal blood there, and the consequences of AK1 being part of the result, the experts knew that AK1 was an animal enzye as well as being a human one, and so it looks like they deliberately concealed this evidence to help bolster up the prosecution case against Jeremy…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/27/2010 @ 11:49 am

506. Also, let us not forget that David Boutflour, told COLP in 1991, that he had used a razor blade to scrape a small flake of dried blood off the end of the silencer, and that Essex police knew and had been aware that he had done this, and yet neither the police or Boutflour himself, testified to this effect, or disclosed any information to Bamber or his legal team, or to the court which tried Bamber for these murders, that this is what Boutflour had done?

     What happened to this small flake?

     Would Essex police have left it in Boutflours possession?

     Or would they have seized it, examined it, etc…

     It now looks increasingly more likely that the flake which Boutflour scraped from the end of the silencer, by use of the razor blade (which he told COLP about) was the flake which produced the four blood results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) which was put forward on the basis that it had been found inside the silencer, and that the blood was unique and exclusive to Sheila, when it was not…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/27/2010 @ 11:55 am

507. Somebody made marks on the aga, after the events at whf, not before or during any struggle in the kitchen - the people who are responsible for doing this, know what they did, and they know that the clock is ticking and that sooner or later, they are going to have to face the music, and that the silencer evidence, is and was bogus - it was just a prop which was introduced to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/27/2010 @ 11:59 am

508. New evidence exists to prove that the silencer did not make the marks on the aga in the kitchen, at the material time - the marks were made after 9 August 1985, when Essex police handed the keys to whf back to the relatives…

     If true - and the silencer was the object which made those marks, then any paint found upon the silencer does not prove or establish that the silencer was on the gun at the time of the shootings, only that someone scratched the aga with the silencer, at some stage after 9 August 1985. Somebody scratched the aga with the silencer at some point after 9 August 1985, to enable the argument to be put forward that with the silencer on the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and the presence of Sheila’s unique blood found inside the silencer, that Sheila could not have shot herself because the overall length of the weapon with the rifle and silencer so configured would have been much too long to allow Sheila an opportunity top shoot herself by use of it, because it would have been too long…

     The silencer evidence will be excluded, along with the paint from the aga found upon it, and the blood evidence found inside it (mark my words)…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/27/2010 @ 12:06 pm

509. John Hughes

     a little upset when someone doesn’t agree with you? A little testy when someone thinks your arguments don’t make sense? Do you type in capitals when you are angry or just feeling threatened when you are alone.

     Go and have another beer and then have a lie down.

     I note that in July & August 2009 you pontificated that there should be a re-trial and a “TV documentary where the public can judge the evidence themselves”. Now you hysterically abuse anyone who disagrees with you. Two u-turns. Let’s talk about “pathetic diatribe”. I can’t say much more than you have the market cornered. A TV doco - you truly are beyond the pale.

     Listen to this. The criminal justice system is about the prosecution proving a person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which includes excluding any hypothesis consistent with innocence. This case is littered with rubbish police/forensic work, crown “theories”, dodgy witnesses and even, yes, a version by Bamber which might be dodgy or false plus plenty of callous behaviour on his part.

     This conviction is suspect whichever way you look at it. Theories which use some parts of the evidence and ignore other parts are rubbish particularly when there is other evidence that has been withheld. Bamber might have done it but when we start locking people up on this rubbish then we are all in trouble.

     Your level of intelligence is questionable given your outbursts. One minute you’re gung ho for conviction and the next minute you’re like some pathetic bleeding heart socialist.

     The only reason I am interested in this is because this rubbish system we have in place needs to have tighter controls. Juries have to be a little more discerning. This system is littered with miscarriages of justice. There isn’t another system that is better so it needs to be fixed and the least we can do is acknowledge when a conviction is dodgy and try and fix it.

     I cannot comment on whether he did it or not. I can only comment that this particular case stinks and no one should be convicted on this tripe. Remember the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Confessions galore. Did that make you angry when they got off?

     After your beer and lie down come back to reality. Try reading my comment at #503. Then harden up.

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 1/28/2010 @ 7:16 am

510. John Hughes

     time to get up

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 1/29/2010 @ 8:58 am

511. Excuse me for joining in this rather interesting and somewhat judgemental rhetoric Mal. But the whole point of this thread is to state points of view as and when the persons see fit to expound them. That is the beauty of an open debate. Mr Hughes is obviously a passionate and committed man and entitled to put forward his opinions in any way he chooses.
     You highlight certain changes in his opinions - isnt that what discussion and argument are all about?
     Mr Hughes has made many insightful and telling points which have yet to be answered by Bambers supporters with any plausibility nor conviction. I can totally sympathise with his frustration on many issues surrounding this case. Why for example is someone who has been convicted of one of the most appalling crimes imaginable been able to have such access to the media? To the internet? There is now a huge concern about murderers and their access to lines of communication with the public. For example take last week when convicted killers were found to be murderous threats a possible eye witness over Facebook.
     As far as I am aware, the whole point of a prison sentence is that you loose the privillage of freedom.
     Nobody would argue that someone cannot protest their innocence, but how much of an influence has Bamber got over his supporters and the ability to harrass potential witnesses? should he be allowed the freedom that he has?
     My second point is this. There have been ‘dodgy’ prosecutions in the past. I would like to ask you to state who you actually think are ‘dodgy’ witnesses in this case? Are we taling about Julie Mugford? David Boutflour? who?
     Jeremy Bamber was convicted on sound circumstantial evidence. If you can explain to me how a silencer smeared with blood found it’s way into a gun cupboard after the suspected assailant had supposedly shot herself. Then you have a point.

     Comment by Anonymous — 1/30/2010 @ 8:30 am

512. Mal, a 1-2 verdict is ENOUGH for a safe conviction. It is the LAW in this country. You seem to take the view that it isnt.

     Comment by Anonymous — 1/30/2010 @ 8:33 am

513. Mal a 10-2 verdict is a majority verdict. You would rarely get 12 people to agree on whether it was day or night.
     I will give you an example. 12 witnesses to a bank robbery in Yorkshire in the 1980s ALL described a different man to the one that was actually apprehended. After he confessed and stood trial he was found guilty on a 10-2 verdict. Now if the jury could all agree and the witnesses - we must bring in some common sense. This in law is called ‘probability’ The probability that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family for money was just too high for them to ignore.If you come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did NOt murder her family, then the probability that Jeremy DID is extremely high. This is called circumstantial probability. Enough in law for a safe and lasting conviction.

     Comment by Anonymous — 1/30/2010 @ 8:42 am

514. MIKE TWO WEAPONS DEMONSTRATE TWO KILLERS IN HOUSE THAT NIGHT,AS I’VE SAID JEREMY LEFT HIS ACCOMPLICE TO CLEAR UP AND MAKE THE CALLS

     Comment by john hughes — 1/26/2010 @ 2:00 pm
     ——————————————–

     The idea that there may have been an accomplice is a very interesting one, which the police originally investigated to exclusion, based upon what Julie Mugford told the police, when she and her friend, volunteered to attend the police station to assist the police with their inquiries, after Jeremy dumped Julie…

     Mugford was very quick to point the finger of guilt at a local plumber, Mathew MacDonald, who she said was a mercenary, and that Jeremy had paid him 2,000 pounds to carry out the murders. MacDonald was arrested, interviewed, and his alibi checked out, and so the police eliminated him completely from the investigation…

     If there was an accomplice, and that accomplice was not MacDonald, then of course, it would have had to be someone else, who we do not yet know about…

     Was the silhouetted figure seen at the bedroom window by Jeremy, and the police, this accomplice?

     If so, how and under what circumstances did the accomplice exit the crime scene, without being seen by the police who were in attendance?

     If there was an accomplice, then of course, Jeremy could not have been the person who climbed into the farmhouse through a downstairs window in the middle of the night, who shot everyone, and stage managed his sisters body in the bedroom, to make it look like, or appear to have been a suicide? Jeremy could not have removed the silencer from the end of the guns barrel (as alleged0 and he could not have taken that silencer all the way downstairs to conceal it in the gun cupboard, before he left the scene through the kitchen window (as alleged)…

     These actions would have been undertaken by the mysterious and very cunning accomplice…

     Who in their right mind, would accept an offer of 2,000 pounds to kill five members of the same family?

     Where is this 2,000 pounds supposed to have come from?

     There are some who I have spoken to during the past 20 years or so, who believe that Jeremy had an accomplice, but that the accomplice was Sheila, herself?

     DCI “Taff” Jones, believed that Sheila killed the others, and that she then tried to lure Jeremy to the farm, so that she could kill him, as well - Jeremy was to have been the sixth victim of the whf tragedy…

     Was Sheila, Jeremy’s accomplice, or vice versa?

     or did some as yet unidentified accomplice, who Jeremy paid 2,000, pounds to, to kill all of his family, flee from the scene after the killings, under the noses of the police?

     I believe that Sheila shot and killed the others, and that she tried to take her own life, downstairs in the region of the kitchen, although I am not completely 100% sure that she fired the second shot which killed her in the main bedroom, upstairs?

     Did she fire the second shot upstairs in the bedroom which effectively ended her life, or did the police shoot her, or did the gun go off accidentally when the police struggled with Sheila in the bedroom?

     Who killed Sheila Jean “Bambi” Caffell?

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/30/2010 @ 1:41 pm

515. A key piece of evidence has recently been identified, concerning the time shown on a ladies wrist watch, hanging on the wroktop in the kitchen, at the time photograph 14 (69/15) was taken - which shows a view of the telephone handset off its cradle, and the surrounding area, in the kitchen at whf that morning (7 August 1985)…

     The time appears to show 8:25am…

     A crucial photograph, numbered 6A, which shows fresh wet blood leaking and running from the two wounds upon Sheila’s neck/throat, was taken before 14 (69/15)it, therefore, if the time is correct, the photograph of the fresh and wet looking blood on Sheila’s neck/throat, must have been taken before that time…

     According to the official records, the first photographs taken of Sheila, are numbered, 25 (69/26) onwards, and there are then 7 cinsecutively taken pictures all in sequence,all of which show the blood around the two wounds, aforementioned, to be dried and coagulated…

     Picture 6A, therefore, must have been taken long before this collection of 7 consecutively numbered photographs…

     Yet to be established, is the actual delay, between when the first picture was taken (6A), and the first of the 7 consecutively numbered ones, 25 (69/26), was taken - since, in the interim period, the blood around the two wounds had dried and coagulated…

     PC Bird (SOC) did not arrive at the scene until 9:15am, and therefore he could not have taken the first photogenic (6A) of Sheila’s body in the bedroom. But he did take the 7 consecutively numbered ones, from 25 (69/26), onwards…

     Who took picture 6A? - blood around two wounds is fresh and wet looking

     PC Bird (SOC) took the following pictures of Sheila’s body, from 10 O’clock onward:-

     (1) 25 (69/26) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (2) 26 (69/27) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (3) 27 (69/28) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (4) 28 (69/29) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (5) 29 (69/30) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (6) 30 (69/31) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage
     (7) 31 (69/32) - blood around wounds has dried by this stage

     Other crime scene photogra9hs which were taken at the scene, in the region of the kitchen, appear to have been taken after picture 6A, and prior to picture 25 (69/26, yet the official police records do not indicate this to be true…

     How long would it take for the blood which was fresh and wet looking (picture 6A) and which was running and leaking, from the two wounds, upon Sheila’s throat/neck, to have dried and become coagulated, by the time of picture 25 (69/26)?

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/31/2010 @ 10:54 am

516. Linked to this matter, is another crucial photograph, 23 (69/24), which shows a rifle to be leaning up against the bedroom window, in a picture that was taken from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, looking back towards the doorway of the main bedroom…

     According to PC Bird and DI Cook (SOC), this picture 23 (69/24), was taken after PC Bird had already photographed the body of June Bamber 24 (69/25) and Sheila Caffell, 25 (69/26), 26 (69/27), 28 (69/29), 29 (69/30), 30 (69/31), 31 (69/32 and 32 (69/33), in the main bedroom at whf, but the official police record which was obtained by the COLP investigation (1991)confirms that picture 23 (69/24) was taken before PC Bird (SOC) photographed June and Sheila in the bedroom…

     Common sense tells everyone, that photograph 23 (69/24) must have been taken before photograph 24 (69/25) and the others, 25 (69/26), 26 (69/27), 28 (69/29), 29 (69/30), 30 (69/31), 31 (69/32 and 32 (69/33), spoken about, aforementioned?

     For what particular reason did the police lie about when picture 23 (69/24) was taken?

     It would appear that the answer to this, is that there was a rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, before the police first photographed Sheila’s body in the bedroom, as per, 25 (69/26), 26 (69/27), 28 (69/29), 29 (69/30), 30 (69/31), 31 (69/32 and 32 (69/33)and the police claim not to have disturbed the rifle on Sheila’s body until after these particular photographs (above) had been taken?

     If the police had not disturbed the rifle from the body of Sheila until after the taking of photographs, 25 (69/26), 26 (69/27), 28 (69/29), 29 (69/30), 30 (69/31), 31 (69/32 and 32 (69/33), then of course, there would have had to be two rifles in the bedroom, not one - unless the police moved the rifle at the window onto the body before they took pictures, 25 (69/26), 26 (69/27), 28 (69/29), 29 (69/30), 30 (69/31), 31 (69/32 and 32 (69/33)…

     Linked to these matters is the fact that one of the two bullets (PV/200 which the pathologist removed from Sheila’s neck/throat during the autopsy on 7 August 1985, was substituted and replaced by a whole bullet, which the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, matched as having been fired via the .22 semi-automatic rifle which PC Bird photographed on Sheila’s body from 10 O’clock, onwards…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/31/2010 @ 11:12 am

517. Above reference, to bullet (PV/200 should read, PV/20…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/31/2010 @ 11:15 am

518. The rifle could not have been leaning up against the bedroom window at 7:15am, and be present on top of Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor, at one and the very same time, if Jeremy, or some other as yet unidentified killer, was responsible for Sheila’s death inside the main bedroom - furthermore, it could not have been in both places at the same time, if Sheila shot herself, there, either…

     This is what Essex police sought to cover up…

     Comment by mike tesko — 1/31/2010 @ 5:02 pm

519. The rifle which was submitted to the Lab’ to be examined on 9 August 1985, was described as a bolt action rifle, whereas, the rifle found on top of Sheila’s body is a .22 semi-automatic anshulz rifle…

     This rifle was submitted to the Lab’ at the same time as the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, which the Lab’ rejected because of the possibility that they may have been contaminated because they arrived at the Lab’ in the same packaging…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/1/2010 @ 3:48 pm

520. IN RESPONSE TO MAL HARRISON, I WILL ANSWER YOUR POINTS IN CALM AND CLEAR MANNER AND NOT RESORT TO YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS.1.WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM SOMEONE USING CAPITALS?2.I DO NOT DRINK BEER AND GO FOR LIE DOWN AS I DON’T DRINK,THOUGH WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE BAMBER CASE I DON’T KNOW.3.WHY WOULD YOU FEEL I AM THREATENED IF I AM ALONE ASTHE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.4.MAL,I HAVEN’T DONE TWO U TURNS AS YOU PUT IT,IF YOU READ MY COMMENTS CAREFULLY YOU WILL SEE THAT EVEN THOUGH IFEEL BAMBER IS GUILTY, I DON’T FEEL THAT IS CONCLUSIVE.I JUST PUT MY THEORIES FORWARD AS TO HOW I SEE THE EVIDENCE. ICAN SEE MIKE’S DONE A LOT OF WORK REGARDING THE CASE AND FEEL A DOCUMENTARY WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WOULD HELP ENORMOUSLY.5.WHERE DO YOU SEE I AM ABUSING YOU?I ONLY STATED IT WAS A PATHETIC DIATRIBE.YOU ARE THE ONE BEING ABUSIVE TO ME. IF YOU FEEL I WAS BEING ABUSIVE I APOLOGISE IN THE UTMOST,BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME.6.I HAVE NOT STATED HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED ON MY THEORIES,FAR FROM IT.7.POST 510,TIME TO GET UP,THIS COMMENT IS TO SAY THE LEAST NOT CONSTRUCTIVE IN A DEBATE AS SERIOUS AS THIS ONE BUT I CAN SEE YOUR SENSE OF HUMOUR CLEARLY LET’S YOU DOWN.8.I AM NOT UPSET OR ANGRY WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH ME, I WELCOME OPEN DEBATE BUT NOT SARCASM.WHY DO YOU FEEL YOUR INTELLIGENCE IS SUPERIOR TO MINE WHEN YOUR POST CLEARLY SHOWS OTHERWISE?9.DO YOU FEEL MAL,THAT DEFENCE TEAMS ALWAYS TAKE ON CASES BELIEVING IN THEIR CLIENTS INNOCENCE BECAUSE THAT SHOWS A SOMEWHAT NAIVITY TO SAY THE LEAST.DO YOU THINK THAT O.J.SIMPSON’S LAWYERS BELIEVED IN HIS INNOCENCE?ALL THROUGH JUDICIAL HISTORY THERE IS EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN WRONG DOING AND SKULLDUGGERY.10.DO YOU FEEL THAT BAMBER’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS IS GREATER THAN BOUTFLOUR OR MUGFORD? IF SO STATE WHY BECAUSE AS I SEE IT,BAMBER IS AS RELIABLE AS ACHOCOLATE FIREGUARD.MAL,PUTTING OUR DIFFERENCES ASIDE COULD YOU POST AS TO WHAT YOUR THEORY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT THEN WE CAN A CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE. ON A LIGHTER NOTE MAL,IT’S TIME I WENT FOR A LIE DOWN AS MY BRAIN IS OVERLOADING.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/1/2010 @ 11:15 pm

521. IAN,JUST ANOTE TO SAY THANKS FOR YOUR KIND POST IN RELATION TO MAL HARRISON.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/1/2010 @ 11:27 pm

522. MAL, IF BAMBER WAS A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY WOULD YOU NOT BE SUSPICIOUS OF HIS BEHAVIOUR? THE REASON I ASK THIS IS BECAUSE THIS WAS THE STARTING POINT OF ANY BELIEF THAT BAMBER WAS INVOLVED.WOULD YOU NOT SEE THAT HIS ACTIONS WOULD THROW UP A RED FLAG AND MAKE YOU DELVE MORE INTO HIS MOTIVATION FOR BEHAVING THE WAY HE DID,BECAUSE CERTAIN PEOPLE SURROUNDING THE CASE BELIEVED HE HAD REAL MOTIVE FOR WANTING HIS FAMILY DEAD.AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS TAINTED BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MISSING LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE AND I AGREE THE POLICE ARE MAINLY TO BLAME FOR THIS,BUT BAMBER IS ALSO CULPABLE BECAUSE HE WANTED FORENSIC EVIDENCE DESTROYED.IT’S ADOUBLE EDGED SWORD AS THIS EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLEAR HIM FURTHER DOWN THE LINE,BUT IN MY OPINION HE SAW IT AS ADONE DEAL.IT WAS LIKE PAINTING BY NUMBERS,BAMBER DID THE SKETCH AND POLICE COLOURED IT IN.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/1/2010 @ 11:57 pm

523. MAL, ASK YOURSELF WHY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT DID BAMBER CONCERN HIMSELF WITH PHONING HIS GIRLFRIEND WHEN HIS PRIORITY SHOULD BE CONCERN HIMSELF WITH EVENTS AT THE FARM. THERE ARE TOO MANY INSTANCES OF BAMBER IMPLICATING HIMSELF IN THE SURROUNDING EVENTS NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.I KNOW BEHAVIOUR IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF GUILT, BUT WOULD YOU NOT FEEL HIS ACTIONS WOULD POINT YOU IN THIS DIRECTION? READ SOME OF IAN’S POSTS AS I THINK HE EXPLAINS A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CLEAR AND CONCISE MANNER.AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE MAL,MOST OF THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS MISLEADING BECAUSE POLICE BASICALLY SCREWED-UP AND TENDS TO BE MISLEADING OR CONFUSING.AS FOR THE POLICE WITHOLDING EVIDENCE,THIS IS PROBABLY TRUE,BUT ASK YOUSELF WHY.THE POLICE REFUSE PRESENT EVIDENCE AS THIS WILL CONFIRM THEIR COMPLETE MISHANDLING OF THE INVESTIGATION AND TO MY MIND NOT SHOW BAMBERS INNOCENCE.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/2/2010 @ 12:23 am

524. Let us not forget, that the relatives handed the silencer over to the police twice, once on 12 August 1985, and secondly, on 11 September 1985 - and my query would be this, how come the relatives had the silencer back in their possession, to enable them to hand it over to the police, a second time, on 11 September 1985? Furthermore, once the silencer was handed over top the police for the second time on 11 September 1985, how come the flake of blood which is said top have been Sheila’s, have been found inside that silencer at the lab’, if the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985, was not submitted to the Lab’ to be examined, until 25 September 1985?

     The flake (EAP BA, A, AK1 and HP 2-1) cannot have been found inside the silencer at the lab’ before 25 September 1985, yet all the results from the examination and analysis of that flake were completed between 12 and 19 September 1985…

     The relatives had the silencer, they introduced it, the flake with Sheila’s blood could not have been found inside the silencer as alleged, because of the dates the silencer was handed over to the police, by the relatives…

     These are the facts…

     The silencer evidence and the blood evidence associated and linked to it, are dodgy and should be investigated with a view to establishing or disproving that there was a conspiracy by interested parties to fabricate evidence for use in Bambers prosecution…

     Bamber had no control, over the silencer, it was the relatives, and the police…

     If the police handling of the case was botched, that is no excuse to allow the relatives to introduce fabricated evidence in the form of the silencer, and blood allegedly found inside it, and the paint from the aga upon it, to help to convict an innocent man for these awful murders…

     The behavior of the relatives and the police, is just as important in this case, as Bambers behavior, and this should not be overlooked…

     No-one has the right to introduce false evidence for use in a prosecution, not the police, not the relatives…

     Take out the silencer, blood and paint evidence associated to the silencer, and there is no case at all against Bamber…

     This was why the silencer was introduced into the case, without it, there would have been no case at all…

     The ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher could not establish whether or not any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through the silencer at all…

     This is a silencer which had three different exhibit references (SBJ/1, then DB/1 then DRB/1) depending upon which stage of the investigation you look at, and three Lab’ item numbers, item 22, then item 23, and then changed back to item 23 again…

     This is a silencer which was handed over twice to the police by relatives, once on 12 August 1985, by Peter Eaton, who handed it to DS Jones, and secondly, handed over to DC Oakey, by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985…

     There are so many anomalies regarding the silencer and the evidence obtained from examination of it, that it has now to be disregarded, because it is unreliable…

     The relatives had everything to gain from Bamber being convicted, and once he was convicted, they did benefit financially…

     These are the facts that everyone chooses to ignore, but it is all relevant…

     The silencer evidence has been misused in this case, it is a red herring, dubious to say the least, and inadmissible…

     There is nothing else in the case, that is capable of proving or establishing that Bamber killed anyone, take the silencer out of the equation, and what you have left is ZILCH..

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/3/2010 @ 7:55 am

525. CORRECTION,POST521 SHOULD READ ANNONOMOUS.SORRY FOR THE OVERSIGHT IAN.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/3/2010 @ 4:04 pm

526. MAL, IN RESPONSE TO POST 503,DEFENCE TEAMS DO EXACTLY THE SAME AND EVIDENCE WHICH POINTS TO INNOCENCE IS LIKEWISE IGNORED.BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY IN MANY CASES WHERE EVIDENCE IS HIDDEN AND NOT JUST THE PROSECUTION’S AGENDA.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/3/2010 @ 4:13 pm

527. THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF MY COMMENT IN POST525. THE DEFENCE TEAM USED EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO TRY AND TWIST AND HIDE EVIDENCE TO SECURE A CONVICTION.I.E. THE BRUNO MARLEY SHOES THAT HE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT DURING THE MURDERS AND WHICH HE SAID HE DIDN’T OWN BUT WAS PICTURED WEARING THEM AT FOOTBALL MATCH, IS A CASE IN POINT.WHY LIE IF YOU ARE INNOCENT? THE DEFENCE SIMPLY WOULDN’T EXPLAIN.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/3/2010 @ 4:22 pm

528. POST 526 SHOULD READ AQUITAL,SORRY.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/3/2010 @ 4:24 pm

529. Essex police are to consider questioning the relatives about how the marks got made on the aga in the kitchen at whf, after 9 August 1985, and the possible reason for the presence of red paint ingrained into the knurled end of the silencer?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/4/2010 @ 5:44 pm

530. John, a very good point. The O.J Simpson trial is a classic case on how defense attorneys and supporters and twist evidence to suit their own scenarios. The jury later said that they felt compelled to give a ‘not guilty’ verdict for two reasons. The prosecution put forward a weak case even though it was obvious to many in the court that Simpson was guilty. Secondly they felt an ‘atmosphere’ in the court and in the jury room in the wake of the Rodney King trial to look towards an aquittal.
     Jeremy Bamber was clearly evasive when questioned by police. DC Stan Jones noted Bamber’s strange attitude during questioning he would light a cigarette or take a long draw on it each time a strong point was put to him. This gave Bamber time to think and offer an appropriate reponse. He didnt want to get pinned down or cornered on certain important questions relating to the murders. There came a point in the questioning that “Bamber was constantly stumming a piece of loose wool from his sweater between his teeth and his fingers like he didnt have a care in the world” (incidently this sweater belonged to his dead sister) He was answering questions in a wholly unacceptable and arrogant manner, he would answer “yeeeeessssss, nooooooooo” in a sing-song manner. If we’d of had video coverage of that interview (the interview was conducted before it was made law that all police interrogations had to be videotaped) the viewer would be in no-doubt to the insufferable arrogance, sheer callousness and evasiveness of this man” I have been a policeman for 20 years at that point and have never seen such a callous disregard for the traumatic events as in this man”
     Of course, this does not mean that he is guilty or bang-to-rights on that basis alone. What it does mean it that Bamber was hiding something. Innocent people do not have to be evasive as the truth speaks for itself. A liar has to be given time to weight up his options in order to submit what he thinks is the correct response.
     On a further note, we are dealing with an horrific event. So horrific that most would be emotionally charged, worried, concerned, incredulous etc. Bamber displayed NONE of these emotions both before and after the murders.
     When people act in this unusual manner alarm bells started ringing. He actions were callous in the extreme. NOT the kind of actions one would expect froma grieving person that has just lost his entire family. I am a little tired of hearing from Bamber supporters that ‘everyone has different reactions to grief’ This is only partly correct. Anyone that reacts in this way to a major trauma is clearly either suffering to the point where they need psychiatric help or they are the actual purpetrator of it.
     I Make no bones about this and I make no apologies for it. This man has been in prison for 24 years and has tried all manner of scenarios during that time in order to squirm out of his rightful punishment. He has manipulated others (although they strenously deny this - of course they would) into doing his bidding. He has stretched evidence to try to suit his own case of ‘innocence’ He has continually dessecrated the memory of his dead sister - who has no voice of her own. He has attempted to manipulate both those inside prison and out to believe in his innocence.
     I also strongly suspect that many of his so-called supporters interests in this case are not to do with his innocence but fall rather more on self-promotion, financial gain, a puerile attempt at gaining revenge against the police and judial system or simply to court controversy. Maybe this is some kind of fitting punishment for a man that thought he could get away with murder.

     Comment by Anonymous — 2/6/2010 @ 9:49 am

531. (523) Good point John, I too believe that the police acted in this manner to cover-up their inital ineptitude rather than the ridiculous scenario that Bamber supporters seem to be offering.
     However, it may be interesting to follow the notion that there may have been an accomplice. It there were, that accomplice has remained at large for 24 years. It is plausible that Bamber may have hired or cajolled a co-conspirator into joining him in his deadly scheme. However, I strongly have my doubts. Please allow me to explain why. The first and foremost is the notion that Bamber in his ever-desparate state in trying to squirm out of his punishment would have undoubtedly implicated him - as did railway rapist and murderer John Duffy whom finally came clean and admitted after some 15 years in prison that he did indeed have an accomplice in the gruesome and despicable deeds. The accomplice, David Mulcahy was later arrested and sentenced to life. Bamber would have looked for ways to lay the entire blame squarely at the feet of his accomplice - after all he is no stranger to shifting blame!
     Furthermore, he has had 24 years in which to concoct a scenario which points to this, and yet nothing. There is nothing because this accomplice does not exist. I strongly believe that Jeremy Bamber is the only architect of this horrific crime.
     It was a crime in which he’d spent years planning and scheming. He knew full well the punishment that would be meeted out to him should he be caught and he went to vast lengths to ensure he didn’t. He once arrogantly told Julie Mugford ” I know I shall be the prime suspect, but they’ll never be able to prove it” In this Bamber was sadly mistaken.
     John thanks for the comments. Yours are incredibly interesting and bring a fresh insight into the case.

     Comment by Ian — 2/6/2010 @ 10:26 am

532. According to the pathology report, compiled by Dr Peter Venezis, Sheila had two wounds upon her throat / neck, one which had residue around the entry hole, which he describes as the upper fatal wound, and the other, which had residue and bruising around the entry hole, which he described as the non fatal wound, or the wound which would not have resulted in instantaneous death. No-one had ever as yet tried to explain why the lower wound had bruising around its bullet entry wound, whilst the upper wound did not? If the same weapon was used in the same general part of the victims neck / throat, how come there was bruising around one entry wound site, namely, the lower one, which was absent around the other, i.e. the upper one?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/6/2010 @ 3:51 pm

533. More significantly, there was a presence of bloodied fingermarks around the upper wound, as though someone had been trying to stem the flow of blood by use of fingers, or else, deposited there, to try and disguise for the fact that differently configured weapons had been used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell, one with a silencer attached to the end of its barrel, and the other without a silencer attached to the end of its barrel? This matter could be linked to the fact that the police deliberately substituted bullet PV/20 which the pathologist removed from the neck / throat of Sheila Caffel during autopsy on 7 August 1985, at which time it was fragmented into three separate pieces, yet by 20 September 1985, when Essex police submitted that bullet to the Lab’, to be examined by the ballistics expert, it had become transformed into a WHOLE BULLET, which enabled the ballistic expert to link it and to associate it to the rifle which PC Bird photographed on Sheila’s body at the scene…

     These matters are also likely to be linked to the fact that there should have been two weapons found inside the main bedroom at whf when the armed officers entered the bedroom, for example, the rifle which WPC Jeapes reported that she could see leaning up against the bedroom window from her vantage point in the grounds of whf at about 7:15asm, some 15 minutes before the raid team forced their way into the house, and the rifle which the police say they found upon Sheila’s body in that bedroom once they entered the bedroom? The police say there was only one gun in the bedroom and that was the rifle found on Sheila’s body - if true, how did the rifle end up on top of Sheila’s body, in time for the police to find it there once they got into the bedroom, if that same rifle had been leaning up against the bedroom window at around 7:15am, that morning?

     Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window in the interim period?

     Jeremy Bamber could not have moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto the body of Sheila, at any stage after 7:15am…
     Jeremy could not have substituted bullet PV/20…
     Jeremy did not kill Sheila Caffell, it would have been impossible for him to have done so…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/6/2010 @ 4:02 pm

534. The relatives claim to have known the victims of the Bamber family intimately, but the truth of the matter is, that they saw very little of them, in the build up to the tragedy…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/7/2010 @ 9:41 am

535. Anyone who has had the misfortune to see the crime scene photographs which have so far been disclosed by Essex police, cannot help but notice that it must have been so obvious that the crime scene had been stage managed by the time PC Bird started to take his pictures, in the bedroom, and the kitchen, and because it was so obvious, it can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that the police at the scene, inside the farmhouse, were the ones responsible for stage managing the scene, not any as yet unidentified killer, or Sheila, or Jeremy?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/7/2010 @ 12:58 pm

536. IAN,THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS AND I NEARLY ALWAYS FIND MYSELF AGREEING WITH YOU,BUT I STRONGLY BELIEVE BAMBER HAD AN ACCOMPLICE.IT’A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD AS FAR AS BAMBER IS CONCERNED.WOULD HE CHANCE NAMING SOMEONE ELSE KNOWING THEN THE GAME WAS UP? ANY ACCOMPLICE WOULD CERTAINLY REMAIN TIGHT-LIPPED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.MIKE CERTAINLY BELIEVES THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT NEVILLE MADE TWO CALLS,ONE TO POLICE AND THE OTHER TO BAMBER HIMSELF.BUT I FEEL BAMBERS TIMELINE COVERS THIS IN THE SENSE THAT IF TWO CALLS WERE MADE,THEN I CAN ONLY SEE IT BEING PULLED OFF WITH SOMEONE HELPING BAMBER.HARK BACK TO WHAT BAMBER TOLD JULIE MUGFORD.HE TOLD HER QUOTE EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL AT THE FARM UNQUOTE.HE EVEN TOLD MUGFORD THAT HE WAS GOING TO PAY SOMEONE.IAN,I STILL THINK MIKE IS TOO WRAPPED UP IN FAR TOO TECHNICAL EVIDENCE THAT TO MY EYES IS TAINTED BECAUSE OF THE POLICE AND BAMBER.ITHINK AS FAR AS STATEMENT EVIDENCE GOES,MUGFORD’S TESTIMOY IS FAR MORE BELIEVABLE THAN BAMBERS,AND EVEN THOUGH MIKE STILL REITERATES THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO TIE BAMBER TO THE MURDERS, I BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE TO BE TRUE.HE SAYS NOTHING FORENSICALLY TIES HIM TO THE DEED,IFEEL YOU CAN DISCOUNT THIS ON THE GROUNDS THAT POLICE TOTALLY MESSED UP THE CRIME SCENE AND ALLOWED BAMBER TO DICTATE PROCEEDINGS.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/8/2010 @ 11:40 pm

537. THE CRIME-SCENE PROBABLY WAS STAGE-MANAGED MIKE BUT ASK YOURSELF WHY?IN THE FIRST INSTANCE POLICE BELIEVED BAMBER’S SCENERIO THAT SHEILA KILLED THEM ALL AND THEN TURNED THE GUN ON HERSELF,WHICH I AND A GOOD DEAL MANY OTHERS BELIEVE NOT TO BE THE CASE.I FEEL THAT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE WHICH YOU ARE RELYING ON IE.BULLET CASINGS,BULLETS NOT MATCHING GUNS,WITHELD CRIME-SCENE PHOTOS,CONFLICTING STATEMENTS FROM SOCO,BLOOD EVIDENCE FROM SILENCERS,BULLET WOUNDS ON THE VICTIMS,THE POSITIONS OF THE BODIES EXCETRA EXCETRA,JUST DOES NOT STAND UP BECAUSE ALL CHAIN OF EVIDENCE WAS LOST AND DOES NOT POINT TO BAMBERS INNOCENCE,BUT TO POLICE INNEPTITUDE.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/9/2010 @ 12:02 am

538. ANON,YOUR POST IN 530 SURELY TIES THE WHOLE THING UP.THE INTERVIEW YOU ARE REFERING TO BY STAN JONES JUST GOES TO SHOW THE DESPICABLE CHARACTER OF JEREMY BAMBER AND CLEAR DISREGARD FOR THE LIFE OF HIS FAMILY AND THE TACTICS HE EMPLOYED TO TRY AND WEEDLE HIS WAY THROUGH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW SHOWED WHAT A LYING,SCHEMING,EVASIVE NARCISSIST HE REALLY IS.I DON’T CARE HOW BAMBER AND HIS SUPPORTERS SEE THINGS NOW WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME,YOU WOULD NOT,I REPEAT WOULD NOT BEHAVE IN THIS WAY.WHY WOULD HE NOT WANT TO GET TO THE TRUTH?BECAUSE HIS ARROGANCE AND BELIEF IN HIMSELF SHOW HIM TO BE AT ODDS WITH ANY TRUTH HE MAY WISH TO PURPORT.ANON, IFEEL YOU ARE SOMEHOW CLOSER TO THE EVIDENCE AND CAN SEE THINGS MAYBE I AND OTHERS DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.WHICH POINTS TO THE FACT YOU WISH TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS.

     Comment by john hughes — 2/9/2010 @ 12:29 am

539. Mugford is inherently unreliable. She is a joke of a witness. If she was so reliable then why did she hide it from the police the first time? The physical evidence is rubbish because of the police ineptitude. The finding of the sliencer is suspect, particularly that the finder stood to benefit from the game even though he might generally have believed Bamber to be guilty and the forensic results which followed from that finding are incorrect.

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 2/11/2010 @ 5:30 am

540. It’s been a while since I commented on here, having read all the posts I still see doubt of guilt though and obvious failings of the police with regards to the crime scene and evidence. I understand there have been past appeals but something still needs to be done about it.

     Comment by Leigh — 2/11/2010 @ 9:25 pm

541. Anonymous - (530)Jeremy Bamber was clearly evasive when questioned by police. DC Stan Jones noted Bamber’s strange attitude during questioning he would light a cigarette or take a long draw on it each time a strong point was put to him. This gave Bamber time to think and offer an appropriate reponse. He didnt want to get pinned down or cornered on certain important questions relating to the murders. There came a point in the questioning that “Bamber was constantly stumming a piece of loose wool from his sweater between his teeth and his fingers like he didnt have a care in the world” (incidently this sweater belonged to his dead sister) He was answering questions in a wholly unacceptable and arrogant manner, he would answer “yeeeeessssss, nooooooooo” in a sing-song manner. If we’d of had video coverage of that interview (the interview was conducted before it was made law that all police interrogations had to be videotaped) the viewer would be in no-doubt to the insufferable arrogance, sheer callousness and evasiveness of this man” I have been a policeman for 20 years at that point and have never seen such a callous disregard for the traumatic events as in this man”
     —————————————————
     We only have DS Jones word that Jeremy behaved like this,and everyone should not forget that DS Jones had three different start dates recorded on the front cover of his pocketbook (49) which recorded all of this evidence. This was the same police officer who seized four exhibits from the scene, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, on the morning of the murders, and that later, one of these exhibit references (SBJ/1) was attributed to the silencer which the relatives were supposed to have handed over to him, on 12 August 1985? This is the same police officer who interviewed and coaxed Julie Mugford no less than 31 separate times, or occasions, into giving evidence against Jeremy, at his 1986 Chelmsford Crown court, trial. DS Jones evidence is unreliable, and was clearly falsified to lend support to the prosecution of Jeremy for these awful crimes. Do not be fooled into thinking that Ds Jones was and is whiter than white, because if his involvement in this case was investigated properly, he would be in the dock charged with criminal offences, since, it is unlawful to make false entries into a police pocketbook and then to rely upon that false evidence in court - its called perverting the course of justice…

     Why were the original exhibits, SBJ/1 to SBJ/4, which he seized at the scene on the morning of the shootings, tampered with?

     How come, if the relatives handed him the silencer (SBJ/1) on 12 August 1985, that the silencer was handed over again by Ann Eaton, to DC Oakley, on 11 September 1985?

     The truth is there for all to see, if you look for it - the police and the family framed Jeremy for these murders. He never killed anyone, and there is no evidence to prove that he did. Its all speculation, every bit of it. You may not like Jeremy as a person, but that does not make him, or anyone you might not like, into a killer. If on the other hand, you could produce a taped interview, or show me a video recording where Jeremy behaved during interview, as described by you in your post, then I might take that into account, but as I say, we only have DS Jones word for what he says happened, but that does not necessarily mean that it did happen, or that it happened in the way he says it happened. How come DS Jones was the only police officer in the entire Essex police, who believed that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, and how come not one single other police officer has gone on record as saying the sort of things which you have alluded to, and upon which DS Jones, is supposed to have witnessed or spoken about?

     I have yet to find or uncover any other evidence that any other police officer involved in this investigation, who has three different start dates on the front cover of their pocketbooks, which contains evidence about this investigation? So, why is it different in the case of DS Jones?

     It is different in his case, because he falsified his account, about the role he has played in this investigation…

     The relatives could not have handed the silencer (SBJ/1) over to him on 12 August 1985, because DS Jones himself found and took possession of SBJ/1 at the scene on 7 August 1985, along with three other exhibits (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4)…

     Let no-one be in any sort of doubt, that the silencer evidenc, was, and is, BOGUS…

     Ds Jones played an active role in its introduction…

     Work it out for yourself - this is why he tampered with the notes recorded in his pocketbook, exhibit SBJ/1, was seized by him at the scene, on 7 August 1985, it was not handed to him, by the relatives, on 12 August 1985, DS Jones is the last person anyone should rely upon when formulating a view about this case, since, if what he said is true, how could Ann Eaton hand the same silencer over to DC Oakey on 11 September 1985? How many times was the silencer handed over by the relatives to the police? Lets get real, the silencer was introduced as a prop to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted, on the basis that with it fitted to the barrel of the rifle, the overall length of the weapon would have been too long to enable Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself by use of it so configured, even if she had wanted too…

     Fact is, videoed tests which were completed in 2003, prove and establish that with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel, it would not have been too long for Sheila to use the gun to have shot herself by use of it so configured…

     The court was and has been deceived by this argument…

     If the silencer was used, how did it get back downstairs into the gun cupboard, to enable the relative to find it there, on 10 August 1985?

     Well, if DS Jones found exhibit SBJ/1 at the scene on 7 August 1985, it would not have been there in that gun cupboard for the relatives to find by 10 August 1985, and it would not have been possible for the relatives to hand it to DS Jones on 12 August 1985, work it out for yourself, the silencer evidence is dodgy, and without the silencer, Jeremy would never have even been prosecuted in the first place. The silencer evidence is the baby of the relatives and DS Jones, between them, they invented its use, and they introduced it, but the evidence does not add up or make any sort of sense when you look at and consider the full facts surrounding it…

     Ds Jones had three different start dates on the front cover of his pocketbook (49) which contained his evidence in this case,(whf), because the silencer evidence (SBJ/1) is and was, and still is, very dodgy indeed…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/12/2010 @ 11:58 pm

542. Jeremy will one day be exonerated for these awful crimes…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/13/2010 @ 2:41 pm

543. There has never been any conclusive evidence to prove, or establish, that Jeremy Bamber, killed anyone…

     The silencer was introduced to muddy the waters so that it could be wrongly suggested that the overall length of the gun with the silencer fitted to the barrel of it, would have been too long for Sheila to have used upon herself even if she had wanted to? Videoed tests and experiments in 2003 prove and establish beyond doubt that someone built like Sheila, could have used the weapon, so configured, and been able to shoot herself. This though, is not the same as saying she did use the weapon which was so configured, to actually shoot herself. The tests and experiments performed in 2003, only establish that the court was misled about the possibility that the weapon was too long, not that a weapon so configured was used…

     By claiming the silencer was found in the gun cupboard, in the downstairs office, it would mean that somebody had to remove the silencer from the guns barrel (after Sheila was shot) and whoever took the silencer off the gun, then took it downstairs, and concealed it in the gun cupboard? By a reliance upon this argument, linked to the false claim that the overall length of the weapon so configured was too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to use it upon herself, was a compelling argument, if true, for someone other than Sheila being responsible for the deaths inside the house?

     But if the silencer evidence is dodgy, all of this counts for nothing…

     Evidence exists to prove and establish beyond doubt that the silencer evidence, and the paint associated to it, and the blood evidence found inside it, got there by a process of contamination, rather than at the time of the shootings…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/13/2010 @ 5:53 pm

544. Well, some very pertinent and interesting points by all parties. I do not subscribe to the notion that there was a police cover up much less, direct police involvement as Mike is suggesting. However, I do believe that there is such a thing as ‘trying to protect the name of the Force’ A good example of this is the tragedy that happened at Hillsborough stadium in April 1989, where 96 Liverpool Football Club supporters were crushed to death due to overcrowding. This was clearly police incompetence and ineptitude of the first order. Much as in the Bamber case, the police came in for some pretty hostile comments over their handling of the situation. However, in the follow-up Coronor’s Court sittings things had changed dramatically. Instead of “police incompetence” the focus now shifted on the possibility of drunkenness of the fans. Senior police officers now concentrated wholly on saving face. As a result no prosecutions were ever ordered and the guilty (or incompetant in this case)escaped punishment. This sort of thing does happen. However, it is a world away from what Mike is suggesting. He is suggesting direct police involvement in a murder and subsequent cover-up involving a large number of officers from the Essex Police Force.
     After Hillsborough, as with all policement, officers retired or moved on to civilian jobs. There were many ex-officers that ‘came clean’ they admitted that the police were at fault and that police were somewhat’economical with the truth’
     so much so that it is now generally accepted that the police WERE indeed at fault for the events at Hillsborough. Faith in the force - in this case, the South Yorkshire Police - was at an all time low.
     As with all attempted cover-ups on this scale, someone inevitably comes forward, for numerous reasons. The former officer may hold a grudge against his superiors (a common occurance) or he may be subject to feelings of extreme guilt, or quite simply he may simply want the balance of law and order to be restored. The new Detective Chief Superintendant of South Yorkshire stated that “cover-up’s simply dont work. He continued ” by their very nature they give those involved an inordinate amount of power combined with an inordinate amount of guilt” This means that the odds on someone exposing it are extremely high. I would have thought these odds were far too high for it ever to be theoretically practical”
     In other words - the cover up that Mike is suggesting would have come to light, especially given the amount of time -almost 25 years in this case, as opposed to 21 years after Hillsborough. This kind of conspiracy could not have been maintained. There would have undoubtedly been an officer or officers with a guilty conscience or those seeking to redress the balance that would have stepped forward.
     They haven’t because there was NOT a conspiracy in the first place. I accept their was police ineptitude and blundering. Something that was not lost on Lord Justice Drake the presiding judge in the case in October 1986. In fact, the ex-officers vehemently maintain their stance and version of what happened on the 5th/6th August 1985.
     The reason we have reached this point, readers is quite simple. Bamber and his supporters are now reaching the ‘desperation stages’ They have roundly lost two appeal hearings - the latter was defeated on every single point Bamber put forward in making his case for freedom. Put simply they have run out of options. Now we are in the realms of sheer fantasy.
     I personally think it is time for this appalling psychopathic ingrate to hold his hands up and admit it. However, the more I learn about this persons character, the less I believe that this will ever happen.

     Comment by Ian — 2/14/2010 @ 6:55 am

545. Apologies readers comment 530 is mine. I neglected to add my name.

     Comment by Ian — 2/14/2010 @ 7:02 am

546. Mike, you have suggested that there is ‘fresh evidence’ which ‘proves’ Ralph made that call. May I ask where it is? and what form is it in?

     Comment by Ian — 2/14/2010 @ 7:04 am

547. Whichever way you look at Jeremy’s character, and behavior, it does not make him into a killer…

     You cannot make someone into a killer simply because they are arrogant, selfish and bossy…

     Just because the relatives didn’t like Jeremy, does not make him into a killer…

     You need evidence to legitimately convict someone of a crime so horrific as this one, you cannot justify a conviction based upon speculation…

     You cannot say that it doesn’t matter if the police botched the investigation, and that everything they did does not make Jeremy’s convictions unsafe…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/14/2010 @ 8:22 am

548. Withholding evidence from Jeremy, and his legal team, at the time of his trial, in October 1986, and since, contravenes the right for a defendant, and a suspect to receive a fair trial…

     If a defendant or a suspect does not receive access to the evidence which has been gathered as part of the investigation against him, then he does not receive a fair trial if such material and evidence which is capable of undermining the case against him, is deliberately and willfully withheld…

     The silencer evidence is dodgy to say the least and should never have been used in the case against Jeremy Bamber…

     The blood evidence which was portrayed as being exclusive to Sheila, turns out to be not so exclusive to Sheila after all, since one of the blood group results (AK1) could have derived from rabbits blood (which incidentally was also found on the silencer when it was examined at the Lab’). The scientists who testified in this case, and who gave expert opinion on the blood found in the silencer, knew that two lots of animal blood had been found upon the silencer, and that various types of animal blood contains the AK1 enzyme, found in human blood, but they suppressed this evidence, because to admit it, and refer to it, would have made the blood results found i9n the silencer, not so exclusive to Sheila at all, since, with the absence of AK1 type blood from the result (on the basis that it derived or could have derived from animals blood) this left only three lots or types of blood (A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1) which could have belonged or derived from either June Bamber, or be an intimate mixture of Ralph and June Bambers blood, as stated by Jeremy Bambers blood expert, at the time of his 1986 trial…

     A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1 type blood could have been June Bambers blood, or a mixture of June and Ralph Bambers blood types, and if so, the blood evidence which was used to support the prosecution of Jeremy at the time of his trial, has been illegally manipulated to convict him…

     June Bamber had A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1 type blood…
     Ralph Bamber had O, EAP BA and HP 2-1 type blood…

     When A type, and O type, blood mix together, in an intimate mixture, the O type blood is always masked by the A type blood (in the same mixture)and a result of A type blood is always produced. For this reason, the results of the blood obtained from the silencer (minus AK1) could have belonged, or originated, or been exclusive to June Bamber, or have been an intimate mixture of Ralph and June Bambers blood types…

     The implications of this are immense, since, if the blood was exclusive to June Bamber, or an intimate mixture of Ralph and June Bambers blood types, then the silencer did not have to have been fitted to the end of the rifles barrel at the time that Sheila was shot and killed, and there would be no reason why any as yet unidentified killer, or Jeremy, would have had to remove the silencer from the end of the guns barrel, which was used to kill Sheila, and take it all the way downstairs to hide and conceal it in the gun cupboard, in the downstairs office…

     Anyone who is remotely interested, can see why the silencer evidence, and the blood found inside it, was so important to the prosecutions case?

     The blood needed to be portrayed as being exclusive, and unique, to Sheila, and it had to be fitted to the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed, in the bedroom, so that the prosecution could allege that somebody other then Sheila must have removed the silencer from the end of the guns barrel, after Sheila was killed, and that other person could only have been Jeremy, because he planned the murders with a view to getting his hands on the family estate worth around 500,000 pounds. As I say, they went about proving and establishing this by making the blood found in the silencer as being unique and exclusive to Sheila, when it was obviously not…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/14/2010 @ 8:46 am

549. If Bamber was the killer, and he had an accomplice, how did the accomplice manage to escape from the scene under the noses of the police?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/15/2010 @ 4:58 pm

550. Contrary to what Ian has said in earlier posts, new material and evidence has come to light in recent years, which exposes the police handling of this case, as nothing short of illegal. They lied about many many things in their quest to prosecute Jeremy for murders that he did not an could not have committed. None of the police officers involved in this conspiracy have ever yet been questioned in court proceedings about what actually did happen once armed police entered whf. More and more evidence is coming to light which exposes the police investigation for what it was and is, basically put - a cover up. Yes, the police at the scene (inside the farmhouse) know that Jeremy did not kill his sister. He could not have done because she did not die inside the bedroom until after the police had entered the house. Sheila was still alive inside the house after the police got into it, and she died in the bedroom whilst the police were inside the house. The police stage managed the crime scenes in the kitchen and the bedroom, to try and cover up the true circumstances of how Sheila died at the scene - part of this cover up involved substituting one of the two bullets by which Sheila was wounded with, namely bullet PV/20 which started off life as a fragmented bullet, at the time the pathologist removed it from her body at the autopsy on 7 August 1985, but which by 20 September 1985, had become transformed into a whole bullet, which the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, linked to the .22 semi-automatic rifle, which the police planted on top of Sheila’s body in the bedroom, and the police deliberately sought to cover up for the existence of a second rifle inside the bedroom, which WPC Jeapes spotted leaning against the bedroom window at 7:15am (some 15 minutes before the armed police officers commenced their approach to enter the farmhouse at 7:30am). The police substituted the bullet (PV/20) and they covered up the existence of the second rifle inside the bedroom, and this was part of the true circumstances of how Sheila Caffell had died inside the bedroom at sometime between 8:15 and 8:30am that morning…

     The police have not yet offered an explanation for why and how bullet PV/20 which was a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, which the pathologist, Peter Venezis removed from the neck of Sheila Caffell, had by 20 September 1985, become transformed into a whole bullet which the ballistic expert used and relied upon to make the gun which the police photographed on Sheila’s body in the bedroom, the one and only murder weapon?

     The original fragm,ented bullet (PV/20) and the rifle which was at the bedroom window before the armed police even entered the farmhouse at about 7:30am, were involved in Sheila’s death, and the police have doctored this evidence as part of the cover up…

     Jeremy did not substitute bullet PV/20, and Jeremy could not have moved the rifle from the bedroom window at any stage between the time WPC Jeapes saw it there at about 7:15am and the occasion when the police say they found Sheila’s body in the bedroom with the only rifle in the room on top of her body…

     Work it out…

     Why substitute the bullet (PV/20) and what happened to the second rifle?

     Why would the police tamper with a crime scene bullet, and why did they deliberately lie about the presence of a second rifle inside the bedroom?

     You only tamper with crime scene bullets like this, and try to deceive everyone about how many guns were found inside that bedroom, if you have got something to hide, at least that is the way I see it…

     Sheila shot the twins in bed whilst they slept…
     Sheila shot her mother in the bedroom…
     Sheila shot and overpowered Ralph in the kitchen, and
     Sheila attempted to take her own life in the kitchen downstairs (but failed) and she eventually ended up dead in the bedroom upstairs…

     Four murders and a suicide, that what this case was investigated originally as, and it turned into a full scale murder investigation, because the relatives were not prepared to accept that Sheila could have shot the others, and fought with Ralph Bamber, or that she could have shot herself twice in the bedroom. But Sheila did shoot the others, and she did shoot and overpower Ralph in the kitchen, and she did attempt to take her own life, but there is still some doubt as to whether or not she fired the second bullet which terminated her life in the bedroom? The police have set out to provide a false case that only one gun was used in these shootings, and that all the ammunition came from the same ammunition type (Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point). It was all a big lie. It is all part of a cover up, Sheila died inside the bedroom and the police are ultimately responsible for her death, and this is what they have sought to cover up. They lied about the existence of crucial exhibits, and lied about how many crime scene photographs were taken as part of the investigation, saying that there were only 223 when there existed, as it turns out, some 581…

     ACC Peter Simpson had a secret photographic album, which became known as the senior investigating officers album which contained all 581 pictures, most of these were deliberately withheld and continue to be withheld under the guise of Pii rules…

     We are now getting close to the point where the truth will out, and the public will find out exactly what Essex police officers did in this case - the police deceived the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, 14 August 1985, into believing that Sheila had only been shot once, and that she was responsible for all the deaths including her own, which enabled the bodies to be released for burial and disposal. Essex police lied to the coroners court about the number of shots which Sheila had received and statements exist to confirm that this is what the police told the court on that occasion. Even the police surgeon who attended the scene, reported that Sheila had a solitary wound upon her throat, and ignored the fat that she had been shot twice…

     Why lie about such important details?

     These were not incompetent acts, these were deliberate lies told to deceive the court into releasing the bodies of the victims for disposal, so that there could not be any independent forensic pathology examination to establish and reconstruct what took place at the time of these five deaths. It is all well and good blaming Jeremy for the fact that the police burned all the bloodstained carpets, clothing and bedding from the scene, and that this all got burnt on a huge bonfire in the grounds of whf, but the police wanted this to happen so that no-one could come along at a later date to try and reconstruct what had taken place at the material time…

     There was a cover up…

     Jeremy killed no-one…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/17/2010 @ 5:22 pm

551. Mike, it kind of ridiculous that you continually point the finger at Sheila. You have NO evidence. Let me see whatever evidence you have for trying to shift the blame onto a dead woman. You keep on and on about the lack of physical evidence that other people accusing Jeremy offer. Now where is yours that points to Sheila? What PHYSICAL evidence do you have to PROVE that Sheila Cafell murdered her family?
     The time has come Mike for you to lay you cards on the table.

     “You need evidence to legitimately convict someone of a crime so horrific as this one, you cannot justify a conviction based upon speculation…” YOUR words Mike, not mine. Let’s see if you are not a hypocrite.

     Comment by Ian — 2/18/2010 @ 6:28 pm

552. Mike………you stated that ‘It is all well and good blaming Jeremy for the fact that the police burned all the bloodstained carpets, clothing and bedding from the scene, and that this all got burnt on a huge bonfire in the grounds of whf, but the police wanted this to happen so that no-one could come along at a later date to try and reconstruct what had taken place at the material time…’
     This is VERY convenient Mike isnt it? Shifting the blame yet again. It seems to have become an art-form amongst Bamber and his supporters. Remind me please……..who asked for these items to be burned in the first place? Who was it that said that these items were “too painful a reminder to have them in the house”… Please remind the readers.
     Bamber was no stranger to getting rid of things that were deemed by him to be surplus to requirements. On being asked - immediately after the murders -if he would like to take the family dog home (the only living thing to emerge from White House Farm that morning). Bamber replied arrogantly, ” I’m not having that bloody thing in my house, it would tear up all the wiring of my stereo” The dog was duly put down shortly afterwards.

     Comment by Ian — 2/18/2010 @ 6:49 pm

553. It should also not be forgotten, that in the case of the Hillsborough disaster, all the archived statements and reports which for years had been withheld and suppressed under pii rules, were eventually released into the public domain, and therefore, it would have been very difficult for certain police officers in the South Yorkshire force, not to come forward and speak the truth about what actually took place - in the Bamber case, however, there has not been full scale disclosure of all the withheld material under pii, and therefore, you cannot make the comparison between one cover up and the other, until all the withheld material in the Bamber case is released into the public domain. As I say, when the police start to tamper with crime scene ammunition and lie about the presence of additional weapons at the scene, it can only lead to one inevitable conclusion, and that being that there has been an almighty cover up.

     The facts speak for themselves, no matter which side of the fence you may choose to sit upon, in favor of Bambers innocence, or guilt?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/19/2010 @ 2:18 pm

554. The latest information is that scratch marks which were eventually found to be present upon the aga in the kitchen, were made later by the relatives, who introduced the silencer as a significant prop to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted. Jeremy has complained that he believes that the relatives deliberately scoured the aga with the silencer so as to contaminate it with paint and that the prosecution misused this evidence to wrongly suggest that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun which was used in the struggle in the kitchen against Ralph Bamber. Apparently, crime scene photographs taken in the area of the aga where the marks later appeared, shows an absence of such marks on the aga on the 7 August 1985, and therefore, these marks must have been made afterward, by someone who had intent to blame Jeremy for the murders, and the paint contaminated silencer was introduced to achieve that end…

     Why was it felt necessary to deliberately contaminate the silencer with paint from the aga?

     Either the police or the relatives deliberately tampered with the silencer in a bid to contaminate it, and the reason they did what they did, should be obvious to anyone who cares to find out the truth about what happened inside whf at the material time when five members of the same family lost their lives?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/19/2010 @ 2:27 pm

555. Ian has asked what new evidence has recently come to light which proves that Ralph Bamber, made the call to the police?

     Well, to begin with, he made that call at precisely 3:26am, and gave details about “his daughter having possession of one of his guns, and going berserk”. Fact of the matter is, that Sheila was not Jeremy’s daughter, and the guns at whf were all owned by Ralph Bamber, and a relative, Anthony Pargeter. As a result of Ralph’s call to the police, a police vehicle, CA07 was dispatched to the scene at 3:35am, which was the police vehicle which overtook Jeremy on the Tollsbury Road, en route to the scene, and which arrived at whf (3:48am) two minutes before Jeremy did. Contray to popular belief, CA07 was not dispatched to attend the scene in response to Jeremy’s call to the police at 3:36am, since he did not make his call to the police, until after CA07 had been dispatched to the scene. In point of fact, another patrol car, and its occupants, CA05, was dispatched to attend the scene in response to Jeremy’s call at 3:36am, CA05, being dispatched to attend the scene at 3:36am…

     When Jeremy made his call to the police at 3:36am, he reported that he had received a call from his dad, who told him that his “sister had got the gun and that she was going crazy”…

     Two different calls, one (3:26am) where the caller referred to “Daughter”, and the other (3:36am)where the caller referred to “sister”, both calls 10 minutes a part. The police had originally suggested that the clock in the control room had been 10 minutes fast, in an attempt to cover up for the fact that there had been two different calls. But Jeremy’s call to the police lasted only 3 to 4 minutes maximum, it did not last between 13 and 14 minutes in duration? Sheila was not Jeremy’s daughter and he was not Sheila’s dad, Sheila was Jeremy’s sister (adopted). The police officers in CA07 which overtook Jeremy en route to the scene were responding to Ralph Bambers call, and had been dispatched to the scene before Jeremy even had chance to make his own call to the police at 3:36am. The police vehicle and its occupants (CA05) which had been dispatched to the scene in response to Jeremy’s call at 3:36am, did not overtake Jeremy en route to the scene, because CA05 did not arrive at the scene until 4:23am, and Jeremy had already arrived there at 3:50am…

     These are the true facts of this part of the case…

     It would have taken Jeremy about 7 minutes or so to travel from his home at Bourtree cottage, to Pages Lane, and whf - this is consistent with him leaving home to go to the farm, as instructed by the police, at about 3:42, to 3:43am…

     His arrival at whf at 3:50am, was a time he could be expected to arrive there, from leaving his home at the aforementioned time…

     Everyone assumes wrongly that Jeremy would have automatically assumed that the police car which overtook him on the Tollebury Road, with its blue lights flashing, was responding to his own call which he had made to the police at 3:36am, but fact of the matter is, that he thought the police in that car were responding to another unrelated matter, because not enough time had elapsed for the police car *(CA07) to be on the Tollesbury Road, if it had been dispatched as a result of his own call to the police…

     It would have been natural, as everybody has previously said, for Ralph Bamber to have called the police, and that is precisely what he did at 3:26am…

     Whilst Ralph was calling the police, Jeremy was trying to re-establish contact with him, and he kept getting the engaged tone. Jeremy kept getting the engaged tone, because Ralph was still very much alive at that stage, and he was talking to the police…

     These are the facts, Jeremy did not fight with Ralph in the kitchen at whf, and he did not shoot and kill him…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/19/2010 @ 2:53 pm

556. Jeremy did not fight with Ralph in the kitchen, and he did not shoot kill him - The person who fought and killed Ralph Bamber had long fingernails, as evidenced by the gouge type injuries which Ralph sustained prior to his death. These deep fingernail gouge marks were made by Ralph Bambers killer, and Jeremy was known to have short fingernails…

     The fact that these gouge marks existed upon Ralph Bambers forearm were suppressed and not mentioned at Jeremy’s trial, but the truth of the matter is, that they did exist and that this helps to establish that Jeremy was not the killer…

     Other scratch and gouge marks found upon Sheila’s right forearm where made by someone with short fingernails, and Ralph Bamber had short fingernails…

     This evidence was also suppressed…

     But the indications are that the type of scratch and gouge marks found upon the forearms of Ralph and Sheila are consistent with them both fighting and struggling with each other…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/19/2010 @ 3:01 pm

557. If inheritance was the motive for the murders, then why aren’t the relatives in the frame, since, they were the only ones who stood to inherit everything, it was always in doubt that Jeremy would have inherited everything that was alleged, since it was not known in which order the members of the family had died, which would have had a significant impact upon who inherited what?

     It is clear cut, however, that Sheila killed the others in this case, and there is and never has been any evidence to suggest opr support the case for anyone other than Sheila being responsible for killing the others…

     Jeremy was convicted of the murders of the other four victims on the basis that he killed his sister, and that she could not have killed herself because with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel she would not have been able to shoot herself with the weapon so configured because the overall length of the weapon so configured would have been too long to enable her to shoot herself even if she had wanted to (this is not entirely or strictly true, since the overall length of the weapon might not have excluded Sheila from shooting herself with the weapon so configured). Fact is, that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer fitted to the barrel of the rifle and that it would not have been too long, as alleged. But I do not think the silencer was used or present upon the gun which fired the fatal bullet in the bedroom which killed her…

     The silencer was a prop, introduced by the relatives, intended to usurp Jeremy’s defense, that his sister killed the others and then herself, in line with the opriginal police case, of four murders and a suicide…

     Blood in the silencer was a mixture of the parents, and animal, blood…

     Paint ingrained on the silencer got there as a result of deliberate contamination by the relatives (according to Jeremy)…

     A false case was made out during the trial that the blood found inside the silencer was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, and the paint on the silencer was wrongly accepted as having got there at the time of a struggle between Ralph and his killer in the vicinity of the kitchen, when the silencer came into contact with the aga and marked it, but new photograo9hic material establishes that the crucial marks were not present upon the aga on the morning of the murders when the police photographed it…

     Jeremy is innocent, he always was innocent, and he remains innocent, one day his convictions will be overturned…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/19/2010 @ 4:04 pm

558. And now the truth finally starts to comer out, that scratch marks on the aga, were made after the police handed the keys over to the relatives. The relatives had the silencer in their possession for three days, and they had the keys to whf, and the marks got made on the underside of the aga, after the police handed the keys to whf over to the relatives on 9 August 1985…

     I always said the the truth will out, sooner or later, and now the momemnt of truth has arrived, and everyone can see why Jeremy got convicted for the awful crimes in the first place?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/21/2010 @ 4:56 pm

559. Marks on the underside of the aga, which led to red paint from the aga, becoming ingrained into the knurled end of the silencer, did not get there during the purported struggle, between Ralph Bamber, and his killer, in the kitchen at whf, it got there, and those marks were deliberately fabricated so that the silencer could be introduced as a prop, in keeping with what I have been saying all along…

     I suppose the other side will now be trying to argue that it doesn’t matter that the relatives introduced a doctored piece of evidence, since it led to Jeremy being rightfully convicted of the murders, which they will say, he committed, and he deserved to be convicted by hook or by crook?

     It does not matter to some people, that an innocent man has spent almost 25 years in jail for crimes that he did not, and could not have committed…

     The silencer evidence is dodgy…

     It always has been and was dodgy, it was a prop which was introduced to muddy the waters…

     The paint found upon it can now be shown to have been falsified, and the blood evidence found inside it, was not unique or exclusive to Sheila after all?

     No longer does it matter that the silencer was found in the gun cupboard by the relatives on 10 August 19085, since, it was not necessarily fi8tted to the end of the guns barrel at all at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom…

     The overall length of the weapon was not now too long to enable Sheila an opportunity to kill herself by use of it, because the silencer can now be taken out of the equation altogether…

     The silencer was jot taken downstairs and hidden in the gun cupboard after Sheila was shot and killed, that suggestion was nothing but a red herring, designed to make Bamber look guilty…

     Bambers day is looming large, he will get his day of justice, soon…

     Lets get the facts right so that everyone can be in no doubt at all about what all of this means, what we have here, is Essex police, and in particular, senior police officers, who knew that on the morning of the murders, there were no scratch marks on the underside of the aga, and that by the time they handed the keys to whf over to the relatives on the evening of 9 August 1985, there was still no marks on the underside of the aga, yet a month or so later, those same police officers behaved as though those marks which were nmade at a later time, had always been present there on the underside of the aga, on the morning of the murders - shame on Essex police and the CPS,and shame on the relatives, for stooping so low as to introduce false evidence so that Jeremy could be falsely prosecuted as the killer…

     Shame on you all…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/21/2010 @ 5:11 pm

560. Seems to me that Bamber was stitched up because they wanted to make sure they had the evidence to convict him.

     Is it morally justified to stitch up someone you are totally convinced has committed a foul series of murders? This is exactly what the police did in the OJ case, the defence showed police misbehaviour and the jury then had doubts which is why he got off. Of course OJ did do it.

     This conviction does not look safe legally but whether he did it or not (or organised it), that is another question!

     Comment by Just Me — 2/21/2010 @ 5:33 pm

561. Only a blind fool would rule out Sheila as being a suspect in this murder.

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 2/22/2010 @ 4:48 am

562. who made the scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen?

     Not the killer, not Ralph, not Sheila, not June, not Jeremy - it was the relatives!!!

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/22/2010 @ 3:13 pm

563. There is such a thing known as “NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION” which is sometimes adopted by the police and witnesses, to make sure that the person they feel was responsible for committing an offense, or a series of offenses, gets convicted…

     “NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION” was the motive behind why the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen at whf, got scratched and [paint got transferred onto the end of the silencer, on an occasion after the police handed the keys to whf back to the relatives - the relatives then found the silencer, in the gun cupboard, and they had the keys to the crime scene. It would appear that so convinced were the relatives of Bambers culpability, that they must have justified it to themselves, that it was worth doing what they did, to deliberately scratch the underside of the mantelpiece and to contaminate the silencer, so that the police could argue that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen, between Ralph and his killer, and that Sheila could not have been that killer, because she was too small and petite to have any chance at all, of overpowering the very tall and physically strong Ralph Bamber, and in any event, who moved the silencer from the end of the guns barrel, after sheila was already dead inside the bedroom? The relatives had it all planned out, they knew that if the silencer could be suggested as having been present on the gun during the struggle in the kitchen, and at the time of Sheila Caffells death, that Sheila could not have removed the silencer, and she could not have taken it all the way downstairs to hide it, in the gun cupboard, because as David Boutflour said, and keeps saying every time you see him on TV Documentaries about the case, a dead person cannot do those kinds of things which were done in this case…

     He was right, a dead person cannot do those kinds of thing…

     And, now we know that whoever killed Ralph Bamber in the kitchen at whf, that that person did not scratch the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen by use of the silencer on the end of the guns barrel, because there were no such marks on the underside of the mantelpiece on the morning of the murders, and certainly no such marks there when the police handed the keys to whf over to the relatives on the evening of 9 August 1985…

     What would anybody have done if they had been in the relatives position?

     Was “NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION” a valid and justifiable option?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/23/2010 @ 11:28 am

564. If you take the silencer out of the equation, because it has so obviously been doctored, with a view to establishing Jeremy Bambers guilt in the murders, if you take the silencer out, then you are left with Sheila’s body in the main bedroom, with a gun on top of her body, that she could have used to shoot herself dead with? The case reverts back to the original scenario “FOUR MURDERS AND A SUICIDE”…

     You add in the silencer, with paint upon it, that got there when someone scratched the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen, and then suddenly, the case is being re-investigated as “FIVE MURDERS”…

     Jeremy gets arrested, interviewed, and charged, and prosecuted, and he is subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment…

     The truth then comes out about the silencer evidence being BOGUS, for all the reasons mentioned, and yet still, this innocent man remains locked up in prison, serving a life sentence, where life means life, in his case, for crimes for which he did not receive a fair trial?

     What kind of a criminal justice system is it, that treats a person as being guilty, without them having or receiving a fair trial?

     This man (Jeremy Bamber) killed no-one, and there is no evidence to prove or establish that he did kill anyone?

     This man deserves to be set free (immediately) on bail pending an appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice, where his convictions should be set aside - if there is any justice. What about the criminal justice system adopting “NOBLE CAUSE HONESTY” and setting this innocent man free, he has suffered enough already, and should not be kept in prison a day longer…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/23/2010 @ 11:44 am

565. To be pondered, is that no one piece of evidence, or information, or exhibit, is the sole property of one party, as opposed to the other, there is usually more than two ways to skin a cat, and evidence and information can be explained in many different ways. There may be many variations of the truth, each one capable of belief and of being true, and in the case of the silencer and the paint from the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen, the prosecution and its witnesses have had there moment - the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time of the purported struggle in the kitchen, between Ralph Bamber, and his killer, and according to them at the time of Bambers trial in 1988, the silencer scratched the underside of the mantelpiece during that struggle between Ralph and Jeremy at the time Jeremy killed Ralph in the kitchen, and that it must have been Jeremy (no-one else) who removed the silencer after Sheila was already dead in the bedroom, and he must have taken it all the way downstairs to conceal it in the gun cupboard?

     The judge told the jury in his summing up speech that they could convict Bamber of the murders based purely on the silencer evidence alone, and that the silencer evidence could lead them to the conclusion that Jeremy was the murderer, rather than Sheila, because the prosecution had proved that the silencer made the scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece, at the time of the purported struggle in the kitchen, between Ralph, and his killer, and that Someone had removed that silencer from the gun after Sheila was killed?

     The jury had to choose, between Sheila, and Jeremy, being the killer?

     They were told in the clearest possible terms that they had to dismiss any ideas of some as yet unidentified killer, and that either Sheila or Jeremy had to be responsible for the deaths…

     The silencer evidence was very compelling evidence, and would have persuaded the jury that Sheila could not possibly have been the killer, and so they were left with not much option but to convict Jeremy for the five deaths…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/23/2010 @ 11:57 am

566. It is now time for there to be a publish inquiry into the silencer issues involved in this case, as orchestrated by the relatives,, and Essex police, to help prosecute Jeremy Bamber as the killer…

     A great deal of work has already been done on Bambers behalf during the past 20 years os to highlight many of the irregularities surrounding the silencer, the paint and the blood which has been attributed to it…

     The truth will out, and that day is looming large…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/23/2010 @ 12:02 pm

567. If there was only one silencer which the relatives handed over to the police in connection with this investigation, how come the relatives handed it over to the police on two different dates? Once on 12 August 1985, and secondly, on 11 September 1985? How come, if there was only one silencer, it had three different exhibit references at different stages of the investigation, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1? If there was only one silencer, how could the police hand two silencers back to the relatives once Jeremy was convicted as the murderer, and keep another silencer as an exhibit as part of the Essx police black museum?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/23/2010 @ 5:49 pm

568. Mal Harrison On your point 561…..”Only a blind fool would rule out Sheila as being a suspect in this murder”
     On exactly what physical evidence do you make this statement?
     I am aghast that people keep making this claim, but offer little in the way of hard evidence.
     I ask you again Mr Harrison, on what evidence are you basing your persistent claims that Sheila Caffell was in any way responsible for the deaths of her family that Jeremy Bamber was convicted of?
     I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence from anyone including Mike Tesko that persuades otherwise. Not a shred, other than strained constraints of the evidence in order to suit its own purposes.
     Mal Harrison and Mike Tesko appear to be very quick in order to condemn a dead woman that has no voice and no defense of her own.
     Tesko claims a police conspiracy (NO evidence that I have ever seen is remotely credible) Harrison appears to condemn everything that clearly points to Bamber by denigrating it. i.e Point 539. “Mugford is inherently unreliable. She is a joke of a witness”…. and other such ill thought out notions.

     Comment by Ian — 2/23/2010 @ 6:31 pm

569. Mike point 566 ……I agree We have ONLY had YOUR slant on this. Now let us have the chance to see the OTHER slant.

     Comment by Ian — 2/23/2010 @ 6:33 pm

570. Mike, let us put this matter to rest shall we. I think you are making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill with you persistent and ever-increasingly desparate claims about the availability of police evidence after 24 years. You stated that
     ”Let no-one forget either, that when the police produced a court album for the attention of the jury consisting of 50 preselected pictures which supported the prosecutions case, supposedly selected from the 223 crime scene photographs that formed part of the dodgy master copy album - dodgy because in truth, 223 photographs were not the total of pictures taken with regards to this matter, since it can now be proven that 581 pictures had been taken. Think about that for a moment? Another 358 pictures which the police concealed from Jeremy, his legal team, and from the court which tried this case? Think about that fact for a moment - why did the police lie about the number of crime scene photographs (223) which were taken in connection with the case (when 581 pictures had been taken)?” ………….unquote.
     Let us put these claims into context shall we. For this purpose it is necessary to use a case study; in this instance I shall use the case of ‘Wearside Jack’ the infamous ‘Ripper Hoaxer’ For reasons of relevancy I will not go into the case itself but he was eventually tracked down using mitrochrondrial DNA. This DNA was not obtained by what the police had in their evidence storage facility, but rather by a stroke of pure luck. A forensic scientist that worked the original case fortuitiously kept the envelope that the Hoaxer had used to send the infamous letter some 23 years before. A sample of DNA was obtained and the man traced and convicted. The evidence that had been gathered from such a massive case as that of the Yorkshire Ripper, one would have thought, would have been substantial. However, on inspection it proved to be miniscule. Most of the evidence had been disposed of or lost. After the conviction of Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe on a 10-2 majority, scant attention was ever given to it. This appears to be the way with a substantial amount ofg evidence from cases stretching that far back that concluded in outright convictions. Why then, should this not apply to the Bamber case?
     Mike, to cut a long story short, sooner or later the police must dispose of evidence for obvious reasons. I believe you are using this seemingly innocuous occurrence to try to point to some sort of sinister conspiracy. I am sure that the judicial process are well aware of incarcerated criminals trying this rouse.
     There was NO police conspiracy to “fit anyone up” in the Hoaxer case. If anything they were desparate to catch this person and it would have been in their interest to have kept evidence, but they didn’t. Much the same has happened here. No more, No less.

     Comment by Ian — 2/23/2010 @ 7:06 pm

571. “What kind of a criminal justice system is it, that treats a person as being guilty, without them having or receiving a fair trial?”

     Clearly one that is at fault, and he’s lost many years of freedom, and taking into account the latest information I agree he should be granted bail.

     Comment by Leigh — 2/23/2010 @ 7:31 pm

572. Leigh, where did you receive the information that Bamber did not receive a fair trial?
     A Criminal Justice System treats someone as being guilty when they ARE found guilty, Leigh.
     I would like you to tell me exactly why you believe he did not receive a fair trial.

     Comment by Ian — 2/24/2010 @ 10:06 am

573. Mike point 566 ……I agree We have ONLY had YOUR slant on this. Now let us have the chance to see the OTHER slant.

     ————————————————————-

     Ian:- I am afraid we do not only have my slant on this matter as you try to put it - documentary evidence and the contents of witness statements made by police officers, scientists, and the relatives themselves, exist and can be drawn upon to confirm that there existed more than just the one silencer. The same silencer could not have been handed over twice to the police, by two different relatives on different occasions, and once Jeremy was convicted, the police handed two silencers back to the relatives, and kept another to display as part of their black museum exhibition? How could the same silencer have three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, and how come the relatives do not make a statement about when they handed the additional silencers to the police, and how come the police do not admit to receiving these additional silencers from the relatives, or give an indication what they did with these silencers, or what exhibit references these silencers were given? Etc…

     Different silencers were submitted to the lab” on different occasions, SBJ/1 under lab’ reference 22 was submitted to the Lab’ on 13 August 1985, and subsequently handed back to the police. DB/1 was submitted to the Lab’ on 30 August 1985, as lab reference number 23. Then on 25 September 1985, the third silencer (DRB/1) was submitted to the Lab’ to be checked for blood and fibers from one of Sheila Caffells tampons? After the submission of this third silencer, all the lab documentation was altered, so that where the silencer had previously been referred to as exhibit SBJ/1 and DSB/1, these were subsequently altered into DRB/1. The original silencer (SBJ/1) lab’ reference number 22, which was altered into 23 on 30 August 1985 (DB/1) was altered back to 22, once all the silencer references were made into DRB/1…

     This was done because the police and the relatives tried to make out a false case for there only having been just the one silencer, yet there were three different ones…

     The odd thing about all of this, is that the crucial flake of blood which was supposed to have been found inside the silencer (DRB/1) could not have been found inside silencer DRB/1, b3cause DRB/1 was not at the Lab’ at the time the flake was supposed to have been found inside it - silencer DRB/1, did not get sent to the Lab’ to be examined for blood and fibers from one of Sheila’s tampons until 25 September 1985, yet the blood group results were obtainment from the flake which is supposed to have been found inside the silencer (DRB/1) at the Lab, from 12 September 1985?

     The police and the relatives have got a lot of serious questions to answer when this matter eventually gets re investigated properly…

     They lied about the number of different silencers which the police had in their possession at one time or another in connection with this investigation, and they made out a false case that there was and only ever had been only one silencer, when in fact there were three different ones, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/24/2010 @ 2:07 pm

574. It now turns out that a scratch mark was not present on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen on the morning of the murders, yet the relatives claim to have found paint from it on the end of the silencer when it was found in the gun cupboard at the scene, and it was the relatives who brought the existence of the scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen to the police - If these scratch marks were not present on the underside of the mantelpiece on the morning of the murders, or by 9 August 1985 when the police handed the keys to whf back to the relatives, how do you explain how the scratch marks could be there by 14 August 1985?

     No unidentified killer made them, Sheila didn’t make them the police did not make them, and so who else could have made them before 14 August 1985?

     Work it out for yourself, put your own slant on it, do whatever you want, it all still boils down to the fact, which ever way you look at it, that the relatives and the police in this case, framed Jeremy for these murders…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/24/2010 @ 2:17 pm

575. It is all well and good making comparisons between one case and another, but what you have got to remember is that in nearly all of these other cases, there has only ever been just the one crime file, whereas, in the case of Jeremy Bamber, and the whf murders, two different files existed at different times of the investigation, and the entire original file under SC/688/85, has been withheld, and not disclosed. There has only been partial disclosure of the second file (SC/786/85) and this is where the problem lies in the pres went matter?

     Such has been the extent of the cover up, that COLP which investigated the original investigation into these five deaths, could not find or lay their hands on the original file SC/688/85, as part of the inquiries at the beginning of the 1990’s…

     Because of the existence of these two different crime files (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85) there has never quite been another case like the Bamber case, and you cannot make comparisons between this case, and others, about disclosure of material and evidence or information, because it is a totally different scenario altogether…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/24/2010 @ 2:55 pm

576. The police carried out two separate investigations into the same case, SC/688/85 and SC/786/85 - where the original case (SC/688/85) gathered evidence and information to prove and establish that Sheila killed everyone, and that she then took her own life, and the other (SC/786/85) where they prosecuted Jeremy as the murderer. Evidence, material, information and photographs from the original investigation (SC/688/85) were not disclosed to Bamber, and his legal team, or the court, which tried him for the murders,only the edited material, information, evidence and photographs from the second part of the investigation (SC/786/85) - how can this be right?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/25/2010 @ 6:03 pm

577. Ian, if you look again at point 571 I quoted that he did not receive a fair trial from previous comments made by Mike and I think he has answered your question. Do you believe that the Criminal Justice System is never at fault? And the police, do they never do anything wrong? If you want to compare this to other cases, compare the fact that there have been other miscarriages of justice, it does happen. Of course some who claim to be innocent are not but if look look at the infomation surrounding this case there are serious doubts pointing to it not being a safe or fair conviction.

     Comment by Leigh — 2/26/2010 @ 1:07 pm

578. Fair enough Mike, If you have the evidence as you say you have then fine. But you cannot expect anyone to formulate an opinion one way or the other if this evidence is not presented fully and fairly to those interested in this case.
     You say police are deliberately holding back evidence? They steadfastly refute this. Moreover, such evidence may have never of existed and/or it may have been lost or disposed of. So where does that leave your case?
     You state that there were two separate investigations. Legally, one is totally independent to the other. So may I ask you under what authority do you and Bamber have to look into this evidence?
     If memory serves, Bamber had NOTHING to do with the original investigation as he was not considered as a suspect at that time. He was interviewed (which gave rise to the initial suspicions of his guilt) But offically the case (SC/688/85) led by Detective Chief Inspector Jones was deemed to be four murders and a suicide, however erroneous that conclusion later proved to be.
     Now on commission of the fresh case (SC/786/85) DCI Jones was summarily replaced. A new case was commissioned to investigate the allegations of witness Julie Mugford and review evidence that some of Bamber’s relatives had brought forward. This DID involve Bamber. It implicated him as being responsible.
     Under Common Law you may have (I am not sure on this point) absolutely no right to scrutinse the evidence of the first case, even if it has a direct bearing on the second. The so-called double-jeopardy law may be affected.

     Comment by Ian — 2/26/2010 @ 3:26 pm

579. 10-2 for a murder. God help us all

     Comment by Mal Harrison — 2/26/2010 @ 11:43 pm

580. It should be obvious to anyone who cares to look, that when the police create an additional file into which they put edited information from the original file, and they proceed to prosecute someone (in this case Jeremy Bamber) based purely on the contents of the new file they have created, and the concealment of the original file contents which contained evidence which effectively would have been an accused’s defense, that there was a potential for a miscarriage of justice, which is what happened in Jeremy Bambers case. The switching of the evidence from one file to the other, by such methods and tactics, was and is a deceitful act by anybodies standards, and forms part of the general conspiracy that certain and specific police officers in the instant case, orchestrated…

     I can think of no other case, where the evidence was tampered with by the police, to enable an innocent man, like Jeremy Bamber, to be prosecute as the killer, when all along, the police had a file (SC/688/85) full of evidence which they themselves had gathered to confirm and prove that Sheila was the guilty party…

     Hiding that file (SC/688/85) and editing its contents which they then carried over into the new file (SC/786/85) was a corrupt act and forms part of the conspiracy which has been instigated against Jeremy, because the police lied about how Sheila had died at the scene, and they lied about where and under what circumstances her body was found at the scene, and the way police officers at the scene, interfered with her body, prior to PC Bird being requested to photograph it, as though her body had not been disturbed at all…

     Anybody who has seen the crime scene photographs can tell that Sheila’s body was stage managed and that it was put into the position which PC Bird photographed it in, because it was considered to be a convenient position on the bedroom floor to put the body out of harms way, to allow the police to examine the bedroom for clues?

     You do not need to be an Essex police officer, either a senior one who attended the scene, or work in scenes of crime, to know that Sheila’s body was stage managed prior to the taking of the crime scene photographs, and it must be absolutely clear to everyone who is remotely interested in this case, that it was and must have been the police who were and are responsible for stage managing Sheila Caffells body in the bedroom?

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/27/2010 @ 5:22 am

581. #Mal, a 1-2 verdict is ENOUGH for a safe conviction. It is the LAW in this country. You seem to take the view that it isnt.

     —————————————————
     Anonymous:-

     At the trial of Jeremy Bamber, it was like no other - the jury were asked to decide Jeremy’s guilt based purely upon the alleged facts of the case, they were asked to choose, between Sheila and Jeremy, as being the culprit. The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the members of the jury in his summing up speech, that there could not be any possibility that anyone other than Sheila or Jeremy were responsible for these deaths, and that they had to choose between Sheila and Jeremy? This is different to deciding whether or not Jeremy was the murderer,based purely on the alleged facts or evidence adduced during the trial, since, the jury were directed to choose between one potentially guilty person, and the other, and one of those persons (Sheila) was dead and was never at risk of being convicted of the crimes, or at peril of being punished as the killer. When you start asking or directing the jury and telling them that the killer was one or other person, and the jury had to choose, between one or the other, then you are interfering with the due process of law, and you are taking away the fundamental right of each jury member, to decide the case on the facts, for themselves, without being pushed into a corner and told it was either this person or that person, and you have to decide the case on that issue?

     Sheila Caffell was never on trial, and the evidence which the police gathered as part of their original investigation into the five deaths (SC/688/85) was never disclosed to Bamber, or his legal team, or to the court, which tried Bamber for these murders, and so why did the judge instruct the jury that they had to decide between Sheila and Jeremy, as the killer?

     I would suggest that in the circumstances of this case, the 10 - 2 verdict which the jury returned, after being directed by the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, along the aforementioned lines, was not sufficient in law, for these convictions to be considered safe, because the free will which every jury should be allowed to exercise, was not properly exercised in this case, they were in fact guided into choosing between one party and the other, which in my view does not amount to anyone receiving a fair trial at all, For these reasons alone, there should be a retrial, let alone any possibility that the silencer evidence is dodgy, or whatever…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/27/2010 @ 8:28 am

582. Judge told jury - “dismiss any idea that there was some as yet unidentified third party in this case, it was either Sheila, or Jeremy, and if you come to the conclusion that Sheila did not do it, and that she was not responsible for doing it, then you will convict Jeremy as the killer, and say so by your verdict - it was one or the other, and no-one else…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/27/2010 @ 1:44 pm

583. 568 - #

     Mal Harrison On your point 561…..”Only a blind fool would rule out Sheila as being a suspect in this murder”
     On exactly what physical evidence do you make this statement?
     I am aghast that people keep making this claim, but offer little in the way of hard evidence.
     I ask you again Mr Harrison, on what evidence are you basing your persistent claims that Sheila Caffell was in any way responsible for the deaths of her family that Jeremy Bamber was convicted of? I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence from anyone including Mike Tesko that persuades otherwise. Not a shred, other than strained constraints of the evidence in order to suit its own purposes.Mal Harrison and Mike Tesko appear to be very quick in order to condemn a dead woman that has no voice and no defense of her own. Tesko claims a police conspiracy (NO evidence that I have ever seen is remotely credible) Harrison appears to condemn everything that clearly points to Bamber by denigrating it. i.e Point 539. “Mugford is inherently unreliable. She is a joke of a witness”…. and other such ill thought out notions.

     Comment by Ian — 2/23/2010 @ 6:31 pm
     ————————————-
     The prosecutions argument that Sheila did not have any injuries which were consistent with Sheila having been engaged in a struggle with Ralph, was false and misleading. The police at the scene photographed the scratch and gouge marks which were present upon Sheila’s right forearm and the top part of her right hand - anyone who says that Sheila did not have such injuries would be mistaken in believing that Sheila did not struggle at all with anyone? The police suppressed this photographic material from Bamber, his legal team, and the court, which tried Bamber for these murders, by editing photographs out of the official photographic album, and they concealed these photographs, and other damning pictures, so that the court could be deliberately misled on the matter of whether or not Sheila had injuries which were consistent with her having been in a struggle during the incident. Fact of the matter is, Sheila did have injuries and she was involved in some sort of a struggle before she died. If this cover up and deception does not amount to some sort of a conspiracy, then it beggars belief?

     The injuries which I am referring to, can be viewed at, Sleuthing for justice, the case of Jeremy Bamber, and access to other relevant material, which exposes the police case, for what it was, and is…

     Comment by mike tesko — 2/27/2010 @ 1:59 pm

584. #(578)Fair enough Mike, If you have the evidence as you say you have then fine. But you cannot expect anyone to formulate an opinion one way or the other if this evidence is not presented fully and fairly to those interested in this case.
     You say police are deliberately holding back evidence? They steadfastly refute this. Moreover, such evidence may have never of existed and/or it may have been lost or disposed of. So where does that leave your case?
     You state that there were two separate investigations. Legally, one is totally independent to the other. So may I ask you under what authority do you and Bamber have to look into this evidence? If memory serves, Bamber had NOTHING to do with the original investigation as he was not considered as a suspect at that time. He was interviewed (which gave rise to the initial suspicions of his guilt) But offically the case (SC/688/85) led by Detective Chief Inspector Jones was deemed to be four murders and a suicide, however erroneous that conclusion later proved to be.
     Now on commission of the fresh case (SC/786/85) DCI Jones was summarily replaced. A new case was commissioned to investigate the allegations of witness Julie Mugford and review evidence that some of Bamber’s relatives had brought forward. This DID involve Bamber. It implicated him as being responsible.
     Under Common Law you may have (I am not sure on this point) absolutely no right to scrutinse the evidence of the first case, even if it has a direct bearing on the second. The so-called double-jeopardy law may be affected.Comment by Ian — 2/26/2010 @ 3:26 pm
     ————————————————————

     Ian:- Unfortunately, both investigations are linked together, none more so, than because on 8 August 1985, the relatives went to the police station to tell the police that the silencer should have been fitted to the guns barrel, at the time of the shootings, and that because it should have been, the weapon would have been too long to allow Sheila to shoot herself with it because the overall length of the weapon so configured would have been too long to allow or enable her to do so. Additionally, on 9 August 1985, DCI Jones, and DS Jones, went to see and speak to Jeremy at Bourtree cottages, about who had removed the silencer from the guns barrel before the time of the shootings? Furthermore, on 12 August 1985, Robert Boutflour, and his wife Pamela, went to Witham opolice station and Boutflour told PI “Bob” Miller, and DS “Stan” Jones, that he thought Jeremy was the killer, and that Jeremy had used the silencer fitted to the guns barrel to shoot and kill everyone, and he also told the police on that occasion, that his son (David) had found the silencer in the gun cupboard at whf with paint and blood upon it, and that it was currently being kept in storage at his daughters home (Ann Eaton) awaiting collection by the police. As a result of this information, DS Jones, went to collect the aforementioned silencer from Peter Eaton that same evening. You will gather, from these references, that this information and evidence was a crucial part of the case against Jeremy Bamber, and he, and his legal team, and the court which tried him for these murders, had a right to have access to it, and to take that into account. It is also now clear, that the marks on the aga and in particular, the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, were made by one or more of the relatives, who used the silencer under their control, at a time when they had unrestricted access to the farmhouse, to deliberately scratch and mark the aga, and that red paint got transferred as a result, into the knurled pattern on the silencers end cap, which the prosecution relied upon to support their argument that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel, at the time of a purported struggle in the region of the kitchen, between Ralph and his killer…

     Of course, Jeremy was entitled to have access to this material and evidence, particularly so, because the relatives fabricated this aspect of the evidence, as backed up by a reliance upon a crime scene photograph which was taken by the police in the vicinity of the kitchen on the morning of the shootings - there were no marks there,on the morning of the shootings, but marks appeared there,later, with corresponding and matching red paint ingrained into the end of the silencers end cap. It is not difficult to work out who made the marks on the aga surround and how paint ended up on the end of the silencers end cap, before the relatives handed it to the police?

     Lets get the facts right so that we can be sure what we are talking about, the police must have known that the relatives deliberately scratched the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece and aga surround, and yet they did not disclose the evidence they had in their possession, which was capable of establishing that the relatives framed Jeremy for these killings, by deliberately contaminating the silencer, with paint from the aga, as described etc. There can be no justification for this material and evidence to have been withheld from Jeremy and his legal team, or from the court which tried him for these murders. Failure to disclose the original evidence in the first investigation (SC/688/85)to Bamber, and his legal team, and the court, which tried him for thee murders, on the basis that it was gathered as part of a differently configured investigation, highlights the extent to which Essex police, and the relatives, were prepared to go, to get a conviction against Jeremy, for these murders…

     Is it lawful for the police and the CPS and the relatives to withhold evidence, or material, from an accused, even if it proves that witnesses have falsified their evidence, which is relied upon to prosecute an alleged offender, where such material, or evidence, has been gathered as part of a different investigation? Why change the investigation in mid stream, why not carry on the original investigation, adding to it, new information and evidence and material which comes to light from that point onward? I would suggest that you create a different investigation, and give it a new crime reference number, and edit the original evidence gathered as part of the first investigation, for inclusion into the new investigation, because otherwise, there would be no legitimate evidence upon which to base a legitimate prosecution at all - you then deliberately seek to withhold that original evidence from the accused, and his legal team, and from the court which is due to try the case, because if the truth was known, the prosecution witnesses would be in the dock facing, criminal charges, for perjury, conspiracy and corruption…

     These are just my opinions..

     Comment by miketesko — 3/25/2010 @ 2:27 pm

585. You can get access to all the information and evidence linked to this case, at “Sleuthing for justice, the Jeremy Bamber convictions”…

     You will have to make yourself a member, to gain access to all the material, but once you become a member, you will see the evidence which was used to prosecute and convict Jeremy, and other material, which was not disclosed, but which has recently been made available under the data protection act and the freedom of information act…

     Everyone is entitled to know the case alleged against them, and in the circumstances of this particular case, not all the evidence or material was disclosed or made available to enable the court to make a proper considered opinion, as to guilt or innocence…

     Comment by miketesko — 3/25/2010 @ 2:36 pm

586. #

     (551) Mike, it kind of ridiculous that you continually point the finger at Sheila. You have NO evidence. Let me see whatever evidence you have for trying to shift the blame onto a dead woman. You keep on and on about the lack of physical evidence that other people accusing Jeremy offer. Now where is yours that points to Sheila? What PHYSICAL evidence do you have to PROVE that Sheila Cafell murdered her family?
     The time has come Mike for you to lay you cards on the table.

     “You need evidence to legitimately convict someone of a crime so horrific as this one, you cannot justify a conviction based upon speculation…” YOUR words Mike, not mine. Let’s see if you are not a hypocrite.Comment by Ian — 2/18/2010 @ 6:28 pm
     ———————————————————–

     Ian, I should start by saying that the truth has not been told regarding the circumstances surrounding exactly how Sheila came to die at the scene…

     Whether you like it or not, the truth is that the police insider the farmhouse, stage managed Sheila’s, and the bodies of Ralph, and June Bamber. You only have to look at the photographs which are now available, which were not disclosed at the time of the trial in 1986, to see that there is no way on gods earth, that the police could have come to the conclusion that Sheila had killed the others and then herself, if the bodies of the three aforementioned victims had been found as they are shown in PC Birds crime scene pictures? It is no longer acceptable to keep suggesting that Jeremy fooled the police into believing or thinking that Sheila had killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life? I am sorry but that hogwash does not hold water any longer…

     Anybody who sees those images, cannot come to the conclusion that Sheila killed the others, and then herself, based upon the suggestion, that this was how their bodies (undisturbed) had been found by the police, who entered the building…

     Lets look at the body of Sheila, for example, if Jeremy shot and killed her, he would have had to have done so, before 3am that morning, and he would have had to have shot her, and stage managed her body there in the bedroom, placed the rifle on top of her body (minus the silencer) and rested the bible slightly on top of her upper right arm, and he would have had to do all of thee things, before 3am, that morning…

     How come, that by the time PC David Bird, started to take his crime scene pictures of Sheila’s body, from 10 am, onward, that bright red, fresh looking blood is still running and leaking from the two wounds upon her throat and neck, and from the corners of her mouth, by that stage? Why hasn’t the blood coagulated and become dried and black looking in nature by this stage? More significantly, and you can check this out for yourself, if you are interested, by looking at the image which was published in the daily Express, showing the extent and nature of this blood oozing out of the two wounds to which I have been speaking about, and what instantly springs to mind upon viewing that image, is the presence of bloodied fingermarks around the top upper entry wound on her throat…

     If you look very closely and carefully enough, you can see that blood has continued to run and trickle out of that entry wound over the top of those bloodied fingermarks beneath it…

     It has been wrongly suggested that Sheila’s hands were spotlessly clean, and that she was entirely injury free, which is not consistent with her having been engaged in any sort of altercation with anyone, least of all her father Ralph Bamber, prior to her death…

     Photographic material now exists to prove and confirm that such suggestions were false and very misleading, because Sheila did have injuries upon the top part of her right hand, and her right forearm, which are consistent with the suggestion that she did struggle with someone, prior to her death occurring. Furthermore, she did have bloodied fingers particularly on her right hand, which are known to have left bloodied fingermark impressions on the front lower part of her nightdress - a fact which was confirmed when DI Cook (SOC) moved Sheila’s right arm and hand from the gun, to allow or enable PC Bird to photograph the aforementioned bloodied fingermarks on the nightdress she was wearing…

     Rather than try to make make out to be a liar, or for you to suggest that I am twisting things to suit my arguments, I would suggest that you visit the “Sleuthing for justice” site, and take a look at the very pictures and images I am talking about, which were pictures which the police took whilst Sheila’s body was still in situ at the scene, and once you have seen those, you will suddenly come to realize that Sheila did have such injuries which are consistent with her being involved in some sort of an altercation with someone else, before she died?

     Once you have had an opportunity to see these images, you will notice that there existed bloodied fingermarks around the top (fatal) entry wound under Sheila’s chin, and that blood from that entry wound has flowed over the top of those aforementioned bloodied fingermarks? Well, my query is this, if we accept what the pathologist has said, about death being instantaneous once that shot had been fired, how did Sheila managed to position her bloodied fingers around and upon that fatal bullet entry wound under her chin, and deposit bloodied impressions from her fingers to that part of her throat, if her death followed on from that fatal bullet which killed her there and then?

     How did her right hand leap from that position upon her neck, and end up on top of the rifle, with her bloodied fingers, resting or being positioned close to the trigger mechanism, of the gun?

     More importantly, if the police did not stage manage Sheila’s body, how could the police arrive at the conclusion of suicide (in her case) because of the presence of these bloodied fingermarks upon and around the upper fatal bullet entry wound, on her neck?

     If Sheila had clean hands and fingers, who made the bloodied marks around that fatal entry wounds upon her neck, and if the police did not move or touch Sheila’s body before the pictures were taken, how did the police at the scene interpret the existence of such bloodied fingermarks around the upper fatal entry wound site upon her throat?

     The truth is, that Jeremy did not fool the police into thinking or accepting that Sheila had killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life, because Jeremy stage managed her body to give that impression, because it was the police at the scene, inside the house, who stage managed it…

     It was the police inside the farmhouse who wanted everyone to believe that Sheila had taken her own life, and that she had taken it inside the bedroom, not that she had been shot earlier downstairs in the kitchen, and that she had not been shot and killed until her body was displaced upstairs to the bedroom?

     Comment by miketesko — 3/25/2010 @ 4:58 pm

587. Sheila was more than capable of killing the other victims, and may have been infleunced not only by talk of her children being fostered out, but also because of the adverse effects which the recent reduction in her medication had upon her behavior…

     Her illness was mismanaged by her doctors…

     It was all well and good reducing her haloperidol medication, but no consideration was given to the other medication she had been prescribed, as to whether or not, a failure to reduce the dosage of this other medication, could have had underlying consequences, which pushed Sheila over the edge, and caused her to go berserk…

     Comment by miketesko — 3/28/2010 @ 7:47 am

588. I read with great, if not slightly morbid, interest the compelling posts and remarks from Mike, Ian and John.

     I am from just outside Chelmsford and remember all too well the day it happened and the subsequent trial and conviction of Bamber. Tolleshunt D’Arcy is a small rural village, so when the events at White House Farm started to unravel, it was a huge shock to us all and unbelievable that something like this could happen so close by to us. All the media coverage of the trial portrayed Bamber as a cold blooded killer and of course the majority of our nation believes in our judicial system and if a judge and jury come to a decision then justice has correctly been served.

     At the time I was of the opinion (as did many) that justice had been done and that Bamber deserved to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

     I now consider myself neither in the pro nor against camp but as a member of the public that frequently visits Tolleshunt D’Arcy, where 25 years on the events of 7th August 1985 are still fresh in the minds of the local community, I would like to see that justice was definately carried out correctly.

     If there is no clear answer to the questions raised by Bamber’s defence team in recent years then there should be a fresh, impartial enquiry into this case.

     I of course do not have all the facts, I am merely someone who felt the affect of the murders when they happened (along with many other locals) and who is no longer 100% sure of Bamber’s conviction.

     As I say I am not about to start lobbying Bamber’s innocence but I do believe that if there is now enough submissable evidence that calls into question the original conviction or if there is proof of Essex Police withholding evidence in the initial trial then Bamber has the right to appeal.

     I am mindful that guilty people have been acquitted of their crimes because the police made mistakes during their handling of a crime scene and evidence, however there does appear to be a lot of questions from the Bamber case that give real cause for concern in how the original evidence was handled. Guilty or not this should be investigated and if found to be the case then the original conviction needs to be retried and Essex Police need to be held accountable for their mistakes, if found guilty of making any.

     Nothing will take away the fact that 5 people, including two 6 year old boys, tragically died that day and that a jury subsequently convicted a man, rightly or wrongly of murder.

     Comment by JGM — 3/30/2010 @ 8:22 am

589. I remember when I first came to learn about the facts of this case, I was serving a lengthy prison sentence in the same maximum prison as Jeremy, and at the time, I accepted the suggestion that the silencer evidence was good…

     I accepted that it had been fitted to the gun at the time Sheila was fatally shot under the chin, and that whoever had killed her, had removed the silencer from the guns barrel, and that it had been taken all the way downstairs, and concealed in the gun cupboard, by the killer…

     I accepted that the presence of red paint, upon the end of the silencer, which matched similar red paint from the aga surround in the kitchen, could have got there at the time of a purported struggle in the region of the aga, in the kitchen, between Ralph Bamber and his killer…

     I accepted that scratch marks which were found upon the mantelpiece had been made at the time of the aforementioned struggle, and that their existence and the corresponding red paint found upon the end of the silencer, added to the certainty that the silencer was fitted to the gun during the shootings…

     I accepted that the blood group activity, obtained from an examination of a flake found inside the silencer, originated solely from Sheila, and that it was not an intimate mixture of the parents blood types, and that its presence inside the crucial silencer, was further proof that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time of the shootings, and in particular, at the time Sheila was fatally shot under the chin in the bedroom…

     I accepted that the killer, had used the silencer fitted to the gun, to carry out these killings, and that afterward, it was removed and concealed in line with the prosecutions case…

     I agreed with David Boutflours interpretation of the situation, at that time, for example, that a dead person, cannot go and unscrew a silencer from the end of the guns barrel, after she was already dead, and take that silencer all the way downstairs to hide it inside the gun cupboard, before going back upstairs to lay down dead again (or words to that effect)?

     Based upon the choices which the jury had at the time of the trial back in October 1986, I took it for granted that Jeremy must have killed everyone, including his sister, and that it was he who stage managed her body, there in the bedroom, to try to make it look like, she had taken her own life, after she had killed the others?

     I have grave doubts at this stage, however, that any of that was true…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/2/2010 @ 12:06 pm

590. As far as I know, no-one has ever looked in any great detail, at the possibility that Sheila killed all the other victims,with the exception that it was argued at the time of the trial in 1986, that she would not have been able to overpower Ralph Bamber, who was much taller, and physically more stronger, than she was? Well, when you consider that if Sheila did overpower him, then it should be obvious that with several bullets pumped into Ralph, that he would have been considerably weakened and less mobile and unable to fight back or resist adequately enough to prevent Sheila from doing what she did to him, and the others…

     Ralph was shot a total of 8 times, four of which were non fatal, but significantly disabling in nature…

     If Ralph struggled at all with his killer, and the killer was Sheila, there is no reason to doubt that such a struggle took place after Ralph had been initially shot and wounded, and therefore, he must have been significantly weakened at that time. I cannot imagine that such a struggle took place before Ralph was shot at all, so that at that time, Ralph was in full control of his obvious strength and wits, it would seem obvious to me, that the killer shot Ralph first, and then if any struggle took place at all, such a struggle occurred at some stage afterward…

     According to the police version of events, Ralph must have been shot at least four times whilst he was present in the main bedroom, because of the number of discarded bullet cases, allegedly found there, but I have my reservations about that? However, if Ralph was shot four times whilst he was present in the bedroom, one is left to ponder why there was no physical evidence that any struggle took place between Ralph and his killer inside the bedroom? Why is it that any purported struggle between Ralph and his killer, only took place in the region of the kitchen? Based upon a reliance of these factors, it would seem obvious that Ralph did not struggle with his killer, until after he was shot four times already, and that he must have been shot four times before he arrived in the kitchen, the scene of the purported struggle which took place between himself and his killer? With four bullets pumped into his body, I would suggest that whoever the killer was, that such a killer would have had a significant advantage, over the much weakened Ralph, and that if the killer was Sheila, she would have been more than capable in a deranged state of mind, to overpower and kill him, in the kitchen…

     Furthermore, the court was misled into believing and accepting that Sheila had no injuries upon her body, which would be consistent with her having been engaged in any sort of struggle with Ralph before she died? The truth of the matter is that she did have such injuries upon her right forearm and the top part of her right hand, which suggests that Sheila did struggle with someone prior to her death, and that the person she struggled with could have been Ralph, who also had corresponding gouge and scratch marks upon his right forearm made by someone with longish fingernails. It is significant to note, that the pathologist concluded that these scratch and gouge marks found upon Ralph and Sheila, were not made by the same person, but rather that the person who was responsible for making the scratch and gouge marks upon the right forearm and top part of Sheila’s right hand, had got shorter fingernails, than the person who made the corresponding marks upon Ralph’s right forearm? It would seem somewhat obvious to me, that Ralph made the aforementioned marks on Sheila, and that Sheila made the marks on Ralph. If the killer was anybody else, I cannot imagine that such a killer, would have got longish fingernails, and shorter fingernails, both at the same time, so that the killer could make longish scratch and gouge marks upon Ralph’s right forearm, and shorter scratch marks on Sheila’s right forearm, and gouge marks upon the top part of her right hand?

     As I say, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that Sheila did struggle to some extent with Ralph, and that it was more than possible, if not likely that she could have, and did, overpower a much weakened Ralph who could have been shot at least four times by the time such a struggle between himself and Sheila took place in the region of the kitchen…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/3/2010 @ 2:05 am

591. Please view latest video clip at the following link:-

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhhl_YBOW_Q

     Comment by miketesko — 4/4/2010 @ 2:45 pm

592. JUST A NOTE IAN,HAVE YOU SEEN THE FACEBOOK CAMPAIGN TO GET BAMBER FREE.THEY ARE UNDER SOME ILLUSION THAT THE NEW SO CALLED EVIDENCE IS SOMEWHAT MORE BELIEVABLE THAN THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED HIM.THEY DON’T SEE THAT IT’S TAINTED BECAUSE ALL CHAIN OF EVIDENCE IS BROKEN.WHY CAN’T THEY SEE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEVILLE TO MAKE TWO CALLS UNDER A BARRAGE OF BLOWS AND BULLETS.ALSO THEY CAN’T SEE THAT THE FIRST CALL THAT NEVILLE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE MADE WASN’T ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL AS THIS WOULD HAVE PROVED THE PROSECUTION CASE,AS POLICE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BELIEVED THE MURDER/SUICIDE THEORY. I CAN’T BELIEVE PEOPLE CAN’T SEE THAT JEREMY BAMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE MURDERS

     Comment by john hughes — 4/9/2010 @ 1:31 pm

593. For some reason, the police surgeon, Dr Craig, who attended the scene that morning, did not take any measures to try and estimate the time of death in any of the victims cases, in particular, the time of Sheila’s death. This is interesting because by the time the police surgeon arrived at the scene (at just after 8:30am) blood was still running, and leaking, and pouring from two wounds upon Sheila’s throat, and the corners of her mouth? It must have been obvious to him, as indeed it was to everyone else who saw the body at that time, that she had not been dead for very long, by the time Dr Craig viewed the body? It is also apparent, that Dr Craig, nor anyone else, who was present, or who may have viewed the scene, refers to the fact that any sort of rigor mortis, was present in the body at that time? This suggests, that Sheila had died within two hours of Dr Craig viewing her body in the bedroom? If Sheila had died within two hours of DR Craig viewing her body in the bedroom,then of course, Jeremy Bamber could not have killed her there, since, according to the pathologist, Peter Venezis, once the bullet under the chin had been received, death in her case would have followed instantaneously…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/10/2010 @ 3:12 am

594. Where is the appeal upto at the moment mike?

     Comment by JGM — 4/12/2010 @ 5:56 am

595. It would have been impossible for anyone to make such a call if they had been shot and battered, before they got a chance to make such a call, but not if the call was made before any of the shots had been fired, or anyone had been battered black and blue. There is no evidence that anyone was shot before Ralph made the call to the police, or to Jeremy, any suggestion that anyone had been shot before the telephone calls were made, is purely speculative..

     Comment by miketesko — 4/12/2010 @ 3:55 pm

596. The evidence is perhaps a little suspect. He at least deserves a new trial.

     Comment by Ian — 4/13/2010 @ 6:01 am

597. Thank you John for your points. Very interesting indeed. I haven’t seen the Facebook reference but I will look it up. You bring up a very good point about that phone call. Ralph had a severely shattered jaw on account of the assault that would have rendered him totally incapable of speech. Therefore Bamber’s version of events is false. Ralph was murdered in the kitchen via a savage assault which left him incapable of fighting back. He had appalling injuries including 8 gunshot wounds, the first of which I believe was dealt to him in the bedroom and rendered him incapable of fighting back. He was then frogmarched at the point of a rifle downstairs (marks on the back of his neck indicate this) where he was further attacked and then killed when he tried to fight back. There is only one person that couls have done this. It was NOT the slender an uncoordinated Sheila Caffell. This was a strong, savage and merciless assault by a determined assailant. Think of this John, Ralph could have halted any assualt by Sheila by simply falling on her - no-matter what Bamber supporters claim. Ralph was nearly 15 stone and stood well over 6 feet in height. Common sense tells us that even a demented Sheila could NOT have overcome this obstacle so easily. Moreover, she did not have so much as a scratch on her after this fight. There was not a scrap on Ralph’s blood on her - hard to believe when you consider Ralph’s appalling injuries. Even her carefully manicured fingernails were completely intact. It beggars belief that a slender, slip of a girl could have done this. There is only ONE person that could have done this. That person is Jeremy Bamber.
     Thanks for the insight John. You are highlighting some excellent points. Keep up the good work my friend.

     Comment by Ian — 4/13/2010 @ 1:35 pm

598. there is no physical evidence to prove Jeremy was the killer…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/13/2010 @ 2:00 pm

599. Shot in the bedroom, rendered incapable of fighting back and frogmarched to the kitchen. Doesn’t sound right.

     Comment by Ian — 4/14/2010 @ 12:14 am

600. Ian, also check out youtube,where scott lomax is making points which i have tried to explain but doesn’t seem to grasp my rhetoric.Click on bamber’s photo link and read!

     Comment by john hughes — 4/14/2010 @ 11:53 am

601. Ian, it’s the link with bamber’s photo and 2 vertical black bars.

     Comment by john hughes — 4/14/2010 @ 12:02 pm

602. I think Lomax gets it right.

     Comment by Ian — 4/15/2010 @ 2:29 am

603. As I Say, it is merely speculation that Ralph had already been shot before he made the call to the police, and to Jeremy?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/16/2010 @ 7:13 pm

604. 597:- Thank you John for your points. Very interesting indeed. I haven’t seen the Facebook reference but I will look it up. You bring up a very good point about that phone call. Ralph had a severely shattered jaw on account of the assault that would have rendered him totally incapable of speech. Therefore Bamber’s version of events is false. Ralph was murdered in the kitchen via a savage assault which left him incapable of fighting back. He had appalling injuries including 8 gunshot wounds, the first of which I believe was dealt to him in the bedroom and rendered him incapable of fighting back. He was then frogmarched at the point of a rifle downstairs (marks on the back of his neck indicate this) where he was further attacked and then killed when he tried to fight back. There is only one person that couls have done this. It was NOT the slender an uncoordinated Sheila Caffell. This was a strong, savage and merciless assault by a determined assailant. Think of this John, Ralph could have halted any assualt by Sheila by simply falling on her - no-matter what Bamber supporters claim. Ralph was nearly 15 stone and stood well over 6 feet in height. Common sense tells us that even a demented Sheila could NOT have overcome this obstacle so easily. Moreover, she did not have so much as a scratch on her after this fight. There was not a scrap on Ralph’s blood on her - hard to believe when you consider Ralph’s appalling injuries. Even her carefully manicured fingernails were completely intact. It beggars belief that a slender, slip of a girl could have done this. There is only ONE person that could have done this. That person is Jeremy Bamber.
     Thanks for the insight John. You are highlighting some excellent points. Keep up the good work my friend.

     ————————————

     With respect, stop deluding yourself about the suggestion that Sheila did not have any injuries - see the evidence and the actual pictures at “Sleuthing for justice” the case of Jeremy Bamber. When you have seen the evidence with your own two eyes, then come back and try to convince me that Sheila did not have any injuries. The court was fooled about the injuries which Sheila did have, and there is absolutely no evidence that Ralph was injured at all before he made the calls to the Jeremy, and then the police (3:27am). You are speculating about facts which do not exist, relying upon a false argument. If Ralph was not injured at the time he made the call to Jeremy and the police, he would have been able to make those calls, and he in fact did make those two calls, as confirmed by the police records, which have now been disclosed…

     Also, the overall length of the weapon with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel, would not have been too long to enable Sheila to shoot herself by use of it, tests were carried out at Birdwell armory in 2003, using an exact replica of the rifle and silencer, and it was established beyond doubt that anyone could have used the aforementioned weapon, configured with the silencer attached to its barrel, to shoot themselves - again, the court was misled at the time of Bambers original trial in October 1986, regarding this point. You can see some of the photographs which were taken during the 2003 experiments, again, at “Sleuthing for justice” the case of Jeremy Bamber, and if you go there and look at the evidence, you will no longer be able to suggest that the weapon would have been too long for Sheila to have used to shoot herself…

     Why did the police lie about the injuries on Sheila’s body?

     Why did the police stage manage her body to make it look like a suicide, if it was a suicide?

     Why did they substitute one of the two bullets that wounded and killed Sheila?

     Why conceal all the photographs which were taken at the crime scene?

     So many, why’s, all point to the inevitable conclusion, that the police played a role in Sheila’s death in the bedroom…

     The police moved the body…

     The police planted the gun upon the body…

     The police moved the gun around upon the body…

     The police rearranged the victims hands upon and around the gun…

     The police placed the bible next to the body…

     It was the police who had placed Sheila’s body in the recovery position, and it was the police who tried to revive her on the bedroom floor, before that failed and they rolled her body over and stage managed it to make out a false case that she had taken her own life…

     Stop blaming Jeremy Bamber for things which he had no control over, and no opportunity at all to do…

     The known facts are clear and unambiguous, Sheila, tried to take her own life downstairs in the region of the kitchen, and she ended up dead in the bedroom upstairs…

     The silencer was not used on the weapon that fired the second fatal shot under the chin…

     Essex police know this to be true, they know Jeremy had nothing whatsoever to do with Sheila Caffells death…

     When the armed police officers were individually questioned by COLP (1991), all of them to a man, said that they had no reason to believe anything different to what was agreed at the material time, where it was concluded that what the police had been dealing with, was a case of four murders and a suicide. The armed police officers who went into the building all told COLP (1991)whilst being interviewed as part of that investigation, that as far as they were and are concerned, Sheila did it…

     The police officers who have since gone on record as saying that Jeremy was the killer, are all police officers who were not present inside the farmhouse at the material time when the raid team forced their way in and found the bodies…

     The wrong man is in prison for these offenses…

     The police who enetre3red the farmhouse at the material time, know Jeremy to be absolutely innocent…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/17/2010 @ 1:53 pm

605. See the video clips at :-

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhqKJ3kTsqI

     and

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhhl_YBOW_Q

     Comment by miketesko — 4/17/2010 @ 1:59 pm

606. Anyone who sees the actual crime scene photographs cannot help but realize that this was not a case where Jeremy Bamber, fooled the police, into accepting or believing that Sheila took her own life, after she killed the other four victims?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/18/2010 @ 10:39 am

607. Study of the actual crime scene pictures, confirms that the police were at least guilty of stage managing the body of Sheila Caffell in the bedroom, to make it look like she had taken her own life?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/18/2010 @ 10:40 am

608. During the trial, in October 1986, Jeremy was blamed for doing the very things which the police at the scene were responsible for doping - moving and stage managing the body of Sheila in the bedroom to make it look like or appear as though, she had taken her own life?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/18/2010 @ 10:42 am

609. Why did the police stage manage the body of Sheila?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/18/2010 @ 11:27 am

610. Ian,anybody that supports Bamber’s innocence does not apply common sense when arguing this case.Do they not see that anybody who knew sheila have all stated that she hated firearms,furthermore she never used guns! This tells it’s own story.the defence argument doesn’t stand up.

     Comment by john hughes — 4/19/2010 @ 11:06 am

611. Sheila was shot downstairs, and later she was shot upstairs…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/19/2010 @ 3:24 pm

612. Lets not forget, that when the police broke the news to Jeremy7 that all members of his family who were inside the farmhouse, were dead, that Jeremy accused the police of shooting them all dead?

     Comment by miketesko — 4/21/2010 @ 12:02 pm

613. The relatives only became suspicious about Jeremy’s role in these killings, after Essex police lied about what they found at the scene upon entry, and the way they set about investigating this matter…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/23/2010 @ 8:49 am

614. Everyone is assuming that Ralph used the kitchen phone to make the call to Jeremy and the police, but he could just have easily have used the telephone which was situated upstairs in the upstairs office, at the back of the house…

     Comment by miketesko — 4/23/2010 @ 4:44 pm

615. Ian, I don’t know whether you have seen the crime scene photos of Sheila’s wounds,but scott lomax sent to me by e-mail the close-up and whole photo from a distance.Now this is the first time I have thought of this,but both blood streams run at the same angle to one another,indicating that both shots occurred on top of one another.Now the defence say she was first shot in the kitchen and then was shot upstairs.this is impossible as if she ran upstairs after the first shot and was bleeding from the first shot,then surely the bloodstream would be running at a vertical angle because she would be standing or running upstairs. you can clearly see that both shots were fired after she was immobilised. Also they show that the blood is not running,but is dry and shiny.to my eyes the logs that indicate that police saw sheila’s body in the kitchen must be mistaken and cannot be trusted.

     Comment by john hughes — 4/25/2010 @ 8:45 am

616. It is with Interest that I will comment on the photo which shows Sheila’s 2 bullet wounds.Can someone please explain how Sheila would be able to venture upstairs after being shot once and then be shot again,only for both bloodstreams to follow the same path upon her neck. the photo clearly shows that both shots were fired in close proximity to one another and furthermore show that she was immobilised before being shot. The logs which state that police saw sheila on the floor in the kitchen have to be wrong.this is part of the defence argument which is misleading,because the photo shows that the train of events couldn’t have happened the way the logs show.The bloodsteam shows that the angle of blood flow follow virtually the same path!

     Comment by John Hughes — 4/25/2010 @ 4:36 pm

617. Good point John. As you say it really doesn’t make any sense for the defense to suggest that Sheila was shot in the kitchen. The fact of the matter is, is that she wasn’t. I believe that Sheila was shot twice in the posiion where her body was found. However, I also believe that Sheila was shot by Bamber and then shot again when he realised she was still breathing. The notion that Sheila was at any point in the kitchen is extremely false and misleading, designed in order to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the prosecution case. Absolutely no blood was found that belonged to Ralph on Sheila’s nightdress - practically impossible if she had just engaged him in a vicious and bloody life and death struggle. Moreover, if Sheila wound have shot herself in the neck in the kitchen and then walked upstairs as the defense claimed then why is there no blood flow from such an appalling wound? It is practically impossible for someone to shoot themselves in a fleshy area such as the neck, then walk upstairs and yet there is not a drop of blood to indicate that at any point she was standing or walking. Furthermore we have to also consider that the rifle and the silencer combined length would have been too long for Sheila to have shot herself in the neck. This was proven in court. Regardless of what Bamber supporters try to say and how the evidence is twisted.
     I think you are absolutely right that Sheila was shot twice where she was later found. That’s what the blood evidence proves. Sheila Caffell did NOT leave that bedroom after being shot initally. I believe that Bamber shot her once with the silencer believing her to be dead. He returned the silencer to the cupboard. On his return he noticed that Sheila was still breathing and shot her again this time fatally without the silencer. He then placed the rifle across her chest and made good his escape from White House Farm in order to make the phoney ‘my father just phoned he said that my sister has gone nuts and has got the gun’ nonsense. I also believe that Bamber left the rifle on the kitchen settle deliberately in order for it to be easily retrieved later and not have to walk through the house to get it out of the gun cupboard. Bamber knew that this would have put him at risk of being caught by his father unarmed. He therefore left it in a place where this risk was all but eliminated. Climb through the toilet window and just a few short steps to get to a fully loaded weapon. Bamber later admitted to leaving it there by ‘accident’
     Even if you take this into consideration it was an incredibly callous thing to do. There were two six year old boys present at the farmhouse any one of which could have been seriously injured or killed by Bamber’s nonchalance. Ralph was always very meticulous about the storage of guns, especially when his grandsons were there. By this self-serving and crass statement Bamber unknowingly gave police officers an insight into Bamber’s callous nature. ‘He never once stated that he felt guilty for leaving that gun out’ said David Boutflour. He continued ‘I thought that was an incredibly thoughtless thing to do, considering there were two young boys staying at the farm’
     On your other point John, about Sheila hating guns. All my research has pointed to just that. She hated them. There is absolutely NO credible evidence to suggest that Sheila ever fired a gun of any kind. Moreover, due to her often debilitating illness she was extremely uncoordinated to the point where her auntie Ann Eaton stated that ’she could not pour beans over toast, without missing the toast’ and yet the defense would have us believe that this woman fired 24 shots with unnerving accuracy and reloaded a rifle with a very stiff catch at least twice, have a fight to the death with a man twice her size, all without so much as damaging a fingernail or obtaining a single spot of his blood on her nightdress. John, even the extremely naive and totally gullible would have difficulty beliving the defense version of events.
     I believe that the attack on the family was made quickly and with precision, by a fit, young man, able to move through the house at will, picking off family members. It was a carefully planned execution. Committed by a ruthless and determined psychopath.
     On your note about writer Scott Lomax. I have had some dealings with that gentleman. Although a gifted and thorough investigator, I believe he is totally misguided and unable to see both sides of the story in this case. Writers such as Lomax have a history of courting controversy. It sells books. It stirs the hornets nest. In short, it gets them noticed. This is true for most of the so-called media supporters such as Daily Mail journalist Bob Woffinden. Who has repeatedly stated that there was ‘new evidence’ in the Bamber case. Most of which is pure bunkum. There are a whole host of those attracted to the Bamber case. Let us remember that Bamber himself has stated that he would pay £1 million pounds to anyone that comes up with information that would lead to an aquittal. (Just where he will obtain this sum of money remains a mystery)
     In the final analysis. I believe that only ONE man carried out these murders. This man protests his innocence long and loud. He has desparately endevoured to squirm out of his just punishment for 24 years (that equates to 1 year for each shot he fired at his defenseless family) He has manipulated a whole host of individuals to do his bidding, twist evidence, spread around and manipulate facts so that the whole picture is lost. He is hoping that he can bamboozle a court of appeal into releasing him by muddying the waters, putting doubt into legal minds, pointing fingers at others, slandering and defiling his sisters memory and that of the family that adopted him, gave him an identity, a public school education and material possessions out of the financial reach of most of us. This was not enough for this spoiled, egocentric, greedy ingrate. He grew up to dispise those that had helped him and ultimately murdered them all in cold blood. This man’s capacity for evil……. knows no bounds.

     Comment by Ian — 4/28/2010 @ 6:08 am

618. I think there is a not unreasonable chance that Sheila was the shooter. It seems the police have butchered the scene and the investigation. He needs another trial now that all of the evidence has been disclosed and some of it discredited. The silencer is truly worrying.

     Comment by Robert — 4/29/2010 @ 8:38 pm

619. Ian,the defence are now saying there is evidence that sheila used firearms and was a competent shot!I am baffled where this evidence comes from, because everyone who knew her, including family members state she hated guns and never used them.

     Comment by john hughes — 4/30/2010 @ 12:12 pm

620. Comments which suggest that the blood evidence which was photographed to be running and leaking and pouring out from the two wounds upon Sheila’s throat and the corners of her mouth, should think twice before they make the absurd comment that Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom? Firstly, the pathologist, Peter Venezis, states in one of his reports, that Sheila could have moved around a bit between both shots having been fired. He said that she could have walked around after being shot for the first time…

     The blood does not run in only one direction, from the victims mouth, and the two wounds, as though this in some way establishes beyond doubt that Sheila could not have been shot elsewhere at the scene, as suggested by John Hughes…

     Blood runs from the two wounds in the same general direction, but it runs in three different directions from the corners of the victims mouth, for example, left, right and backwards into the socket of the left eye…

     Offset against this information, is the fact that the pooled blood that stains the nightdress, cannot be reconciled with the direction that the blood appears to have run from the two wound sites on the victims neck - bloodstains on the nightdress, were formed when blood got there, either when it flowed from one or other of the two wounds, at a time when Sheila’s body was in a different position to that photographed in by PC Bird (SOC) at 10 O’clock that morning…

     At least one of the eight armed police officers, who entered the main bedroom and who saw Sheila’s body in the bedroom, describes the blood which he saw on the body of Sheila, in his witness statement, by saying that he could see blood running from the corners of her mouth…

     Blood could not have been dried by that stage, if as that police officer states, it was running from the corners of her mouth…

     The pathologist has gone on record as saying that Sheila could have walked around in between the two shots being inflicted, but this does not appear to make any sort of sense if you only take into account the direction with which the blood was eventually photographed as running from the two wounds on the neck…

     Taking this selective approach, serves no purpose by those who seek to rely upon it, to try and persuade us that Sheila must have been shot where the police photographed her body. Fact is, you cannot simply take the direction with which the blood flows from the two wound sites on the neck, to determine with any degree of accuracy how Sheila was shot and when? You need to take into account all of the other bloodstains which were present upon her face, and nightdress…

     The bloodstain evidence which is present upon the face, the neck, around the mouth, into the left eye socket,and upon the bedroom carpet, and elsewhere on the floor of the kitchen, is what determines where, when and how Sheila was shot - once downstairs and once upstairs…

     Sheila did struggle with Ralph, and they both injured each other…

     Ralph scratched and gouged Sheilas right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, and similarly, Sheila scratched and gouged Ralph’s right forearm - This is the evidence that the court and Bambers legal team was denied access to…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/1/2010 @ 5:19 pm

621. It is very interesting, that those who support the case for Bamber being guilty, continually seek to rely upon untruths and misleading information and evidence - a good example of what I am talking about, includes for the fact that they allege that Sheila was uninjured, and unbloodied, but newly released images which were taken by the police at the scene of the crime, at the material time (previously undisclosed material)prove conclusively that Sheila was injured, and she was bloodstained, and that she received those injuries in a struggle with someone she had fought with. If the p0olice had this information, and these images, why did they choose to withhold them, and not use them to support the case for Sheila having been injured at the time she was fighting for her life, when allegedly killed by Bamber? The reason they chose not to do this, was because they knew that those injuries were made at the time Sheila struggled and fought with Ralph Bamber, and at that time, Ralph also sustained similar injuries…

     Let us put things into perspective, so that no one can be in any sort of doubt, the pathologist, Peter Venezis, carried out autopsies on the bodies of both Ralph and Sheila, and yet in his official report he makes no mention of the scratch and gouge marks found upon Sheila’s right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, against the scratch and gouge marks upon the right forearm of Ralph Bamber. Any pathologist worth his weight in salt, would have considered whether or not those injuries which are present upon both victims, were made at a time when both struggled with one another, but for some unknown reason, there appears to have been no official mention of this possibility at all, instead, this evidence was swept under the carpet, so that Bamber, and his legal team, and the court which tried Bamber for these murders,could not consider its implications, whilst at the same time, allowing those who support the case for Bamber to be guilty, to rely upon the falsehood that Sheila had no injuries upon her person which were consistent with her having struggled with Ralph in the kitchen…

     Arguably, it is rather significant that the pathologist omits any reference to the examination of material recovered from beneath the fingernails of both Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell…

     Such was the state of play, that a very short time afterward, the bodies of the three adults were released for disposal by way of cremation, giving a good indication that the pathologist was satisfied and must have been satisfied by that stage, that the gouge and scratch marks found upon Ralph and Sheila, had been, and were made by each other, not by any third party. If there had been even the slightest doubt about this, the bodies would not have been released for disposal when they were…

     Some keep suggesting that Sheila had no interest in guns, and that she did not know one end of the gun, from the other?

     In response, I would suggest they speak to Pamela Boutflour, June’s sister, because she made a witness statement to Essex police, that June had once spoken to her about Sheila being shown how to load and fire the rifle, by Jeremy. June commented to Pamela, that she did not approve of it, and Pamela agreed with her. These facts establish, that Sheila did know how to handle a gun, in particular the rifle, and that she knew how to load bullets into it, and she knew how to fire it. Anyone who suggests that Sheila did not know how to handle the rifle and how to load it, and to fire it, does not know what they are talking about. The facts speak for themselves - SHEILA DID KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THE RIFLE, LOAD BULLETS INTO THE GUN, AND HOW TO FIRE THAT GUN. She was also photographed on a family shooting holiday in Scotland holding a shotgun…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/2/2010 @ 2:35 am

622. Of particular interest, is the fact that there existed multiple spots of aspirated blood around the fringes of the bloodstain on the front upper part of Sheila’s nightdress, which cannot be reconciled with the fact that she was shot twice in the bedroom and blood from the two wounds ran in a direction away from where the spots of blood exist…

     How did these expiated bloodstains get onto Sheila’s nightdress?

     Whose blood was it?

     If this blood originated from Sheila, then the direction with which the blood appears tp have flowed from the two wounds is rather misleading and deceptive..

     Comment by miketesko — 5/2/2010 @ 5:23 pm

623. Robert. You are a twisted pathetic dunce. Show me the evidence for what you say. The man is a disgrace and you are a disgrace defending him. You are a stupid man. Get off this blog. why don;t you read what has gone on before and stop sprouting your stupid views. I expect that you were in a jail cell with tesko and bamber and you believe this rubbish.

     Comment by Ian — 5/2/2010 @ 11:00 pm

624. Robert, I understand your points. However, would you be kind enough to explain exactly what evidence are you alluding to that has been ‘discredited’? As far as I am aware Bamber and his supporters have failed to discredit any of the police evidence against him with any degree of credibility. Nor, does any of the points Bamber and his supporters has previously highlighted have any basis in fact or any credence that would stand up to scutiny based on hard evidence. What we do have is half-cocked conspiracy theories, a stretching a credible facts and strained interpretations of the evidence.
     You allude to the silencer evidence being ‘worrying’………on what basis do you say this?

     Comment by Ian — 5/3/2010 @ 5:37 am

625. Mike you stated that in point 612. ‘Lets not forget, that when the police broke the news to Jeremy that all members of his family who were inside the farmhouse, were dead, that Jeremy accused the police of shooting them all dead? ‘
     Of course he is going to say something like this. Is was another puerile attempt to divert the finger of suspicion from himself.
     The same as the childish act he put on for the benefit of the police directly after the murders had been discovered. He repeatedly said ‘Why can’t my father come outside’ in a whingy tone. Honestly Mike, children do this when they know that they themselves are the ones to blame. In fact the exact same scenario happened to one of my friends. His 11 year old son complained that he hadnt seen his football for ‘a little while’ It turned out that his son had accidently kicked the ball through a neighbours window and had made up this story in order to preempt suspicion. Mike it’s called reverse psychology. We learn it from a young age. The only difference being is that as we grow older we also learn something called ‘probability’ That people are not fooled by it. Bamber does not seemed to have learned this.
     The whole ridiculous charade Bamber pulled outside White House farm that morning, as the Americans put it….. it stunk.
     His attitude completely changed when he returned to his own cottage later that morning with detectives. He announced he was ’starving’ and proceeded to cook himself a breakfast. Suddenly gone was the childish bleating and the bouts of wretching only to be replaced by haughty arrogance and callous behaviour. In short, he thought at this stage……he had gotten clean away with it.

     Comment by Ian — 5/3/2010 @ 5:56 am

626. Bamber told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, “I don’t really know. She is a nutter. She’s been having treatment.” When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get “organisations” involved, preferring to keep things within the family. ( A total lie. Nevill Bamber was a magistrate and had total belief in law and order. Nevill had called the police on several previous occasions when dealing with suspected poaching or trespassing. Without compunction.

     When asked why he had not dialled 999, Bamber said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.(This is another lie. Bamber knew full well that 999 gave him access to a full range of fast response and emergency services. He wasted valuable time looking up the local number of the police station in order to 1. Buy himself time. 2. Local police would have known the area and could advise Bamber to meet the police at the farm - making it perfectly clear that he was not present at the time of the shootings)

     Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. Bamber told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. (this was another lie. There is absolutely NO evidence that Sheila ever used a firearm. In fact family members insist that Sheila ‘didnt know one end of a gun from another’ Her ex-husband Colin Cafell also states that ‘Sheila hated guns and was always fretting that the boys could hurt themselves should one be left lying around’)

     In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. Bamber dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. (Refer to point above. Bamber was incredibly uncaring about leaving a loaded weapon when there were children present. I submit that the rabbit story simply is completely untrue. He later used this story in order to justify leaving a loaded rifle. The turth is, is that the rifle would have been in easy reach when he entered the farmhouse the previous night and not risk the possibility of alerting Nevill should Bamber have to go to the gun cupboard to retreive it.
     Strangely the telescopic sights had been removed. These were placed on the rifle with some considerable effort. If removed the rifle and sights would have to have been ‘zeroed’ in again. This takes considerable time and effort. If Bamber’s story about hunting rabbits were true, the sights would have been left on. I submit that they were removed deliberately in order for Bamber to massacre his family later.

     Comment by Ian — 5/3/2010 @ 6:26 am

627. Sheila was stood upright after she was initially shot, and she was capable of moving around, in keeping with what the pathologist, Peter Venezis said, in one of his earlier statements, you can see this by viewing an image of the blood-staining which is present upon the top part of Sheila’s nightdress, and which shows that blood ran vertically down the front top part of her nightdress from one main source, not two different ones:-

     Follow this link - http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3762

     Comment by miketesko — 5/3/2010 @ 11:51 am

628. In response to Ian’s post (626) above, I have the following to say to everybody:- The police who spoke to Jeremy at the scene, were not the officers who received the two different phone calls from Ralph Bamber,(3:27am),and Jeremy Bamber,(3:37am). The officers in question, were PC Myall, PS Bews and PC Saxby, who as I say did not receive any of the two calls, and in fact did not know the content of the information which Ralph and Jeremy had passed to the police at different times, earlier. This fact must be self-evident, because the police can be seen to be asking Jeremy about his call to the police, and asking why he did not simply dial 999? Well, the fact is, that even before Jeremy made his own call to the police station, one minute before he spoke to them on the phone at 3:37am, the police had already been dispatched to attend the scene (3:36am), and therefore, it must be obvious to anyone who cares to find out the truth in this matter, that the police did receive an earlier call from Ralph, and that by the time Jeremy made his call (10 minutes after Ralph had called the police)the occupants of CA07, namely Myall, Bews and Saxby, were already en route to the scene. Faxct of the matter is, these police officers who were traveling to the scene in CA07, overtook Jeremy on the Tollesbury Road, after Jeremy had ended his call to the police, and he had been told to go directly to the scene, where he would be met by police officers, and that if Jeremy arrived at the scene before the police, that he was not to approach the house until the police got there? These are the true facts of this part of the case, and although it is true that the police vehicle, CA07 did overtake Jeremy on the Tollesbury road, these police officers were not responding to Jeremy’s call to the police which he made at 3:37am, they were responding to Ralph Bambers call, the one he had made 10 minutes earlier at 3:27am. It is important that everyone understands this, because those who suggest that Bamber is guilty, want everyone to mistakenly believe that the police vehicle which overtook Jeremy on the Tollesbury road, had been responding to Jeremy’s call to the police, and that this must mean that Jeremy had been slow timing in making his way to the scene, because they suggest that Jeremy wanted the police to arrive at the farm before him? Let no-one forget, that during the trial, and until very recently, when new photographic material has surfaced which was not originally disclosed to Bamber, or his legal team, or to the court which tried him for these murders,which everyone is now in agreement with, namely, that Sheila did have injuries, and that she was bloodstained in the region of her right had and arm? It is somewhat remarkable, that after all this time, those in favour of Bambers guilt, should now be seeking to bend over backwards, when their case has been found wanting and exposed as a sham, that Sheila did have such injuries after all, and bloodstained fingers etc, but that these, they say were not caused as a result of any struggle between Ralph and Sheila, but rather that Sheila had received these injures in a struggle with her killer…

     This is somewhat odd, because the pathologist, made a report, which states that the gouge marks which were found to be present upon the right forearm of Ralph Bamber, were made by fingernails, which were longish, whereas, the gouge marks which were found on the top part of Sheila’s right hand, were made by short fingernails?

     Now, what is it to be, did a person with longish fingernails make the gouge marks upon Ralph’s right forearm, and someone else with short fingernails, make the gouge marks upon the top part of Sheila’s right hand, or did the killer, have longish fingernails on one hand, that he used to gouge Ralph Bambers right forearm, and he used the short fingernails on his other hand, to gouge the top part of Sheila’s right hand? Or, is it much more likely, that Sheila made the gouge marks on Ralph, and that Ralph made the gouge marks on Sheila?

     Sheila was known to have longish fingernails, and Ralph was known to had shortish fingernails - is it not more likely that they gouged each other during a struggle with one another?

     A witness statement exists in the name of PAMELA BOUTFLOUR, where she states that during a visit to whf, she was told by June Bamber (her sister) that Jeremy had been teaching Sheila, how to load bullets i9nto the magazine of the gun, and how to fire the gun, which June did not approve of - If Pamela Boutflour lied in that witness statement, then why hasn’t she been prosecuted? The other relatives need to speak to Pamela Boutflour, if they want to find out and establish the truth in this matter. Now my point is this, why would June Bamber be telling Pamela Boutflour that Jeremy had been teaching Sheila how to load bullets into the magazine of the gun and how to fire the gun, if he had not been doing that, and Sheila had not handled bullets, and or the gun, on any occasion prior to June Bamber, telling Pamela Boutflour, about these things? It should be as plain as a pike staff to everyone, that in all probability that Sheila did know how to handle a gun, and she did know how to load bullets into the magazine of the gun, and that she did know how to fire the gun, otherwise what have been the point of Pamela Boutflour mentioning thee things in a witness statement to Essex police? In my view, SHEILA DID KNOW HOW TO LOAD BULLETS INTO THE MAGAZINE OF THE GUN, AND SHE KNEW HOW TO HANDLE AND FIRE IT…

     The police asked Jeremy what weapons and ammunition’s were present inside th farmhouse, and so Jeremy told them what they wanted to hear - I do not see anything sinister in Jeremy complying with a request from the police to provide information to them about the number of guns and bullets that were possibly inside the farmhouse at that time. As far as I know it is not a crime to answer questions, which the police put to you, is it?

     The last time any relative saw the telescopic site fitted to the rifle was the week-end befiore the shootings, and there was no evidence or information introduced at court to show or indicate that Jeremy had removed the telescopic site from the gun, in fact on 9 August 1985, when DCI “Taff” Jones, and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy at his cottage, in Head Street, Gokldhanger, they asked him directly about when, and by whom the telescopic site had been removed from the gun, and Jeremy told them that he had not removed it, and that it must have been his father (Ralph). So, here is the proper explanation for why the telescopic site may not have been present upon the gun at the time of the shootings, and there was no evidence to contradict that which Jeremy had told the police about this matter on 9 August 1985…

     By all accounts, the telescopic site was removed from the gun, because the rifle would not fit into the gun case with them fitted to the gun - one of the relatives picked up on this point, and altered what Jeremy said to the police about it, by claiming that Jeremy had told the police that the rifle would not fit into the gun cupboard, but what Jeremy actually said to the police, was that the rifle with the telescopic site fitted to it, would not fit inside the gun case inside the gun cupboard, and that Jeremy presumed that his father had taken the telescopic site off the gun so that the rifle could be put into its gun case, inside the gun cupboard…

     These are the true facts about this matter…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/5/2010 @ 3:18 pm

629. This is not likely is it Mike? Lets face facts shall we? If you are shot in the neck with a rifle you are going to bleed profusely. People with far lesser wounds than Sheila suffered would NOT just get blood on the top of her nightdress. You have - pardon the pun - shot yourself in the foot by saying she was standing upright at the time of the shot. She would DEFINATELY have gotten copious amounts of blood ALL down the front of her nightdress - not just at the top. Blood at the top suggests strongly that she was lying down and prostrate at the time she was shot. NOT standing up.

     Comment by Ian — 5/5/2010 @ 3:20 pm

630. Why are you suggesting Mike,that the wounds are anything other than two shots on top of one another and the blood flow from the two wounds follow the same path? It is plain to see that anyone with common sense can see this.You can dress your explanation as much as you like with fancy forensic techno-speak,but to the naked eye of anyone who aplies basic common sense can see that the wounds could not have been executed as you say.As Ian says,it’s plain to see she could not have been standing up when when she was hit with the first bullet.The people who are supporting bamber will twist and turn any evidence as they see fit to support this man’s case.He did it! live with it! As Isay blood from one of the shots would follow a vertical path If she was standing at the time of the first shot,and so your argument is to say the least,preposterous.

     Comment by john hughes — 5/6/2010 @ 7:06 am

631. Mike,I have tried to give you my e-mail address on you tube,but it won’t let me,so I’ll give it you here. john.hughes8@sky.com

     Comment by john hughes — 5/7/2010 @ 12:51 am

632. If you are shot in the neck, like Sheila was, and you fall to the floor holding the fingers of your right hand against the wound, blood will be carried across onto the nightdress and form a huge triangular bloodstain on the top upper part of Sheila’s nightdress - as it did in this case, and blood wound run down her fingers and along her hand, and become trapped inside the “V” of her right arm, made at the time Sheila placed her fingers against the initial wound, that we are speaking about. One of the Worlds leading bloodstain and back-spatter experts, Herbert Leon McDonnell (New York) has already complete a report outlining that this was how the triangular bloodstain ended up being there on the front upper right side of Sheila’ nightdress. In other words, McDonnell states that blood was carried over onto the relevant part of the nightdress by the fingers and the right hand of Sheila after she had been shot… Once you understand what McDonnell is saying, it becomes as plain as a pikestaff to anyone who cares to be remotely interested in what happened when Sheila got shot, that blood did not simply run vertically from the lower wound, it ran across the fingers and right hand of Sheila and part of her right arm, before becoming impregnated into the nightdress in triangular fashion…

     If Sheila was laid in that position, from between 7:37am, until around 8:10am, that would be a period of 33 minutes, by which time the initial wound and bullet entry hole, would have become sealed by the blood forming a clot which effectively would serve as a clotted plug of coagulated blood which prevented the flow of blood from that wound afterward. If Sheila then regained consciousness, and fled upstairs to the bedroom, blood from the initial wound to the side of the neck, would not necessarily flow again from the plugged bullet entry hole, because the clotted plug of dried blood which had by that stage already formed there would act as a natural barrier, and prevent any further leakage…

     Once in the bedroom, Sheila received the second wound under the chin, which effectively killed her…

     Police then stage managed her body, planted a gun on the body, and they took pictures, which were ultimately used and relied upon to prosecute Jeremy as though Sheila’s body had been found like that, but this was not true, Sheila’s body had not been found in the bedroom as shown in PC Birds photographs, to begin with her body was originally found in the region of the kitchen upon entry by the police into the premises…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/7/2010 @ 6:04 pm

633. Mike, another nonsensical argument. You stated that ‘Sheila was known to have longish fingernails, and Ralph was known to had shortish fingernails - is it not more likely that they gouged each other during a struggle with one another?
     Mike if this had occured do you not think that Sheila would have a) at least broken one of her perfectly manicured nails? Especially when you consider she had to reload a rifle with a very stiff catch at least twice b) she would almost certainly have had some evidence of Ralph’s blood upon her to indicate a violent and bloody struggle.
     Moreover, there was not a scrap of evidence to show that she shot Ralph. He was shot at close range. I submit it to you that Sheila would almost certainly have had some form of blood splatter on the front of her white nightdress, if not on her face or arms. Absolutely NONE of Ralph’s blood or blood splatter was ever discovered upon her person.
     Mike your explanation about the silncer comes from a person with every possible reason to lie. You stated that ‘The last time any relative saw the telescopic site fitted to the rifle was the week-end befiore the shootings, and there was no evidence or information introduced at court to show or indicate that Jeremy had removed the telescopic site from the gun, in fact on 9 August 1985, when DCI “Taff” Jones, and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy at his cottage, in Head Street, Goldhanger, they asked him directly about when, and by whom the telescopic site had been removed from the gun, and Jeremy told them that he had not removed it, and that it must have been his father (Ralph). So, here is the proper explanation for why the telescopic site may not have been present upon the gun at the time of the shootings, and there was no evidence to contradict that which Jeremy had told the police about this matter on 9 August 1985…’
     This is laughable evidence Mike. No-one can ever confirm nor deny it since all the parties involved bar one are dead.
     I submit it to you that Bamber removed them himself in order to execute his family. Ralph had absolutely NO reason to remove them. The rifle was used to control vermin, such as rabbits, hares and rats - continual pests to any farmers crop. The sights would NOT have been removed as it takes a considerable effort to re-attach them and zero them in again. Let us remember it was the height of summer and harvest time. Vermin would at this time, have been a continual and ongoing problem. I conclude that it made absolutely NO sense whatsover to remove the telescopic sights from that rifle at such a time. Shooting rabbits, rats and so on requires that these are fitted. This argument is far more believable and indeed more practical than a statement by a man who is suspected of murder who is suggesting that the murder victim removed them. Again, more lies and more deceipt by Bamber.

     Comment by Ian — 5/8/2010 @ 9:11 am

634. Mike, I must ask you again. You repeatedly state that Ralph made a phone call to police. Where is the evidence for this? I have read all the trail transcripts and evidence thoroughly and NOT once has it ever been mentioned that Ralph made any call to the police. Bamber destroyed this theory himself, did he not, that his father was ‘not the sort of person to get agencies involved’ However, presuming this to be true, what difference does it actually make? Bamber may well have had a gun to Ralph’s head in order to force him to make that call. Exactly the same argument you used about Sheila some moths ago. You stated that Sheila could have held a gun to Ralph head in order for him to call Jeremy. You cannot have it both ways Mike.

     Comment by Ian — 5/8/2010 @ 9:19 am

635. Ian - Sheila was shot once in the main bedroom whilst she was stood upright, and evidence exists which confirms that she was stood upright at that point, since, there exists a circular bloodstain on the bedroom carpet which for one reason or another the police ignored, and to be specific they actually cut that piece of bedroom carpet out, and literally burnt it on a bonfire in the grounds of whf. If Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom, why is there only evidence on the bedroom carpet that she was shot once? Pardon the pun - but I am afraid you will have to bite the bullet and accept that Sheila was not, and could not have been shot twice, in the bedroom. Blood which is present upon the fingers of Sheila’s right hand, and part of her arm, and the nightdress, confirm that blood from the original wound which was inflicted to the side of the neck, was transferred onto the nightdress by those means. The placement of Sheila’s fingers against the initial wound to the neck, prevented blood from running down along the front of her nightdress, because as soon as she shot herself in the region of the kitchen (downstairs) she fell to the floor clutching the wound with the fingers of her hand, and blood ran along her fingers and her hand, and into the fold of her right arm, as she was laid upon the kitchen floor. These are the facts, which are supported by the contents of a report made by Professor Herbert Leon McDonnell (New York), who concluded that somebody had moved Sheila’s arm and hand after she had been shot, which produced the triangular bloodstain on the top right of her nightdress - McDonnell concluded that whoever moved Sheila’s hand, and stage managed her body in the bedroom, had murdered her, but that there was no evidence to prove or suggest that that person was Jeremy Bamber…

     Fact is, we now know that it was the police stage managed Sheila’s body, it was the police who moved Sheila’s right hand, and it was the police, who moved the gun onto, and around, the body - Does this mean then, that the police murdered Sheila?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/8/2010 @ 1:31 pm

636. Check out these You tube links:-

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhqKJ3kTsqI&feature=related
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhhl_YBOW_Q&feature=related

     Comment by miketesko — 5/8/2010 @ 1:38 pm

637. As I have recently said, for a very long time, those in favour of Bambers guilt, were saying that Sheila did not have any injuries anywhere on her body which were consistent with her having been involved in a struggle with Ralph Bamber, and that Sheila’s hands were blood free - but they are now having to accept that Sheila did have such injuries to the top part of her right hand, and her right forearm, which she in all probability, received when she fought, or struggled, with Ralph in the kitche, over possession of the gun. These same people are now having to come to terms with the fact that the police at the scene stage managed Sheila’s body, and that they placed the gun onto her body, which they then later got PC Bird (SOC), to photograph it, and that since the stage managing of the body by the police in this case, those pictures were treated as being a true record of how Sheila’s body was found at the scene by the police. The fact is, Sheila’s body was initially found downstairs in the region of the kitchen, (presumed dead), and that her body became displaced upstairs in the bedroom, where she received the second fatal shot. Police have an audio recording of the moment when armed police first entered the kitchen at the scene, which they are refusing to disclose to Bamber, his legal team, or to the CCRC - this audio recording will finally clear up all this nonsense about the police originally finding Sheila’s body upstairs in the bedroom. Essex police are guilty of covering up the true circumstances of how Sheila Caffell died at the scene, and they continue to seek to cover up this matter, because ultimately the police contributed to Sheila dying at the scene in the bedroom, she died as a result of mistakes which were made when they wrongly presumed her to be dead in the kitchen, allowing her to regain consciousness and flee upstairs where she was shot for the second time…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/8/2010 @ 2:04 pm

638. Picture of rifle leaning up against bedroom window, and other material, can be viewed at following Link :-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2044&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=300

     Comment by miketesko — 5/8/2010 @ 2:12 pm

639. Other Material about the investigation(s) can be found at the following Link:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=74

     Comment by miketesko — 5/8/2010 @ 2:48 pm

640. Essex police have a massive problem which they are not seeking to address in the public domain, which relates to the fact that some 15 minutes before the raid team ventured into whf, a trained firearms instructor, WPC Julia Jeapes, who was on surveillance and containment duties in the grounds of the farmhouse, reported that she could see what appeared to be a rifle that was leaning up against the main bedroom window. Now this is important, because if there was a rifle leaning up against the window of the bedroom where the bodies of June Bamber, and Sheila, were purportedly found, it needs to be explained, how the rifle got from its original position of leaning up against the bedroom window, at around 7:15am, onto Sheila’s body by 10 O’clock, that morning, when PC Bird (SOC) photographed it there, in at least two different positions, upon Sheila’s body…

     Who moved the gun?

     Was this the rifle, which fired the fatal bullet, that killed Sheila?

     If there was only one weapon found in the bedroom when the police first entered it, how could there have been a rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, and a ridfle on top of Sheila’s body, on the bedroom floor?

     The police have lied about this, and it has got something to do with how Sheila was killed, inside the bedroom…

     How could the police treat the matter as a suicide, on that morning, if there was only one rifle in the bedroom when they got there, and that rifle was leaning up against the bedroom window, whilst the body of Sheila was elsewhere in the bedroom, with no rifle, or any other weapon around, upon, or near, to it?

     Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto the body - and why?

     It could not have been Jeremy Bamber, because he was with police officers in a patrol car along Pages Lane, and had been there with them, from just after 4am, that morning…

     The police moved the gun onto the body, there is nothing so sure as this, they used the existence of the rifle at the bedroom window, to facilitate the theory that Sheila had taken her own life in the bedroom, but they made a number of fatal, and significant errors, because Sheila was shot by use of two different guns, and two bullets that had not been fired from the same weapon. The police did not expect the truth to ever be in doubt, or that they would have to explain at some stage the true circumstances of how Sheila had died in the bedroom at whf that morning. The key to understanding what took place and the role which the police at the scene, in particular, inside the house played in her death, can be exposed by reference to the existence of the fragmented bullet (PV/20) which the pathologist recovered from the neck of Sheila during an autopsy he performed, on the afternoon of 7 August 1985, after the bullets had been x-rayed insitu, beforehand…

     Somebody switched the bullet (PV/20), to facilitate the suggestion that the same gun, weapon, or rifle, had fired both the bullets which wounded and killed Sheila Caffell…

     That somebody, was not Jeremy Bamber, but rather, a police officer, or someone who had a vested interest in trying to make sure that the police involvement in Sheila Caffells death, in the bedroom at whf, never became public knowledge…

     By 20 September 1985, that original fragmented bullet (PV/20) had become transformed into a whole bullet, which the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, linked to the rifle which the police had planted on top of Sheila’s body, at some stage prior to 10 O’clock, that morning…

     The only persons who could have tampered with the crime scene bullet (PV/20) was Essex police, who had control over it, and the other crime scene ammunition - the police do not swap bullets over unless they are trying to cover something up which they were obviously involved in. The police, for example, originally found Sheila’s body downstairs in the kitchen (presumed to be dead) and later after she regained consciousness and fled upstairs to the bedroom, she was shot for the second time, and the indications are that it was the police who must have shot her, otherwise why did they stage manage her body by planting the wrong gun upon it, and why did they substitute the original bullet (PV/20) for a whole one?

     These are the facts which Essex police choose to ignore, and refuse to answer any questions at all about…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/9/2010 @ 5:35 am

641. DS “Stan” Jones, took possession of four exhibits from the scene on 7 August 1985, bearing the identifying exhibit marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4 - the silencer which was originally SBJ/1, was subsequently handed back to the relatives, before they handed it back to Essex police once the nature of the investigation altered, and at that stage, or later on, it was given a new exhibit mark of DRB/1 (once it was submitted to the Lab’ on 26 September 1985)…

     Although, the four exhibits (SBJ/1, 2, 3, AND 4)WERE LISTED AS PART OF THE MAJOR INCIDENT PROPERTY REGISTER, WHEN THE CASE WAS BEING TREATED AS FOUR MURDERS AND A SUICIDE, UNDER THE CRIME REFERENCE OF SC/688/85, these four exhibits vanished from the face of the earth, and were not included in the revised major incident property register which was formed when the case altered into a full blown murder investigation with Jeremy becoming the main suspect, under SC/786/85…

     The exhibit reference, SBJ/1, for the silencer,(7 August 1985), was altered to DRB/1,(by 26 September 1985), and the other three exhibits (SBJ/2, 3 and 4) were disposed of, as part of a ploy to deceive everyone into falsely believing that there had only ever been just the one silencer in the possession of the police or under their control (when there were in fact, two different ones)…

     These are the true facts regarding this matter…

     The relatives handed over a silencer on two different occasions, once on 12 August 1985 when Peter Eaton handed a silencer (DB/1) to DS Jones, and secondly, on 11 September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed over a silencer to DC Oakey…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/9/2010 @ 1:06 pm

642. All, I have read your comments with interest. I have to state though that the writing is on the wall, I must agree with Mike as there is now so much compelling evidence which proves Jeremy’s innocence that we know he will soon be a free man. He will inherit the estate which is rightfully his and the people who falsified evidence know now that they will be be charged. They are panic stricken no doubt - someone has to pay for this terrible miscarriage of justice. It seems that there are a lot of people who have used circumstantial evidence for example that Jeremy had a supposed evil look about him - what nonsense, this is the 21st century and not the middle ages, Jeremy’s demeanour proves nothing. The list of evidence proving his innocence goes on and on and on. And the truth shall set you free Jeremy.

     Comment by Andrew Jackman — 5/9/2010 @ 4:35 pm

643. Andrew, I am aghast that you can come to that conclusion. Exactly what ‘evidence’ are you actually referring to when you say ‘proves’ Bambers innocence?

     Comment by Ian — 5/15/2010 @ 4:40 am

644. Mike, point 635…………..I have stated this point clearly. NO blood was found on the front of Sheila’s nightie which would indicate what you are saying. If Sheila shot herself in the throat whilst in a standing postion, as you suggest, then there would CERTAINLY have been blood flowing in a downward direction. It is the basic law of physics Mike, “What goes up must come down” The centre of mass being the bullet and gravitational forces acting upon tissue and blood. The bullet goes up and the blood comes down. Newton’s Law Mike, you cannot argue with it.
     Blood with gravitational force acting upon it will follow the shortest path. In this case Mike, the front of her night dress. There is no way in the world that Sheila could have shot herself and NOT get blood down the front of her nightdress. This is also not taking into account other forces such as velocity which would almost certainly have left ’spatter’ on the front of her dress in a downward direction…..Newtons 3rd Law ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’ Put simply, if a bullet is fired into soft tissue, blood and tissue will travel in the opposite direction. In this case, the front of her nightdress. Unless you have found new evidence that changes the laws of physics after 400 years, let me know. Mike, your argument is not credible.

     Comment by Ian — 5/15/2010 @ 5:19 am

645. The City of |London Police investigation knew that a different weapon fire some of the bullets, but they failed to identify what that other weapon could have been, or was…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/15/2010 @ 3:19 pm

646. Ian, in response to your explanation at 644 above - you need to revise your opinion in view of the fact that Sheila could have inflicted the initial wound to the side of her throat (whilst downstairs in the region of the kitchen) by adopting a pose similar to the ones demonstrated during the Birdwell Armoury experiments, (2003), which were designed to try and identify any position that Sheila could have adopted in order to produce the first wound to the side of the neck and throat, as described. These experiments or investigations, or whatever you would like to call them, were photographed and videoed, and establish beyond doubt that Sheila could have shot herself whilst adopting a slightly upright and forward pose, to fire the gun that wounded her initially. This being the case, the blood would not automatically run down the front of Sheila’s nightdress, as suggested by your reliance upon Newtons law of gravity, but would or might, or did, initially fall onto the kitchen floor,(which the police sought to cover up and conceal by placing a pair of cotton trousers, towels, and sawdust, over with a view to concealing its existence there)…

     You can see some of the poses which Sheila could have adopted, at the material time, by following the Link provided:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2044

     Newtions Law of gravity would not apply to bloodstains on Sheila’s nightdress, if any one of these poases had been adopted by Sheila at the time she initially shot herself downstiars in the region of the kitchen - she then having fallen to the floor holding the intial wound with the fingers of her right hand, and blood which thereafter ran from the wound, did so onto her fingers, the top part of her right hand, and parts of her arm, and nestled in the fold there, which her right arm had created, where the blood was eventually deposited, and which produced the distinctive triangular bloodstain, that everyone can see is pesent there, in the crime scene photographs. Not to be overlooked, is the fact that this triangular bloodstain could not have been produced upon the nightdress, if Sheila had been laid down in the bedroom and shot, because as you rightly point out, by a reliance upon Newtons law of gravity, blood would not have run horizontally, from any wound upon her throat or neck, but rather it would have run vertically…

     You do not have an explanation which accounts for how the triangular bloodstain, which is present upon the front upper right part of the nightdress, and how it got there?

     Also, there is a very significant bloodstain on the rear of Sheila’s nightdress, which was not reproduced on the bedroom carpet, beneath the position where the police photographed her body in the bedroom - you need to come up with some explanation to try and account for it being there on the nightdress, yet absent upon the bedroom carpet beneath where the body of Sheila was photographed on the bedroom floor…

     You may need to consider for the possibility that the blood on the rear of the nightdress was already dried by the time Sheila’s body was placed on the bedroom carpet by the edge of the bed, by the police at the scene, and stage managed? But where did this rather significant and unique bloodstain, originate from, and or, how did it get there?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/16/2010 @ 5:20 am

647. There is also evidence, that spattered blood did get onto the upper part of Sheila’s nightdress, and that these multiple spots of blood got deposited there at the time Sheila initially shot herself there in the kitchen - at this time, blood spurted from the initial wound and became deposited upon the top art of the nightdress, en route to the kitchen floor, where the majority of the blood from that wound ended up, before it thereafter became trapped in the fold of her right arm which allowed the triangular bloodstain to be produced…

     Newtons law of gravity would certainly allow for this to be the correct interpretation for how blood got onto the nightdress, when Sheila was shot first downstairs, and later upstairs…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/16/2010 @ 5:28 am

648. If Sheila was lent forward at the time she initially shot herself downstairs, the blood would primarily drop vertically to the kitchen floor, and not onto the nightdress, thus contradicting what Ian has been saying in his posts…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/16/2010 @ 12:59 pm

649. I am not happy with the suggestion that the same gun fired all the bullets during this incident - since, according to a witness statement made by a City of London Police officer, there were at least 10 bullets which had not been fired by the rifle, which the police photographed on top of Sheila’s body? Not only that, but the ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) could not link these 10 bullets, as having been fired via that rifle…

     You can then also add to this, the fact that somebody, and it must have been someone who worked from Essex police, substituted bullet, PV/20, which started off life as a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985 when the pathologist removed it from the body of Sheila, but which transformed into a whole bullet by 20 September 1985, to enable the ballistic expert to link and match it to the rifle which the police photographed upon Sheila’s body - and so there must have been at least 11 different bullets which had not been fired via the rifle that was photographed on Sheila’s body…

     If true…

     Sheila would not have had any need to load any of these 11 bullets into the rifle, as suggested by Ian, and others, elsewhere…

     It is also known that at least three of the bullet wounds received at the time Ralph, and June Bamber, were shot and killed, had an entry wound which had a diameter of 1/2 inch…

     .22 bullets fired at close quarters do not produce 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry holes in the body…

     If you accept that there may have been at least three bullets which were capable of making or producing entry holes of 1/2 inch, and that these could not have been fired via the rifle which the police planted onto Sheila’s body to enable PC Bird to photograph it there, then if you add these three 1/2 inch type bullets to the aforementioned 11 bullets which were not fired via the rifle either, it produces 14 bullets from the total of 25 crime scene bullets which did not get fired via the rifle on Sheila’s body in the bedroom…

     The Ballistic expert, retained 14 bullet cases, under an exhibit reference MDF/100, to which he as so far, despite some 25 years having elapsed, not made a witness statement, or given any explanation, for how these 14 bullet cases came into existence?

     If you eliminate these 14 bullets, as being bullets that were not fired via the rifle in question, it leaves a total of 11 bullets which could have been fired via it…

     It may not just be a coincidence, that the rifle that was eventually placed upon Sheila’s body by the police, could hold 11 bullets, that is to say, 10 bullets in its magazine and a solitary bullet in the breach - with this in mind, there would have been no need for Sheila or anyone else to reload the rifle as suggested by Ian and those who share his views on this case…

     There was no need for Sheila to reload the gun, as suggested by Ian, because it could have held 11 bullets which were the only bullets fired via that gun during the incident…

     As I say, the other 14 bullets were not fired from that gun, for example, the 10 bullets which City of London police accepted had not been fired from that gun, and the three 1/2 inch diameter bullets which produced the 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry wound sites in the bodies of Ralph and June…

     This was most definitely not a one gun crime, but rather at least three different guns, or weapons were used, in these shootings…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/16/2010 @ 1:19 pm

650. Mike, as far as I am aware The COLP Investigation did NOT believe that another weapon apart from an Anschultz .22 rifle was used. Who actually put this scenario forward? Ballistic evidence as far as I am aware all show .22 ammunition was used in the murders.
     Also of interest to the readers is that the man claiming to be a solicitor one Giovanni Di Stefano was convicted of fraud in 1986 and jailed. He was also investigated in 2005. It is a criminal offence under the Solicitors Act 1974 to describe yourself as a solicitor if you are not properly qualified and on the roll of solicitors.
     Add to this the spurious support he has from the likes of controversy-courting journalists and writers that conveniently expunge from their incredibly selective diatribe facts that are damning to Bamber. These are the people Bamber is surrounding himself with.
     Di Stefano’s qualifications remain a mystery to many. Questioned about his qualification, Mr Di Stefano, 50 (at the time), would only say that he was an “Italian lawyer”. The credibility of Bamber’s claims of innocence, to the lawyer (or whatever occupation title he gives himself) who is representing him. All I can say is The whole thing stinks Mike.

     Comment by Ian — 5/16/2010 @ 3:09 pm

651. Ian, you don’t get it. You keep asking for evidence that proves innocence. It doesn’t work that way. The crown have to prove him guilty or he is presumed innocent. Now that we find out the truth behind various aspects of the evidence he needs a retrial. Only a fool would argue that the investigation and the following disclosure was proper and appropriate. I also presume that physics isn’t your strong point.

     Comment by Toby — 5/16/2010 @ 5:51 pm

652. Mike, your point 628. Why would Jeremy teach Sheila how to load bullets into a gun? Bamber by his own account ‘did not get along with his sister’ what is the reason for his sudden benevolence? She had no reason whatsoever to learn how to do this. Bamber either did it in order to use in his alibi later or it’s a complete fabrication. Just like his fanciful story about Sheila’s children being put up for adoption. Very convenient isnt it?

     Comment by Ian — 5/17/2010 @ 10:19 am

653. Furthermore, upon research Pamela seems to be saying something completely different to what you are suggesting Mike. She stated openly along with others in a statement in court that ‘According to Pamela Boutflour (June Bamber’s sister), Sheila Caffell was not a violent person and she had never known her to use a gun and in the opinion of the witness she would not know how to use one. The evidence of Ann Eaton (June Bamber’s niece) was that she had never seen Mrs Caffell with a gun and that she “would not know one end of the barrel of a gun to another”. The witness added that Sheila Caffell was not a practical person and had very bad hand-eye co-ordination. Other witnesses called during the trial also said they had never seen her with a gun, save for an occasion when she had been photographed carrying one as part of a modelling assignment.
     Now unless Pamela and others have purjured themselves your argument is totally erroneous.

     Comment by Ian — 5/17/2010 @ 10:26 am

654. If the City of London police were satisfied, that at least 10 of the crime scene bullets, had not been fired via the rifle, which the police photographed on top of Sheila Caffells body, by PC Bird, it means that there were at least two different guns which were used in the shootings of the family. Yet, despite this, the ballistic expert made out a false case, by a reliance upon markings which were present upon 25 bullet cases, which were supposedly the bullet cases belonging to the 25 bullets that got fired during the killing of the five victims, linking them to the rifl which PC Bird photographed upon the body…

     If 10 of the bullets had not been fired via the rifle, how could there exist 25 bullet cases which had markings upon them all, suggesting that each of them had been loaded into the magazine of the gun, and fired, and ejected from it?

     The police case was that this was a one gun crime, and that bullets fro0m one batch of ammunition was used to wound and to kill everyone, but the truth of the matter is that this information was nothing but a red herring, introduced by Essex police as a smoke screen, to divert attention away fro the fact that at least two, possibly three different weapons had been used in the shootings, and that Sheila was originally found downstairs (believed to be dead), but that she had regained consciousness, fled upstairs, where she eventually died in the bedroom…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/17/2010 @ 3:51 pm

655. Members of the raid team confirmed to City of London police when interviewed as part of their investigation into the handling of this case, that they saw nothing at the scene, or inside the bedroom, which caused any of them to doubt what they believed had happened, namely that they were dealing with a case of four murders and a suicide…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/18/2010 @ 5:06 pm

656. A psychopath does not like being exposed. They weave in just enough truth to make you believe in what they are saying. I believe Bamber is a psychopath - something the psychiatrist called in by the DEFENSE at the original trail - diagnosed him as. In fact his exact words were ‘If ever there was a psychopath……..then Jeremy Bamber is it’ unquote
     I also believe he is narcissistic, manipulative, conning, dishonest and incredibly scheming. He is adept at mimicking and eliciting sympathy from others. I will leave it to the readers to decide. Professor Robert Hare a worldwide expert on psychopaths stated that “psychopathic cheaters always need empathetic suckers” Enough said.

     Comment by Ian — 5/20/2010 @ 8:59 am

657. In response to point 656, why has there not been significant psychological evaluation since the original trial, or has there been? Would this only occur and the public be aware if there was a possibility of release due to completing a rehabilitation programme? A psychiatrist called in by the court system differs from a non forensic or more client based one doesn’t it (I’m not sure of the exact terms) and there’s more pressure to come up with a clear conclusion to present at trial. Has Professor Robert Hare done work on this particular case? Are you basing your theory largely on what’s been written about the so called odd behaviour of Jeremy Bamber following the deaths of his family?

     Also it seems that at some point during this discussion people who are saying they believe he is guilty have agreed that he should be given a re-trial, so there is doubt in your minds too!

     Comment by Leigh — 5/22/2010 @ 10:28 am

658. Jeremy had been examined recently, whilst being detained in prison by an eminent psychiatrist, and he has been declared not to be a psychopath, so where does this leave Ian’s explanation and comments?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/22/2010 @ 4:39 pm

659. Ian suggests that Bamber supporters, or at least those who believe in his innocence, are the suckers he refers to in his post, but it might well be the case, that he was referring to himself, and those who believe in Bambers guilt, because they seek to rely upon outdated and inaccurate information?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/22/2010 @ 4:41 pm

660. Jeremy is now in possession of evidence confirming that the silencer was not found by the relatives until 11 September 1985, and that the court was misled by the relatives and the police during his trial when they suggested the silencer had been found a month earlier…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 9:26 am

661. Since, it is now known that the relatives did not find the silencer inside the gun cupboard, until 11 September 1985,it throws a different complexion upon the prosecutions case, and in particular, the blood evidence obtained or allegedly obtained from the silencer? This is because, the silencer was supposed to have been at the lab’ from as early as 30 August 1985, and thereafter it was examined by the ballistic expert, and the blood expert, and the crucial flake of blood, was supposedly found inside it, to enable it to be analyzed between 12th and 20 September 1985, and identified as blood which was unique, and exclusive to Sheila Caffell? How could the silencer which the relatives did not find in the gun cupboard until 11 September 1985, have been present at the Lab’ on and by 30 August 1985, some 11 or 12 days beforehand?

     If the relatives did not find the silencer in the gun cupboard until 11 September 1985, how could it have been the same silencer inside which the blood was supposedly found?

     The silencer which the relatives found in the gun cupboard on 11 September 1985, was not submitted to the lab’ until after the blood which was identified as belonging exclusively to Sheila was obtained - how could this be?

     It now becomes clear why so many of the documents which refer to the silencer, have been tampered with, and by this I am referring to the different exhibit references which have been given to the silencer from time to time, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1…

     Not only that, but the silencer was given two different Lab’ item reference nubers as well, namely, item 22, and item 23…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 11:53 am

662. There exists a witness statement made in the name of Pamela Boutflour, signed by her, which states that June Bamber (Her sister) told her that Jeremy had been teaching Sheila how to handle, load and fire the rifle, and that June did not approve of it - whether Ian or anybody else believes or accepts this to be true, is irrelevant, because that is what it says in one of Pamela Boutflours witness statements. Now why would Pamela Boutflour be making a witness statement saying that, if it was not true? Why would Pamela be saying that June once told her that Jeremy had been showing Sheila how to handle, load and fire the rifle, if June had not told her that in person? The fact of the matter is that Pamela Boutflour knew that Sheila did know how to handle the rifle, and she did know how to load bullets into it, and she did know how to fire the rifle, because her sister, June Bamber told her so, on an occasion before she died. I am not bothered that Pamela Boutflour might have said something totally different during the trial, the fact is that there has been uncovered a witness statement where it becomes clear that if Pamela Boutflour was told by June about Sheila being shown how to handle and load and fire the rifle, then she was privy to information that Sheila did know how to do these things. If Pamela Boutflour told lies under oath about this matter, then that is a matter for the CPS to prosecute her for committing perjury or whatever…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 12:05 pm

663. There exists a witness statement which was made and prepared by one of the COLP investigators, which lists the 10 bullets which were “NOT” fired via the rifle…

     Why would COLP be saying that there were 10 bullets that had not been fired via the rifle, if all of them had been?

     Not only that, but why would COLP be seizing a .22 bolt action rifle that belonged to one of the relatives, and examining it, to see if it fired any of these 10 bullets?

     Do you not think that COLP would have been better deploying their investigation onto something else, if it were not true?

     COLP listed those 10 bullets, because it could not be established that any of them had been fired via the rifle, and they examined another .22 riffle because they were anxious to determine if that other rifle had fired any of these 10 bullets. Was it just a coincidence that the ballistic expert, also made a report saying that he was unable to say or to confirm that 10 of the 25 bullets had been fired via the rifle? Bearing this in mind, therefore, I think we can all safely say that there were 10 bullets which required an investigation, and it needed to be determined which weapon fired one or more, or any, or all of these 10 bullets…

     These are the facts, reported by COLP and the ballistic expert…

     Jeremy, nor anyone else has put words into the mouth of COLP or the ballistic expert, so where does that leave Ian and the rest of his band of merry men?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 12:14 pm

664. Giovanni De Stefanno is qualified to practice as a solicitor in the uk, because of his qualification in Law, in Italy, and because the UK and Italy are both members of the European Union, which has provisions to entitle him to practice law in the UK, at least that is my general understanding of the situation. Furthermore, although Mr De Stefanno was originally convicted of an alleged offense, he was later vindicated and he had all his convictions quashed on appeal, so once again, where does that leave Ian and his followers who argue otherwise? Why don’t you contact Mr De Stefanno and ask him yourself about it, you will probably get a full answer to your question if you can find it in yourself to do that?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 12:20 pm

665. We now know that the relatives deliberately scratched the mantelpiece in the kitchen at whf, and that they did not officially find the silencer, until 11 September 1985, therefore, the evidence of DS “Stan” Jones, now falls into disrepute, along with, the evidence of Ann Eaton, David Boutflour, and Peter Eaton…

     Lets get the facts right so that there can be no mistake about what is now being alleged - The relat8ves did not find the silencer in the gun cupboard on 10 August 1985, and they did not transport it to the home of Ann and Peter Eaton, where it was provisionally examined, and placed into storage for three days, before DS Jones came along to collect it and take it back to the police station. Lets get the fats right, DS Jones could not have shown that silencer to PI “Bob” Miller on the morning of 13 August 1985, and Miller could not have told Jones to hand the silencer to DI Cook (SOC) and Cook could not have taken that silencer to the Lab’ for it to be provisionally examined by Glynis Howard (Scientist). That silencer, could not have been handed back to Cook, by Howard, and Cook could not have retained it, until it was re-submitted to the Lab’ on 30 August 1985, because the relatives had not found the silencer in the gun cupboard by that stage…

     These are the true facts surrounding the silencer, when it was found, and by whom?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 12:28 pm

666. Robert Boutflour also made a witness statement alluding to the fact that June Bamber told him that Jeremy had been teaching Sheila how to handle, load and fire the rifle. What is remarkable about this, is that Robert Boutflour was the main spokesperson for the relatives when liaising with Essex police regarding these killings? I am going to make sure that a copy of what Robert Boutflour said about Sheila being shown how to use the rifle, is available for general viewing on Sleuthing for justice, with the intention of dispelling any misconception that nobody had any idea that Sheila could handle, load and fire the rifle…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/23/2010 @ 5:43 pm

667. Robert Boutflour knows that Sheila did know how to handle the rifle, how to load bullets into its magazine, and how to fire it - anyone who suggests that none of the relatives had any knowledge about such matters does not know what they are talking about, and I suggest that they read Boutflours witness statement where he makes mention of such facts…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/24/2010 @ 2:06 pm

668. As time moves on, more and more of what Jeremy has been saying, is coming to be accepted as being the truth. Sheila did know how to handle the rifle, how to load bullets into its magazine and how to fire it. Sheila did have injuries upon her body which are consistent with her having been involved in some sort of struggle with Ralph Bamber, and the police did stage manage the body of Sheila at the scene. Furthermore, the police tampered with the crime scene ammunition to make out a false case that this was a one gun crime, and that only ammunition from one type or batch was used in the shootings? Sheila was not taking the medication she had been prescribed, and the dosage of haloperidol was halved shorty before she shot everyone, and therefore it cannot be argued that she would have been effected by the side effects of the drugs in the normal way. What we are dealing with here, is a reduction in her haloperidol that was dangerous, and the fact that there was no adjustment to the other prescribed drugs she was taking, or not taking. This was a recipe for disaster, which duly arrived inside whf during the early hours of 7 August 1985. Sheila shot the others, and then she tried to commit suicide downstairs in the kitchen. Her body later ended upstairs in the bedroom, she having received a second shot, a bullet from a different gun than the one photographed upon her body. If Jeremy, or anyone else had been responsible for Sheila’s death, then the fact that two different weapons had fired the two bullets which wounded and killed her, would have been a significant piece of evidence. But, what did the police do in this case, they substituted one of the original bullets (PV/20) which was a fragmented bullet on 7 August 1985, when the pathologist removed it from Sheila’s neck, and they swapped it for a control bullet that the police test fired in the rifle, and presented that replacement bullet (PV/20) to the ballistic expert, to enable him to conclude that both bullets had been fired from the gun that was photographed on top of Sheila’s body - the problem is, however, that the replacement bullet was a whole one, nothing like the fragmented one that the pathologist removed from Sheila’s body, on 7 August 1985. These are the facts, if Jeremy or anyone else shot sheila with a second weapon in the bedroom, why did the police substitute the original bullet (PV/20) for a control bullet that was test fired in the rifle during an unofficial test firing of the rifle? The police swapped the bullets over, to cover up for what they were responsible for doing at the scene, not for what someone else was responsible for doing. You only have to look at the fact that it now turns out that the relatives did not find the silencer in the gun cupboard until 11 September 1985, a month after they originally claim to have found it there, to realize the significance of it all? The police and the relatives have lied about the silencer from the gun cupboard. Lets be frank about this, the police knew that the silencer had not been found inside the gun cupboard on 10 August 1985, and that Peter Eaton had not handed it over to DS Jones on 12 August 1985, yet the police presented the evidence as though the relatives had found the silencer a month or so, before they did do,so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. I suppose those in favor of Bambers guilt will be saying next that Jeremy was responsible for the way the silencer evidence has been misrepresented to the court? They blame him for everything, so they might as well blame him for that as well? I suppose Jeremy was to blame for the fact that the scratch marks were not present on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen on the morning of the shootings, and they these materialized there, much later, and paint got onto the end of the silencer? Lets blame Bamber for everything, to be pondered is why he ever got convicted of anything considering that he is supposed to possess supernatural powers of persuasion?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/24/2010 @ 2:28 pm

669. So many untruths have been said about Jeremy, over the course of time, that most of what has been said has become accepted as being true,yet it might not be…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/25/2010 @ 10:36 am

670. Ian your comments at 653:- I will refer you to the contents of a witness statement which Robert Woodwis Boutflour, made to the city of Landon police, dated, 4 September 1991 - pages 15 and 16, ” I also still have a vision of June sitting with Pam (Pamela Boutflour), at a garden table and June asking, what would you think if you saw Jeremy showing Sheila how to load bullets into a rifle? According to June, Sheila had objected and June had made Jeremy clear the table. I describe this incident in more detail in my statement, dated, 20 September 19785″…

     Here are the beginni9ngs of the truth starting to come out, about Sheila having been shown how to load bullets into the rifle - something which everyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty, would not have entertained until this disclosure, and the other disclosure which is going to be made from Boutflours, 20 September 1985, statement. Like so many other features in the case, such as Sheila did not have any injuries which would be consistent with her having been involved in a struggle with Ralph in the kitchen, etc…, the truth eventually comes out to contradict it…

     Sheila did know how to load bullets into the rifle, and she knew how to fire the rifle, as well…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/25/2010 @ 10:46 am

671. Here is a link to the latest post relating to the two silencers, for those interested to look at and consider:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3777

     Comment by miketesko — 5/25/2010 @ 1:20 pm

672. Here is another interesting Link for viewers to look at and consider with a view to posting comments, which relates to the fact that the police seized two different .22 rifles, on and by, 8 August 1985:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3778&p=34009#p34009

     Comment by miketesko — 5/25/2010 @ 1:56 pm

673. Mike why don’t you shut up. Your ignorance is unbelievable. You spent time in jail with him and you are brainwashed, like all his stupid followers. You all need to wake up to yourselves. He is as guilty as hell, a jury heard the evidence and you talk rubbish.

     Comment by Ian — 5/27/2010 @ 7:12 am

674. If there was any doubt about who was responsible for the five deaths, Essex police should have been in touch with the Corners court, after 14 August 1985, and asked for the bodies of the five victims to be delayed in being released, but strangely - they did not…

     Essex police were more than happy to get the bodies of the five victims disposed of…

     Why?

     Comment by miketesko — 5/28/2010 @ 7:02 am

675. I believe that Jeremy Bamber should be allowed a retrial, so that the evidence which is now available to him and to the general public (which was not originally made available to him, or them) can be considered with a view to either convicting him of the murders, or clearing him…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/28/2010 @ 3:40 pm

676. The prosecutions case, is troubled by the fact that at 7:15am, the rifle was leaning up against the bedroom window, but by 8:30am, that same morning, it was on top of Sheila’ Caffells body on the bedroom floor - all the other features of the evidence which was relied upon by the prosecutions case, count for nothing, because somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse, moved the gun from the bedroom window, onto the body, after 7:15am. It doesn’t matter what size shoe Jeremy wore, or what colour hair he had, or what his character, and personality was like,it doesn’t matter whether or not Ralph made a call to the police, and then to Jeremy, since, somebody moved the rifle that fired the fatal bullet that killed Sheila, from the bedroom window, onto the body, and they did it at sometime after 7:15am, that morning…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/29/2010 @ 12:05 pm

677. The fact that the relatives and the police contrived the silencer evidence to secure a false conviction for these murders, is overshadowed by the fact that someone who was still very much alive inside the farmhouse after 7:15am, moved the rifle from the window to the body. If we say the police did not move the gun during this period, then who did? Who could have moved it? The only person who could possibly have moved the rifle from the bedroom window, after 7:15am, that morning, was Sheila. It could not have been Jeremy, because he never set foot inside whf after the rifle was seen to be leaning up against the bedroom window at 7:15am, so where does this leave the prosecutions case against him? No doubt those who keep crying out that Bamber is guilty, will try to suggest that he fooled the police into thinking the rifle was leaning up against the bedroom window at 7:15am. The Bamber is guilty brigade, will stop at nothing to portray Bamber as the killer, by relying upon his character, and the suggestion that he did not receive a call from his father, and that anyone in their right mind would have dialed 999, and not called their local police station, and other things like the suggestion that Sheila did not have any injuries which would be consistent with her having been involved in a struggle with Ralph in the kitchen before he died, and that Sheila did not know one end of a gun from the other, on and on they keep throwing up excuses for why Bamber is guilty, but the fact is, somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse after 7:15am, that morning moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto the body of Sheila, which was supposedly found on the bedroom carpet next to the parents bed…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/29/2010 @ 12:14 pm

678. Jeremy Bamber is truly innocent, he was innocent back in 1985 / 86, and he is still innocent, now in 2010, and he will always be innocent, no matter what excuses the Bamber is guilty brigade throw up to try and muddy the waters about his character, about telephone calls which they say were not made, and about suggestions that Sheila did not know one end of a gun from the other. They portray him as a psychopath, someone who almost got away with the perfect murder, someone who went on a spending spree shortly after he lost all of his family, but what they do not have an answer for, is how could Jeremy move the only rifle found in the bedroom when the police entered it and discovered Sheila’s body,from the bedroom window, onto the body, at some stage after 7:15am?

     They cannot come up with any excuse to get around that significant problem - the prosecutions case, is in ruin…

     He should be set free immediately…

     Comment by miketesko — 5/29/2010 @ 12:21 pm

679. it may be possible that some of the wounds which were inflicted upon one or more, of the five victims of the whf shootings, were caused by .22 pellets fired via the family owned, .22 air rifle..

     See the information at the following Link:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3790

     Comment by miketesko — 5/29/2010 @ 4:01 pm

680. Jeremy could not have killed his sister, and he did not stage manage her body to make it appear or look like she had taken her own life in the bedroom, anyone interested in the truth should read the following information which can be found at the following Link:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3789

     Comment by miketesko — 5/30/2010 @ 6:20 am

681. There was no intense struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer - it is all a myth…

     Anyone who is remotely interested in the truth, please follow the attached link, and read what the senior investigating Scenes of crime officer, involved in the case, DI Ronald Walter Cook, (SOC), had to say about such a purported struggle in his witness statement :-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3794

     Comment by miketesko — 6/1/2010 @ 1:59 pm

682. Post 673 :- #Mike why don’t you shut up. Your ignorance is unbelievable. You spent time in jail with him and you are brainwashed, like all his stupid followers. You all need to wake up to yourselves. He is as guilty as hell, a jury heard the evidence and you talk rubbish.
     Comment by Ian — 5/27/2010 @ 7:12 am
     ————————————–

     Ian, why don’t you just look at the evidence, and admit that you are wrong…

     Jeremy killed no-one, and there is no evidence to support the claim that he did…

     Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window after 7:15am, that morning, and how did it end up on top of Sheila’s body next to the bed?

     It was not Jeremy, who moved it, it could not have been him, it was either (1) Sheila, or (2) the police, now you choose…

     When you work it out, I might be prepared to take what you might have to say, about these deaths, seriously…

     Comment by miketesko — 6/1/2010 @ 2:05 pm

683. Post 673:- Post 673 :- #Mike why don’t you shut up. Your ignorance is unbelievable. You spent time in jail with him and you are brainwashed, like all his stupid followers. You all need to wake up to yourselves. He is as guilty as hell, a jury heard the evidence and you talk rubbish.
     Comment by Ian — 5/27/2010 @ 7:12 am
     ———————————–

     Ian, I would like to refer you to comments made by the trial judge, Mr Justice Hunt, Sheffield crown Court, who sentenced me in September 1988 - “The picture I have of you, is of a highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful, and elusive crook”, but he got the “crook” bit, wrong…

     Oh, and I know a load of innocent people who all spent time in Jail, incarcerated for crimes they did not commit, and so your constant mentioning of me previously being in jail, with Jeremy, means nothing to me, Members of the Birmingham six, and the Guildford four, were also in jail with Jeremy, so where does that put your argument on that point?

     Comment by miketesko — 6/1/2010 @ 2:17 pm

684. Ian, Here is a Link, to Giovanni De Stafano, singing, “My Way”..

     (1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5aJ8yRzLRU

     Comment by miketesko — 6/1/2010 @ 3:23 pm

685. First confession / statement made to Essex police in the name of Julie Mugford, was made to the police by her best friend, and highlights that this was a put up job, designed to get revenge on Jeremy because he dumped Mugford, and her best pal (who he had also been sleeping around with)…

     Comment by miketesko — 6/2/2010 @ 6:00 am

686. Mike. Are you on his payroll or something? We have had a gutful of your bleating. Please stop sticking up for this grub. He is a cold blooded killer and a psycopath. You are truly pathetic.

     Comment by Ian — 6/2/2010 @ 6:36 am

687. RE: comment 673
     Is it really necessary to be rude to people in this discussion? You believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty Ian, other people do not but that isn’t because they are stupid and brainwashed. Most are concerned about miscarriages of justice and do not want to see an innocent man be kept in prison, most think that the case has been handled badly and want to get to the truth, most agree there should be a re-trail because of evidence not included in the original one. If he is then found to be guilty I’m sure most will accept that but you cannot expect people to shut up with things as they are.

     Comment by Leigh — 6/2/2010 @ 3:16 pm

688. Link to proof that police stage managed Sheila’s body and that they placed the rifle back on the body, and then took more pictures:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3798

     Comment by miketesko — 6/2/2010 @ 3:48 pm

689. We now know, for example, that the pathologist, Peter Venezis, did not recover one of the three bullets that wounded Nicholas Caffell, Venezis, only recovered two bullets from this child victims body, yet there existed 25 crime scene bullets, and 25 corresponding bullet cases…

     My point is this, if the pathologist, did not recover one bullet from the body of young Nicholas, then that would make 26 bullets, but only 25 bullet cases…

     Now what I want to know, is what type of weapon was there at the scene, that could fire bullets, or pellets, that does not require bullet cases?

     (1) the .22 air rifle…

     So, now we are getting nearer to the truth about what might have happened inside the farmhouse when Sheila was shot in the kitchen - she may have been shot by use of the .22 air rifle, not by a .22 bullet from the semi-automatic rifle that later photographed upon her body, after the police had positioned it there…

     It is now known that Essex police seized that .22 air rifle and that they showed a great deal of interest in it, finding paint ingrained on the end of its barrel which caused the police to take a paint sample from the kitchen mantelpiece, and they also found several fingerprints upon this .22 air rifle, that caused DI Cook (SOC) to send DS Davidson to the mortuary to take the fingerprints from Ralph, June and Sheila, for elimination purposes?

     What was it, that Essex police knew about the possible use of this .22 air rifle in the shootings, that they kept from everybody else?

     Why was one of the two bullets, PV/20, substituted with a whole control bullet that enabled the ballistic expert on, and after 20 September 1985, to link that substituted bullet to the .22 semi-automatic rifle? Did the original slug belong to, or originate from the .22 air rifle?

     The .22 air rifle was recovered from the bottom of the spiral stairs in the kitchen, close to the position where Sheila’s body was originally found upon entry into the kitchen by the police, and so the fact that the police seized it, and took a close interest in it, suggests that they believed it could have been used at some stage in the shootings, in particular, the initial shooting of Sheila downstairs…

     As I say, the police know that this was not a one weapon crime, there were at least three different guns used in these shootings, (1) the .22 air rifle, (2) the .22 semi-automatic rifle, and (3) another weapon…

     Comment by miketesko — 6/2/2010 @ 4:21 pm

690. Sheila may have been shot more than twice, see the following Link for details:-

     http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3793

     Comment by miketesko — 6/2/2010 @ 4:31 pm

691. Leigh, you too have been fooled. The dishonesty is pathetic.

     Comment by Ian — 6/5/2010 @ 7:34 pm

692. Well we’ll just have to wait and see what happens with it Ian.

     Comment by Leigh — 6/8/2010 @ 6:40 pm

693. Just to let everyone know. There appears to be TWO Ian’s here. I am the first Ian to post my thoughts on here - just so that reader’s are not confused.

     Comment by Ian — 6/9/2010 @ 6:58 am

694. Mike, I understand your points. We have been tooing-and-froing on a number of issues for the last few years. It is obvious that the police did not carry out an thorough and proper investigation, something that the Justice System are acutely aware of, to the point where the judge at the original trial was highly critical of it - calling the police investigation ‘perfunctory’
     However, human mistakes there might have been, but that’s all they are - mistakes and jumping too hastily to unfounded conclusions. I feel Bamber and his supporters are exploiting them in order to paint Bamber in a light of innocence. Bamber knows that he faces the rest of his life behind bars. In short, he will stay there until he dies.
     The Judge, Lord Justice Drake in his summing up of the case stated that “I have to consider when I think it is likely to let you live in the community. But I think it is difficult to foresee whether it will ever be safe to release into the community someone who can shoot and kill five members of his own family, including two little boys asleep in their beds”
     Now I ask the readers to consider this. If Bamber is guilty - and I firmly and 100% believe that he is - then the whole ‘innocence’ masquerade is just a cunning plot in which a scheming psychopath is attempting to dupe the Appeal Courts into releasing him from his just punishment. A punishment which the judge in his summing up had one eye on the danger this man poses to the general public. I concur.
     However, if he is innocent - something which takes a huge leap of faith by incredibly gullible individuals - he has to prove it with the use of completely new and fresh evidence - by this I refer to the evidence that is presented which may have altered the course of the original juries majority decision at the conclusion of the 1986 trial. Considering he has convincingly and decisively lost (he was defeated on every point he brought before the court in 2002) two appeals on the evidence brought before the courts using evidence which can no longer be used. It is highly likely that Bamber will never be released nor will his case ever again reach the appeal courts on the weight of any new and available ‘evidence’ which may still exist.
     In conclusion, I submit that any further appeal attempts are nothing but an exercise to stave off prison boredom (something to which psychopaths are highly prone) and routine at the cost of the taxpayer.

     Comment by Ian — 6/9/2010 @ 7:37 am

695. New evidence has recently been presented to the CCRC and to Essex police concerning the existence of two different silencers in this investigation, which were misleadingly presented during Jeremy’s trial, as being one and the same. Fact of the matter is, that there is no official documentation to show or prove that the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, on 10 August 1985, as alleged, but in fact, they found it there a month later, on 11 September 1985, and backdated their accounts to allow the silencer to be introduced as admissible evidence during Jeremy’s prosecution. Documentary evidence exists to prove and confirm that on 11 September 1985, David Boutflour contacted Essex police to inform them that he had found a bloodstained silencer at whf, and Ann Eaton handed that silencer to DC Oakey on that same date. Furthermore, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood fingerprinted that same silencer on 13 September 1985, at a time when that silencer was still in the possession of Essex police, not at the Lab’ where the other silencer SBJ/1 - DB/1) had earlier been submitted on, 30 August 1985? The silencer which the relatives found in Ralph Bambers gun cupboard on 11 September 1985, did not get sent to the Lab’ to be examined until 20 September 1985, and so the crucial flake of blood which has been attributed as belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell could not have been found inside it…

     If the silencer which the relatives found in the gun cupboard on 11 September 1985 was not sent to the lab’ until 20 September 1985, then of course, the blood allegedly belonging to, or originating from Sheila, could not possibly have been found inside it, because that silencer was not present there at the lab to enable the experts to dismantle it and find the crucial flake of blood inside it, its as simple as that…

     There were two different silencers, one (SBJ/1 - DB/1) with blood upon it, and the other (DRB/1) with red paint from the aga, upon it - these two silencers were preented to the court at the time of Jeremy’s trial as though they were one and the same silencer…

     The truth is coming out now about these two different silencers and how the relatives and some police officers duped everyone into thinking there was and only ever had been just the one silencer in the possession and under the control of Essex police in this matter…

     Too much water has gone under the bridge for Essex police, and the CPS, to be able to wangle their way out of this mess…

     Comment by Mike Tesko — 7/10/2010 @ 12:02 pm

696. Jeremy is innocent…

     Comment by miketesko — 7/15/2010 @ 4:57 pm

697. Robert Boutflour silencer, bearing property register number 675, was found in the gun cupboard, according to the details recorded in Essex police property register, and it is recorded that David Boutflour found it there - how come David Boutflour found two silencers in the gun cupboard then?

     The one belonging to Ralph Bamber, and the one belonging to his own dad, Robert Boutflour?

     What dates did he find both of these different silencers?

     Comment by miketesko — 7/25/2010 @ 3:18 pm

698. Recently obtained crime scene pictures, taken in the region of the kitchen at whf, reveal that Essex police placed a large white cover over a strategic part of the kitchen floor, to cover up bloodstain evidence that might help to prove and confirm that there had been a female body originally found in the kitchen upon entry by the police. Once the police placed the cover down on a crucial part of the kitchen floor, they moved the kitchen table and two wooden chairs onto the top of the sheet they had placed there, and PC David Bird (SOC) took pictures, as though the scene (just described) had been found like that - when it had not, since, the police had clearly stage managed it…

     Comment by miketesko — 7/27/2010 @ 6:28 pm

699. You can view a picture of the kitchen scene, after the police stage managed it, at the following link:-

     (1) http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3854

     Comment by miketesko — 7/27/2010 @ 6:31 pm

Gotta Beef?

• 
• Topics
  • General
  • Pre-1920
  • 1920s
  • 1930s
  • 1940s
  • 1950s
  • 1960s
  • 1970s
  • 1980s
  • 1990s
  • 2000s
  • 
• Past Posting
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • 
• Pages
  • About the Register
  • Buy The book
  • CJ 101
  • Life on a Grand Jury
  • Why write about crime?
    • 100 Centre Street
    • Brian Wells
    • Case Overviews
    • Clarence Allen
    • Death Qualified Jury
    • Glen Stewart Godwin
    • Life in Prison
    • Organized Crime
      • Ah Gow
      • Bad Blood
      • Bill O'Dwyer
      • Cleaners & Dyers War
      • E-Port Posse
      • Frankie 13
      • Havana
      • Jake Trager
      • Long Branch, N.J.
      • Mara Salvatrucha
      • Mexican Mafia
      • Monk Eastman
      • Pagans & Fates
      • Sammy Meatballs
      • Sins of the Father
      • St. John's Cemetery
      • The Falange Crew
      • The Outlaws
      • The Prime Minister
      • Vivian Welsh
      • Working Houses
    • Silas Jayne
    • William Rice
• • 
  In/Out
  • Register
  • Login
  • 
  True Crime Blog Roll
  Coalition of Crime Bloggers
  Shameless Self-Promotion
  • From the November 30, 2006 edition of Rolling Stone magazine:
  • "The Malefactor's Register here is a riveting site documenting notorious crimes from the past two centuries."
  
  
  Buy the Book
  • Buy the book!