Jeremy Bamber White House Farm...Innocent or Evil scumbag?

[Mercia Blackcat]

Aye there's a lot to get your teeth in to. The defence are now claiming they know who made the scratch marks and when they were made. It's a bold claim. My concern is any 'new' evidence on this will be dismissed on a technicality - ie that the defence tried to bring this issue up in 2012 but their photographic expert overshot his expertise and an alternative expert was able to expose this. The CCRC can simply say you have already tried that ground of appeal.

It is a bold claim. However, why would Ron Cook be sent to WHF on the 09-08-1985 to retrieve a paint sample that they were linking to the barrel? Surely, Davidson would have checked under the mantle to determine if there were any corresponding marks before RC went to get samples. RC took his sample from in the vicinity of the scratch so why did he choose that particular place and as he took the sample from there he could not have missed the scratch if it was there. There is a photograph that shows both the scratch and where he took his sample from but not sure of when that was taken. Davidson himself puts no date on when he was first aware of the actual scratch but as late as the 01-10-1985 as a matter of fact is associating it with the rifle.

Of course even if the scratch was there when Davidson first examined the scene, it could have been caused by either the rifle or the silencer but the rifle slips into the background.

That still allows for the possibility two rifles were used.
PS

Looking at these two photographs

Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

To be honest, to me the rifle at the window in WHF looks like a rifle with a moderator on.
Hope this loads

 

[Roker Skate]

It is a bold claim. However, why would Ron Cook be sent to WHF on the 09-08-1985 to retrieve a paint sample that they were linking to the barrel? Surely, Davidson would have checked under the mantle to determine if there were any corresponding marks before RC went to get samples. RC took his sample from in the vicinity of the scratch so why did he choose that particular place and as he took the sample from there he could not have missed the scratch if it was there. There is a photograph that shows both the scratch and where he took his sample from but not sure of when that was taken. Davidson himself puts no date on when he was first aware of the actual scratch but as late as the 01-10-1985 as a matter of fact is associating it with the rifle.

Of course even if the scratch was there when Davidson first examined the scene, it could have been caused by either the rifle or the silencer but the rifle slips into the background.

That still allows for the possibility two rifles were used.
PS

Looking at these two photographs

Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

To be honest, to me the rifle at the window in WHF looks like a rifle with a moderator on.
Hope this loads

Yeah I've seen it argued that it does appear the sound moderator is on. Obviously re the official version of events, it cannot be. Interesting points re the scratch marks.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Yeah I've seen it argued that it does appear the sound moderator is on. Obviously re the official version of events, it cannot be. Interesting points re the scratch marks.

I've not seen many actual crime scene images and those I have appear to have been cropped if a 35mm camera was used. So I can't determine whether the images were date/time stamped. There were certainly data-backs available at the time but these were a bit pricey for an amateur photographer but certainly within the budget of a police photographer I would imagine. If they were not date stamped then retention of all negatives should have been the routine to establish the exact sequence of photographs. I have known a couple of pro photographer most of my life and what might surprise amateurs is how little they rely on taking the perfect photograph but rather shoot as many as they can knowing one will be all right. They are pros and can't afford to fanny around. Time is money and so its easier to just click away and do the selection later. To be honest if I am making a record of something myself I do the same.

I don't understand why that red mantle was not photographed in its entirety from every angle. It had certainly become of interest from the 09-08-1985.
In fact a pro would bracket each shot two half stops twice above and below the metered exposure to guarantee images were correctly exposed enough to be of value.
Davidson states in his interview that at one point the rifle was taken from Sheila and leant against a wall before being returned. So is that the rifle photographed near the window and when was that photograph taken is the question. I'm not sure that PC Jeapes would have identified it as a rifle from their angle on the ground as all they would see would be the barrel if it was in that position then which could have been anything.
Then again maybe Essex Police took hundreds of photographs that were not made available rather than PC Bird just wandering around taking snapshots as directed.

 

[Roker Skate]

I've not seen many actual crime scene images and those I have appear to have been cropped if a 35mm camera was used. So I can't determine whether the images were date/time stamped. There were certainly data-backs available at the time but these were a bit pricey for an amateur photographer but certainly within the budget of a police photographer I would imagine. If they were not date stamped then retention of all negatives should have been the routine to establish the exact sequence of photographs. I have known a couple of pro photographer most of my life and what might surprise amateurs is how little they rely on taking the perfect photograph but rather shoot as many as they can knowing one will be all right. They are pros and can't afford to fanny around. Time is money and so its easier to just click away and do the selection later. To be honest if I am making a record of something myself I do the same.

I don't understand why that red mantle was not photographed in its entirety from every angle. It had certainly become of interest from the 09-08-1985.
In fact a pro would bracket each shot two half stops twice above and below the metered exposure to guarantee images were correctly exposed enough to be of value.
Davidson states in his interview that at one point the rifle was taken from Sheila and leant against a wall before being returned. So is that the rifle photographed near the window and when was that photograph taken is the question. I'm not sure that PC Jeapes would have identified it as a rifle from their angle on the ground as all they would see would be the barrel if it was in that position then which could have been anything.
Then again maybe Essex Police took hundreds of photographs that were not made available rather than PC Bird just wandering around taking snapshots as directed.

Do you think that the scratches used in the prosecution could have either been 'improved' or even created from scratch (pardon the pun), post killings?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Do you think that the scratches used in the prosecution could have either been 'improved' or even created from scratch (pardon the pun), post killings?

From the evidence I've seen it is impossible to determine when the scratches were first noticed by the police. So they could have been present from the beginning but of course it would be possible they were made later. Only the police know the date and time they were first noticed but Ron Cook did go to the farm on the 09-08-1985 to take a paint sample where they were finally photographed together, which from I have read iirc was around a month later. The scratch to me looks like a single thin scratch that was made in one moment. I have two sons that have Art degrees, one at Masters level, and both can sketch very well indeed. So I know from my own experience that going over or adding to an original line is not easy even with a pencil and sat in the perfect position. The only way to do it without being noticed would be to use a slightly thicker pencil. The scratch on the mantle is quite thin and I don't think it could have been gone over using something like a silencer.

This returns to the issue I mentioned earlier that if the mantle was of interest then the entire red fire surround should have been photographed from every angle so a record was made of its entire condition. It is speculation but if the scratch was originally there and if someone allegedly wanted to transfer paint to the silencer than there were more obscure places to take the paint from and unless the entire fire surround had been photographed it would not be easy to challenge.

So in my opinion the marks on the mantle have been made on a single occasion with a single object. I'll have another look at the photo to confirm what I think.

Regarding the photograph of the rifle near the bedroom window, that was explained in court. PC Bird had been told to photograph the entire master bedroom before anything was moved and after that was told to photograph other areas. Ron Cook and I think this is confirmed by Davidson, stated in court that the rifle was then placed where Bird then photographed it resting near the window from the stairs landing. This was confirmed by Bird.

So although this excludes the likelihood of three rifles it doesn't exclude the possibility of two.
PS
I've had a look at the photo again and although there are a couple of breaks in the line it still looks to me as if they have been all caused by a single object at the same time in one flowing movement.

Logon or register to see this image

Looking at the rifle again it has been photographed using flash which may have caused slight shadow on the background to the upper barrel. In fact it will have. Looking at the length of the barrel in other photos, it is as long as the section from the join of the barrel to the magazine, which in the photograph above is not visible.

I'm not so sure this rifle does have a silencer on.

 

[Roker Skate]

If it was 9/8/85 it would be two days after the killings, whereas if it was 8/9/85 it would be one month.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

If it was 9/8/85 it would be two days after the killings, whereas if it was 8/9/85 it would be one month.

I don't think I've worded that very well. Ron Cook went on the 09-08-1985 to take a paint sample but PC Bird didn't take the photograph until around the 07-09-1985 I think.
PS
To summarise:

1) 07-08-1985 DS Davidsin states to
COLP that he say rifle in kitchen with what looked like red paint on the end of the barrel.
2) 09-08-185 Ron Cook goes to WHF to take a paint sample. Davidson assumes this is in regard of the barrel.
03) 09-08-1985 PC Bird the police photographer accompanies Cook to WHF.
04) 07-09-1985 OC Bird is again sent to WHF to specifically photograph the scratch. This is the first time specific reference is made to scratch.
05) 01-10-1985 DS Davidson goes to WHY with a scientist named Elliot to examine the scratch. Davidson assumes as a matter of fact it is in relation to the barrel and he has not been informed of any red paint on the silencer till after that visit and he has not seen the silencer until the COLP inquiry in 1991.

I would want more specific details and clarities on those events and some of the issues raised.

 

[Roker Skate]

I don't think I've worded that very well. Ron Cook went on the 09-08-1985 to take a paint sample but PC Bird didn't take the photograph until around the 07-09-1985 I think.
PS
To summarise:

1) 07-08-1985 DS Davidsin states to
COLP that he say rifle in kitchen with what looked like red paint on the end of the barrel

 

[Pudding]

This thread is getting good.... there’s some reet clivva buggars on here mind

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

I don't think I've worded that very well. Ron Cook went on the 09-08-1985 to take a paint sample but PC Bird didn't take the photograph until around the 07-09-1985 I think.
PS
To summarise:

1) 07-08-1985 DS Davidsin states to
COLP that he say rifle in kitchen with what looked like red paint on the end of the barrel.
2) 09-08-185 Ron Cook goes to WHF to take a paint sample. Davidson assumes this is in regard of the barrel.
03) 09-08-1985 PC Bird the police photographer accompanies Cook to WHF.
04) 07-09-1985 OC Bird is again sent to WHF to specifically photograph the scratch. This is the first time specific reference is made to scratch.
05) 01-10-1985 DS Davidson goes to WHY with a scientist named Elliot to examine the scratch. Davidson assumes as a matter of fact it is in relation to the barrel and he has not been informed of any red paint on the silencer till after that visit and he has not seen the silencer until the COLP inquiry in 1991.

I would want more specific details and clarities on those events and some of the issues raised.

I don't think I've worded that very well.

1) On the 07-08-1985 Davidson saw a rifle in the kitchen as he reported to the COLP in 1991.

 

[VXi]

Without having back-read too many pages, is this going to appeal again?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

The problem I'm having is that the rifle was not removed from Sheila's body officially until 11:10am on the morning of 07-08-1985 when it was given to DC Hammersley (SOCO). It's unlikely any SOCO entered the building before 10:30am which is three hours after the raid team forced entry. So was the rifle moved around before being photographed on Sheila's body? The rifle on Sheila's body was reported as being damaged on the butt which matched the splinter found in the kitchen.

To be honest, and it sounds ridiculous, this appears more to indicate that the scene was staged to confirm Sheila's suicide and although not all officers present were convinced of her suicide, some of the raid team apparently expressed the opinion that the entire scene was odd as they left in their van.

If two rifles were used then I think that casts more doubt on Sheila's guilt.

One thing is for sure, the crime scene was a mess and not protected as it should have been.

Without having back-read too many pages, is this going to appeal again?

I think they are attempting to appeal but they may not be given leave to appeal. The defence are focused on the issue of the silencer but I don't understand why they are not making issue of the rifle being in the kitchen when DS Davidson (SOCO) first saw it.
Then again apparently PC Bird (police photographer) was commended on his extension and accurate photographic work in which he took hundreds of images. Maybe the defence have seen many of those and this is not the issue that it appears to us who have seen very few.
PS extensive that should read rather then extension.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I think the massive issue is with two bodies, male and female in the kitchen.
Nobody's going to get that wrong.
It certainly gives credence to Sheila trying to end her life after the carnage but only doing enough to render her temporarily unconscious.
It also gives credence to the stand off when police were there negotiating with someone in the house.

There's a lot of oddities about this.
Even Bambers girlfriend's statements don't make logical sense.

Bamber may well be as guilty as all hell.....but, there is a lot of stuff that takes away anything to do with, beyond reasonable doubt, overall. However, to a jury who are only given a large portion of evidence, but not all, they can only deliberate on that scenario handed to them.


The best years of Jeremy Bambers life are over. He will never get that back no matter what happens.
I just think this whole carry on should be scrutinised in finer detail by all, not just one side.

You could argue that it's a waste of money to have it all dragged back up and it may well be a case of that if it turns out to nail him to the mast, even after that scrutiny.

But........I think people have to look at it from their own personal point of view and ask themselves.... if they had a family member who was jailed on this evidence, while other evidence was withheld, would they be happy to watch that family member rot or would they demand that all evidence be scrutinised?


From an outsiders point of view it's so easy to just go with the narrative. Go with the media frenzy and just accept Bamber is guilty as sin and just let's move on.

Most people will do just that and many people will likely say "Bamber, who?"...and that sort of stuff.

What we have to ask ourselves (those who are interested).... is..... If we place 12 on the jury with all the evidence of the time, plus the withheld evidence.....would we convict Bamber?

You see, if Bamber was innocent (and I'm not saying he is) then someone else is guilty....potentially, Sheila.

If I had to stick my neck out to point the finger at one or the other, at this present time which can't be 50/50, I would likely go 50.1 to 49.9 for Bamber being innocent and Sheila being innocent, respectively.

Having said that, it would also implicate others into that scenario in terms of covering things up, potentially, which certainly seems to be the case with a lot of what happened after.

I do admit to playing devil's advocate in this scenario, like I said at the start.
I just think it definitely requires unbiased legal scrutiny.


I don't half rattle on....but, well.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

I think the massive issue is with two bodies, male and female in the kitchen.
Nobody's going to get that wrong.
It certainly gives credence to Sheila trying to end her life after the carnage but only doing enough to render her temporarily unconscious.
It also gives credence to the stand off when police were there negotiating with someone in the house.....

The raid officer PC Collins looked through the kitchen window and reported what he thought was a female. After forced entry PC Collins corrected himself and reported a male. This was witnessed by PC Hall. The first injury to Sheila clipped her jugular and fractured her fourth cervical vertebra and transverse process. The pathologist's opinion was such a wound would have made her incapacitated and unable to walk. However, assuming she was capable of walking and had been unconscious in the kitchen there was only one way upstairs. One staircase led to a dead end at the rear of the house and another was blocked with rubbish up several steps. The police at the bottom of the main staircase had used a mirror on a rod to look upstairs and caught sight of June's body near the doorway of the main bedroom. So they called out in case anyone was there but received no response. Why would they do that after finding Sheila in the kitchen? They were fully informed of who exactly was in the house. To have got upstairs Sheila would have needed to pass them. Where she was found in the bedroom, the first shot had caused blood to fill up in her mouth and overflow before the second fatal shot was fired. To make the journey upstairs, Sheila's heart would have been pumping with the effort and there would have been copious blood thrown out of the first wound in the process.

If the defence pursue this line it will be laughed out of Court in minutes.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The raid officer PC Collins looked through the kitchen window and reported what he thought was a female. After forced entry PC Collins corrected himself and reported a male. This was witnessed by PC Hall. The first injury to Sheila clipped her jugular and fractured her fourth cervical vertebra and transverse process. The pathologist's opinion was such a wound would have made her incapacitated and unable to walk. However, assuming she was capable of walking and had been unconscious in the kitchen there was only one way upstairs. One staircase led to a dead end at the rear of the house and another was blocked with rubbish up several steps. The police at the bottom of the main staircase had used a mirror on a rod to look upstairs and caught sight of June's body near the doorway of the main bedroom. So they called out in case anyone was there but received no response. Why would they do that after finding Sheila in the kitchen? To have got upstairs Sheila would have needed to pass them. Where she was found in the bedroom, the first shot had caused blood to fill up in her moth and overflow before the second fatal shot was fired. To make the journey upstairs, Sheila's heart would have been pumping with the effort and there would have been copious blood thrown out of the first wound in the process.

If the defence pursue this line it will be laughed out of Court in minutes.

The officer reported two bodies. One male and one female. You do not mistake two bodies for one, for starters.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

The officer reported two bodies. One male and one female. You do not mistake two bodies for one, for starters.

Even if she had attempted the back stairs she would have had to pass the armed officer PC Rozga who had gone that way and could be heard moving around at the rear of the house by those in the kitchen. With an open wound pouring blood and her heart pumping as she climbed stairs, the loss of blood pressure would have caused her collapse. No trace of her blood was found anywhere outside the bedroom where she died.

Seriously it wouldn't last five minutes in Court.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Even if she had attempted the back stairs she would have had to pass the armed officer PC Rozga who had gone that way and could be heard moving around at the rear of the house by those in the kitchen.

The officer reported seeing two bodies in the kitchen.
Can you explain that?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

The officer reported seeing two bodies in the kitchen.
Can you explain that?

I have. PC Collins reported seeing a body through the kitchen window that he thought was female but on actual entry corrected that to male as witnessed by PC Hall. Regarding the back stairs PC Rozga took they ended in a room adjacent to the the twins bedroom. There was a door into their bedroom but it was blocked off in the bedroom by furniture.

 

[Pudding]

Now that I do find interesting. I'm not a ballistics expert so some of the detail goes over my head at the moment and he seems to know what he's talking about but it would take another ballistics expert to really rate its voracity. Having said that, you don't need to be a ballistics expert to understand much of what he says and although I just say this provisionally, the possibility that two rifles were used does spark my curiosity but I can't place that in context yet regarding guilt or innocence of either Sheila or Jeremy. It would be good if his sources were published for confirmation of what he states.

I'll have to leave it for now as I have received CAL's book and started to read it. Considering the size of the print and the number of pages it looks a long read but I understand she references much although it is not an easy read I've read.

I don't want my head to explode trying in to take in so much data but I will be back, hopefully, as someone once said. So thanks for that and bookmarked.

So is there evidence there was more than one gun?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

So is there evidence there was more than one gun?

Not evidence as such. The gun was photographed on Sheila's body and removed at 11:10am and given to PC Hammersley (SOCO). In 1991 another SOCO at the scene, PC Davidson stated to the COLP inquiry that he saw the gun in the kitchen and SOCO entered the house around 10:30am, three hours after the raid team. Around 40 officers entered the property during the course of the day so it has to be questioned whether the gun was moved around or there could have been two guns. PC Davidson (SOCO) reported the gun in the kitchen as damaged and the gun on Sheila was also damaged at the butt corresponding to a splinter of wood in the kitchen. Unfortunately PC Davidson (SOCO) doesn't put a time on when he saw the gun in the kitchen and the gun removed from Sheila was taken downstairs by PC Hammersley (SOCO).
PS
PC Hammersley also made a statement to the COLP but I can't find a transcript of his interview online.
However, if the gun was found in the kitchen then taken upstairs to be photographed on Sheila's body, then that is more indicative of staging a scene with Sheila as a suicide rather than trying to frame Jeremy for murder.