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



Regarding the article, you seem to be referring only to the burns on Nevill's back? If that is the case, regarding the burns - this is what is actually stated:

Evidence that the fatal wounds had been fired by a rifle without a silencer are corroborated by further fresh analysis of burn marks on Nevill Bamber's back. The findings are supported by firearms experts working for Dr John Manlove, an Oxfordshire-based forensic scientist.

Manlove states: "From its size and shape, this mark could possibly have been caused by the hot muzzle of a firearm, without a sound moderator." He says that further testing is required with the murder weapon, an Anschütz 525 rifle, to underpin his initial assessment.

Manlove's conclusions are corroborated by gunfire tests conducted last month in Arizona. A report by Daniel Caruso, chief of burn services at the Arizona Burn Centre and executive chair of the department of surgery at the University of Arizona, states: "In my professional opinion, the three wounds sustained by Ralph [Nevill] Bamber are consistent in size, shape and diameter with a threaded end of a model 525 Anschütz rifle barrel heated sufficiently to cause injury."
This is not evidence that the rifle was fired without a silencer but that the burn marks could possibly have been made by the end of a rifle heated sufficiently. As they all concluded including the TV documentary, further tests were required. It is not possible to determine when the burn marks were made during the entire course of events. Although they definitely were after Neville had become incapacitated or deceased. Of course the burns would also distract away from the use of a silencer.

One of Sheila's boyfriends witnessed a psychotic episode, during which he feared for both his own and her safety. In between the episodes where she was frantic, there were sedentary periods, where Sheila sat staring in to space and combing her hair.
Not quite the same as undertaking premeditated acts such as hiding the kitchen telephone under newspapers or obtaining extra 5 bullets from somewhere else.

I wouldn't describe placing a semi-automatic weapon in (or on) an Aga necessarily as lucid - but I accept that it's a deliberate act. The Aga seems to be the only heat source in that vicinity. If the weapon was not used to prod Nevill in an act of coercion, then it was possibly used to check if he was dead?
It may well have been enough to reach a sufficient temperature but heating to 200 Celsius with a blowtorch wasn't which is why further test were considered necessary. Above 200 Celsius may have caused discolouration of the rifle.

So how could Neville have spoken to Jeremy with the lower lip blown away, a shattered jaw and larynx and without leaving any blood on the phone? How did the bedroom telephone come to be placed in the kitchen although the usual telephone had memory recall?

Who moved Sheila into a more horizontal position on her back and correspondingly also pulled her nightie further down?

Who dropped the Bible into a pool of her blood then after opening the book placed it partially on top of her arm and upper body?

How come Julie Mugford knew details of the crime that had not been made known by the Police and also revealed what she knew to her friend Susan Battesby before she was allegedly jilted?

The scene was staged but to make it look like a murder/suicide rather than to frame Jeremy Bamber for murder?

He could easily have gotten in and out of the house as claimed and even did so after he was questioned by Police during which he left a note for Barbara Wilson.

Guilty.
Any ideas how the gun was sufficiently heated?
Assuming the rifle was used to make the burns it was certainly not the result of firing 25 bullets as tests revealed that only resulted in a temperature of 24.7 Celsius. If the rifle was heated sufficiently that could also distract away from the use of a silencer. Also Jeremy returning to the house to leave a note for Barbara Wilson to prove he had entered, could also be used as an explanation for any marks on window frames if he used the same method.

He's very devious and manipulative and thought he had committed the perfect murder in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
This is not evidence that the rifle was fired without a silencer but that the burn marks could possibly have been made by the end of a rifle heated sufficiently. As they all concluded including the TV documentary, further tests were required. It is not possible to determine when the burn marks were made during the entire course of events. Although they definitely were after Neville had become incapacitated or deceased. Of course the burns would also distract away from the use of a silencer. It may well have been enough to reach a sufficient temperature but heating to 200 Celsius with a blowtorch wasn't which is why further test were considered necessary. Above 200 Celsius may have caused discolouration of the rifle.
I think you may be misrepresenting the article. However, it's a while since I have seen the documentary you refer to.

(1) & (2) corroborates the other evidence that a sound moderator was not used in the killings.

(1) Manlove in Oxfordshire is stating that it's possible the burn marks were caused by a heated, firearm muzzle, without a silencer attached (but wants to carry out tests with the murder weapon).

(2) After tests were carried out in Arizona, Caruso is stating that the burns to Nevill are consistent in size, shape and diameter to that model of weapon, without a silencer attached.


Not quite the same as undertaking premeditated acts such as hiding the kitchen telephone under newspapers or obtaining extra 5 bullets from somewhere else.
I haven't answered your bullets query yet. Regarding the phone, what evidence is there, that Bamber hid the phone?

So how could Neville have spoken to Jeremy with the lower lip blown away, a shattered jaw and larynx and without leaving any blood on the phone?
Nevill probably called Jeremy before any shot had been fired, and certainly before he himself had been injured. The situation was worrying, but not something which it was thought could not be handled without police involvement. Sheila's mental health was a sensitive issue for the Bambers. This might explain the lack of a 999 call from Nevill (though some argue he did call the police also).

How did the bedroom telephone come to be placed in the kitchen although the usual telephone had memory recall?
I will have to check back to answer this.

Who moved Sheila into a more horizontal position on her back and correspondingly also pulled her nightie further down?

Who dropped the Bible into a pool of her blood then after opening the book placed it partially on top of her arm and upper body?
Which pool of blood? The bible has a bloodied palm print on it. The palm print wasn't used in evidence against Bamber; its existence wasn't known to the defence; and Essex Constabulary lied to Bamber's defence regarding the existence of photos of the bible. They also either destroyed the exhibit or gave it back to the relatives. There is a distinctive bloodstain on the carpet, probably from the police at some point turning Sheila over on her side. Prior to crime scene photography, police seem to have placed the bible over her arm, as if to try and conceal the bloodstain.

How come Julie Mugford knew details of the crime that had not been made known by the Police and also revealed what she knew to her friend Susan Battesby before she was allegedly jilted?
Which details re you referring to? While I might not have the answer to hand, I'll be amazed if it's not answerable.

He could easily have gotten in and out of the house as claimed and even did so after he was questioned by Police during which he left a note for Barbara Wilson.
Not a house locked and bolted from the inside. Please watch this video:

The scene was staged but to make it look like a murder/suicide rather than to frame Jeremy Bamber for murder?
Spot on.
Any ideas how the gun was sufficiently heated?
My understanding is that in 2012 when these tests were carried out, the defence favoured the Aga as a possibility.
Police corruption? What would the police gain by stitching up Bamber? They've got an open and shut case that it was murder and suicide. So why would they decide to frame a completely innocent man and thus clear the name of the real killer?
Good question and there is no short answer that I am aware of, and this answer is too short. There were different sets of police involved, based from different stations, along with certain rivalries etc. The relatives were influential, well respected people, who had contacts within the police. The relatives wouldn't take no for an answer and hounded the original lead detective, who was a commended officer and deputy head of the CID. They were fed information about the crime scene and they threatened to go to the press regarding certain matters. This culminated in a meeting taking place between Robert Boutflour and ACC Perter Simpson. Simpson agreed to have Bamber investigated and from that point on, you were either going with the flow or you were sidelined, like Taff Jones was. Not all officers willingly participated.
 
Last edited:
I think you may be misrepresenting the article. However, it's a while since I have seen the documentary you refer to.

(1) & (2) corroborates the other evidence that a sound moderator was not used in the killings.
(1) Manlove in Oxfordshire is stating that it's possible the burn marks were caused by a heated, firearm muzzle, without a silencer attached (but wants to carry out tests with the murder weapon).
(2) After tests were carried out in Arizona, Caruso is stating that the burns to Nevill are consistent in size, shape and diameter to that model of weapon, without a silencer attached.
Evidence that the burns were produced with the rifle without the silencer, is not evidence that the shots were fired without the silencer which could have been removed by this point and subsequently placed in the cupboard. The burns could be an attempt to create the impression that a silencer was not used but the rifle only reached 24.7 Celsius with or without the silencer after firing 25 shots. Sheila's blood was in the silencer, there was no blood in the rifle from blow back. DNA testing in 2001 revealed that 17 of the 20 markers for Sheila were present inside the silencer when only 13 can be present by chance.

I haven't answered your bullets query yet. Regarding the phone, what evidence is there, that Bamber hid the phone?
The usual telephone in the kitchen which had memory recall had been hidden under newspapers. It had been replaced by the main bedroom telephone. It is reasonable to conclude this was done by the killer.

Nevill probably called Jeremy before any shot had been fired, and certainly before he himself had been injured. The situation was worrying, but not something which it was thought could not be handled without police involvement. Sheila's mental health was a sensitive issue for the Bambers. This might explain the lack of a 999 call from Nevill (though some argue he did call the police also).
So he calls Jeremy and tells him that Sheila is going crazy and has a gun before a shot was fired? Yet the two boys remained peacefully asleep and June Bamber must have still been in bed where she was first shot. The phone must have still been in the main bedroom before it was taken to the kitchen and left off the hook. Yet Neville was first shot upstairs and his larynx and jaw shattered. This doesn't add up.

Not a house locked and bolted from the inside. Please watch this video
Yet Jeremy did exactly this after the murders and left a note for Barbara Wilson in the office to prove he had. Of course this would also provide a convenient explanation for any marks subsequently found on window frames if he entered using the same method.
Which details re you referring to? While I might not have the answer to hand, I'll be amazed if it's not answerable.
Julie Mugford said Neville had been shot 7 times. The Police knew that he had been shot 8 times but that one shot was a grazing shot and did not enter Neville. The killer may have thought this shot missed and as there were 7 entry wounds must have concluded that they shot Neville 7 times. Julie could only have got this number from the killer, Jeremy Bamber.

I am not going to get sucked into going round in circles on the same evidence. I may post what I think has happened during the course of the murders based on reasonable conclusions from the evidence. I may not.

I cannot understand how any other conclusion except guilty can be determined for Jeremy Bamber. Even his old friend Bret in New Zealand now thinks he is guilty and should never be released.
 
Last edited:

rudd

Midfield
This is not evidence that the rifle was fired without a silencer but that the burn marks could possibly have been made by the end of a rifle heated sufficiently. As they all concluded including the TV documentary, further tests were required. It is not possible to determine when the burn marks were made during the entire course of events. Although they definitely were after Neville had become incapacitated or deceased. Of course the burns would also distract away from the use of a silencer.



Not quite the same as undertaking premeditated acts such as hiding the kitchen telephone under newspapers or obtaining extra 5 bullets from somewhere else.



It may well have been enough to reach a sufficient temperature but heating to 200 Celsius with a blowtorch wasn't which is why further test were considered necessary. Above 200 Celsius may have caused discolouration of the rifle.

So how could Neville have spoken to Jeremy with the lower lip blown away, a shattered jaw and larynx and without leaving any blood on the phone? How did the bedroom telephone come to be placed in the kitchen although the usual telephone had memory recall?

Who moved Sheila into a more horizontal position on her back and correspondingly also pulled her nightie further down?

Who dropped the Bible into a pool of her blood then after opening the book placed it partially on top of her arm and upper body?

How come Julie Mugford knew details of the crime that had not been made known by the Police and also revealed what she knew to her friend Susan Battesby before she was allegedly jilted?

The scene was staged but to make it look like a murder/suicide rather than to frame Jeremy Bamber for murder?

He could easily have gotten in and out of the house as claimed and even did so after he was questioned by Police during which he left a note for Barbara Wilson.

Guilty.
Assuming the rifle was used to make the burns it was certainly not the result of firing 25 bullets as tests revealed that only resulted in a temperature of 24.7 Celsius. If the rifle was heated sufficiently that could also distract away from the use of a silencer. Also Jeremy returning to the house to leave a note for Barbara Wilson to prove he had entered, could also be used as an explanation for any marks on window frames if he used the same method.

He's very devious and manipulative and thought he had committed the perfect murder in my opinion.
It's fifteen years since I've been involved in forensics but I had my doubts a rifle such as that could be fired so quickly that'd heat to the extent to be able to be used as a branding iron! Did the rifle have any soot/ash/skin on it?
 
Grauniad today

At 8.13am a Ch Supt Harris and Ch Insp Gibbons saw Caffell’s body in the main bedroom. In their witness statements written that morning, they described how she appeared. Harris stated: “A .22 rifle was lying along Mrs Caffell’s body, the barrel of which was resting just below an entry wound beneath her chin.” Gibbons said he saw “a younger female with a wound to her throat”.

That looks like they are each describing a separate wound. On the actual photograph there is a wound underneath her chin and another wound in her throat.

Two cartridges were found, one either side of her body.

There is no doubt her arm had been moved in between two photographs taken and it is possible that the barrel was initially covering up one of the wounds but was subsequently moved.

Perhaps they should have looked more closely and/or the various officers could simply be relating hearsay based on an inaccurate or careless observation.

I certainly find it hard to accept that the Police shot her the second time which was described as an instantly fatal shot.

Julie Mugford also reported to the Police that Jeremy had told her the "assassin" had needed to shoot her a second time as the first shot had not been fatal. The "assassin" was of course fictional as Jeremy knew because he had shot her himself. How else could Julie Mugford have known such details.

Clutching at straws in my opinion.
It's fifteen years since I've been involved in forensics but I had my doubts a rifle such as that could be fired so quickly that'd heat to the extent to be able to be used as a branding iron! Did the rifle have any soot/ash/skin on it?
Not to my knowledge but the three burns are all different. One of them is very oval and looks more like a pair of lips. I'm not convinced the rifle was even used to cause them.
 
Last edited:

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
I've read the white house farm murders, book and also sifted through a lot of stuff.
I find a lot of stuff odd about the case but I can't give any sway to one side or the other, but maybe there might be other scenarios other than the one's we know of.

Many things don't make sense but one particular one which I find a bit disturbing, is, Julie Mugford and her claims.
She claimed JB told her he was going to kill them all but she brushed it off as him saying things to shock.
He then supposedly told her he killed some rats with his bare hands so he could find out if he was capable of killing his family.
He then supposedly tells her he couldn't go through with it so he hired a hitman for £2,000, who was to phone him once the killings were done.
She then said he phoned her to say, it's done and she took it to mean the family was killed.

When asked why she didn't say anything for a month, she said something like, I was told I'd be as guilty...or words to that effect.
So she says she knew he did it but stayed with him after that and even went to identify the bodies.
How many girlfriends are allowed to go and identify bodies of family that isn't anything to do with them?
Why would she even do that?

How could a person act like nothing happened.
This makes zero sense to me.
Any normal person would've freaked right out and been a massive nervous wreck throughout all of this, yet she looked as cool as a cucumber at the funerals.

She walks away with all charges dropped and a big £25,000 pay off from the news of the world upon conviction of JB.
The only detective that spoke out as to being absolutely sure it was murder suicide, dies after falling off his ladder at his home?

And the family that inherited upon JB's conviction are the one's that find the moderator that was seemingly missed by every officer to search the premises.

I don't know who's guilty but just this alone stinks to high heaven.
 
Last edited:

rudd

Midfield
At 8.13am a Ch Supt Harris and Ch Insp Gibbons saw Caffell’s body in the main bedroom. In their witness statements written that morning, they described how she appeared. Harris stated: “A .22 rifle was lying along Mrs Caffell’s body, the barrel of which was resting just below an entry wound beneath her chin.” Gibbons said he saw “a younger female with a wound to her throat”.

That looks like they are each describing a separate wound. On the actual photograph there is a wound underneath her chin and another wound in her throat.

Two cartridges were found, one either side of her body.

There is no doubt her arm had been moved in between two photographs taken and it is possible that the barrel was initially covering up one of the wounds but was subsequently moved.

Perhaps they should have looked more closely and/or the various officers could simply be relating hearsay based on an inaccurate or careless observation.

I certainly find it hard to accept that the Police shot her the second time which was described as an instantly fatal shot.

Julie Mugford also reported to the Police that Jeremy had told her the "assassin" had needed to shoot her a second time as the first shot had not been fatal. The "assassin" was of course fictional as Jeremy knew because he had shot her himself. How else could Julie Mugford have known such details.

Clutching at straws in my opinion.


Not to my knowledge but the three burns are all different. One of them is very oval and looks more like a pair of lips. I'm not convinced the rifle was even used to cause them.
I guess if they're on the upper back and he was haunched over them they could've been made with the same object as it cooled but there's nowhere near enough evidence from what I've read/been told, to state that it was the rifle.
 
I've read the white house farm murders, book and also sifted through a lot of stuff.
I find a lot of stuff odd about the case but I can't give any sway to one side or the other, but maybe there might be other scenarios other than the one's we know of.

Many things don't make sense but one particular one which I find a bit disturbing, is, Julie Mugford and her claims.
She claimed JB told her he was going to kill them all but she brushed it off as him saying things to shock.
He then supposedly told her he killed some rats with his bare hands so he could find out if he was capable of killing his family.
He then supposedly tells her he couldn't go through with it so he hired a hitman for £2,000, who was to phone him once the killings were done.
She then said he phoned her to say, it's done and she took it to mean the family was killed.

When asked why she didn't say anything for a month, she said something like, I was told I'd be as guilty...or words to that effect.
So she says she knew he did it but stayed with him after that and even went to identify the bodies.
How many girlfriends are allowed to go and identify bodies of family that isn't anything to do with them?
Why would she even do that?

How could a person act like nothing happened.
This makes zero sense to me.
Any normal person would've freaked right out and been a massive nervous wreck throughout all of this, yet she looked as cool as a cucumber at the funerals.

She walks away with all charges dropped and a big £25,000 pay off from the news of the world upon conviction of JB.
The only detective that spoke out as to being absolutely sure it was murder suicide, dies after falling off his ladder at his home?

And the family that inherited upon JB's conviction are the one's that find the moderator that was seemingly missed by every officer to search the premises.

I don't know who's guilty but just this alone stinks to high heaven.
Her diaries tell a slightly different story (if they are authentic) and she confided in her friend Susan Battesby before she left Jeremy.

Yet, she knew Neville had been shot 7 times and put up one hell of a fight and that Sheila had been shot twice as the first shot had not been fatal.

I doubt if the search was very thorough as they assumed it was murder/suicide.
 
Last edited:

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
I've read the white house farm murders, book and also sifted through a lot of stuff.
I find a lot of stuff odd about the case but I can't give any sway to one side or the other, but maybe there might be other scenarios other than the one's we know of.

Many things don't make sense but one particular one which I find a bit disturbing, is, Julie Mugford and her claims.
She claimed JB told her he was going to kill them all but she brushed it off as him saying things to shock.
He then supposedly told her he killed some rats with his bare hands so he could find out if he was capable of killing his family.
He then supposedly tells her he couldn't go through with it so he hired a hitman for £2,000, who was to phone him once the killings were done.
She then said he phoned her to say, it's done and she took it to mean the family was killed.

When asked why she didn't say anything for a month, she said something like, I was told I'd be as guilty...or words to that effect.
So she says she knew he did it but stayed with him after that and even went to identify the bodies.
How many girlfriends are allowed to go and identify bodies of family that isn't anything to do with them?
Why would she even do that?

How could a person act like nothing happened.
This makes zero sense to me.
Any normal person would've freaked right out and been a massive nervous wreck throughout all of this, yet she looked as cool as a cucumber at the funerals.

She walks away with all charges dropped and a big £25,000 pay off from the news of the world upon conviction of JB.
The only detective that spoke out as to being absolutely sure it was murder suicide, dies after falling off his ladder at his home?

And the family that inherited upon JB's conviction are the one's that find the moderator that was seemingly missed by every officer to search the premises.

I don't know who's guilty but just this alone stinks to high heaven.
Not been able to get on here properly today. Maybe tomorrow.

Good idea to stay on the fence, I've never been 100% that Bamber had no involvement whatsoever - though I think it's unlikely. On the innocent side, stuff from the campaign team should definitely be questioned, as they have a habit of interpreting what they want to see, when there are other interpretations available. Whereas, what you will find with some of the hardcore guilters, is that they treat the police / prosecution case as if 'Dixon of Dock Green' was behind it and they regard the 2002 Appeal judgement as gospel truth, handed down by an appeal court designed to root out police corruption and overturn wrongs.

Re Mugford, her testimony is dodgy as. She was coached by Stan Jones during the course of her statements and was well looked after by EP. She signed that deal with NOTW pre-trial. Jones washed her as a prosecution witness by arranging for her to repay money to a bank from a cheque fraud and she was granted immunity etc.

DS Stan Jones went round telling potential witnesses that Jeremy lied about the call from his father. I expect this is what Mugford was told. In actual fact, it could not be proven either way. The police did not have evidence to refute a call from Nevill to Jeremy and Jeremy could not prove a call from his father took place. Imagine being a potential witness, unsure of what happened but sceptical that Bamber was responsible, only to be then told by a detective that he was lying about the call from his dad? What would the effect be?

The case against Bamber is daft. He is supposed to be an inheritance killer who:

  • Tipped off his uncle that he 'could easily kill his parents'
  • Tipped of his girlfriend he was going to kill his family
  • Told her it was done
  • Allowed his relationship with her to break down, after the killings
  • Used a .22 low calibre weapon, to try and take down three adults, any of whom could have fought like lions to save the twins.
  • Left the only exhibit that could incriminate him inside the farmhouse; and then hands the keys for the farmhouse to his relatives, immediately after the killings.
What is he supposed to do if the adults in the house get away from him and end up in different areas of the house? Or the kids run and hide?
If he gets a mark or scratch or bruise on him, how is he going to explain that post killings? What's he supposed to do if his girlfriend gets cold feet?

Not a very good plan for 'inheritance'.
Forgot to add, what's the best way of getting images on here? Tried to upload some media the other day but it just said it was awaiting approval then disappeared.
 
Last edited:

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
Her diaries tell a slightly different story (if they are authentic) and she confided in her friend Susan Battesby before she left Jeremy.

Yet, she knew Neville had been shot 7 times and put up one hell of a fight and that Sheila had been shot twice as the first shot had not been fatal.

I doubt if the search was very thorough as they assumed it was murder/suicide.
There's definitely something extremely odd about all of it.
 
DS Stan Jones went round telling potential witnesses that Jeremy lied about the call from his father. I expect this is what Mugford was told. In actual fact, it could not be proven either way. The police did not have evidence to refute a call from Nevill to Jeremy and Jeremy could not prove a call from his father took place. Imagine being a potential witness, unsure of what happened but sceptical that Bamber was responsible, only to be then told by a detective that he was lying about the call from his dad? What would the effect be?
It was impossible for Neville to have called Jeremy as Neville had been shot twice in the lower jaw blowing away his bottom lip and destroying his larynx. The telephone was in the kitchen and showed no traces of blood. How could Neville have even spoken coherently and despite his injuries he allegedly calls Jeremy rather than 999 for medical and police assistance. Neville must have been initially wounded upstairs because the spent cases upstairs correlate to the number of shots fired into the victims but we have already discussed this.

Allowed his relationship with her to break down, after the killings
He didn't think she would be believed or would be implicated in the murders.

Used a .22 low calibre weapon, to try and take down three adults, any of whom could have fought like lions to save the twins.
The twins were shot dead first using the silencer then Jeremy went along the upper hallway to the bedroom and shot June three times in bed. Neville was not aroused and after firing 4 shots at Neville the struggle continued in the kitchen downstairs. That is what happened as the evidence confirms.

Left the only exhibit that could incriminate him inside the farmhouse; and then hands the keys for the farmhouse to his relatives, immediately after the killings.
The silencer was hidden at the back of the cupboard. Jeremy was not told the silencer had been found but he returned to the farm and entered through the closed windows as he had admitted doing previously. To prove he had been there he left a note about needing his car log book but he could have looked for the silencer. He could have asked for the keys if that was the real reason, to retrieve his log book.[/QUOTE]

He's a narcissist psychopath who thought he had committed the perfect murder after a great deal of planning. He is manipulative and thought he could explain any objections away. No doubt everything is always someone else's fault in his own mind.
PS
Above where I've typed "Neville was not aroused" should read "Neville was now aroused".
....Whereas, what you will find with some of the hardcore guilters, is that they treat the police / prosecution case as if 'Dixon of Dock Green' was behind it....
That's not fair.

I think Dixon of Dock Green would have done a far better job initially.
 
Last edited:

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
Evidence that the burns were produced with the rifle without the silencer, is not evidence that the shots were fired without the silencer which could have been removed by this point and subsequently placed in the cupboard.
I’m not sure why you’re being so obtuse about the article:

Now the conclusions of a peer-reviewed pathology assessment of the evidence relating to Caffell's death, obtained by the Observer, appear to demolish the case against Bamber. They suggest that a silencer – so pivotal to Bamber's conviction – was never used. One report by David Fowler, chief medical examiner of the US state of Maryland, who has reviewed the files of more than 3,000 shooting homicides, states: "In my professional opinion, the [burn marks] complex just described of the lower entrance and two abrasions is consistent with the rifle not having a silencer."

Fowler believes no silencer was involved. His conclusion is supported by Ljubisa Dragovic, chief medical examiner of Oakland County in Michigan, and Marcella Fierro, former chief medical examiner of Virginia.


My understanding from this period in the case, is that the ballistics / burns experts do not believe a silencer was used in the killings. It's a fabricated exhibit.

If there was no silencer on the shots to Sheila (a cornerstone of the prosecution case), then how is that not corroborated by the fact that burn marks to Nevill’s back match the weapon, without a moderator.. and vice versa?



The burns could be an attempt to create the impression that a silencer was not used but the rifle only reached 24.7 Celsius with or without the silencer after firing 25 shots.
I cannot recall seeing this being suggested by anyone previously, so fair play if that’s original.

I have already suggested the Aga as a heat source in close proximity to where Nevill’s body was found. A poker has been suggested as a possible implement to cause the burns - but as you’re already aware, a burns expert has asserted that the shape, size and diameter matches the particular model of firearm used in the killings.
Sheila's blood was in the silencer, there was no blood in the rifle from blow back. DNA testing in 2001 revealed that 17 of the 20 markers for Sheila were present inside the silencer when only 13 can be present by chance.
You’re right about one thing, if there were any DNA markers in the silencer (2002 appeal), they certainly weren’t there by chance. Re blow back, I think you’re referring to back-spatter. The police ballistics expert was Malcolm Fletcher and he provided testimony at trial..

For the defence, Mr Lawson was clearly most concerned in his cross-examination to expose Fletcher’s inexperience in relation to the phenomenon of ‘back-spatter’. In what progressed to become quite a bad-tempered exchange of words, Fletcher in effect admitted that he had no experience himself of the phenomena of ‘back-spatter’; he admitted under cross-examination that he had given evidence based on the very limited amount that he had read about the subject. Of particular note, Fletcher could offer no explanation as to why Sheila’s blood would be inside a sound moderator when blood from her son Daniel was completely absent anywhere on the rifle barrel or inside the sound moderator. Daniel had been shot from virtually point-blank range or contact with the skin, certainly as close as the two shots that Sheila had suffered. This is a very significant indication that the blood was introduced inside the sound moderator at a later stage. Fletcher agreed, with reluctance, that he had said in evidence that “the likelihood of getting the blood inside the moderator, from a contact shot, is certainly high.” This was not good enough for Lawson who reminded Fletcher that he had said that it was “a virtual certainty”. Fletcher reluctantly had to agree that it was “highly likely”.

Lawson then caused Fletcher to admit that back-spatter involving a .22 rifle was in any event highly unlikely. Fletcher admitted that his opinion regarding back-spatter had not been gained through experience, in fact he lied when he informed the Court: “I have seen the effect of .22 back-spattering occasionally; I would say occasionally and not very often.” Asked when he had last seen the effects of back-spatter, Fletcher said: “I cannot remember” to which the question was put more specifically: “A .22 back-spattering with a moderator, when have you seen that?” Astoundingly, Fletcher replied: “I can’t recall having seen one before today.” He was not admonished for his blatant lie.

Fletcher had waffled around the subject of back-spatter and presented himself to the Jury as knowledgeable, when in fact he had never before seen a case of back-spatter involving a .22 rifle fitted with a sound moderator. Fletcher would later admit that the only knowledge he possessed about back-spatter, he had gleaned from an article he had read in a journal. In layman’s terms Fletcher had by that point in cross-examination admitted that to all intents and purposes he had no idea what he was talking about in relation to back-spatter and to make matters worse he had not conducted any experiments to see whether blood would back-spatter into a sound moderator fitted to a .22 calibre rifle.


Even though Fletcher’s credibility was damaged, his ‘expert’ testimony about how Sheila’s blood got in to the sound moderator still stands to this day. It is testament to the kind of rubbish the authorities are using to shore-up the conviction (along with dramas, with scenes in that never actually took place in real life.. and associated articles in 'The Sun' etc., ramming the guilty message home.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure why you’re being so obtuse about the article:

If there was no silencer on the shots to Sheila (a cornerstone of the prosecution case), then how is that not corroborated by the fact that burn marks to Nevill’s back match the weapon, without a moderator.. and vice versa?

I cannot recall seeing this being suggested by anyone previously, so fair play if that’s original.

I have already suggested the Aga as a heat source in close proximity to where Nevill’s body was found. A poker has been suggested as a possible implement to cause the burns - but as you’re already aware, a burns expert has asserted that the shape, size and diameter matches the particular model of firearm used in the killings.

You’re right about one thing, if there were any DNA markers in the silencer (2002 appeal), they certainly weren’t there by chance. Re blow back, I think you’re referring to back-spatter. The police ballistics expert was Malcolm Fletcher and he provided testimony at trial..

Even though Fletcher’s credibility was damaged, his ‘expert’ testimony about how Sheila’s blood got in to the sound moderator still stands to this day. It is testament to the kind of rubbish the authorities are using to shore-up the conviction (along with dramas, with scenes in that never actually took place in real life.. and associated articles in 'The Sun' etc., ramming the guilty message home.
I am not being obtuse about the burns and have said from the beginning that they only superficially correspond to the marks produced by the rifle during tests. There can be no doubt that the firing of 25 shots would not heat the end of the barrel to the temperature required as confirmed in the TV documentary already posted earlier. As far as I know the experts you mention and the TV documentary concluded that the tests were inconclusive and further testing was required. I am of the opinion that they were caused by something else.

Ok, I'll have a look again at the evidence regarding the tests and any evidence regarding the postmortem.

Personally. I think the appeal was more than fair to the defendant and they refused to consider further expert opinion that Sheila's body had been moved after death as they stated this evidence could have been produced at the original trial and it was not, and their duty was to consider the verdict reached by the members of the jury.

Also I think the drama has over emphasised Taff Jones insistence it was murder/suicide as some police are claiming that he continuously simply asked for actual evidence to prove murder and in fact then arrested Bamber himself.
 

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
Not been able to get on here properly today. Maybe tomorrow.

Good idea to stay on the fence, I've never been 100% that Bamber had no involvement whatsoever - though I think it's unlikely. On the innocent side, stuff from the campaign team should definitely be questioned, as they have a habit of interpreting what they want to see, when there are other interpretations available. Whereas, what you will find with some of the hardcore guilters, is that they treat the police / prosecution case as if 'Dixon of Dock Green' was behind it and they regard the 2002 Appeal judgement as gospel truth, handed down by an appeal court designed to root out police corruption and overturn wrongs.

Re Mugford, her testimony is dodgy as. She was coached by Stan Jones during the course of her statements and was well looked after by EP. She signed that deal with NOTW pre-trial. Jones washed her as a prosecution witness by arranging for her to repay money to a bank from a cheque fraud and she was granted immunity etc.

DS Stan Jones went round telling potential witnesses that Jeremy lied about the call from his father. I expect this is what Mugford was told. In actual fact, it could not be proven either way. The police did not have evidence to refute a call from Nevill to Jeremy and Jeremy could not prove a call from his father took place. Imagine being a potential witness, unsure of what happened but sceptical that Bamber was responsible, only to be then told by a detective that he was lying about the call from his dad? What would the effect be?

The case against Bamber is daft. He is supposed to be an inheritance killer who:

  • Tipped off his uncle that he 'could easily kill his parents'
  • Tipped of his girlfriend he was going to kill his family
  • Told her it was done
  • Allowed his relationship with her to break down, after the killings
  • Used a .22 low calibre weapon, to try and take down three adults, any of whom could have fought like lions to save the twins.
  • Left the only exhibit that could incriminate him inside the farmhouse; and then hands the keys for the farmhouse to his relatives, immediately after the killings.
What is he supposed to do if the adults in the house get away from him and end up in different areas of the house? Or the kids run and hide?
If he gets a mark or scratch or bruise on him, how is he going to explain that post killings? What's he supposed to do if his girlfriend gets cold feet?

Not a very good plan for 'inheritance'.
Forgot to add, what's the best way of getting images on here? Tried to upload some media the other day but it just said it was awaiting approval then disappeared.
I agree it does sound way out.
And also, imagine planning a massacre on your own after likely getting up at 6 am (guess), having a wash and coffee before setting off to the farm for a days work that consisted of being in the tractor from 7.30 am to 9.30 pm, only stopping for short breaks and then driving back home, only to get on a bike to ride back after donning clothing to do a massacre.

How could you focus on something like that in a day like that?
And then to do the massacre to them ride a bike all the way back home and get back in, wash down, get rid of clothing, work out what was on TV...and to do all this without anyone seeing a known villager like JB.

And also the dogs would surely have barked like hell with movement on a quiet farm house....not to mention JB was supposed to hate the little house dog which would've surely went nuts in a commotion and been a potential hamper to JB.

One bullet and the dog would be no issue and would've satisfied him if he hated it so much, as we were led to believe.

How many of us have play fighted and the dog's went nuts and joined in thinking it was all real?
I mean it's all possible he could've done it all but there's enough doubt about it to merit thorough investigation without leaving a stone unturned, if possible.
 
I agree it does sound way out.
And also, imagine planning a massacre on your own after likely getting up at 6 am (guess), having a wash and coffee before setting off to the farm for a days work that consisted of being in the tractor from 7.30 am to 9.30 pm, only stopping for short breaks and then driving back home, only to get on a bike to ride back after donning clothing to do a massacre.

How could you focus on something like that in a day like that?
And then to do the massacre to them ride a bike all the way back home and get back in, wash down, get rid of clothing, work out what was on TV...and to do all this without anyone seeing a known villager like JB.

And also the dogs would surely have barked like hell with movement on a quiet farm house....not to mention JB was supposed to hate the little house dog which would've surely went nuts in a commotion and been a potential hamper to JB.

One bullet and the dog would be no issue and would've satisfied him if he hated it so much, as we were led to believe.

How many of us have play fighted and the dog's went nuts and joined in thinking it was all real?
I mean it's all possible he could've done it all but there's enough doubt about it to merit thorough investigation without leaving a stone unturned, if possible.
Speculation eh?

Imagine shooting your sons in their bed as they slept. Then shooting your mother and father after battering him in the kitchen with the butt of a rifle so hard that part of it broke off. Then finishing off your mother before having a bath or shower and putting on a clean nightie and inserting a fresh tampax but not bothering to put your knickers on. Then returning to your mother's bedroom and sitting down to commit suicide all in some ritualistic method in the midst of a frenzied psychotic episode. Shooting yourself first with the rifle lateral to your neck and then again raising your head to finish off under the chin, sliding down to a more horizontal position exposing your genitals in a final flash to the world. Hoping the police have the common decency to pull your nightie down when they find your body.

Speculation, where would we be without it.
If that is true then his Campaign Team want sacking. So they discovered this in 2011 but only now made it known publicly after 9 years? Weird.
 
Last edited:

Top