Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012

[Tim Invictus]

Read about Eric Allison here:

http://www.greeneheaton.co.uk/pages/speakers/speaker.asp?AuthorID=23

[abs]

It is a good job it is on ITV Player as I missed it earlier.  It is also on at 2.30am if anyone wants to watch it on the box again.


It all seems to boil down to the two shots to Sheila neck then?  Does McKay think he will get Bamber off just because the original prosecution may have got it slightly wrong?  Does it matter that she was shot with an unsilenced weapon because as far as I can see it doesn't.

I think it matters. Evidence (which BTW had been tampered with and shouldn't have been allowed as evidence in the first place) was used in court and the jury took it into their considerations, so JB was convicted on wrong/false evidence. There wasn't much more than that to convict him on apart from Julie Mumford's (the one who tried to smother/kill Jeremy) hearsay type testimony.
That is not a lot, in my opinion - and certainly not enough to lock up a man for life.
Jeremy Bamber should at least have a new trial.
How about Sheila's blood being in the silencer if it wasn't used to shoot her? How did THAT happen?

[Tim Invictus]

That's a very good question Abs how did Sheila and June's blood get in the silencer ... that is something Bamber and McKay have to answer now. At the trial it was the prosecution who had to establish the facts ... if Bamber wants to establish his innocence he now has to answer those questions.

You say the silencer is evidence that has been tampered with ... I don't believe there is any proof of that therefore surely that's just your opinion?

[abs]

That's a very good question Abs how did Sheila and June's blood get in the silencer ... that is something Bamber and McKay have to answer now. At the trial it was the prosecution who had to establish the facts ... if Bamber wants to establish his innocence he now has to answer those questions.

You say the silencer is evidence that has been tampered with ... I don't believe there is any proof of that therefore surely that's just your opinion?

It isn't just my opinion.
First of all, upon finding the silencer in the cupboard, why wasn't it immediately brought to the attention of the police? Why bring it home? How many people handled it? According to David Boutflour´s own admission, he scraped a flake of blood off the silence because it "fascinated him". That is tampering - not just my opinion. I don't know what else was done to it, perhaps nothing, but the creepy scraping off blood is a fact.

[Tim Invictus]

That's a very good question Abs how did Sheila and June's blood get in the silencer ... that is something Bamber and McKay have to answer now. At the trial it was the prosecution who had to establish the facts ... if Bamber wants to establish his innocence he now has to answer those questions.

You say the silencer is evidence that has been tampered with ... I don't believe there is any proof of that therefore surely that's just your opinion?

It isn't just my opinion.
First of all, upon finding the silencer in the cupboard, why wasn't it immediately brought to the attention of the police? Why bring it home? How many people handled it? According to David Boutflour´s own admission, he scraped a flake of blood off the silence because it "fascinated him". That is tampering - not just my opinion. I don't know what else was done to it, perhaps nothing, but the creepy scraping off blood is a fact.

They took it to Ann Eatons house because they considered it important evidence and they didn't want Bamber going back to the house and perhaps removing it ... they already didn't believe Bamber at this stage. When they saw blood and paint on the silencer they called the police straight away. The police took 2 days to pick it up.

You may consider inspecting the silencer to be tampering .... I don't agree with that terminology and I don't think there is anything 'creepy' in it either. You are obviously implying the relatives fabricated the evidence and I don't believe they did.

I respect your opinion and agree that it is not ideal handling of evidence but I think you're taking a massive leap to a conclusion for which there isn't a shred of proof to support it.

I can't for the life of me imagine how this 'creepy tampering' by the relatives could have got June and Sheila's blood inside the silencer? How do you think they could possibly have done that?

Or shall we just agree to disagree? 

[simong]

Evening, I thought the documentary was very good. I know that is probably not the reaction you want on here but hey ho.

The Bews part of the documentary was pointless as he repeated pretty much word for word what he has said before. I would have been more interested to have heard from the other officer present, Myall i think his name was.

The burn marks are interesting. I don't know if there is a link on here to Nevill Bambers post mortem. I thought that the burn marks to Nevills back, were of different sizes.

With regard to the pig skin shooting tests. I will watch again to confirm but he seemed to me to pushing the gun quite hard into the skin and firing. I presume it would be hard to push a rifle into your own neck with force. Added to that is the fact that Sheila had a severed jugular from the first shot and firing a rifle into Pig skin layed out flat directly in front of you would not replicate accurately the circumstances in which Sheila is supposed to have killed herself. Maybe i am wrong, maybe i am being a little pedantic.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

It was good to see some fresh material about the case. I apologise for any inaccuracies in my post (I should really put this in my signature)





 

[Tim Invictus]

Evening, I thought the documentary was very good. I know that is probably not the reaction you want on here but hey ho.

The Bews part of the documentary was pointless as he repeated pretty much word for word what he has said before. I would have been more interested to have heard from the other officer present, Myall i think his name was.

The burn marks are interesting. I don't know if there is a link on here to Nevill Bambers post mortem. I thought that the burn marks to Nevills back, were of different sizes.

With regard to the pig skin shooting tests. I will watch again to confirm but he seemed to me to pushing the gun quite hard into the skin and firing. I presume it would be hard to push a rifle into your own neck with force. Added to that is the fact that Sheila had a severed jugular from the first shot and firing a rifle into Pig skin layed out flat directly in front of you would not replicate accurately the circumstances in which Sheila is supposed to have killed herself. Maybe i am wrong, maybe i am being a little pedantic.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

It was good to see some fresh material about the case. I apologise for any inaccuracies in my post (I should really put this in my signature)

Hi Simon. I thought the programme was very good for those who consider Bamber guilty and I am not just saying that because I am one of those people!

The burn mark evidence was made pointless when at the end of that piece they stated that the gun didn't get anywhere near that hot by firing bullets!

I agree with you that the gun shot marks were produced by pushing the rifle hard against the slab of meat ... they can't possibly know Sheila did that and as you say with her first wound it is very doubtful she would have done that!

What did you think of David Boutflour ... I thought as I always have that he is a very decent man and he too is a victim in this tragedy?

[simong]

That was the first time i had ever seen David Boutflour, so i will give my opinion on him on that basis if that is ok.

He doesn't come across as someone who is going to stitch up someone for financial gain. Seems to me that Boutflour would be, one of life's achievers (financially) whether he inherited money or not from the conviction of JB. I feel it is less likely that all the family members allegedly fitted up Jeremy for the money, having seen and heard him speak. If anything i would say they acted in the way the did because they were vehement in their belief in his guilt.

[puglove]

It was better than I expected, slightly more polished, certainly more balanced. Barbara Wilson, David and JM were IMO totally convincing, the shonky mock-ups of the house and the spinning top (still spinning!) were cheap and superfluos, the gun experiments were like something out of Look Around You, and McKay was unimpressive. The fact that David was given the last word will influence people who are new to the case. It's ironic that it aired on the same night as the well-made and comprehensive Panorama investigation into the Dewani case.

[Tim Invictus]

It was better than I expected, slightly more polished, certainly more balanced. Barbara Wilson, David and JM were IMO totally convincing, the shonky mock-ups of the house and the spinning top (still spinning!) were cheap and superfluos, the gun experiments were like something out of Look Around You, and McKay was unimpressive. The fact that David was given the last word will influence people who are new to the case. It's ironic that it aired on the same night as the well-made and comprehensive Panorama investigation into the Dewani case.

Shoan The Wise 

David Boutflour was definitley the memorable person in the programme and I agree it wasn't a patch on Dabid Vine's excellent and balanced Dewanii programme. I can't believe Mark whatshisname said Sheila died from two SHOTGUN blasts to the neck ... he obviously just picked this case up for the publicity rather than studiy it closely.

[abs]

That's a very good question Abs how did Sheila and June's blood get in the silencer ... that is something Bamber and McKay have to answer now. At the trial it was the prosecution who had to establish the facts ... if Bamber wants to establish his innocence he now has to answer those questions.

You say the silencer is evidence that has been tampered with ... I don't believe there is any proof of that therefore surely that's just your opinion?

It isn't just my opinion.
First of all, upon finding the silencer in the cupboard, why wasn't it immediately brought to the attention of the police? Why bring it home? How many people handled it? According to David Boutflour´s own admission, he scraped a flake of blood off the silence because it "fascinated him". That is tampering - not just my opinion. I don't know what else was done to it, perhaps nothing, but the creepy scraping off blood is a fact.

They took it to Ann Eatons house because they considered it important evidence and they didn't want Bamber going back to the house and perhaps removing it ... they already didn't believe Bamber at this stage. When they saw blood and paint on the silencer they called the police straight away. The police took 2 days to pick it up.

You may consider inspecting the silencer to be tampering .... I don't agree with that terminology and I don't think there is anything 'creepy' in it either. You are obviously implying the relatives fabricated the evidence and I don't believe they did.

I respect your opinion and agree that it is not ideal handling of evidence but I think you're taking a massive leap to a conclusion for which there isn't a shred of proof to support it.

I can't for the life of me imagine how this 'creepy tampering' by the relatives could have got June and Sheila's blood inside the silencer? How do you think they could possibly have done that?

Or shall we just agree to disagree? 

Sure.  I am not going to stalk and harass you for it! 

[Admin]

I swear I hadn't read this when I said Eric Allison looked dodgy:

Eric Allison is a former career criminal who was found guilty of conspiring to defraud Barclays Bank, and ‘did time’ in Strangeways and a number of other prisons. A ‘difficult’ prisoner, he spoke out about the abuse suffered at the hands of the authorities, and lent his support during the Strangeways Prison Revolt of 1990. In total he spent 16 years behind bars, 7 of which were for the Barclays job which netted £1 million and was to be his last hurrah.

Eric is currently the Guardian prison correspondent, a campaigning journalist whose mantra is that “we don’t know what goes on in our prisons.” He is a trustee of the Shannon Trust, a charity focused on improving literacy amongst the prison population, and speaks widely on crime, prisons, prisoners’ families and victims of crime at conferences, universities and charity events.
 
 

It's a bit like Myra Hindley putting in a good word for Ian Brady! Looks like he really is another Tesko .... spent time with Bamber playing hide the sauasage perhaps? Great choice ITV!

(Thank you to the good friend who point this info out to me btw  )

Good post Tim and well done whoever passed this on to you.  There was something just not right with the comments he made, as you said earlier it reminded us of Mike Teskowski.  Allison like Teskowski will have a grudge against the forces of law and order and that proverbial chip on his shoulder.  That article in the Guardian today was a disgrace for such a newspaper, maybe we should have a word with the editor in chief.

[Tim Invictus]

That was the first time i had ever seen David Boutflour, so i will give my opinion on him on that basis if that is ok.

He doesn't come across as someone who is going to stitch up someone for financial gain. Seems to me that Boutflour would be, one of life's achievers (financially) whether he inherited money or not from the conviction of JB. I feel it is less likely that all the family members allegedly fitted up Jeremy for the money, having seen and heard him speak. If anything i would say they acted in the way the did because they were vehement in their belief in his guilt.

Nice reply Simon .... I agree David Boutflour seems a gentleman to me . I hope the CCRC do the right thing and put an end to all this!

[Tim Invictus]

That's a very good question Abs how did Sheila and June's blood get in the silencer ... that is something Bamber and McKay have to answer now. At the trial it was the prosecution who had to establish the facts ... if Bamber wants to establish his innocence he now has to answer those questions.

You say the silencer is evidence that has been tampered with ... I don't believe there is any proof of that therefore surely that's just your opinion?

It isn't just my opinion.
First of all, upon finding the silencer in the cupboard, why wasn't it immediately brought to the attention of the police? Why bring it home? How many people handled it? According to David Boutflour´s own admission, he scraped a flake of blood off the silence because it "fascinated him". That is tampering - not just my opinion. I don't know what else was done to it, perhaps nothing, but the creepy scraping off blood is a fact.

They took it to Ann Eatons house because they considered it important evidence and they didn't want Bamber going back to the house and perhaps removing it ... they already didn't believe Bamber at this stage. When they saw blood and paint on the silencer they called the police straight away. The police took 2 days to pick it up.

You may consider inspecting the silencer to be tampering .... I don't agree with that terminology and I don't think there is anything 'creepy' in it either. You are obviously implying the relatives fabricated the evidence and I don't believe they did.

I respect your opinion and agree that it is not ideal handling of evidence but I think you're taking a massive leap to a conclusion for which there isn't a shred of proof to support it.

I can't for the life of me imagine how this 'creepy tampering' by the relatives could have got June and Sheila's blood inside the silencer? How do you think they could possibly have done that?

Or shall we just agree to disagree? 

Sure.  I am not going to stalk and harass you for it! 

I don't mind being stalked as long as the stalker is vaguely female. Preece stalking me is an enterely different kettle of fish!

I think our respective opinions of the relatives behaviour and motives is verydifferent Abs and neither of us is likely to change their mind or the others ... agreeing to disagree seemed the best  option!

[John]

It is a good job it is on ITV Player as I missed it earlier.  It is also on at 2.30am if anyone wants to watch it on the box again.


It all seems to boil down to the two shots to Sheila neck then?  Does McKay think he will get Bamber off just because the original prosecution may have got it slightly wrong?  Does it matter that she was shot with an unsilenced weapon because as far as I can see it doesn't.

I think it matters. Evidence (which BTW had been tampered with and shouldn't have been allowed as evidence in the first place) was used in court and the jury took it into their considerations, so JB was convicted on wrong/false evidence. There wasn't much more than that to convict him on apart from Julie Mumford's (the one who tried to smother/kill Jeremy) hearsay type testimony.
That is not a lot, in my opinion - and certainly not enough to lock up a man for life.
Jeremy Bamber should at least have a new trial.
How about Sheila's blood being in the silencer if it wasn't used to shoot her? How did THAT happen?

There you go again with the old default story about evidence being tampered with. What evidence is this abs and who on earth had any reason to do such a thing other than the one and only Jeremy Bamber?

You have to look beyond the evidence that pointed to Jeremy. He was convicted on the fact that it was him or Sheila because of what he said his father told him on the phone but Sheila was proven to be an innocent victim. It wasn't necessary to find a mountain of evidence against Jeremy, all the prosecution required to do was to clear Sheila.

Julie Mugford's testimony was the icing on the cake, the final nail in the coffin.

We are left with the fact that there was blood belonging to Nevill, June and Sheila on or in the sound moderator. There are several ways that their blood could have got there but I will keep those for later today.