UK - Five Bamber family members dead at White House Farm, Essex, 1986

New Posts

Jeremy Bamber loses first step in latest appeal against his conviction for murdering five relatives 25 years ago
• Killer's bid for a judicial review of an earlier decision not to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal has been rejected by a High Court judge
• Bamber murdered his adoptive parents, his sister and her twin sons in a remote Essex farmhouse in 1985
• The Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed it would not refer Bamber's case back to the Court of Appeal in April
• The 51-year-old, who has always protested his innocence, had applied for permission for a judicial review of the decision
Click to expand...
the story at Daily Mail link above
 
What is the burden of proof in the UK? I will Google in a bit. An appeal doesn't need to hiinge on absolute innocence. If it's reasonable new evidence could have changed outcome as pertains to burden then a new trial should be an option, in the States anyway which is not truly relevant to this case at all. I've been fascinated with wrongful convictions for years now.
 
Bamber still trying, Mail still attempting to sell papers.

Does this macabre picture prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent? He is the only full-term lifer who refuses
to admit guilt. Now, a former MP investigates new evidence over murders that shocked the nation
• Bamber, 52, was convicted of murders of his adoptive parents, his sister Sheila and his two six-year-old nephews in 1985
• Bamber says Sheila, a paranoid schizophrenic, suffered psychotic episode and carried out murders before turning gun on herself
• Police say Bamber committed crimes as gun was fitted with silencer, making it too long for her to shoot herself
• Police: If she'd gone on rampage her feet would have been covered in blood, which they said was not the case
• Ex-MP Andrew Hunter: Bamber’s lawyers have picture of bloodstained feet

Story at Sunday Mail link. See what you think. Will always be an interesting case but I think they have their man.
 
Scientist's report casts doubt on Jeremy Bamber trial evidence

Lawyers acting on behalf of Jeremy Bamber, serving a whole life sentence for one of Britain’s most notorious multiple murders, have sent the Crown Prosecution Service a report by a senior forensics scientist which they claim undermines vital evidence heard at his trial.

The confidential report, which has been seen by the Guardian, casts doubt on the validity of evidence relating to a rifle sound moderator, or silencer, that was pivotal to Bamber’s conviction in 1986.
--
 
I've always felt very uneasy about this conviction. Something about the evidence has never sat right with me.
 
I saw this thread yesterday, never heard of the case. Fascinating and brutal. The new claim seems valid, but probably not enough to help Bamber. I think he is guilty - almost certainly. He should stay where he belongs, although... There is an element of doubt in every conviction.
 
feldspar said:
I saw this thread yesterday, never heard of the case. Fascinating and brutal. The new claim seems valid, but probably not enough to help Bamber. I think he is guilty - almost certainly. He should stay where he belongs, although... There is an element of doubt in every conviction.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He may be guilty but if he was coming to trial now I think it unlikely he would be convicted.

When he was tried in 1987, PACE 1984 had only come into effect within the past couple of years due to well known abuses and corruption in various police forces right up to the late 1970s. There were still too many "old school" coppers around who carried on as though the 1970s were still happening. Far too much evidence was not presented that should have been, and I strongly suspect that if the jury had been given all the evidence that has trickled out since the trial, the defence would almost certainly have succeeded in establishing reasonable doubt.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Wikipedia
 
MelmothTheLost said:
I disagree. He may be guilty but if he was coming to trial now I think it unlikely he would be convicted.

When he was tried in 1987, PACE 1984 had only come into effect within the past couple of years due to well known abuses and corruption in various police forces right up to the late 1970s. There were still too many "old school" coppers around who carried on as though the 1970s were still happening. Far too much evidence was not presented that should have been, and I strongly suspect that if the jury had been given all the evidence that has trickled out since the trial, the defence would almost certainly have succeeded in establishing reasonable doubt.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
It's true, but they framed a guilty man, I think. What to do now? Retry?
 
feldspar said:
It's true, but they framed a guilty man, I think.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

What to do now? Retry?
Click to expand...

There needs at least to be a complete review of all of the evidence, ensuring that any that is still lurking unseen in files is brought into the equation. If that is done, a judge could take a view as to whether the conviction is safe or unsafe.

And if the conclusion is that it is unsafe, then there needs to be a root and branch review of the police handling of the case from the day of the shootings to the present day.
 
jaejae said:
Here is a recent report about this notorious UK case:

Jeremy Bamber murders: New evidence 'could lead to one of Britain's most notorious killers being freed'

Another report:

'Bambi' killer Jeremy Bamber claims he has found phone call evidence to set him free | Daily Mail Online

One more report:

Serial killer Jeremy Bamber claims new telephone call evidence proves he didn't murder his family
Click to expand...

I read this on sky news and l'm still not clear what this new evidence is. Perhaps we are not supposed to be. I will need to re-visit the evidence to explain but l think he's guilty.
 
Mrs Marple said:
I read this on sky news and l'm still not clear what this new evidence is. Perhaps we are not supposed to be. I will need to re-visit the evidence to explain but l think he's guilty.
Click to expand...

I have always thought he was guilty when I have watched programs on the case and see no reason to change my mind and who else did it and someone committed the crime. However not in relation to this case but I have seen some things in other cases to realise LE make mistakes and it makes you have doubts about many things but I do agree with you here.
 
I have always found Bamber's conviction to be unsafe. Majority verdict 10-2.

The new evidence is a scrap of paper found in thousands of police documents released to him in 2010. Supposed to prove that there were two phone calls. One from the farm at 3.26am and another from Bamber's home at 3.37. Now he apparently couldn't have got the 3.5 miles home in 11 minutes. His solicitors want this to go back to the C of A and think they have the evidence this time. They say his father made the first call then he made the second to the police to tell them what his father had told him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 176 more.
Total: 4,481 (members: 177, guests: 4,304)

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
4,304
Total visitors
4,481
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,463
Messages
17,969,337
Members
228,774
Latest member
truecrime-hazeleyes
Back
Top