'Stan should keep regurgitated views to himself'
| Posted: August 19, 2010
CONTROVERSIAL: Stan Jones's views in last week's Chronicle
Comments (0) FORMER Detective Sergeant Stan Jones accuses Jeremy Bamber of continually raking over old ground.
Mr Jones could well be accused of singing the same old song himself. His constantly regurgitated gut-feeling about Bamber proves nothing. He says that Bamber consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court. How can this be when so much has come to light since the trial that the defence team and jury were unaware of? The allegedly altered police logs, the photograph of Sheila Caffell's body still bleeding some eight hours after she was supposedly shot, the fact that only a small proportion of crime scene photographs were made available to the defence and the jury, the further DNA tests that suggest that the blood in the silencer was more likely to have been a mix of that of Nevill and June Bamber rather than Sheila Caffell's.
Mr Jones states that there was 'a pile of circumstantial evidence' that led to the conclusion that Bamber was guilty. Precisely – it was all circumstantial. There was not one bit of forensic evidence to prove that he committed the crime. In the case of the silencer, this had been contaminated to such a degree by the relatives and police it should never have been allowed as evidence.
The police have even backtracked on the contents of their own official logs made at the time, firstly regarding the statement that they had seen a figure moving within the house and secondly that they were in conversation with someone inside the house, both at times when Jeremy Bamber was outside the house with the police. They now say that their officers were 'mistaken' or the wording in the logs was 'misunderstood'. Conveniently, despite the knowledge that appeals against conviction were ongoing and likely to last for some time, Essex Police took it upon themselves to destroy all forensic evidence in 1996.
If I was Stan Jones, rather than continue to trot out the same old stuff I think in the circumstances I'd keep a low profile.
L Ellis
Maldon
Mr Jones could well be accused of singing the same old song himself. His constantly regurgitated gut-feeling about Bamber proves nothing. He says that Bamber consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court. How can this be when so much has come to light since the trial that the defence team and jury were unaware of? The allegedly altered police logs, the photograph of Sheila Caffell's body still bleeding some eight hours after she was supposedly shot, the fact that only a small proportion of crime scene photographs were made available to the defence and the jury, the further DNA tests that suggest that the blood in the silencer was more likely to have been a mix of that of Nevill and June Bamber rather than Sheila Caffell's.
Mr Jones states that there was 'a pile of circumstantial evidence' that led to the conclusion that Bamber was guilty. Precisely – it was all circumstantial. There was not one bit of forensic evidence to prove that he committed the crime. In the case of the silencer, this had been contaminated to such a degree by the relatives and police it should never have been allowed as evidence.
If I was Stan Jones, rather than continue to trot out the same old stuff I think in the circumstances I'd keep a low profile.
L Ellis
Maldon
Read more: Jeremy Bamber http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/News-Articles
http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Stan-regurgitated-views/story-12633337-detail/story.html#ixzz3XqTHMEe8
