Jeremy Bamber

[Desert Fox]

Oh you've explained this before. I know double-shot suicides aren't unknown, but neither are faked ones. All I'm saying is that both possibilities take some imagining.

If it had only been Jeremy staging Shelia's suicide, that would be far easier to argue. Simply, he could have done it while she was asleep if nothing else.

The problem is that he had already murdered two people at this time, his parents.

 

[anglolawyer]

Trying to stay awake at 4 am here. . . . .These were paper logs and this was in 1986. You are expecting an exactness that likely does not exist. Even now with a paper log, expect some of those times to be approximate especially if they forgot to put the times in initially.

Well, those making these logs will have been trained to be accurate about time since time is critical. They also jotted down precise times, not rounded ones (3.26, 3.36). PC West muddied the waters by writing down 3.36 and later corrected himself to 3.26 claiming to have misread a digital clock. I can offer a detailed post on the telephone call timings later but these times stand up reasonably well IMO. They need to be integrated with the evidence we have Nevill's putative call to Bamber and Bamber's verified call to Julie. That will have to wait a bit because I have work to do, darn it.

 

[anglolawyer]

If it had only been Jeremy staging Shelia's suicide, that would be far easier to argue. Simply, he could have done it while she was asleep if nothing else.

The problem is that he had already murdered two people at this time, his parents.

I don't think he would have done it while she was asleep. That would have meant arranging her head and arms into the right position without waking her up.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, those making these logs will have been trained to be accurate about time since time is critical. They also jotted down precise times, not rounded ones (3.26, 3.36). PC West muddied the waters by writing down 3.36 and later corrected himself to 3.26 claiming to have misread a digital clock. I can offer a detailed post on the telephone call timings later but these times stand up reasonably well IMO. They need to be integrated with the evidence we have Nevill's putative call to Bamber and Bamber's verified call to Julie. That will have to wait a bit because I have work to do, darn it.

I know, from personal experience, that time critical logs may very well not be quite as accurate as they should be. Some of those times may very well be inserted after the fact.

I have to be blunt here though, assuming they are more or less accurate, I am not really getting your argument. Can you maybe simplify what you are arguing?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't think he would have done it while she was asleep. That would have meant arranging her head and arms into the right position without waking her up.

My bigger point is that he somehow needs to get her semi-cooperation in this staging of a suicide after he had murdered their father and mother. The staged suicides that are more plausible are not also combined with murders. Many of those I am still pretty nervous that the courts got them wrong.

 

[Samson]

My bigger point is that he somehow needs to get her semi-cooperation in this staging of a suicide after he had murdered their father and mother. The staged suicides that are more plausible are not also combined with murders. Many of those I am still pretty nervous that the courts got them wrong.

David Bain did 15 years for appearing to have staged his father's suicide as the culmination of a quintuple homicide. In fact it was a quadruple homicide suicide, now hang on, what do we have here? Even The Atheist sees the parallels, but we disagree on who was firing the gun in the Bain case. (Robin Bain did it, murder suicide).

 

[anglolawyer]

My bigger point is that he somehow needs to get her semi-cooperation in this staging of a suicide after he had murdered their father and mother. The staged suicides that are more plausible are not also combined with murders. Many of those I am still pretty nervous that the courts got them wrong.

David Bain did 15 years for appearing to have staged his father's suicide as the culmination of a quintuple homicide. In fact it was a quadruple homicide suicide, now hang on, what do we have here? Even The Atheist sees the parallels, but we disagree on who was firing the gun in the Bain case. (Robin Bain did it, murder suicide).

I agree, it's a problem for the pro-guilt position. Just as two-shots is for the other side. I have offered a scenario which is far from impossible.

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree, it's a problem for the pro-guilt position. Just as two-shots is for the other side. I have offered a scenario which is far from impossible.

Being that multi-shot (to the head) suicides happen and are documented, I am not sure what the real issue is. Didn't even the prosecution medical examiner state that she would still be mobile after the first shot even though it would have been ultimately fatal. Not sure why it even matters because suicide or homicide, that would still be the case.

 

[catsmate]

You made a statement which was simply wrong. . . . .You stated that a person cannot clean GSR by just washing. I linked to a forensic source which indicates that washing does remove such traces and that simple time and movement can do the same thing.

And I pointed out that washing is unlikely in the extreme, wouldn't have removed traces on Sheila's clothes, wouldn't necessarily have removed all the powder residue and wouldn't have effected the residue from the final two shots at all.

The senior officer was treating it as a suicide at first. How much care was taken initially, nobody knows, although likely not the best.

Sheila's hands and feet were bagged before the body was moved. I suggest you look at the statements and logs.

You cannot say that there was no GSR but none was detected. There are very different situations.

But I can say that the lack of detectable residue is inconsistent with Sheila going on a murderous rampage before killing herself. Just like the other evidence.

First off, the ammo which was suppose to have been used was covered with wax. How would that have effected how much lead one gets on their hands.

But it would have itself left residue, which wasn't found.

Second, we are not talking about a 9 mm automatic pistol but a rifle. My .22 Browning is recoil action but I do not believe that most .22 rifles are. I suspect that they are gas action which will further reduce unspent powder. My pistol however is much cleaner even when firing 50 rounds than my .45 is with a single magazine. More of it however seems to collect inside the weapon, likely the results of the gasses not being expelled with much force.

Your speculation about comparisons between the .22 rifle Berber used and your handguns simply isn't relevant. You seem utterly determined to maintain that no powder residue would be left on Sheila. Of course even if this were so it wouldn't explain the blood, lack of fingerprint, removal of the silencer et cetera....

I wanted to explain something. If Shelia washed her hands, I see it as a reaction of remorse or cleansing one's sins. I have read papers where studies have indicated that people feel better after washing one's hands.

And, again, this would be before the final two shots. Your delving into your psychological opinions doesn't carry any credibility.

The position of JM is absolutely key to this case. It's perfectly possible and understandable to write off her evidence as that of a woman scorned, but consider when doing so the profound implications - that just because she had been thrown over she would condemn an innocent man to spend the rest of his days in prison and that she would risk her own liberty to do so. Not impossible but is that really likely?

I can't see her bring that motivated to do so.

Now consider that she told a version of the truth. A whole lot of things make much more sense if she was not merely in the know but an active party to a conspiracy to murder. That is my suggestion. Her end would be marriage to Bamber, social elevation and financial gain. That's quite something for an unattractive, not very bright woman of limited brains and prospects.

Now that is interesting. Utterly speculative but interesting.
And rather more plausible than the police and Bamber cousins conspiracy nonsense.

Of her general character, we know she was a burglar, a fraudster and a sly actress - so the profile isn't bad. Let's look at the story she told. She did not claim to have discovered Bamber's plans after the fact. She knew, and admitted she knew, them in advance. She knew from as far back as 1984 when he was planning to put them to sleep and burn the house down with them inside it. She obtained and supplied him with temazapam which, with her knowledge, he tested on himself, reporting that they didn't work.

Agreed.

She knew in advance on the night of the crime what was going down. Bamber called at 10.00 p.m. and told her it was now or never. Did she call the police ... ? He called her after 3.00 a.m. to tell her it was all done. Did she call the police then ... ? No. She went into Sue Battersby's room to talk about the call or, as I think, to make sure Battersby had heard the phone ring and would corroborate Bamber's claim that he had called Julie. Why was this important?

Bamber had a problem. He had to account for the time he spent cycling home from the farm. There was going to be a suspicious gap between Nevill's alleged call to him and his call to the cops as a result. He filled that gap with the call to Julie and by claiming, falsely IMO, to have spent 'ten minutes at the outside' looking up the number for the local force and hanging on to get through, rather than taking 10 seconds to call 999. IIUC he even circled the cops' number in the phone book. How very artful.

Yeah the use of the station number is curious.

Now, consider Julie's position. She backed up his story, which means at the very least she committed the serious offences of impeding police enquiries and perverting the course of justice. At the very least. So she was in it up to her neck. She played her part. The press coverage went well, as did the funeral, but then things started to unravel. Bamber was having too good a time with his rather too close friend, Brett Collins. She could sense she was being edged out. She had taken a huge risk for him but, as they drafted apart, he was threatening her she had to keep quiet or he would take her down with him, all the while playing the field with other women. She said later she was not afraid of him at first but that he started to fear her and that caused her to fear him.

I can see her betraying Bamber (assuming she was a co-conspirator)

Things came to a head. They had a massive bust up. She was not going to be lady of the manor after all. Bamber tried to fob her off with a paid holiday. She didn't take his money. She told Sue Batterby the whole story. She told another friend and then another. After a few weeks she went to the police.

Though if she was involved, what did she have to gain, other than the press payoff?

Consider the risk she took. First, Bamber might make good his threat and take her down with him. She gambled, correctly, that he couldn't do that and she had a fall back position anyway - to call him a liar or to claim coercion. After all, she had not herself shot anybody. Second, the cops might prosecute her for murder, conspiracy or perverting justce. No getting out of that one, unless some kind of deal was done in advance. That's possible but there is no sign of her taking legal advice and I doubt she had the know-how to plot her way through such a deal. Her calculation must have been that since the trail had gone cold her evidence would be so essential to the cops that they would use her rather than accuse her.

I can't see a threat to her by Bamber as being particularly weighty; it'd require him to end any hope of avoiding conviction.

And so it panned out. I believe its obvious why nobody focused on this angle. Nobody concerned in the affair had anything to gain by doing so. On the contrary, there was much to lose for everyone. I find it very credible that the DPP authorised some kind of informal deal conferring immunity. There are a few things to be said about that but I will pause at this point for any comment.

Again, speculative and basically impossible to prove but interesting nonetheless.

Could have started with a more loose story which became more details as the cops coached her. In addition, they potentailly threatened her with being imprisoned for life.

Shades of Charles Erickson / Ryan Ferguson with the case. Struck also by the incredible story which Charles Boney told. Granted that in Boney's case, he was at the crime scene but it does not seem to have gone down as he described.

Such as? They did look at the bike but not for a month.

Well, she was handy for taking his call at 3.00 in the morning but it's a good question, I admit. We know they were lovers and partners in crime. Maybe he just trusted her or thought he could control her and had some uses for her.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is speculative, of course, Catsmate. As to what she had to gain - freedom for the rest of her life is my answer. From her POV, at any time the police could pounce and uncover the truth. How would things look then? She had helped burgle Osea Road, she had gone through the charade of the phone call, backed Bamber up when giving her statement on the 8th, acted her part at the funeral. If the police chanced to get evidence that meant they didn't need her then she was in deep, deep trouble. By coming forward herself she nipped all that in the bud. She could not know that Bamber would not take her with him. You discount that possibility far too readily IMO. She did not lie for News of the World money but told a version of the truth to save her own neck.

 

[Desert Fox]

And I pointed out that washing is unlikely in the extreme, wouldn't have removed traces on Sheila's clothes, wouldn't necessarily have removed all the powder residue and wouldn't have effected the residue from the final two shots at all.

I quoted previously a modern forensic education resource which indicates that GSR can be undetectable in 1 to 3 hours. Depending on if you think she took her life around 3 or 5 or around 8, you still have hours before the body was bagged. I believe I read around 10 am or 11 am.

Same problem with testing the hand for lead. Did they test the hands five hours after having reloading the magazine.

 

[Samson]

This case gets more intriguing. Let us agree that it is a ridiculous notion that there can be gods eye ambiguity. One thing happened.
I am wondering , logically, forensically and psychologically, if Mugford could genuinely believe Bamber did it, when in fact he is innocent.

 

[anglolawyer]

This case gets more intriguing. Let us agree that it is a ridiculous notion that there can be gods eye ambiguity. One thing happened.
I am wondering , logically, forensically and psychologically, if Mugford could genuinely believe Bamber did it, when in fact he is innocent.

That is a flat 'no'. Her detailed account, which you can read here, precludes this possibility altogether.

 

[Samson]

That is a flat 'no'. Her detailed account, which you can read here, precludes this possibility altogether.

Thanks AL, I have read that and will again. I lazily relied on you (or others) to answer the question.
This is stark.
Either Mugford or Bamber are irremediable villains.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks AL, I have read that and will again. I lazily relied on you (or others) to answer the question.
This is stark.
Either Mugford or Bamber are irremediable villains.

Or they both are, which is my (provisional) opinion.

 

[catsmate]

A few general points about the case.

1. If Sheila had carried out the murders, and then committed suicide, why was there no damage to her manicured nails. Especially given the need for her to reload the magazine at least twice, cramming in cartridges.

2. Sheila's hand and nightdress were free of powder residue, gun oil, lubricant or lead. Despite supposedly firing the rifle 25 times in a short period and reloading it at least twice.

3. Sheila's feet and slippers were clean and free of blood, glass particles or other soiling. From this she was never in the downstairs kitchen where her father was murdered where a glass lampshade was smashed, leaving glass fragments all over the floor.

4. The silencer had traces of blood in it (blowback from the close contact shots). This was typed as ABO type A and later subjected to DNA analysis showing a very close match (17/20 markers) to Sheila. That's the silencer that wasn't attacked to the rifle and had been put away.

5. Sheila was on haloperidol to treat her schizophrenia but had run out of the procyclidine she took to counteracts the effects of the haloperidol. This she would have been shaky and uncoordinated on the night of the murders, as indeed she was described by various witnesses. Despite this she supposedly carried out four murders, severely beat her father and reloaded the rifle twice.

6. The murder weapon had only one partial example of Sheila's fingerprints, and none on the trigger despite the supposed suicide.

7. No-one had ever testified that Sheila had ever handled the rifle, or any firearm, yet she supposedly handled it skillfully that night.

8. Despite the disparity in size and build between Neill and Sheila her body showed no marks or injuries from a fight.

9. No blood was found in Sheila's throat or mouth, indicating she wasn't long conscious after the first shot, nor was there the dispersed blood that would be expected from someone struggling to breathed. There was no blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her, nor any on the inside of her hands or on her fingertips.

10. The location of Sheila's body, in the master bedroom, is psychologically odd for a maternal suicide, it would be expected that she'd kill herself close to, or beside, her children.

11. Sheila had no motivation to kill her family. She was actually described as being in good spirits.

12. Both her psychiatrist and husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.

 

[anglolawyer]

A few general points about the case.

and a few comments of mine, in bold type

1. If Sheila had carried out the murders, and then committed suicide, why was there no damage to her manicured nails. Especially given the need for her to reload the magazine at least twice, cramming in cartridges.

If she beat a helpless Nevill, would she necessarily damage her nails?

2. Sheila's hand and nightdress were free of powder residue, gun oil, lubricant or lead. Despite supposedly firing the rifle 25 times in a short period and reloading it at least twice.

She may have washed and put on the night dress after shooting everyone ('the ritual cleaning' theory). In that case, I would be interested to know what became of the clothes she was wearing beforehand.

3. Sheila's feet and slippers were clean and free of blood, glass particles or other soiling. From this she was never in the downstairs kitchen where her father was murdered where a glass lampshade was smashed, leaving glass fragments all over the floor.

Her feet were not clean. Were glass fragments 'all over the floor'? Where does that come from? A sugar bowl was knocked over and there was no sugar on her feet either. Was there sugar on Nevill's feet? It has been suggested the firearms people may have knocked the sugar over.

4. The silencer had traces of blood in it (blowback from the close contact shots). This was typed as ABO type A and later subjected to DNA analysis showing a very close match (17/20 markers) to Sheila. That's the silencer that wasn't attacked to the rifle and had been put away.

If the moderator evidence stands up then Bamber is certainly guilty but there are some serious issues about its provenance. It wasn't found by the police (who mishandled it when they got it, losing the grey hair) and may have been tampered with by the Boutflours - well that's what people say but I would like to know how the Boutflours knew where to find Sheila's blood in order to contaminate the thing with it.

5. Sheila was on haloperidol to treat her schizophrenia but had run out of the procyclidine she took to counteracts the effects of the haloperidol. This she would have been shaky and uncoordinated on the night of the murders, as indeed she was described by various witnesses. Despite this she supposedly carried out four murders, severely beat her father and reloaded the rifle twice.

Maybe she had a demonic moment of clarity and self-control.

6. The murder weapon had only one partial example of Sheila's fingerprints, and none on the trigger despite the supposed suicide.

Fingerprints aren't always left on things we touch. It's a hit and miss affair.

7. No-one had ever testified that Sheila had ever handled the rifle, or any firearm, yet she supposedly handled it skillfully that night.

Worth pursuing, but there are some who say the crime scene suggests an amateur at work. How hard can it be to point one of these things and fire it?

8. Despite the disparity in size and build between Neill and Sheila her body showed no marks or injuries from a fight.

Maybe there was no fight but only a one-sided beating.

9. No blood was found in Sheila's throat or mouth, indicating she wasn't long conscious after the first shot, nor was there the dispersed blood that would be expected from someone struggling to breathed. There was no blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her, nor any on the inside of her hands or on her fingertips.

Her mouth was completely full of blood. See the crime scene pics.

10. The location of Sheila's body, in the master bedroom, is psychologically odd for a maternal suicide, it would be expected that she'd kill herself close to, or beside, her children.

This is bollocks, with respect.

11. Sheila had no motivation to kill her family. She was actually described as being in good spirits.

So what? She was a paranoid schizophrenic who (per Bamber) thought they were going to put her in a home.

12. Both her psychiatrist and husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.

Her psychiatrist would say that, wouldn't he? and Colin Caffell knows nothing about what she would or would not do. His opinion is completely worthless.

 

[Desert Fox]

Or they both are, which is my (provisional) opinion.

My understanding is that he has generally shown himself to be a reasonable inmate (cannot blame any inmate for trying to fight to get out). In fact, his activity reminds me of Jason Baldwin of the WM3. No psychological evaluation has shown any evidence of being a sociopath / psychopath either.

 

[MikeG]

Does anyone attach any weight to decades long protestations of innocence?

I do, to an extent. Our system apparently requires an acceptance of guilt as part of parole, and therefore refusing to accept your guilt leads necessarily to additional time in prison. (This is a problem which needs reviewing, but I have no suggestions.) Before Michael Howard extended Bamber's tariff to whole-life, he was serving life sentences with a tariff of 25 years. This meant that he would have been eligible to apply for parole after 25 years (4 years ago). However, protesting his innocence throughout that period removed his parole chances.

I understand that now he has a whole-life tariff his campaign is just something he does without any cost to himself, but previously, it did have a cost (the loss of possible parole). Obviously that cost has to be weighed against the potential benefit of being found innocent and released early.....but nonetheless, there was a cost to Bamber in continuing to protest his innocence.

I don't follow these things closely. Are there many cases of people protesting their innocence and thus losing the right to parole who were actually guilty all along? There are many tragic cases of the innocent who protested for years and stayed in prison way longer than they otherwise would, but is there much history of the converse?

 

[Desert Fox]

Does anyone attach any weight to decades long protestations of innocence?

I do, to an extent. Our system apparently requires an acceptance of guilt as part of parole, and therefore refusing to accept your guilt leads necessarily to additional time in prison. (This is a problem which needs reviewing, but I have no suggestions.) Before Michael Howard extended Bamber's tariff to whole-life, he was serving life sentences with a tariff of 25 years. This meant that he would have been eligible to apply for parole after 25 years (4 years ago). However, protesting his innocence throughout that period removed his parole chances.

I understand that now he has a whole-life tariff his campaign is just something he does without any cost to himself, but previously, it did have a cost (the loss of possible parole). Obviously that cost has to be weighed against the potential benefit of being found innocent and released early.....but nonetheless, there was a cost to Bamber in continuing to protest his innocence.

I don't follow these things closely. Are there many cases of people protesting their innocence and thus losing the right to parole who were actually guilty all along? There are many tragic cases of the innocent who protested for years and stayed in prison way longer than they otherwise would, but is there much history of the converse?

There is an interesting issue here. Inmates who are paroles while continuing to claim innocence have a lower recidivism than those who admit guilt in order to be released.
Most arguments I have read are that they are mostly innocent.