Jeremy Bamber

[Samson]

What is interesting about the alleged phone call from Neville, Is that Jeremy sais in a police interview that the Telecom provider could prove the call happened, Then the police tell him they cant, Jeremy Bamber believed the phone company would have a record.


I have tried to insert an image of it but it wont let me until I have made 15 posts on this forum

Welcome to the forum Essexman. The counting backwards thread would be one way to get that post count up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291900

 

[anglolawyer]

What is interesting about the alleged phone call from Neville, Is that Jeremy sais in a police interview that the Telecom provider could prove the call happened, Then the police tell him they cant, Jeremy Bamber believed the phone company would have a record.


I have tried to insert an image of it but it wont let me until I have made 15 posts on this forum

Hi Essexman. I recall the extract which is why I said upthread that what Bamber believed is as important as whatever the reality was. However, Guybrush Threepwood's problem still remains: the call from WHF to Goldhangar, if made by Bamber himself, could not be answered. Surely, BT was not keeping track of unanswered calls, nor would anyone think they were.

I had an idea but I'm not sure I'm in love with it. Bourtree Cottage (Bamber's place) is a semi. In the middle of the night, a phone ringing in his place might be audible next door. So, if he made the call from WHF he could have a problem explaining why it wasn't answered or the time of the call if noted by the neighbour. Therefore, he just took the phone off the hook at WHF and scarpered. When he got back he called Julie. That was her cue to call him. He could let the phone ring for a pre-arranged few minutes and pick up as soon as it stopped ringing. That would be around 3.00 a.m. which is the time he gave and agrees with the timings of a couple of the occupants of Mugford's place. Then a clean up, then the charade about looking up numbers and calling the cops.

 

[MikeG]

What are you doing up at 2.24, AL?

I've read a lot about this case over the last few days, and the more I read, the more I am convinced that JB did it. I'll leave a little 10% wiggle room, but no more. I note that the Daily Mail, after many years of campaigning for his release, has changed its tune, and now says that he is guilty. In all my reading though, I have seen no explanation for the burns on Nevill's back. Let's solve that one. How did they come about? If he was shot upstairs, but made it downstairs where he got involved in a one-sided fight in the kitchen with JB, what on earth could he have burned his back on at 2.30am?

I note that he was out late harvesting his rape crop. Are the burns definitely associated with his death, or could he have somehow burned himself earlier? Hot exhaust of the combine, or something like that, perhaps?

 

[anglolawyer]

What are you doing up at 2.24, AL?

I've read a lot about this case over the last few days, and the more I read, the more I am convinced that JB did it. I'll leave a little 10% wiggle room, but no more. I note that the Daily Mail, after many years of campaigning for his release, has changed its tune, and now says that he is guilty. In all my reading though, I have seen no explanation for the burns on Nevill's back. Let's solve that one. How did they come about? If he was shot upstairs, but made it downstairs where he got involved in a one-sided fight in the kitchen with JB, what on earth could he have burned his back on at 2.30am?

I note that he was out late harvesting his rape crop. Are the burns definitely associated with his death, or could he have somehow burned himself earlier? Hot exhaust of the combine, or something like that, perhaps?

I don't have an answer. My best guess is that he was jabbed at with the end of the rifle and what we see are bruises. I can't think of anything else Im afraid.

Im not sure a volte face by the Daily Mail should be considered to have weight.

 

[anglolawyer]

Guybrush Threepwood

I think I have it (partly). Nevill's call had to precede Bamber's call to Julie. That's it. What do you think?

Bamber could not say 3.15 when he had called Julie at 3.02 to tell her about the call. As to what time he called Julie I quoted the assortment of evidence upthread. Bamber could not be sure the evidence would be as sketchy as it was but had to assume one of the roommates would note the time of his call accurately. Therefore, he had to say Nevill's call was made before that time.

So, the real problem is: why did he call Julie near to 3.00 a.m?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Itemised bills certainly weren't available to customers at that time, since BT ended up waiting until its Digital Local Exchanges came online en masse to offer itemisation to customers. However, BT had been putting computerised call-logging technology into all of its analogue TXE4 exchanges in London and the South East (presumably including South Essex) throughout the early 1980s, since the manual call metering system was proving impossible to manage with growing subscriber numbers and phone usage.

I think therefore it's very possible that BT had computerised call logging attached to the local exchange (Colchester?). This would indeed have recorded called numbers and call durations, but this primary information would have remained within BT (and would have been used for things like network architecture planning and pricing/marketing), while the customer still just got a totalised bill.

The only people who would know for sure would be the BT network bods who covered that area in the 1980s, and I suppose there are also records somewhere of the detailed timing of various technology roll-outs across BT exchanges. But I believe that call logging very probably was in place in the local exchange by mid 2005. It might well be that neither the prosecution nor the defence realise that BT collected these data! But it also might be the case that this exchange had not actually been upgraded yet......

Fair enough, I think that puts the absence of phone records at the trial to bed; either:-
The exchange wasn't upgraded so there were no records, or -
No-one on the defence or prosecution team was aware this data was now available.

Guybrush Threepwood

I think I have it (partly). Nevill's call had to precede Bamber's call to Julie. That's it. What do you think?

Bamber could not say 3.15 when he had called Julie at 3.02 to tell her about the call. As to what time he called Julie I quoted the assortment of evidence upthread. Bamber could not be sure the evidence would be as sketchy as it was but had to assume one of the roommates would note the time of his call accurately. Therefore, he had to say Nevill's call was made before that time.

So, the real problem is: why did he call Julie near to 3.00 a.m?

Anything at this point is speculation, and none of it fits neatly, but he must have been in a highly emotional state (Even if he's a psychopath). My guess would be he called Julie to say he'd done it, then spent a few minutes collecting himself and rehearsing what to say to the police, possibly also cunningly circling the police phone number in the phone book, mentally checking everything was consistent with his story, and just didn't realise how much time he'd taken?

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Anything at this point is speculation, and none of it fits neatly, but he must have been in a highly emotional state (Even if he's a psychopath). My guess would be he called Julie to say he'd done it, then spent a few minutes collecting himself and rehearsing what to say to the police, possibly also cunningly circling the police phone number in the phone book, mentally checking everything was consistent with his story, and just didn't realise how much time he'd taken?

No, I think the time was taken cleaning up. He needed a shower to remove any forensics, get rid of clothes etc. By morning, there were no towels in the bathroom, remember, and the shower was not resting in its socket (per Ann Eaton).

I don't know why he didn't shower first and then call Julie and do the thing where she called him and hung up after twenty rings or so (so the neighbour could hear). As you say, it might have been just pressure at work but I would like to think of a better reason if I can.

Incidentally, while all of this is indeed speculative, it seems perfectly valid to put the sequence under the microscope to see what makes sense and what not. To me, it is a glaring hole in his story that it took as much as 26 minutes to do something that should have taken about 30 seconds and there is a very obvious and incriminating reason why this problem should exist.

 

[anglolawyer]

For sure there was no billing information. But I contend that BT may very well have had this information by way of their call-logging computers in the analogue exchange - even though this information was not used at that time in billing records. I can only hope that somebody either on the crown or defence side (or both) contacted actual engineering/network management people at BT to ascertain whether BT had gathered these data for internal use.

On the other point, I believe this is central to showing that Jeremy Bamber lied about the nature of the phone calls that night. At that time, if one party (here, Nevill Bamber) called another party (here, Jeremy Bamber), and the first party (i.e. the one who placed the call) did not replace the handset on the cradle, then the second party (the called party) would be stuck with an open line. It would not be possible for the second party to briefly replace his handset on the cradle and then pick it up again and hear a dial tone. Instead, the second party would still hear the open connection to the first party. For the second party to break the open line and enable a dial tone (and thus the ability to make a new outgoing call), the second party would have to place the handset on the cradle and wait for something like 2 minutes, at which point the exchange would automatically terminate the open line and enable the second party to receive a dial tone when the handset was picked up again.

And, IIRC, Jeremy Bamber had claimed that Nevill Bamber phoned him in panic, then Nevill Bamber dropped the phone and all Jeremy could hear was background noise. Jeremy claims (IIRC) that he then very briefly replaced his own handset on the cradle, and was able to get a dial tone when he picked the handset up again - at which point he claims he immediately made an outgoing call to the police. But this claimed sequence of events simply wouldn't have been possible. If Jeremy had only briefly placed his phone back on the cradle, when he picked it up again he would still have been connected to the open line from Neville Bamber (and would presumably have heard more background noise from White House Farm). In order for Jeremy to have been able to get a dial tone - and to thus have been able to call the police - he would have to have placed his phone on the cradle and waited for about 2 minutes before picking the phone up again. He never claimed to have done this - he claimed that he was able to make the new outgoing call to the police more-or-less immediately.

Coming back to this. You can read here Ann Eaton's 1991 statement to the Stokenchurch enquiry in which she says (at p.13) that Bamber said the line went dead, not that he could hear background noise.

ETA in his first statement to police, given on the 7th, he said the phone went dead after Nevill spoke (p.6). He said he 'immediately' phoned Chelmsford after calling back and finding the number engaged. In his 8th Sep 85 interview (given under caution) he agreed with the suggestion that the calls as cut off and that he straightaway tried to call back (which you would not do if you believed the line was still open), see p.6. He contradicted his first statement this time saying he called Julie before he called Chelmsford. Later on, I think he switched back to the first version.

 

[catsmate]

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?
He wasn't that helpless, he'd made it downstairs and (according to the path report) wasn't near death.

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.

No bloodstained clothes of hers were found.

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.

It's in the early reports, also a glass lamp (or lampshade, both terms are used) was broken.

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.

I don't think initially the police were looking that hard, and probably weren't aware of the existence of the silencer. Tampering by the Boutflours is (IMO) pretty ludicrous, both from access to the blood and motive. Unless the police + cousins conspiracy is proposed.

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.

And maybe not.

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.

True, but the utter lack of them is indicative.

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?

Pretty easy, I've used a 520 which is a similar rifle. It's the speed and efficiency of the killings, including the reloadings of the magazine, that indicate someone with a reasonable grasp of firearms. Also it seems likely that the murderer removed the silencer and perhaps the scope something I'm very dubious about Sheila accomplishing.

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.

Again it seems unlikely the he meekly succumbed after making it downstairs.

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.

The path reports says otherwise. The pictures from the SOC that I've seen show blood on her face but no signs of a mouth full of blood.

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.

Most psychology is. If you want to dismiss this then the "ritual cleaning" should be dumped too. I'll pass the idea on to a couple of actual psychologists for their opinions.

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.

Except that's not true.

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.

They're both people who had intimate acquaintanceship with her and her mental problems; I wouldn't dismiss their views completely. Neither dismisses the idea of Sheila killing her mother, just her father and children.

 

[catsmate]

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, <snip>

He's not going to be paroled and knows this.

 

[catsmate]

On anglolawyer's recommendation, I have just bought this book. Keep the conversation going for a week or so, and I'll be back with some informed questions

It's a good book.

 

[catsmate]

That is bloody good IMO. But would he not have dried his hair as thoroughly as possble with the discarded towels?

Wasn't there some speculation about him wearing a wetsuit? I can't remember where I saw it but it stuck in my mind.

I think therefore it's very possible that BT had computerised call logging attached to the local exchange (Colchester?). This would indeed have recorded called numbers and call durations, but this primary information would have remained within BT (and would have been used for things like network architecture planning and pricing/marketing), while the customer still just got a totalised bill.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't available at the local exchange.

The only people who would know for sure would be the BT network bods who covered that area in the 1980s, and I suppose there are also records somewhere of the detailed timing of various technology roll-outs across BT exchanges.

I'll see if I can find someone who knows, I worked with BT a few times on IT stuff.

Im not sure a volte face by the Daily Mail should be considered to have weight.

I think it should be given as much weight as anything else in that paper.

 

[MikeG]

He's not going to be paroled and knows this.

I made that point......but for the first 20-odd years of his sentence, parole was a distinct possibility, yet he still protested his innocence. This is a very minor aside. I am sure he is the killer, and must thus assume that he has either deluded himself into believing his own story, or he weighed up the odds between a successful appeal on one hand and parole on the other.

 

[Essexman]

I can just post the relevant part in text. This is an interview taken between 9th-12th September 1985. Jeremys words are in Blue, Essex police are in Red. This is very significant for the telephone debate.


R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.

Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB.

0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.

R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42



Jeremy seems to have assumed Telecom could prove such a call happened therefore if he was responsible he would have orchestrated the phone call somehow. Its things like this that make me believe he is innocent he does not seem capable of such a well thought out criminal execution only to leave a blood stained sound moderator in his cupboard then go and tell his girlfiend he done it. A guilty Jeremy would be criminal mastermind and at the same time a complete idiot. It don't make sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

I made that point......but for the first 20-odd years of his sentence, parole was a distinct possibility, yet he still protested his innocence. This is a very minor aside. I am sure he is the killer, and must thus assume that he has either deluded himself into believing his own story, or he weighed up the odds between a successful appeal on one hand and parole on the other.

You do realize that people who are paroled yet continue to claim innocence have a lower recidivism rate than those who admit their crimes?

 

[Desert Fox]

Jeremy seems to have assumed Telecom could prove such a call happened therefore if he was responsible he would have orchestrated the phone call somehow. Its things like this that make me believe he is innocent he does not seem capable of such a well thought out criminal execution only to leave a blood stained sound moderator in his cupboard then go and tell his girlfiend he done it. A guilty Jeremy would be criminal mastermind and at the same time a complete idiot. It don't make sense.

Many conspiracy theorists operate almost at a similar level. . . .They think that the government is operating at some super genius level yet they make these really stupid mistakes that the conspiracy theorists can somehow pick up on.

 

[Essexman]

His sentence was 20 years to life in 1986 then upgraded to whole life in 1994.

I spoke to a lawyer who studied this case he recons that Jeremy will die in prison unless there is undeniable proof of innocence in the public domain. Innocent or Guilty Jeremy should have had his conviction quashed many years ago but it would be too shattering for the legal system to admit a conspiracy may have taken place.

 

[Desert Fox]

His sentence was 20 years to life in 1986 then upgraded to whole life in 1994.

I spoke to a lawyer who studied this case he recons that Jeremy will die in prison unless there is undeniable proof of innocence in the public domain. Innocent or Guilty Jeremy should have had his conviction quashed many years ago but it would be too shattering for the legal system to admit a conspiracy may have taken place.

There are so many mistakes that the conviction should be squashed. I don't see a conspiracy but just so many screw ups and then covering things up after the fact. Cops and prosecutors the world around seem to love to cover their hind parts.

The other thing that is horrid is that they can change the rules against the defendant as they go along. One should not be able to upgrade the sentence after the fact.

 

[Essexman]

8a. Nevill Bamber had earlier confided in Barbara Wilson (the farm secretary) that he suspected Jeremy was planning to kill him.

This is not true, Nevills word was "I must never turn my back on that boy"

Barbara Wilson only revealed this 2013

There is someone else who claims that several weeks before the killing Shelia something like "People are evil and they all deserve to die" Im and just going by memory here but altogether I put very little weight on hearsay evidence

 

[Samson]

I can just post the relevant part in text. This is an interview taken between 9th-12th September 1985. Jeremys words are in Blue, Essex police are in Red. This is very significant for the telephone debate.


R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.

Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB.

0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.

R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42



Jeremy seems to have assumed Telecom could prove such a call happened therefore if he was responsible he would have orchestrated the phone call somehow. Its things like this that make me believe he is innocent he does not seem capable of such a well thought out criminal execution only to leave a blood stained sound moderator in his cupboard then go and tell his girlfiend he done it. A guilty Jeremy would be criminal mastermind and at the same time a complete idiot. It don't make sense.

Interesting. I am thinking on two paths, guilty Jeremy and innocent Jeremy.

1. Guilty Jeremy.
The plan needs that phone call. He already knows no call records are available from telecom, but the plan involves genuine seeming surprise there is no record, and this means the unanswered call from the farm can not be shown by prosecution to be unanswered.

But

If he genuinely believes Telecom has records, he must be innocent, because those records would show the call was not answered.

Hang on, I'm getting confused by this. Anglolawyer must have worked all this out.