Jeremy Bamber

[eerok]

That is simply an argument from incredulity.

It's no such thing. We simply don't accept the same evidence as relevant. I think that you accept the rather desperate, scattershot claims of the defense as true because that's the narrative you support. I'm not pretending to be certain, as you are, because I'm not interested in proving anything, which you are.

The evidence suggests she shot herself when surrounded

I don't think it does. I think we can agree that there was some bad police work, and I think that there were inconsistent reports that confused the issue. For example, the idea that Sheila was alive in the kitchen when the police arrived is ludicrous.

which is not dissimilar to the Bain case.

Please don't muddy the thread with comparisons to other cases. They are not relevant.

For some odd reason people seem more comfortable shooting others than themselves, and in these two similar cases the evidence shows it was at the last minute. The discomfort of shooting oneself becomes outweighed by the anticipation of the opprobrium imminent in explaining to the world killing ones own children.

Also please don't muddy the thread with maundering, purely speculative generalities such as these. They add nothing to the discussion.

Robin Bain killed his family then some hours later himself, and Sheila Caffel did the same thing (a few years earlier).

There is no doubt in either case.

Clearly there's enough doubt in this case that Bamber is in prison, and is likely to remain there. I'd love to hear some theory of why the police would conspire to put him there when they already had a closed case for murder/suicide that required zero additional effort and definitely pleased the public. The path of least resistance was obviously to consider Sheila the murderer. The only problem was the facts in evidence.

 

[Dark Knight]

Hello,

I'm new to this Forum. The Bamber affair has always interested me and I've looked into this case in quite some depth.

I don't have time to go into this too much now, so I will be brief.

My view is that Bamber more than likely did it, but the convictions are not legally-safe.

I doubt he will ever be freed, and that may well be the right outcome, but from a legal point-of-view it is at least questionable.

 

[Samson]

Hello,

I'm new to this Forum. The Bamber affair has always interested me and I've looked into this case in quite some depth.

I don't have time to go into this too much now, so I will be brief.

My view is that Bamber more than likely did it, but the convictions are not legally-safe.

I doubt he will ever be freed, and that may well be the right outcome, but from a legal point-of-view it is at least questionable.

Jeremy Bamber is innocent. There are significant moves afoot that suggest he will be released in due course. I can't say anything further but this does not emerge from where the sun don't shine.
The Mark Lundy case and the Luke Mitchell case are parallels in the old British Empire to study.
There are no ghosts in the world, but ordinary plods found them in these 3 cases.

 

[Dark Knight]

Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

That's a strong statement. How can you be sure?

In fairness, I could, equally, say the same of the 'Red Team'. How are they so sure he did it?

I fall into the 'Green' camp. I'm neutral. That's because, it seems to me, White House Farm is a black box. I think anybody with a proper understanding of this case must recognise that. There are cases in which it is reasonable to take a side. This isn't one of them.

We just don't know. If we assume there was no third party involvement, then the only person alive who can know what happened is Jeremy Bamber himself, and if he is innocent, then even he doesn't know.

If he is innocent - if - then this is the worst miscarriage of justice in British history, no question. It's worse than, say, Timothy Evans (assuming he really was innocent) because of the scale of it. It's mass murder and, if he is innocent, he has lost his entire productive life.

If he did it (I think it more likely than not he did), then he is where he belongs.

 

[Samson]

That's a strong statement. How can you be sure?

In fairness, I could, equally, say the same of the 'Red Team'. How are they so sure he did it?

I fall into the 'Green' camp. I'm neutral. That's because, it seems to me, White House Farm is a black box. I think anybody with a proper understanding of this case must recognise that. There are cases in which it is reasonable to take a side. This isn't one of them.

We just don't know. If we assume there was no third party involvement, then the only person alive who can know what happened is Jeremy Bamber himself, and if he is innocent, then even he doesn't know.

If he is innocent - if - then this is the worst miscarriage of justice in British history, no question. It's worse than, say, Timothy Evans (assuming he really was innocent) because of the scale of it. It's mass murder and, if he is innocent, he has lost his entire productive life.

If he did it (I think it more likely than not he did), then he is where he belongs.

There is a lot of evidence that has been manipulated or misinterpreted but common ground is bullet trajectories though bodies.

1. Neville Bamber.
These show that he came up the stairs into gunfire, then was shot as he retreated back down the stairs.
2. Sheila Caffel.
These show that the shooter had control of her body position.

June and twins could have been shot by anyone.

The crown states that Neville was shot in bed, but the trajectories show the crown is wrong.
In the case of Sheila, who has ultimate control of her body placement when shot? What sort of person would lie beside her mother's body and allow herself to be shot? If there is no such person she shot herself.

But I love alternative theories to dscuss.

 

[Dark Knight]

There is a lot of evidence that has been manipulated or misinterpreted but common ground is bullet trajectories though bodies.

1. Neville Bamber.
These show that he came up the stairs into gunfire, then was shot as he retreated back down the stairs.
2. Sheila Caffel.
These show that the shooter had control of her body position.

June and twins could have been shot by anyone.

The crown states that Neville was shot in bed, but the trajectories show the crown is wrong.
In the case of Sheila, who has ultimate control of her body placement when shot? What sort of person would lie beside her mother's body and allow herself to be shot? If there is no such person she shot herself.

But I love alternative theories to dscuss.

I don't know who actually did it and neither do you, and I will not enter into speculation about that. I am only interested in discussing the evidence and the question of whether the conviction is legally-safe. I know that seems cold, but it's the only possible rational basis for a discussion.

When you tell us you are certain of his innocence, what that indicates is that to you this is religion and dogma, not rational inquiry. Either that, or you are close to Bamber - and if so, you need to disclose this to us. The same applies to the 'Reds', only in reverse. It's obvious that some of them, maybe most, are close to the relatives, maybe are relatives, or have associations with the police, or have some other close association with the case that makes them vested in some way, financially or emotionally or both.

Besides which, none of your points, even if true, actually demonstrate innocence - and the onus shifted to Bamber in 1986, when he was convicted.

I do agree with you that he should have been acquitted, but my reason for taking this view is fundamentally different to yours. I do not know if he did it or not. I think it is more likely than not that he did, but I do not know this, and I admit it's more of an intuitive suspicion. To offer an analogy, it's a bit like the O. J. Simpson case. The case against Simpson was actually not as strong as is commonly-believed, but at the same time you'd have to be pretty obtuse not to see that he did it. It's obvious he did it and the motivation was obvious. Similarly with Bamber. When you look at it properly, it's intuitively obvious that he did it, but it's never been proved and you can't quite put your finger on what makes you think he more than likely did it. You just 'know', but at the same time, we don't know. It's an intuition.

I believe that he should have been acquitted only because the case against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. I think it is very, very important for the general good of society that the standard of proof is upheld in criminal cases, even if that means bad or psychotic people have to be set free on occasion. Very tellingly, the jury was divided and only convicted him on a majority. It was not a strong case and as time goes on, the case against him looks weaker. I doubt it would stand up to today's forensic standards. You might say it's not so much a wrongful conviction as an out-of-date conviction.

I do have my own [original?] thoughts/theories on this. For me, the key to the whole case is Sheila Caffell. At some point, I will go into that. What I [hope] I will demonstrate is that the arrangement of Sheila Caffell's body is a fatal flaw in the Crown's case. There are other flaws as well.

 

[Samson]

I don't know who actually did it and neither do you, and I will not enter into speculation about that. I am only interested in discussing the evidence and the question of whether the conviction is legally-safe. I know that seems cold, but it's the only possible rational basis for a discussion.

When you tell us you are certain of his innocence, what that indicates is that to you this is religion and dogma, not rational inquiry. Either that, or you are close to Bamber - and if so, you need to disclose this to us. The same applies to the 'Reds', only in reverse. It's obvious that some of them, maybe most, are close to the relatives, maybe are relatives, or have associations with the police, or have some other close association with the case that makes them vested in some way, financially or emotionally or both.

Besides which, none of your points, even if true, actually demonstrate innocence - and the onus shifted to Bamber in 1986, when he was convicted.

I do agree with you that he should have been acquitted, but my reason for taking this view is fundamentally different to yours. I do not know if he did it or not. I think it is more likely than not that he did, but I do not know this, and I admit it's more of an intuitive suspicion. To offer an analogy, it's a bit like the O. J. Simpson case. The case against Simpson was actually not as strong as is commonly-believed, but at the same time you'd have to be pretty obtuse not to see that he did it. It's obvious he did it and the motivation was obvious. Similarly with Bamber. When you look at it properly, it's intuitively obvious that he did it, but it's never been proved and you can't quite put your finger on what makes you think he more than likely did it. You just 'know', but at the same time, we don't know. It's an intuition.

I believe that he should have been acquitted only because the case against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. I think it is very, very important for the general good of society that the standard of proof is upheld in criminal cases, even if that means bad or psychotic people have to be set free on occasion. Very tellingly, the jury was divided and only convicted him on a majority. It was not a strong case and as time goes on, the case against him looks weaker. I doubt it would stand up to today's forensic standards. You might say it's not so much a wrongful conviction as an out-of-date conviction.

I do have my own [original?] thoughts/theories on this. For me, the key to the whole case is Sheila Caffell. At some point, I will go into that. What I [hope] I will demonstrate is that the arrangement of Sheila Caffell's body is a fatal flaw in the Crown's case. There are other flaws as well.

You are over thinking it, why not just stick to the photos of Sheila's body and how they inform, then look for a narrative that leads inexorably to her suicide. I have posted a narrative countless times including on the red forum.
The case is dead simple and I have no interest in beliefs in these stark dichotomy cases.

 

[Dark Knight]

You are over thinking it, why not just stick to the photos of Sheila's body and how they inform, then look for a narrative that leads inexorably to her suicide. I have posted a narrative countless times including on the red forum.
The case is dead simple and I have no interest in beliefs in these stark dichotomy cases.

If the case is "dead simple", why all these lengthy discussions about it? I don't know if this little anecdote is apocryphal, it could have originated in one of those silly books about the case, but apparently at the funeral Colin Caffell indicated to Bamber and said: "It was him, wasn't it." I'm sort of the same. After swotting up on the case in some depth, I'm thinking: "It was him, wasn't it", but I can't quite put my finger on why I think that, and I can see that the case was not proved in the legal sense. All I can say is that it is more likely than not that he did it. I can't say that I know.

I find all this prideful certainty on the part of both sides of the fence, Red and Blue, very curious. It's like you've all got a vested interest in it in some way. There is no other case like it where the two sides are so bitter and antagonistic - and arrogant.

It is arrogance on your part to say that you know he is innocent. You know no such thing. Equally, the people on the other side of this don't know that Bamber did it.

This is a serious business. Five innocent people were shot dead in their own home, including two young boys who never had a chance at life. It's not a game for entertainment.

 

[Samson]

If the case is "dead simple", why all these lengthy discussions about it? I don't know if this little anecdote is apocryphal, it could have originated in one of those silly books about the case, but apparently at the funeral Colin Caffell indicated to Bamber and said: "It was him, wasn't it." I'm sort of the same. After swotting up on the case in some depth, I'm thinking: "It was him, wasn't it", but I can't quite put my finger on why I think that, and I can see that the case was not proved in the legal sense. All I can say is that it is more likely than not that he did it. I can't say that I know.

I find all this prideful certainty on the part of both sides of the fence, Red and Blue, very curious. It's like you've all got a vested interest in it in some way. There is no other case like it where the two sides are so bitter and antagonistic - and arrogant.

It is arrogance on your part to say that you know he is innocent. You know no such thing. Equally, the people on the other side of this don't know that Bamber did it.

This is a serious business. Five innocent people were shot dead in their own home, including two young boys who never had a chance at life. It's not a game for entertainment.

Well of course 4 innocent people. No amount of beseeching me to reopen my mind will work. This case is elementary, just like the Bain family killing of 4 innocent people.
I take getting Bamber out of jail extremely seriously, and would jail Anne Eaton and Julie Mugford in his place.

 

[lionking]

Well of course 4 innocent people. No amount of beseeching me to reopen my mind will work. This case is elementary, just like the Bain family killing of 4 innocent people.
I take getting Bamber out of jail extremely seriously, and would jail Anne Eaton and Julie Mugford in his place.

Well you are usually wrong about your crime conspiracy theories, so I don’t expect anything different here.

 

[Samson]

Well you are usually wrong about your crime conspiracy theories, so I don’t expect anything different here.

I don't believe I am wrong. I arrived at JREF because it seemed the only bolthole for people talking sense about Knox, but unfortunately the equally elementary Bamber case brings out the deluded classes here.

 

[TomG]

Jeremy Bamber is innocent. There are significant moves afoot that suggest he will be released in due course. I can't say anything further but this does not emerge from where the sun don't shine.
The Mark Lundy case and the Luke Mitchell case are parallels in the old British Empire to study.
There are no ghosts in the world, but ordinary plods found them in these 3 cases.

"moves afoot"? That's interesting, I haven't kept up with this case in recent months since I didn't think he'd ever be released regardless of exculpatory evidence. I've previously commented on the case on the blue forum where it was suggested to me that Nevill Bamber would have found it literally impossible to communicate coherently over the phone having sustained the shots to the mouth. I suggested that the reason that he WAS shot in the mouth by Sheila was in retribution to the fact that he'd got the calls away to the cops and Jeremy. Well, I was never very popular after that. Sure JB was a rogue and a bit of a diva, but he didn't kill anyone.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

"moves afoot"? That's interesting, I haven't kept up with this case in recent months since I didn't think he'd ever be released regardless of exculpatory evidence. I've previously commented on the case on the blue forum where it was suggested to me that Nevill Bamber would have found it literally impossible to communicate coherently over the phone having sustained the shots to the mouth. I suggested that the reason that he WAS shot in the mouth by Sheila was in retribution to the fact that he'd got the calls away to the cops and Jeremy. Well, I was never very popular after that. Sure JB was a rogue and a bit of a diva, but he didn't kill anyone.

Hoots

But this is the problem. As soon as you pick a side and say he did or he didn't and make that your emotionally-vested position, then it's no longer a rational discourse. It becomes like a football match, with each side haranguing the other.

 

[TomG]

But this is the problem. As soon as you pick a side and say he did or he didn't and make that your emotionally-vested position, then it's no longer a rational discourse. It becomes like a football match, with each side haranguing the other.

I don't think that my comment or my views that JB is innocent are "emotionally vested" in the slightest. I think that JB is innocent of the crime according to my evaluation of the evidence I have so far. Rivalry is inevitable in situation where the only outcome is guilt or innocence to a jury.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't think that my comment or my views that JB is innocent are "emotionally vested" in the slightest. I think that JB is innocent of the crime according to my evaluation of the evidence I have so far. Rivalry is inevitable in situation where the only outcome is guilt or innocence to a jury.

Hoots

What is the crucial evidence that demonstrates Bamber's innocence?

 

[Dark Knight]

Q. Was a forensic examination of the second bedroom (Sheila's room) ever conducted and recorded? If so, when was this done? What, if anything, was found there?

Q. Was a forensic examination of the landing between the second bedroom and the master bedroom ever conducted and recorded? If so, when was this done? What, if anything, was found there?

 

[TomG]

What is the crucial evidence that demonstrates Bamber's innocence?

I don't think there is "crucial" evidence one way or the other. JB an SC were neck-and-neck in the delinquency stakes in the days preceding the murder; however, I think that Sheila's paranoia and under-medication made her the more likely to do something catastrophic.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

Q. Was a forensic examination of the second bedroom (Sheila's room) ever conducted and recorded? If so, when was this done? What, if anything, was found there?

Q. Was a forensic examination of the landing between the second bedroom and the master bedroom ever conducted and recorded? If so, when was this done? What, if anything, was found there?

What forensic evidence do you think would have been crucial in this case?

Hoots

 

[Fixit]

"moves afoot"? That's interesting, I haven't kept up with this case in recent months since I didn't think he'd ever be released regardless of exculpatory evidence. I've previously commented on the case on the blue forum where it was suggested to me that Nevill Bamber would have found it literally impossible to communicate coherently over the phone having sustained the shots to the mouth. I suggested that the reason that he WAS shot in the mouth by Sheila was in retribution to the fact that he'd got the calls away to the cops and Jeremy. Well, I was never very popular after that. Sure JB was a rogue and a bit of a diva, but he didn't kill anyone.

Hoots

Not sure about the claim about it being impossible to communicate coherently over the phone either. Without searching back I understand that Neville was reported to have said that Sheila was going crazy, not necessarily that he had been shot at the time. He responds by going upstairs when he hears gunfire and comes under fire on the stairs and retreats back to the kitchen. I recall there was a scratch under the ledge above the stove that the Crown said was the result of the rifle being swung which was of particular interest to me as the scratch began at the edge of the corner about the stove where it reached the wall. It's fairly plain that something swung in an arc ( a rifle barrel) would be prevented by the 'arc' from scratching at the corner edge or for any distance along a flat surface. In fact it's an impossibility. I also remember reading the pathologist's report about Sheila's first wound where he (think it was Bernard Knight) concluded that the wound having 'nicked' (from memory) an artery would not have been immediately fatal.
I also remember an impressive reconstruction of the stair way by a person in the guilty camp which was very helpful. It allowed an explanation that Neville had not been in the room when shot, and therefore had not run into gunfire, but by the trajectory had been turned away by gunfire from the top of the stairs. If a person would indeed run into gunfire in a small area they immediately have the chance to disarm, or at least grapple with the shooter, than run the further risk being shot again running away.

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't think there is "crucial" evidence one way or the other. JB an SC were neck-and-neck in the delinquency stakes in the days preceding the murder; however, I think that Sheila's paranoia and under-medication made her the more likely to do something catastrophic.

Hoots

Then my point about you earlier is confirmed. Your position in the case serves your emotional needs. You are free to be irrational, it's your right, but I don't want to discuss the case on that basis, so in a sense I'm 'turning my nose up' at you.