Jeremy Bamber

[TomG]

I'd forgotten a couple more reasons why I think this points to Jeremy. I've not looked at the case in a long time and accidentally missed out these:

I missed out from the bit about the phone calls something very important. After he received the call from Nevill, Jeremy doesn't just rush over. Instead, he calls the police, but he doesn't ring 999, he calls the local police station. Why? I can understand Nevill calling Jeremy instead of dialling 999, but if Jeremy is going to call the police, why would it be the police station? That doesn't make sense, and though I'm not quite sure why Jeremy would do this, it adds to the impression that something about his story isn't quite right.

The other point is simply the fact that Sheila was in her nightie when she was found. How could she have carried the ammunition around with her while firing at her family? Does this seem a likely scenario? At one point, I did come up with a two-gun theory to explain how Sheila could have been the culprit, but it's all very convoluted.

Why would it NOT be the local police station? If he did phone phone 999 what location would the police have been dispatched from? What make you think that a response from a 999 call would be any quicker? This was farm country! The local police would have known the area better than anyone else and would most likely have got to the farm quicker than a police response from another area that might quite easily needed help in locating the farm. So it seems that JB was correct to call the local cops.

Why would Sheila need to carry ammunition around with her? The gun was already pre-loaded by jb, she only needed to re-fill the magazine twice from the box in the kitchen. Both Nevill, probably, and June certainly, would have received wounds from the first loaded magazine. With them both debilitated the journey downstairs to reload another couple of times may not have been that difficult, though chance could have come into the equation.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

These are both perfectly reasonable points you make, but I think what you say is flawed, for the reasons I explain below.

Again, just to abundantly clear, I am not saying that I think he did it - I'm not in a position to say that and if I were on a trial jury or an appellate bench and hearing this case on substantially the same evidence, I would probably vote to acquit on the basis that the criminal standard has not been met.

But my suspicions lean more towards Bamber and I think it is more likely than not that he did it.

Why would it NOT be the local police station? If he did phone phone 999 what location would the police have been dispatched from? What make you think that a response from a 999 call would be any quicker? This was farm country! The local police would have known the area better than anyone else and would most likely have got to the farm quicker than a police response from another area that might quite easily needed help in locating the farm. So it seems that JB was correct to call the local cops.

It is reasonable to suppose that Nevill would call Jeremy instead of the police (or before, or in preference to, calling the police). That part of Jeremy's explanation is reasonable. A farmer in 1980s rural coastal Essex who is also a Magistrate and pillar of the community may well ring his son and try to sort things out quietly and privately. Alerting the authorities means gossip and rumour and could harm Sheila, and raise questions about Nevill and June, etc., etc. I'm sure I don't need to labour the point further.

So far so good.

The problem arises when you look at Jeremy's decision. What you're suggesting is that Jeremy would ring the local station instead of 999 in the belief that the local police would reach the incident sooner. Maybe you're right. Maybe this is indeed what went through his mind, but I find it unlikely.

Essex isn't the Northern Territory. Jeremy wasn't calling from a remote sheep station in the outback. It was rural and I think still is, but rural in southern England, not rural in the middle of Africa or Australia. Even in the 1980s, that means a bit out of the way, but still very near all the amenities in relative terms.

Jeremy had been brought up and schooled in Britain and, like any such person, must have known that you call 999 and the operator then ensures a speedy response if it is a genuine emergency. For anybody living in Britain, including in the 1980s, that was and is common knowledge. You don't mess around looking for the telephone number of the local police station, and then when you can't get through, call another station. You call 999 because the police operation is inter-linked. They have the means to respond quickly.

It's just as simple as that. Sorry. I am happy to concede that your explanation has some cogency about it, and I accept it is plausible - I am not dismissing what you say completely - but I find it very unlikely. It's unlikely because if Jeremy considered it necessary to call the police after the call from Nevill, that must be because he thought it was an emergency. The only alternative explanation is that Jeremy is making the whole thing up.

I think I would be happier with Jeremy's strange actions if he reported that his father had said something like: "Ring Sergeant So-and-So. He should be on duty." That wouldn't make sense, but never mind that. People do things all the time that don't make sense. Whether it makes sense or not, doesn't matter actually. The point is that this would be something we could corroborate because we would have Nevill telling him to call the police locally.

In due course, Sergeant So-and-So would, presumably, attest to some sort of association with Nevill and say something like: "Yes, I knew Nevill Bamber from his service on the local Magistracy. Fine chap. I'd been up to the farm a few times about thefts. Yes, terrible tragedy. Yes, my wife was very upset about it. My wife and June used to baked fabulous strawberry tarts. Nevill? Oh yes, he's just the type who would tell his son to ring me first, wouldn't want any fuss over Sheila. Poor Jeremy. Blah, blah, blah."

Nothing like that happened. Why not? What, actually, is the explanation for ringing the station instead of 999? Well? What is it? He must have come up with something after all this time, and I doubt it's very convincing.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything. He may well be telling the truth and have just decided there and then, in that situation, to call the police station for the reason you have just given. OK. But it's not very likely, is it. Unless you can show me that it was common for local farmers and rural people to call the local police first in general emergencies involving some tinpot maniac waving a gun about, then you know that what I say here is reasonable. You can see that, if you're being objective about it. That's my point, and it does lend itself to the suggestion that Jeremy has attempted to fabricate an exculpatory scenario.

Why would Sheila need to carry ammunition around with her? The gun was already pre-loaded by jb, she only needed to re-fill the magazine twice from the box in the kitchen. Both Nevill, probably, and June certainly, would have received wounds from the first loaded magazine. With them both debilitated the journey downstairs to reload another couple of times may not have been that difficult, though chance could have come into the equation.

Hoots

I agree it is possible. Just to be clear, I am emphatically not suggesting Sheilas-as-killer is an impossible scenario. But, don't you think it's rather unlikely that she would be able to carry out such a massacre with the same gun? Do we have evidence that she was even capable of re-loading such a gun? I don't believe we do. Even the evidence of her using any sort of firearm, never mind re-loading one, is pretty scant.

On the other hand, it's not rocket science - you just point at the target, and bang, right? So maybe she did, but I think it then lends itself to a two-gun scenario. In other words, she loses her gourd, fires with one gun, then picks up the other and fires with that too.

 

[Dark Knight]

For the reasons I've just told you upthread. Nevill took 8 shots in total while June took 7. Nevill took 4 shots to the head, 6 if you count the two to the mouth. With reference to the burn marks on Nevill's back Vanizis states "that those marks are the effect of the muzzle of the rifle being prodded against Nevill’s pyjama top whilst he was still alive." Which is a clear indication that the 4 shots to Nevill's head were not immediately fatal.

The wounds suffered by June are pretty much the same. The wounds to her ear, neck, and chest may have been fatal with a higher calibre gun and ammunition but the ammunition used was not intended to deliver a lethal wound according to the Eley website. June was able to get up and walk around the bed before collapsing in front of the main bedroom door where it took a fatal shot between the eyes to eventually kill her.

So it wasn't a case of 1 or 2 shots and "bang" your dead was it? Yes she did manage to kill the whole family...eventually, but there is no evidence that the gun and ammunition would be lethal enough to kill herself outright with 1 or 2 shots.

Hoots

Yes, and so what? I'm pretty sure that if I pointed that rifle at myself in the right way and fired, it'll do serious damage at the very least, and without emergency attention, in due course I'm dead.

Vermin stopper or not, it's bang and you're dead if you're pointing the gun at yourself. The same applies to lots of sub-optimal weapons - ordinary air guns, for instance, can certainly be lethal if misused in certain ways.

What else are you suggesting, if you believe Jeremy to be innocent? It has to be that she killed herself in that way, with that very rifle, if we adopt that scenario. It must be that she killed everybody, then laid on the bed, probably for a good while, then shot herself in the neck, then shot herself again in the neck, and then at some point she died.

I accept the rifle may not have been ideal, but it's not like she was browsing gun catalogues the week before and deciding which one she should put on mail order to carry out the massacre. The scenario is: She went berserk, picked the gun that was to hand (or maybe more than one gun) and killed everybody, then killed herself with whatever gun she had by that point.

 

[Samson]

Yes, and so what? I'm pretty sure that if I pointed that rifle at myself in the right way and fired, it'll do serious damage at the very least, and without emergency attention, in due course I'm dead.

Vermin stopper or not, it's bang and you're dead if you're pointing the gun at yourself. The same applies to lots of sub-optimal weapons - ordinary air guns, for instance, can certainly be lethal if misused in certain ways.

What else are you suggesting, if you believe Jeremy to be innocent? It has to be that she killed herself in that way, with that very rifle, if we adopt that scenario. It must be that she killed everybody, then laid on the bed, probably for a good while, then shot herself in the neck, then shot herself again in the neck, and then at some point she died.

I accept the rifle may not have been ideal, but it's not like she was browsing gun catalogues the week before and deciding which one she should put on mail order to carry out the massacre. The scenario is: She went berserk, picked the gun that was to hand (or maybe more than one gun) and killed everybody, then killed herself with whatever gun she had by that point.

Yep it was that simple in yellow, too simple for all cops who did not tragically fall off a ladder, judges, home secretaries and assorted morons throughout Essex.
It was that simple for Julie Mugford and the relatives, but they all made a fortune by pretending to be morons.

 

[TomG]

These are both perfectly reasonable points you make, but I think what you say is flawed, for the reasons I explain below.

Again, just to abundantly clear, I am not saying that I think he did it - I'm not in a position to say that and if I were on a trial jury or an appellate bench and hearing this case on substantially the same evidence, I would probably vote to acquit on the basis that the criminal standard has not been met.

But my suspicions lean more towards Bamber and I think it is more likely than not that he did it.



It is reasonable to suppose that Nevill would call Jeremy instead of the police (or before, or in preference to, calling the police). That part of Jeremy's explanation is reasonable. A farmer in 1980s rural coastal Essex who is also a Magistrate and pillar of the community may well ring his son and try to sort things out quietly and privately. Alerting the authorities means gossip and rumour and could harm Sheila, and raise questions about Nevill and June, etc., etc. I'm sure I don't need to labour the point further.
So far so good.

The problem arises when you look at Jeremy's decision. What you're suggesting is that Jeremy would ring the local station instead of 999 in the belief that the local police would reach the incident sooner. Maybe you're right. Maybe this is indeed what went through his mind, but I find it unlikely.

Essex isn't the Northern Territory. Jeremy wasn't calling from a remote sheep station in the outback. It was rural and I think still is, but rural in southern England, not rural in the middle of Africa or Australia. Even in the 1980s, that means a bit out of the way, but still very near all the amenities in relative terms.

Jeremy had been brought up and schooled in Britain and, like any such person, must have known that you call 999 and the operator then ensures a speedy response if it is a genuine emergency. For anybody living in Britain, including in the 1980s, that was and is common knowledge. You don't mess around looking for the telephone number of the local police station, and then when you can't get through, call another station. You call 999 because the police operation is inter-linked. They have the means to respond quickly.

It's just as simple as that. Sorry. I am happy to concede that your explanation has some cogency about it, and I accept it is plausible - I am not dismissing what you say completely - but I find it very unlikely. It's unlikely because if Jeremy considered it necessary to call the police after the call from Nevill, that must be because he thought it was an emergency. The only alternative explanation is that Jeremy is making the whole thing up.

I think I would be happier with Jeremy's strange actions if he reported that his father had said something like: "Ring Sergeant So-and-So. He should be on duty." That wouldn't make sense, but never mind that. People do things all the time that don't make sense. Whether it makes sense or not, doesn't matter actually. The point is that this would be something we could corroborate because we would have Nevill telling him to call the police locally.

In due course, Sergeant So-and-So would, presumably, attest to some sort of association with Nevill and say something like: "Yes, I knew Nevill Bamber from his service on the local Magistracy. Fine chap. I'd been up to the farm a few times about thefts. Yes, terrible tragedy. Yes, my wife was very upset about it. My wife and June used to baked fabulous strawberry tarts. Nevill? Oh yes, he's just the type who would tell his son to ring me first, wouldn't want any fuss over Sheila. Poor Jeremy. Blah, blah, blah."

Nothing like that happened. Why not? What, actually, is the explanation for ringing the station instead of 999? Well? What is it? He must have come up with something after all this time, and I doubt it's very convincing.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything. He may well be telling the truth and have just decided there and then, in that situation, to call the police station for the reason you have just given. OK. But it's not very likely, is it. Unless you can show me that it was common for local farmers and rural people to call the local police first in general emergencies involving some tinpot maniac waving a gun about, then you know that what I say here is reasonable. You can see that, if you're being objective about it. That's my point, and it does lend itself to the suggestion that Jeremy has attempted to fabricate an exculpatory scenario.



I agree it is possible. Just to be clear, I am emphatically not suggesting Sheilas-as-killer is an impossible scenario. But, don't you think it's rather unlikely that she would be able to carry out such a massacre with the same gun? Do we have evidence that she was even capable of re-loading such a gun? I don't believe we do. Even the evidence of her using any sort of firearm, never mind re-loading one, is pretty scant.
On the other hand, it's not rocket science - you just point at the target, and bang, right? So maybe she did, but I think it then lends itself to a two-gun scenario. In other words, she loses her gourd, fires with one gun, then picks up the other and fires with that too.

I don't consider JB's call to the cops to be that important. He may have been right he may have been wrong; however, it doesn't indicate one way or the other who did the killings.

With reference to the highlighted paragraphs. It may be the case that a 999 call would just be relayed to the local police station anyway. A 999 call might have resulted in sirens blaring and armed cops swarming everywhere and ambulance crews on standby attending a situation that at that time may have only required mediation.

I'm pretty sure that Sheila carried out the killings with the same gun, why not? The whole drama may have been a protracted affair perhaps taking as long as an hour before everyone except Sheila was dead. She would only have needed to watch either JB or Nevill loading the gun to know how it was done. There is no evidence, that I know of, that 2 guns came into the equation.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

Yes, and so what? I'm pretty sure that if I pointed that rifle at myself in the right way and fired, it'll do serious damage at the very least, and without emergency attention, in due course I'm dead.

Vermin stopper or not, it's bang and you're dead if you're pointing the gun at yourself. The same applies to lots of sub-optimal weapons - ordinary air guns, for instance, can certainly be lethal if misused in certain ways.

What else are you suggesting, if you believe Jeremy to be innocent? It has to be that she killed herself in that way, with that very rifle, if we adopt that scenario. It must be that she killed everybody, then laid on the bed, probably for a good while, then shot herself in the neck, then shot herself again in the neck, and then at some point she died.

I accept the rifle may not have been ideal, but it's not like she was browsing gun catalogues the week before and deciding which one she should put on mail order to carry out the massacre. The scenario is: She went berserk, picked the gun that was to hand (or maybe more than one gun) and killed everybody, then killed herself with whatever gun she had by that point.

I still think you are giving the gun and the subsonic ammunition more than it's due. It's clear that everyone needed multiple shots to kill them. It may even have been the case that if the cops had seized the initiative earlier some might have been saved. If Sheila was considering suicide she would have wanted to go out like a light, who wouldn't? The last thing she would have wanted was to maim herself and end up physically brain damaged and a lifetime in a wheelchair without her twins. Despite what you say death wouldn't be guaranteed. The need for multiple GSWs in every case proves the point.

BTW can you shorten your posts a bit? I'm sometimes guilty of it myself but I try to be concise as possible.

 

[Dark Knight]

I still think you are giving the gun and the subsonic ammunition more than it's due. It's clear that everyone needed multiple shots to kill them. It may even have been the case that if the cops had seized the initiative earlier some might have been saved. If Sheila was considering suicide she would have wanted to go out like a light, who wouldn't? The last thing she would have wanted was to maim herself and end up physically brain damaged and a lifetime in a wheelchair without her twins. Despite what you say death wouldn't be guaranteed. The need for multiple GSWs in every case proves the point.

I still don't get what you're saying. You're going to have to spell it out for me in idiotspeak. If you think Jeremy is innocent, then how did Sheila die if not with the rifle she was found holding? Who killed her and with what? And why? And did this third party also kill the others? If not, then why wouldn't Sheila have just killed herself with that rifle?

I think you're falling into the trap of trying to rationalise Sheila's decisions and actions from the standpoint of what is the best weapon if Sheila was experienced with firearms, but Sheila wasn't experienced with weapons and in a hypothetical scenario in which she is the killer, it must be that she went berserk, just grabbed whatever was to hand, and then shot herself too (having to fire twice, or the gun just accidentally went off a second time), and eventually she died as a result.

If I point just an ordinary air rifle at my own vital areas (brain, neck, groin, heart, kidney, upper leg), I'm risking serious debilitation, if not death, especially if emergency medical attention is some way off. If I'm laying there for hours, then I may well die. And if I want to die, seeing no hope for me, then I may well die. You can wish yourself dead. Sheila was using a rifle (if we assume she was the killer). Why wouldn't shooting herself in the neck with that rifle kill her or lead to her death, ultimately? Why not? I'm not saying it did. I'm not saying that happened. I don't know what happened and neither do you. What we're discussing is plausibility. It's plausible. It's more than plausible, actually.

As for the phone calls, you've got to admit it's strange for Jeremy not to ring 999. It's a major, major question mark hanging over him. I don't think you or Jeremy have a convincing explanation for it, really, and I think the reason is that, more than likely, Jeremy is the killer. The phone calls don't prove it. I repeat: if I were a trial juror or on the appellate bench in this case, with the evidence available, I would vote to acquit or quash the conviction, simply because the case is not proved. You might say the phone calls are a 'suspicious indicator', that, taken with other suspicious indicators (and there are some others), might in totality add up to a viable circumstantial case against Jeremy, but I think R v Bamber falls a little short of the mark.

Sorry if my posts are a bit long. It's true they are, and this has been pointed out to me before, but lots of people post lengthy missives and it goes unremarked on. Nobody forces you to read them. It's not compulsory. There must be some reason why you are engaged with me here?

I can't help but suspect that one reason people get annoyed at me on forums is that I tell them things they don't want to hear.

 

[TomG]

I still don't get what you're saying. You're going to have to spell it out for me in idiotspeak. If you think Jeremy is innocent, then how did Sheila die if not with the rifle she was found holding? Who killed her and with what? And why? And did this third party also kill the others? If not, then why wouldn't Sheila have just killed herself with that rifle? I think you're falling into the trap of trying to rationalise Sheila's decisions and actions from the standpoint of what is the best weapon if Sheila was experienced with firearms, but Sheila wasn't experienced with weapons and in a hypothetical scenario in which she is the killer, it must be that she went berserk, just grabbed whatever was to hand, and then shot herself too (having to fire twice, or the gun just accidentally went off a second time), and eventually she died as a result.
If I point just an ordinary air rifle at my own vital areas (brain, neck, groin, heart, kidney, upper leg), I'm risking serious debilitation, if not death, especially if emergency medical attention is some way off. If I'm laying there for hours, then I may well die. And if I want to die, seeing no hope for me, then I may well die. You can wish yourself dead. Sheila was using a rifle (if we assume she was the killer). Why wouldn't shooting herself in the neck with that rifle kill her or lead to her death, ultimately? Why not? I'm not saying it did. I'm not saying that happened. I don't know what happened and neither do you. What we're discussing is plausibility. It's plausible. It's more than plausible, actually.

As for the phone calls, you've got to admit it's strange for Jeremy not to ring 999. It's a major, major question mark hanging over him. I don't think you or Jeremy have a convincing explanation for it, really, and I think the reason is that, more than likely, Jeremy is the killer. The phone calls don't prove it. I repeat: if I were a trial juror or on the appellate bench in this case, with the evidence available, I would vote to acquit or quash the conviction, simply because the case is not proved. You might say the phone calls are a 'suspicious indicator', that, taken with other suspicious indicators (and there are some others), might in totality add up to a viable circumstantial case against Jeremy, but I think R v Bamber falls a little short of the mark.

Sorry if my posts are a bit long. It's true they are, and this has been pointed out to me before, but lots of people post lengthy missives and it goes unremarked on. Nobody forces you to read them. It's not compulsory. There must be some reason why you are engaged with me here?

I can't help but suspect that one reason people get annoyed at me on forums is that I tell them things they don't want to hear.

I've told you on multiple occasions why not. It's clear that the gun and subsonic ammunition was less than effective in killing adults. Sheila found this out the hard way. I'm saying that Sheila did not kill herself immediately after dispatching her family since she realised the limitations of the gun and ammuntion in delivering a lethal wound. It was only when she was surrounded by cops that she did use the gun on herself. The first shot didn't kill her and fragmented in her skull which only rendered her unconcious and may have been survivable if prompt medical action was at hand. All of this indicates just how poorly the gun and ammunition performed in killing adults. We don't know for sure how Sheila was shot a second time. I've already said that Sheila might have been unable to deliver a coup de grace while you seem to think it would have been a formality. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

The pro-guilt argument is that Sheila had no experience of guns; however, the way that the drama unfolded indicates that is only partially true. Sheila knew how to fire the gun and reload but she didn't have an understanding that the low-velocity ammunition was only meant for stopping vermin and only learned it's shortcomings during the killings when the gun was failing to perform as intended.

JB on the other hand would have known the limitations of the gun as a vermin killer only. If he had planned to carry out the killings he would have taken enormous risks since the gun and ammunition were very likely to wound and maim rather than kill outright. With that in mind and considering the other risks that JB would have had to overcome, I don't think he'd even contemplate attempting to kill his family in the circumstances. I don't think the killings could in any way be the result of a planned action, I think the whole scenario developed as a chaotic sequence of chance events. To me, planning such an event is highly unlikely.

I hope that makes things clearer.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

Sorry if my posts are a bit long. It's true they are, and this has been pointed out to me before, but lots of people post lengthy missives and it goes unremarked on. Nobody forces you to read them. It's not compulsory. There must be some reason why you are engaged with me here?

I can't help but suspect that one reason people get annoyed at me on forums is that I tell them things they don't want to hear.

It's not that I don't want to hear your points, it's just that I'm more inclined to read your posts if you try to keep them as concise as you can. I'm guilty of being nerdy and prolix myself but that's normally as a result of quoting source.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

I've told you on multiple occasions why not. It's clear that the gun and subsonic ammunition was less than effective in killing adults. Sheila found this out the hard way. I'm saying that Sheila did not kill herself immediately after dispatching her family since she realised the limitations of the gun and ammuntion in delivering a lethal wound. It was only when she was surrounded by cops that she did use the gun on herself. The first shot didn't kill her and fragmented in her skull which only rendered her unconcious and may have been survivable if prompt medical action was at hand. All of this indicates just how poorly the gun and ammunition performed in killing adults. We don't know for sure how Sheila was shot a second time. I've already said that Sheila might have been unable to deliver a coup de grace while you seem to think it would have been a formality. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

The pro-guilt argument is that Sheila had no experience of guns; however, the way that the drama unfolded indicates that is only partially true. Sheila knew how to fire the gun and reload but she didn't have an understanding that the low-velocity ammunition was only meant for stopping vermin and only learned it's shortcomings during the killings when the gun was failing to perform as intended.

JB on the other hand would have known the limitations of the gun as a vermin killer only. If he had planned to carry out the killings he would have taken enormous risks since the gun and ammunition were very likely to wound and maim rather than kill outright. With that in mind and considering the other risks that JB would have had to overcome, I don't think he'd even contemplate attempting to kill his family in the circumstances. I don't think the killings could in any way be the result of a planned action, I think the whole scenario developed as a chaotic sequence of chance events. To me, planning such an event is highly unlikely.

I hope that makes things clearer.

Hoots

Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make and how it differs to what I've already said. Are you saying Sheila killed herself or not? If she did kill herself, are you admitting that she killed herself with the rifle that was found by her body? If you are, then what point are you making over and above what has already been discussed?

You keep telling me to be concise. That's ironic. Can I respectfully suggest you look back at your own posts? Your own style is anything but concise and I am genuinely confused about what point you're trying to make. You're meandering around. It would be more helpful if you could just perhaps state, using logical bullet points, what you're trying to say. I wouldn't normally make an issue of that, it's just that you feel the need to critique my own style, even though nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

EDIT
Regarding the lethality of the rifle, if I fire that rifle at a vital area - head, neck, groin, kidneys, upper leg - and let's assume I'm not going to receive medical attention for some hours, what would you say is likely to be the result?

Even an air gun can be lethal, if misused.

If you doubt me, by all means conduct the experiment and point an air gun at your head, and if you survive, come back to us and report on the result. Be my guest. Of course, you may well survive because it is, after all, just an air gun, but that's not really the point. If we assume Sheila is the killer, she grabbed the rifle because that was the rifle available. She shot everybody. She then shot herself with it, twice. Then she died. She may not have died straight away. Likewise, the others may not have died straight-away. Nevill may well have staggered downstairs. Would Sheila have cared if any of the others actually survived? She was on a rampage. But both Nevill and June were elderly and they were shot several times, and the twins were each shot more than once.

If Jeremy is the killer, then the conventional theory is that he used that rifle partly because he wanted to attract suspicion to Sheila. Isn't that obvious? Nobody is suggesting that the particular rifle found with Sheila is an optimal assassin's weapon - indeed, that is the whole point. But that rifle is lethal. If we shift focus to Jeremy, he used it in such a way as to make sure it would be lethal, by firing several times at each victim, and presumably, he made sure each was dead.

 

[TomG]

Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make and how it differs to what I've already said. Are you saying Sheila killed herself or not? If she did kill herself, are you admitting that she killed herself with the rifle that was found by her body? If you are, then what point are you making over and above what has already been discussed?

You keep telling me to be concise. That's ironic. Can I respectfully suggest you look back at your own posts? Your own style is anything but concise and I am genuinely confused about what point you're trying to make. You're meandering around. It would be more helpful if you could just perhaps state, using logical bullet points, what you're trying to say. I wouldn't normally make an issue of that, it's just that you feel the need to critique my own style, even though nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

EDIT
Regarding the lethality of the rifle, if I fire that rifle at a vital area - head, neck, groin, kidneys, upper leg - and let's assume I'm not going to receive medical attention for some hours, what would you say is likely to be the result?

Even an air gun can be lethal, if misused.

If you doubt me, by all means conduct the experiment and point an air gun at your head, and if you survive, come back to us and report on the result. Be my guest. Of course, you may well survive because it is, after all, just an air gun, but that's not really the point. If we assume Sheila is the killer, she grabbed the rifle because that was the rifle available. She shot everybody. She then shot herself with it, twice. Then she died. She may not have died straight away. Likewise, the others may not have died straight-away. Nevill may well have staggered downstairs. Would Sheila have cared if any of the others actually survived? She was on a rampage. But both Nevill and June were elderly and they were shot several times, and the twins were each shot more than once.

If Jeremy is the killer, then the conventional theory is that he used that rifle partly because he wanted to attract suspicion to Sheila. Isn't that obvious? Nobody is suggesting that the particular rifle found with Sheila is an optimal assassin's weapon - indeed, that is the whole point. But that rifle is lethal. If we shift focus to Jeremy, he used it in such a way as to make sure it would be lethal, by firing several times at each victim, and presumably, he made sure each was dead.

You asked "Are you saying Sheila killed herself or not?"

*I'm saying that Sheila attempted to kill herself with the first shot. I think the cops may have accidentally shot her while reconstructing the crime scene, or that she was killed by a police weapon.

You asked "are you admitting that she killed herself with the rifle that was found by her body?

*No, she only wounded herself with the first shot from the Anshutz that might have been survivable.

You asked "Regarding the lethality of the rifle, if I fire that rifle at a vital area - head, neck, groin, kidneys, upper leg - and let's assume I'm not going to receive medical attention for some hours, what would you say is likely to be the result?"

*Regarding the lethality of the rifle, the results at WHF speak for themselves, it would be down to luck or lack of it, depending on the efficiency of police and medical response.

You asked "Would Sheila have cared if any of the others actually survived?"

*No. Take a look at what happened to Nevill. Sheila had use some sort of hot instrument on his back to find out if he was still alive. June took a coup de grace between the eyes. The twins shared 8 bullets. Of course Sheila wanted them dead.

You asked "If Jeremy is the killer, then the conventional theory is that he used that rifle partly because he wanted to attract suspicion to Sheila. Isn't that obvious?

*That's the pro-guilt theory but I doubt if carefully planned chaos and constructed suicide is actually possible in the circumstances. I think that the risks would be too great.

I believe I've answered all your questions. Let me know if there are any other questions you'd like to ask regarding my posts. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

You asked "Are you saying Sheila killed herself or not?"

*I'm saying that Sheila attempted to kill herself with the first shot. I think the cops may have accidentally shot her while reconstructing the crime scene, or that she was killed by a police weapon.

You asked "are you admitting that she killed herself with the rifle that was found by her body?

*No, she only wounded herself with the first shot from the Anshutz that might have been survivable.

You asked "Regarding the lethality of the rifle, if I fire that rifle at a vital area - head, neck, groin, kidneys, upper leg - and let's assume I'm not going to receive medical attention for some hours, what would you say is likely to be the result?"

*Regarding the lethality of the rifle, the results at WHF speak for themselves, it would be down to luck or lack of it, depending on the efficiency of police and medical response.

You asked "Would Sheila have cared if any of the others actually survived?"

*No. Take a look at what happened to Nevill. Sheila had use some sort of hot instrument on his back to find out if he was still alive. June took a coup de grace between the eyes. The twins shared 8 bullets. Of course Sheila wanted them dead.

You asked "If Jeremy is the killer, then the conventional theory is that he used that rifle partly because he wanted to attract suspicion to Sheila. Isn't that obvious?

*That's the pro-guilt theory but I doubt if carefully planned chaos and constructed suicide is actually possible in the circumstances. I think that the risks would be too great.

I believe I've answered all your questions. Let me know if there are any other questions you'd like to ask regarding my posts. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Hoots

OK, so basically you're accepting (or considering) the theory that the police fired the fatal shot, therefore it was four murders and a para-suicide/attempted suicide. I suspected that was what you were driving at, and I must admit, that is plausible. I can't dismiss it out of hand, but if I recall correctly, isn't it the case that Sheila actually died of a cardiac arrest, not the gun wounds per se? Remember she may have been lying there for hours and she wanted to die.

There's also a variation on your theory: that Sheila did kill herself, but the police also accidentally shot her corpse.

But the following, based on the same facts, I also find plausible:

(i). If you stand back and consider the full picture objectively, the fact that they all died is in itself suspicious and points to Jeremy. It's not proof in any legal sense. It's just another 'suspicious indicator'. Remember that a rational perpetrator - i.e. Jeremy (or Jeremy's agent) - would make sure they were all dead, whereas a hypothetical irrational perpetrator - i.e. Sheila - would more likely than not fail to kill them all. I think that if Sheila had been the culprit, we would have seen at least one of them, probably Nevill, survive and live to tell the tale.

It's simple 'rough rule of thumb' law of averages. Bear in mind that an irrational perpetrator is not setting out with the intent to kill per se. An irrational perpetrator cannot form that intent in the medico-legal sense. Instead, in this hypothetical, Sheila goes berserk and just starts shooting, and in the case of June, if she kills, then all the better in her deranged mind; and in the case of the twins, maybe her mindset is ambiguous but she wants to take them with her, so she kills them; and in the case of Nevill, she understandably gives up at the first hard line of resistance, maybe after putting a fair few bullets in him, and then (wrongly) assumes he is dead before going back upstairs to kill herself.

That's fundamentally different to a rational killer scenario in which everybody must die at all costs, and does lend towards the view that, by default, the actual killer must have been Jeremy.

From that point of view, the fact Jeremy was using a sub-optimal weapon both helps and undermines his narrative. It helps in that it suggests a go-berserker did it, i.e. Sheila; but, it also undermines him because it raises another obvious glaring question: If the weapon was sub-optimal and we assume this was somebody going berserk, then how come they all died? How come Nevill didn't survive, albeit seriously injured?

There is of course an answer to this in Jeremy's defence. The answer is that Nevill probably did survive, it's just that he died eventually after some hours, maybe while Sheila stood watching him in the kitchen. I admit that's plausible too.

(ii). Here's another hypothetical, that might just be true:

We start from the position that Jeremy killed them, probably in the manner and killing order I have theorised, i.e. Sheila first, then the twins, then June, then Nevill. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Nevill didn't struggle with Jeremy at all, and instead what happened is that Jeremy marched him down to the kitchen to make the essential phone call, prodding his back with the hot gun barrel, maybe also beating him, then killed him.

The 'signs of struggle' could have been inadvertently caused by the police during their raid later. Remember also that, just as it was essential for Jeremy to kill Sheila first, it was also essential for him to kill Nevill last. Thus, we have a probable killing order.

How does this relate to the point in hand? Because once Jeremy had finally killed Nevill, he then only had a limited window of opportunity to implement the rest of the plan. This is because he would have been assuming that all phone calls would be traceable and recorded at the telephone exchange.

Therefore, I see a scenario playing out in which Jeremy, under self-imposed time discipline, bungles the staging of Sheila's suicide by accidentally shooting her again. This happened because Jeremy was trying to position the rifle correctly on her body and ensure that her fingerprints would be on the metal plate, and in doing so, maybe with Sheila's finger, he accidentally put pressure on the trigger and it went off and shot her corpse.

This second shot may even have been the fatal shot (it is possible that she was still clinically alive and Jeremy didn't realise it).

 

[TomG]

OK, so basically you're accepting (or considering) the theory that the police fired the fatal shot, therefore it was four murders and a para-suicide/attempted suicide. I suspected that was what you were driving at, and I must admit, that is plausible. I can't dismiss it out of hand, but if I recall correctly, isn't it the case that Sheila actually died of a cardiac arrest, not the gun wounds per se? Remember she may have been lying there for hours and she wanted to die.

There's also a variation on your theory: that Sheila did kill herself, but the police also accidentally shot her corpse.

Let me address your points in a bite size way. Yes the police could have fired the fatal shot. The fatal wound photograph shows significant blood flow which may have released blood that had accumulated after the first wound. IMO It's unlikely that the wound would still be bleeding profusely if the shot had been fired hours earlier.

Vanezis was interviewed in Carol Ann Lee's book where he describes Sheila's second wound as causing ‘severe incapacitation’ with death occurring ‘almost instantaneously’. He mentions nothing about cardiac arrest at least in this book. One intriguing thing that Vanezis does confirm in the book is that:

"Both injuries were ‘very loose’ contact wounds, lacking the associated grazing and distribution of residue within the skin from full contact wounds."

He goes on to say:

"The upper wound, just beneath Sheila’s chin, was smaller with firearm residue and slight bruising. The bullet had gone upwards through the hard palate of her mouth and skull to embed itself in the upper part of the brain."

I'm no expert in firearms but I'd be interested to know how two "very close contact wounds" could end up with bullet holes of different sizes.

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

Let me address your points in a bite size way. Yes the police could have fired the fatal shot. The fatal wound photograph shows significant blood flow which may have released blood that had accumulated after the first wound. IMO It's unlikely that the wound would still be bleeding profusely if the shot had been fired hours earlier.

Vanezis was interviewed in Carol Ann Lee's book where he describes Sheila's second wound as causing ‘severe incapacitation’ with death occurring ‘almost instantaneously’. He mentions nothing about cardiac arrest at least in this book. One intriguing thing that Vanezis does confirm in the book is that:

"Both injuries were ‘very loose’ contact wounds, lacking the associated grazing and distribution of residue within the skin from full contact wounds."

He goes on to say:

"The upper wound, just beneath Sheila’s chin, was smaller with firearm residue and slight bruising. The bullet had gone upwards through the hard palate of her mouth and skull to embed itself in the upper part of the brain."

I'm no expert in firearms but I'd be interested to know how two "very close contact wounds" could end up with bullet holes of different sizes.

Hoots

We don't know which shot was fired first, though, do we. Sheila may have fired the fatal shot, while the police may have fired the non-fatal shot in an accident. Or, yes, it could have been the other way round, with Sheila comatic or unconscious, and the police involved in a tragic accident. Or Sheila may have fired both. Or Bamber may have fired both. We simply don't know, but I think those are the main possibilities.

Given the autopsy evidence especially, I think the likely possibilities can be narrowed down to the conventional - either:

- Bamber did this and one of the shots was a blunder (either he thought he'd killed her and hadn't, so he had to fire again, or he killed her first then accidentally shot her again while trying to get her fingerprint on the metal plate);
OR,
- Sheila did this, and the first shot was a failed suicide attempt, so she simply fired again.

For all sorts of reasons I won't go over now, I think the first possibility is more likely than the second, and in my view it's more likely than not that Jeremy Bamber is a mass murderer; but, I must also acknowledge that the second possibility is well within the realm of plausibility, and I must further acknowledge that there is no direct or forensic evidence connecting Jeremy Bamber to the scene of the crime, and there is no direct or forensic evidence that anybody other than the police moved Sheila's body. Hence there is reasonable doubt, ergo the proper verdict is Not Guilty, and it should have been for the family to pursue Bamber in the civil courts, and maybe also the authorities could have sectioned him and appointed an attorney or receiver over his affairs.

Bullet wounds can be different sizes from the same gun. Each bullet will have a slightly unique effect, as a general rule. Within certain margins of tolerance, you can't base much on the size of bullet wounds due to the way that bullets impact on the skin and body tissue.

As I think I previously stated, I am open to two-gun theories. I once came up with one of my own. I do find it hard to accept that Sheila, if she was the culprit, could have re-loaded at some point. Assuming that hypothetical, surely it's more likely that she grabbed one gun, emptied that, then grabbed another, and emptied that, and the police have simply missed the other gun - a classic example of 'see the rabbit' syndrome.

One problem for Bamber is that in any Sheila-as-killer scenario, she would have been firing at people but fairly aimlessly and recklessly. That doesn't cohere with what we see. Everybody was hit and everybody was killed, and if I recall the evidence correctly, all the shots hit their target. That is highly suggestive of Bamber as the culprit, not Sheila. Here we can see that Bamber made another important error. A go-berserker would have been firing all over the place, and had Sheila really done it, mostly likely Nevill, maybe also Sheila herself, would have lived to tell the tale, with Sheila looking at manslaughter and GBH charges.

 

[TomG]

(i). If you stand back and consider the full picture objectively, the fact that they all died is in itself suspicious and points to Jeremy. It's not proof in any legal sense. It's just another 'suspicious indicator'. Remember that a rational perpetrator - i.e. Jeremy (or Jeremy's agent) - would make sure they were all dead, whereas a hypothetical irrational perpetrator - i.e. Sheila - would more likely than not fail to kill them all. I think that if Sheila had been the culprit, we would have seen at least one of them, probably Nevill, survive and live to tell the tale.

I don't agree. You are not taking Sheila's schizophrenia seriously enough. There are multiple links relating to the killing of individuals, including children by people suffering from a schizophrenic episode. They are paranoid, delusional and hear voices. Sheila was certainly under-medicated on the night of the massacre could well have heard voices telling her to kill her family.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austr...ry-depths-drove-mother-to-kill-eight-children
https://www.live5news.com/2019/10/2...t-found-not-guilty-by-reason-mental-insanity/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...c-killed-three-pensioners-hours-apart-exeter/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2674389/Schizophrenic-gunman-who-killed-six-is-released

There are also multiple links for people that have killed to gain an inheritance. Sheila's bed had not been slept in so she may have been wandering around the house. If JB had climbed in through the bathroom window it's very likely that he would have encountered Sheila at some point. Then what? And why would JB have needed to kill the twins?

Hoots

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't agree. You are not taking Sheila's schizophrenia seriously enough. There are multiple links relating to the killing of individuals, including children by people suffering from a schizophrenic episode. They are paranoid, delusional and hear voices. Sheila was certainly under-medicated on the night of the massacre could well have heard voices telling her to kill her family.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austr...ry-depths-drove-mother-to-kill-eight-children
https://www.live5news.com/2019/10/2...t-found-not-guilty-by-reason-mental-insanity/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...c-killed-three-pensioners-hours-apart-exeter/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2674389/Schizophrenic-gunman-who-killed-six-is-released

There are also multiple links for people that have killed to gain an inheritance. Sheila's bed had not been slept in so she may have been wandering around the house. If JB had climbed in through the bathroom window it's very likely that he would have encountered Sheila at some point. Then what? And why would JB have needed to kill the twins?

Hoots

Three of those cases you link to do not involve a gun and I do not regard them as equivalent. Importantly, they also all involve victims who were vulnerable in relation to the perpetrator.

The last linked case does involve a mentally-ill gunman, but he did not manage to kill all his victims - which seems to underscore the point I am making.

I stand by my essential point:

1. In a hypothetical of Sheila-as-killer, Sheila would be an irrational killer and could not have carried out the killings efficiently. The real killer was efficient, so if Sheila was the real killer, we have a paradox. It's like a stone drunkard somehow managing to collect five prizes in a row at a fair gun. It's possible, but rather unlikely. The paradox is resolved if we accept that in fact Jeremy was the killer, pretending to be Sheila.
2. The use of a sub-optimal weapon coupled with the absence of any missed shots (i.e. bullets in walls and ceiling, etc.), suggests a rational killer disguising himself as irrational, which by definition, excludes Sheila.
3. If it was Sheila, more than likely, Nevill and maybe Sheila herself would have survived such an incident. Yet everybody died (albeit Sheila did not die from the gunshot wound per se, but from a cardiac arrest resulting from her injuries). How did Sheila manage to be so deadly efficient and on target?

Here are five factors that, in my view, would have hindered Sheila's ability to carry out the killings efficiently:

(i). Sheila had no rational motive for carrying out such a killing. This means if she was the killer, her thinking would have been confused and clouded, especially as she was targeting her own biological sons.

(ii). Sheila was under the influence of psychotropic medication, and recently her dosage had been reduced. This could have catalysed violence, but equally it would also have destabilised her mentally and hindered her judgement.

(iii). By Bamber's own testimony, Sheila had gone berserk: "You've got to help me. My father has rang me and said 'Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun.'"

(iv). Nevill was physically much the stronger, would have resisted her, and (assuming Sheila actually was the culprit) evidently did put up a fight.

(v). Sheila had little, if any, direct experience with firearms. Depending on who you speak to, she either had some familiarity with weapons having grown up in a farming family and fired a gun once or twice on holiday for fun, or she didn't know one end of a rifle from another. Possibly it's a bit of both those things, since they're not mutually-exclusive. Yes, the shots were fired close-up, but to do this would still require ease and familiarity with firearms, which she lacked.

None of the above, let me stress, excludes the possibility of Sheila as the culprit. It's still plausible because she could have just picked up two guns, one after the other, and walked round the house and fired them, and hit the target, right? I accept that this could have happened. And she was found with the gun, or a gun.

 

[Nessie]

Let me address your points in a bite size way. Yes the police could have fired the fatal shot. The fatal wound photograph shows significant blood flow which may have released blood that had accumulated after the first wound. IMO It's unlikely that the wound would still be bleeding profusely if the shot had been fired hours earlier.

Vanezis was interviewed in Carol Ann Lee's book where he describes Sheila's second wound as causing ‘severe incapacitation’ with death occurring ‘almost instantaneously’. He mentions nothing about cardiac arrest at least in this book. One intriguing thing that Vanezis does confirm in the book is that:

"Both injuries were ‘very loose’ contact wounds, lacking the associated grazing and distribution of residue within the skin from full contact wounds."

He goes on to say:

"The upper wound, just beneath Sheila’s chin, was smaller with firearm residue and slight bruising. The bullet had gone upwards through the hard palate of her mouth and skull to embed itself in the upper part of the brain."

I'm no expert in firearms but I'd be interested to know how two "very close contact wounds" could end up with bullet holes of different sizes.

Hoots

The answer would be from examining both bullets. Were they fired from the same gun?

 

[Samson]

The answer would be from examining both bullets. Were they fired from the same gun?

There was one gun that fired all bullets. This is common ground to all parties.
There has been talk of two silencers, but that is also a red herring, no silencer was involved in the shootings that evening.

 

[Dark Knight]

There was one gun that fired all bullets. This is common ground to all parties.

There has been talk of two silencers, but that is also a red herring, no silencer was involved in the shootings that evening.

Are we sure that only one gun was used, though? When I looked into this case a couple of years ago, I got quite deeply into the material, including the ballistics evidence, and it seemed to me at least plausible that if Sheila did this, then two guns were used.

I don't have all the details to hand now, but the scenario in outline would be simple:

(i). She empties the first rifle.
(ii). She then grabs another rifle lying around and empties that one.
(iii). Having noticed ammunition near that rifle, she goes back and puts one more cartridge in the magazine, so she can kill herself. Obviously, being inexperienced, she doesn't take account of the fact that the rifle is not ideal for the task and may not kill her. She's deranged and doesn't care anyway.
(iv). She shoots herself in the neck and dies some hours later of cardiac arrest.
(v). She overlooks that there's also a cartridge left in the chamber. A second shot implies that she has either shot herself, but was still conscious and shoots again in frustration, or there was an accident by a third party when handling the rifle.

A possible variation on the above is that instead of putting a single cartridge in the empty magazine, she uses a second pre-loaded magazine, but the problem with this is how would she 'know' that there is only one cartridge left in the chamber? I remember looking into this and can't remember what I discovered about the rifle.

Does the bolt lock back in the open position on the 525 Model? I think it does. If it does, that surely is a problem for Bamber's defence. It means that while it is still plausible that Sheila could have been the killer, it's at the very lower end of plausibility because it would require Sheila either to have gone on a frenzy but left one bullet in the rifle then added another cartridge, or emptied the rifle and then added two cartridges. Neither of those scenarios make sense, I'm afraid. She wouldn't have added another bullet for good luck. I allow that the rifle was sub-optimal for its purpose, but Sheila isn't considering that, she just wants to point the rifle at her brain and fire. She only needs one bullet for that. Whether she actually kills herself, or has killed anybody else, is incidental. Or are we saying she planned the whole thing through? If so, what was she planning, given that she concludes this scenario by killing herself?

Unfortunately, it does point to Bamber. The scenario would be:

(i). Bamber puts two cartridges in the chamber, to give the impression that Sheila has gone on a frenzy and then shot herself.
(ii). Bamber fires once. It's probable that the first shot is the one that led to Sheila's death.
(iii). Bamber then accidentally fires a second time into the fleshy part of her neck after trying to get Sheila's finger mark on the metal plate.
(iv). Bamber doesn't trouble himself to add another cartridge or two, or decides not to, or just forgets.

Sorry.

I do still think the verdicts should have been Not Guilty, due to the following:

1. Essex Police compromised the crime scene, which means my tentative conclusion above is unreliable as it is based on compromised evidence and impressions. Do we even know for sure it was that rifle? Etc., etc. The points are numerous. Given that the case against Jeremy is entirely circumstantial, this weakens the prosecution fatally.

2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it is not in itself reliable evidence anyway. I accept that it was for the jury to decide on reliability having considered the evidence of those in the chain of custody, but the Crown's witnesses were all vested in the outcome.

3. Julie Mugford, I believe, lied, but I also hold that her evidence is irrelevant, and in its critical aspects, amounts to hearsay and should have been excluded at trial as it was an attempt to unduly influence the jury.

4. It is just about plausible that Sheila did it without aid or involvement from Jeremy. It's at the very lower end of plausibility, and normally would not amount to 'reasonable doubt', but in this case it does due to the other points just outlined, especially 1.

5. There is no evidence that Sheila's body was moved by anyone other than the police.

Today, all those factors should lead to Jeremy Bamber's discharge from custody, though I believe he should be placed under psychiatric supervision as I find it more likely than not that he is the culprit. Points 1 and 2 mean the convictions are unsafe. Point 3 renders the convictions unsatisfactory and/or unsafe. You could argue point 4 was in the gift of the jury and they were entitled to dismiss Sheila-centric theories, but when you couple it with point 1, it looks like an unsafe conviction. Point 5 is also linked inextricably to point 1, but it also stands out as establishing reasonable doubt in its own right - hence, again, it's an unsafe conviction.

One thing that could change my mind about Bamber's culpability is if you can produce evidence that the 525 Model specification is other than how I say or the firing mechanism works in some other way.

 

[Dark Knight]

I've been thinking further about the phone calls. Sorry, it's two years since I looked at this case and I've forgotten lots of things, but the 'phone calls' aspect of it is now coming back to me.

When I looked at this back in 2018, I quickly realised that the phone calls are at the centre of it all. Jeremy's report of the call from Nevill means that the culprit can only be him or Sheila (or some variation on this: Jeremy's agent, or Jeremy and Sheila working together, or whatever). It also means that any scenario with Sheila as solo culprit cannot be premeditated, it must be that she went berserk. Also, it means that nobody can have been shot at that point, otherwise Nevill definitely would have rung 999 before, or instead of, Jeremy.

Furthermore, we can conclude that the call was most likely made from the kitchen and that Sheila was most likely with Nevill in the kitchen when the call was made. At first, it probably sounds strange that she would be with him, but if you pause to think about it, you'll realise it's logical and reasonable within the hypothesis of Jeremy's defence. What we have is a stand-off situation. Sheila would't care that Nevill is calling Jeremy - she's deranged, right?

Another point we must conclude on is that Jeremy must have been awake or must have been asleep and awakened by Nevill's call. This looks convenient for Jeremy, but I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt on this point. To be fair, Jeremy is the type who would be awake, but even if he was asleep, the probability of a 'stand-off' situation with Nevill that I explain above fits quite neatly with the idea of Nevill waiting some time - even minutes - for Jeremy to answer, during which Sheila may have been shouting at him, and so on. It's plausible.

Also, I don't mind that Jeremy can't exactly remember whether he was awake when he took the call. It sounds weird that somebody wouldn't remember the whole process of hearing the phone and taking the call and whether they were awake or not, but I find this plausible, and if anything, the inability to remember aids his plausibility. A liar would have given a neater narrative of things, whereas somebody telling the truth about a stressful situation in the early hours of the morning will probably relate a confusing and contradictory account of things that varies depending on who he is telling the story to. He may tell one person he was awake when he got the call, the other person that he was asleep and woke up to the phone ringing, and so on. It doesn't mean he's lying, in fact for me it suggests the opposite.

But my willingness to make allowances has its limits. I think there is a serious problem at the heart of Jeremy's narrative.

Back in 2018, I'd wondered to myself why Jeremy didn't do the following:

(i). drive straight to the farm to assist his father;
AND/OR,
(ii). call 999.

We needn't trouble ourselves any further with (i), because Jeremy himself didn't. He made phone calls first, so the 'why' depends on whether he's guilty or not. That leaves us with the puzzle of (ii). I eventually found the probable solution, feeling very stupid at not having realised it more quickly, as it's obvious. Before we go into that, the question itself requires a more fundamental examination. I can understand Nevill not dialling 999 and calling Jeremy instead. As previously stated, that part of Jeremy's story seems reasonable because it's a rural area, small village, and Nevill is a taciturn farmer and local Magistrate, etc., etc. He would prefer to bring his son into it rather than have a big fuss with all the police there. He would, of course, also have been genuinely concerned for Sheila and the twins if the authorities had been brought in on a more formal basis. OK, so far so good.

Where the problem with Jeremy's story arises is that on receiving this call from Nevill, Jeremy decides that it IS an emergency, yet he doesn't call 999. This is a problem for two reasons:

1. The process of Nevill's actions suggest that it was NOT an emergency within the context of that family. Within Jeremy's own narrative, Nevill had decided it was an internal domestic incident to be managed by him and Jeremy (Whether Nevill was right or wrong in this decision is not important for our purposes). I believe this reveals Jeremy's defence theory/hypothesis to be a pretence. Jeremy is creating a paradoxical narrative of his own, not realising that his own actions do not cohere with Nevill's within the very same story. That sort of paradox is a classic 'tell' that investigators look for in order to detect liars: it suggests a self-serving narrative rather than an attachment to the truth.

2. Let us suppose that, in fact, I am wrong about 1 above. We still have the problem that Jeremy's actions plainly do not make sense. If we are to even believe him, then we must accept that instead of dialling 999, he calls a local police station. There is no response. At that point, instead of at last dialling 999, he calls Chelmsford Police Station. It can't be emphasised enough that, to anybody brought up in Britain, his actions are nonsensical.

Furthermore, the whole question of 'Why didn't he call 999?' requires that we ignore the paradox inherent in Jeremy's own narrative, as explained in 1 above. The question itself requires that we buy into one of Jeremy's representations.

But let's now address the question: Why didn't he call 999? I believe the explanation is simple. First, we can see that if Jeremy is guilty, and if Jeremy carried out the killings himself, he needed to be, first, at the farm, then at his own house in Goldhanger. We know he returned to Goldhanger because of his use of the car to return to the farm and meet the police there later.

It follows that there was a gap of time of at least 10 to 15 minutes (absolute minimum) between Jeremy leaving the farm after carrying out the killings and reaching Goldhanger.

Jeremy had the option of staging Nevill's call from the farm. That would have been very easy, but in doing so he had to decide who he was going to ring. That's not so easy. If he rings 999, he has the problem that the call would be assumed to be tape-recorded, which means his whole plan would quickly unravel under the barest scrutiny. If he stages a call to himself instead, he has to explain why Nevill hasn't at least attempted to dial 999, why there is a convenient gap between Nevill's call to him and his response, and why he has treated the situation as an emergency when Nevill did not. Clearly, one of those problems answers the other, albeit on Jeremy's terms: Nevill decides it's not an emergency but rings Jeremy. Jeremy decides it is an emergency, but for some reason doesn't take emergency action. Within this whole story is the DNA of lying. When you look at it properly, the story falls apart because Jeremy is left with the problem of the 'convenient response gap', for which there isn't a proper solution.

The problem arises because, first, Jeremy would have assumed that all call times were logged at the BT exchange (in this case, that assumption was wrong, but that doesn't matter); second, the police would demand from Jeremy some timings of actions and phone calls and so on, and these timings would need to cohere with the rest of the evidence, including Nevill's supposed call; and, third, Jeremy would need to arrive at the farm twice: inconspicuously to carry out the killings and conspicuously to meet the police. He would also need to do the exact same when leaving Goldhanger for the farm, again twice: inconspicuously when setting out for the farm to carry out the killings and conspicuously to go and meet the police. He would, furthermore, need to do the exact opposite when returning to Goldhanger on two separate occasions: conspicuously arrive back at Goldhanger from his day of work at the farm; and inconspicuously arrive back at Goldhanger after carrying out the killings.

In the end, I believe Jeremy did plan this out to some degree beforehand and I think he decided on the following:

- First, he would stage a call to himself from the farm.
- He would return to Goldhanger and explain the 'convenient response gap' by calling Julie Mugford and then calling Whitham Police Station, knowing he would not receive a response. He then called Chelmsford Police Station, knowing that would delay things further.
- None of this would solve the 10/15-minute gap, especially if call timings were logged (which I think he anticipated), but it would help him somewhat, and if confronted about that specifically, or about his strange actions generally, he would rely on plausible excuses: confusion, panic, tiredness, early hours of the morning, and so on, and hoped that investigators would not probe further.

The benefit in all this is that it causes delay, which helps with Jeremy's whole narrative, creates a cogent alibi for him, and neatly circumvents the problem of how Nevill alerts the rest of the world to Sheila's rampage without incriminating himself.

What Jeremy didn't realise was that his call to the police was tape-recorded, it's just that the tape recording seems not to have been disclosed. This in itself probably doesn't matter much either way, but I note he is using this non-disclosure as a pretext for demanding disclosure of a prior 999 call by Nevill. The obvious difficulty with this is that on Jeremy's own statement, that call is unlikely to have happened. Nevill himself did not consider the situation to be an emergency. It's not just that Jeremy is probably lying about it in the first place, the real problem is that Jeremy's own story renders an emergency call by Nevill somewhat paradoxical, if not contradictory.

This whole post can be summarised in six words: It doesn't look good for Bamber. The more you look at it, the more guilty he looks, and the more I hear from his supporters, the more I lean towards his guilt.

Of course, I welcome reasoned, constructive responses that challenge my thinking, based on facts. If I'm wrong about something, let me know on here. I am NOT asserting that he did do it. I don't know, but I am saying it looks likely. I would be delighted to be able to say he's more likely to be innocent, but the evidence doesn't support that.