Jeremy Bamber

[Dark Knight]

Jeremy Bamber must die in jail unless the case is enlivened. What better way than a plethora of critical thinkers here to engage?
I will post no links, because everyone should use the internet for their own research.
I think he is innocent, and if so, he should be released.

This was the first post on the thread, by Samson, four-and-a-half years ago. How far have we come? Nowhere, really. Bamber and his Team keep recycling old points. Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens at the High Court in Leeds at the end of this month, it's the end of the road.

I think Jeremy Bamber will die in prison (though technically they will probably release him into a secure hostel when he is very elderly and infirm, but that amounts to the same thing).

I think he probably did it, but the trial was conducted unfairly as all the important forensic clues were compromised, making it virtually impossible to form a definitive view of the case today, despite advances in technology. An important witness lied, and important evidence, the moderator, was planted or wrongly introduced. But the legal system has responded to these issues by upholding the safety of the conviction, on the basis that none of the problems (which are not denied) affect the essential case against Bamber.

On a strict legal understanding of things, that's wrong, but that's where we are. Unless further unforeseen technological advances open up new vistas of inquiry, I don't believe the position will change.

 

[Samson]

This was the first post on the thread, by Samson, four-and-a-half years ago. How far have we come? Nowhere, really. Bamber and his Team keep recycling old points. Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens at the High Court in Leeds at the end of this month, it's the end of the road.

I think Jeremy Bamber will die in prison (though technically they will probably release him into a secure hostel when he is very elderly and infirm, but that amounts to the same thing).

I think he probably did it, but the trial was conducted unfairly as all the important forensic clues were compromised, making it virtually impossible to form a definitive view of the case today, despite advances in technology. An important witness lied, and important evidence, the moderator, was planted or wrongly introduced. But the legal system has responded to these issues by upholding the safety of the conviction, on the basis that none of the problems (which are not denied) affect the essential case against Bamber.

On a strict legal understanding of things, that's wrong, but that's where we are. Unless further unforeseen technological advances open up new vistas of inquiry, I don't believe the position will change.

So you can figure what I think of the worthies around here who could not care less about this clear cut case of destruction of a citizen.
Your posts offer arguments from incredulity and do not collide with any evidence from the crime scene but at least you are having a go.
I am perplexed by the lack of concern by many others.

 

[Dark Knight]

So you can figure what I think of the worthies around here who could not care less about this clear cut case of destruction of a citizen.
Your posts offer arguments from incredulity and do not collide with any evidence from the crime scene but at least you are having a go.
I am perplexed by the lack of concern by many others.

My posts ARE based on evidence from the crime scene, Samson. It's theorisations/suppositions, yes, but it's based on the evidence, and I have explicitly outlined why I think the convictions are UNSAFE/UNSATISFACTORY.

Samson, how do you know he is innocent? Can you reach into the metaphysical realm and drag out truth? As a mere mortal, I can only rely on evidence. I've looked at the same evidence that you have, and I am of at least reasonable intelligence and discernment, and all I can say is that Jeremy more than likely did it, but I can't be sure and I wouldn't convict him or uphold his convictions (instead, I would hope that he would be detained in a hospital for a few years and that the family find remedy in the civil courts).

I deplore both sides of this - those who say they know he did it and those who pretend they know he is innocent. Of course, we're all human, right? If you've become a friend of his, or you're one of the family, or you're one of the police officers or lawyers who were involved and you have inside knowledge, then OK, that's different. But casually commenting and breezily saying that he's definitely innocent or definitely guilty, is disrespectful in either case, in my opinion.

A man is in prison. I think he probably did it, and if he did, then he's done something terrible - I would have hanged him. Killing your parents, while terrible, can possibly be sympathetically rationalised in terms of his background as an adopted son and the difficult home situation and so on. You can allow somebody to rehabilitate themselves in those circumstances, eventually, after many years and careful observation. But there's no going back from killing two children.

Actually I don't believe he's a horrible person deep down and I don't believe he would be a serious threat if he were released, and we don't have the death penalty (unfortunately) and we are where we are. So maybe we should be asking ourselves these questions:

(i). Why haven't the authorities, who are responsible for Jeremy's custody and welfare, persuaded him to confront his actions and confess?

(ii). If (i) is a mistaken premise and he didn't do it, then why haven't the authorities offered him a route for rehabilitation based on his general attitude and risk without having to confess?

(iii). Why is he still in prison? Since he is not a threat to anybody, what purpose can it serve now, after all this time? It's not glib to ask this question. Time is, in itself, a factor. He must be a different person now. Has he grown? Has he matured? Has he taken advantage of the opportunities open to him in prison?

But back to the earlier point: this is a very serious thing. I have too much self-respect, and too much respect for others, to go round breezily passing judgement and arrogantly declaring people guilty or innocent.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

This was the first post on the thread, by Samson, four-and-a-half years ago. How far have we come? Nowhere, really. Bamber and his Team keep recycling old points. Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens at the High Court in Leeds at the end of this month, it's the end of the road.

I think Jeremy Bamber will die in prison (though technically they will probably release him into a secure hostel when he is very elderly and infirm, but that amounts to the same thing).

I think he probably did it, but the trial was conducted unfairly as all the important forensic clues were compromised, making it virtually impossible to form a definitive view of the case today, despite advances in technology. An important witness lied, and important evidence, the moderator, was planted or wrongly introduced. But the legal system has responded to these issues by upholding the safety of the conviction, on the basis that none of the problems (which are not denied) affect the essential case against Bamber.

On a strict legal understanding of things, that's wrong, but that's where we are. Unless further unforeseen technological advances open up new vistas of inquiry, I don't believe the position will change.

That's almost like saying; I hope he did it, because if he didn't the ramifications are too horrendous to contemplate.

He didn't do it, and I don't really understand how anyone who acquaints themselves broadly with the known facts doesn't see this.

Otherwise, this thread has been quite an enjoyable read of late.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

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.

Think of it this way;

of two mutually contradictory claims, both could be wrong/false.
One could be right/true the other wrong/false.
Both cannot be right/true.

Too often I find people indulging in what's been called "the middle-ground fallacy", holding that a question or problem which should have a simple, binary solution - true or false, guilty or innocent - is a sort of metaphysical conundrum like Shroedinger's Shrödinger's Cat.

As I just said, Bamber is innocent and this should be obvious. Those who assert otherwise either have not researched the case enough or have some kind of vested interest that drives them to do so (even if it's simply a pathological need to cling their own, implicit trust in authority).

 

[IsThisTheLife]

I've been reviewing the part Julie Mugford played in getting Bamber jailed.

She must have been like a pig in poo in the Summer of 1985. Things were looking good - she'd got herself an affluent boyfriend, she might even have been able to give up resorting to cheque fraud for her shopping habits!

But she had to consider her long-term future;

Let me think ....... I know I'm not particularly bright or pretty, and I don't have any discernable talent, so .... I know! I'll become a teacher! And I've got a BF who can support me, at least for as long as it takes to do all the courses!

When Bamber dumped her, however, she had to forget about the cushy ride through teacher-training college. She wasn't AT ALL happy about it.

But things quickly got MUCH worse, and what was left of her plans came apart at the seams;

actual criminal charges for cheque-fraud and drug possession/dealing. Maybe not the end of the world but most CERTAINLY the end of Julie's plans for any kind of career in teaching, EVER. She was going back where she belonged - NOWHERE.

But she obviously had a guardian-angel, and somehow it all worked itself out in the end.

She was 'gently persuaded' by corrupt Essex cops and their higher-ups to provide false statements against her ex-BF. These cops acted as they did after City of London police exerted their influence at the behest of certain of Bamber's relatives and their peers (Robert Boutflour in particular), who had used their Masonic "old-boy network" connections/influence [**].

Voila! Her record was to remain pristine, un-blemished.

The happy-ending was made perfect with a pre-arranged £25K pay-out (£100+K today?) from the ever-classy News Of The World for her "story" (to be accompanied with cringe-worthy "glamour" shots), contingent on the court's affirming that Bamber was the "monster" hoped for, one who would shift newsprint by the lorry-load.

Thus, just a soon as Bamber was put behind bars, the benighted Julie was able to flee her abjectly ****** little life to a new one in Canada, disappearing from memory (and easy reach of subpoena) as if nothing had happened, and there she's lived happily-ever-after, courtesy of the liberal Canadian state education system and a marriage which hides her memorable but inconvenient surname.

Whatever the minor flaws in her character that once caused her her mis-steps in petty crime (oh, and perjuring herself to help get a man imprisoned for life without parole - but hey, so what if he didn't do it, he was a bastard!), she's now undoubtedly completely reformed and at ease with her conscience, a model citizen, and a teacher who anyone would surely be delighted to have setting an example for their young children.

Who could wish poor Julie anything but the best after her tribulations?

Satire aside, the contortions I've seen people, in particular the pathological 'guilters', go through in trying to find kernels of "truth" in the pile of poo that was Julie Mugford's testimony, which is obvious to anyone with an IQ much above "special needs", is jaw-dropping. Practically NOTHING of any usefulness in ascertaining the truth ever came out of her mouth.

[**] If you dispute the masonic connection, then please explain how you suppose Essex denizens like Robert Boutflour and his daughter were able to persuade senior City of London police officers to intercede in a non-jurisdictional case in the first place (after extraordinarily persistent efforts to persuade the Essex DI in charge of the investigation to play ball, over several weeks, had got them precisely nowhere).

 

[llwyd]

This seems like one of those many cases where the police botched the investigation and even though the likely perpertrator was convicted, the conviction wasn't sound. Frustrating as hell.

edit: This bizarre case from Finland is another one - the first investigation was a total farce and and the eventual overturning of the conviction was quite justified. So the likely killer got 500 000 euros compensation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulvila_murder_case

 

[IsThisTheLife]

This seems like one of those many cases where the police botched the investigation and even though the likely perpertrator was convicted, the conviction wasn't sound. Frustrating as hell.

edit: This bizarre case from Finland is another one - the first investigation was a total farce and and the eventual overturning of the conviction was quite justified. So the likely killer got 500 000 euros compensation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulvila_murder_case

Actually there's more to it than that. The inititial investigation (paticularly the first 24 hours of the CSI) was shambolic, but the evidence they collected was sufficient to close the case with right conclusion drawn, as it was.

Then certain bad actors stepped in - Bamber's venal (and possibly sociopathic **) relatives, who had the means/motive/opportunity to set up a frame, got the case re-opened by going to the City Of London Police.

Yes, you read that correctly - they failed to persuade or threaten the Essex DI in charge (in fact he was exasperated and finally enraged by their repeated demands, which they made in person several times), so somehow Robert Boutflour was able to get some "acquaintances" in a entirely different police force (notorious for its masonic rank/hierarchy) to intercede. I've not often heard it asked how he was in a position to manage that.

** There was another attempt to gather evidence at Whitehouse Farm years later (early 2000's IIRC) during preparations for an appeal (which was denied) - officers took photos which showed that Neville and June Bamber's bedroom, which was in regular use by Robert Boutflours' daughter, Anne Eaton, had never been redecorated. The same wallpaper, with blood spatters on it, ditto the shade on what would have been June's bedside table-lamp! When I first heard about this I was absolutely gobsmacked, and not a little disturbed.

 

[Samson]

Actually there's more to it than that. The inititial investigation (paticularly the first 24 hours of the CSI) was shambolic, but the evidence they collected was sufficient to close the case with right conclusion drawn, as it was.

Then certain bad actors stepped in - Bamber's venal (and possibly sociopathic **) relatives, who had the means/motive/opportunity to set up a frame, got the case re-opened by going to the City Of London Police.

Yes, you read that correctly - they failed to persuade or threaten the Essex DI in charge (in fact he was exasperated and finally enraged by their repeated demands, which they made in person several times), so somehow Robert Boutflour was able to get some "acquaintances" in a entirely different police force (notorious for its masonic rank/hierarchy) to intercede. I've not often heard it asked how he was in a position to manage that.

** There was another attempt to gather evidence at Whitehouse Farm years later (early 2000's IIRC) during preparations for an appeal (which was denied) - officers took photos which showed that Neville and June Bamber's bedroom, which was in regular use by Robert Boutflours' daughter, Anne Eaton, had never been redecorated. The same wallpaper, with blood spatters on it, ditto the shade on what would have been June's bedside table-lamp! When I first heard about this I was absolutely gobsmacked, and not a little disturbed.

Yep exactly as evil as you describe. The lazy fools that roam Britain and allow Bamber to be sacrificed by millions of police, lawyers and judges for 33 years are complicit and I am glad Dark Knight reminded me what I think of them.
Crocodile tears everywhere for the ravages of nature.

 

[Nessie]

This case is one of the worst examples of not complying with beyond reasonable doubt that I have read about. There is no way he should have been convicted.

What this, and other cases show, is that the UK's CJ system is not an honest search for the truth. It is a competition between prosecution and defence and to them, it is just a game they play, sod the victims and accused.

 

[Samson]

It took Julie Mugford to lie through her teeth.

Well, shortly after the conclusion of Jeremy Bamber's murder trial, Mugford went on to sell her story to the News Of The World, and as the Mirror reports, bagged herself a hefty £250,000 deal. Later in life, Julie married and moved away to Winnipeg, Canada, where she changed her name. Since moving from the UK, Mugford has worked as a teacher, a vice principal at a primary school, and as a manager in the Winnipeg Schools Division, according to the Mirror.

https://www.bustle.com/p/where-is-j...jeremy-bamber-has-started-a-new-life-21731914

How could this happen and the people of Britain lie straight in bed?

 

[TomG]

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/austra...eight-children
https://www.live5news.com/2019/10/25...ntal-insanity/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-apart-exeter/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ix-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:

Why would the method of killing be an issue? If a gun had been available in these cases and the killer knew how to use it, would the victims have been bludgeoned to death in two of the cases, or would they have used a gun? The killer in the last link was a paranoid schizophrenic as indicated in the narrative. In the last link at least one person managed to escape however; at WHF there would have been no likelihood of escape in the circumstances. The bottom line is that paranoid schizophrenics will kill with the intention to kill gun or no gun.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

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?

1. The killings were only "efficient" in the case of the twins, both June and certainly Nevill's deaths were very inefficient with June only finally succumbing to a fatal wound between the eyes.

2. If Jeremy was pretending to be Sheila why didn't he fire a few wayward shots into the walls and ceilings after the killings to make it look more like Sheila gone crazy? It would have been the obvious thing to do.

3. What makes you think that Nevill would have survived the massacre? You don't know how a schizophrenic mind works. She might have heard voices to kill him, who knows? There is also the possibility that Sheila shot Nevill in the mouth and then killed him as retribution for getting calls away. Venezis is interviewed in Carol-Ann Lee's book where he describes Sheila's post mortem. He makes no mention of cardiac arrest. She managed to get all her shots on target since they were only fired from no more than a couple of feet away. Most of them when the victim had ceased to resist. How could she miss?

Hoots

 

[Samson]

I am not sure who you are responding to but Sheila was as mentally sick as reason allows.
Killing is a natural inclination.
She killed them all and then herself.
British citizens are complicit in this kidnapping and caging of Jeremy Bamber.
The whole complement of you critical thinkers.

 

[TomG]

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.

(i) Sheila was under-medicated and very vulnerable to a schizophrinic episode. What makes you think that her thinking would have been confues and clouded? Schizophrenics kill people when their symptoms are uncheckecked as previously indicated

(ii) "hindered her judgement" Yes, that's why she killed the family.

(iii) ??

(iv) He's not going to put up much of a fight if he's been shot in the mouth and jaw.

(v) How do you know she lacked familiarity with the firearm? All she needed to to was to watch Jeremy using it to know how it was used. It was her lack of knowledge of the calibre and it's inability to deliver a fatal wound to adults was certainly something that she wouldn't necessarily be aware of.

What's the evidence of two guns being involved?

 

[Fixit]

It's absolutely fatal to put yourself in the mind of a deranged person. But I will do that later, somewhat.
Another fatal thing is to overlook trajectories and this case if full of them with each telling it's own story. There is no blood or other marks indicating that Sheila's body was moved. Moving bodies around a crime scene is the fantasy of a poor prosecution. As is the idea of a male charging into gunfire then running from it to escape.
With all the trajectories explained, the scratches pointed out as inconsistent with swinging a rifle in an arc. There wouldn't be many men that didn't understand the weight of the butt of the rifle was more than forceful. The clear explanation as to why a killer having successfully completed his/her killing spree they would involve his or herself in anyway by claiming the phone call, is needed, as it links with the fantasy of moving bodies around houses.
Lastly and recalling the known circumstances and the absence of a close bond with her mother, children dead in bed in 1 room, Sheila dead on the bed on the floor close to her mother seems consistent with the thought of a reconciliation in another place.
I've been away from the case for around 6 years I think. But I do recall evidence that Nevill would spend time in the lounge alone and night and think (from memory) there was evidence of that possibly a coffee cup or evidence of smoking or similar.

 

[Vixen]

This case is one of the worst examples of not complying with beyond reasonable doubt that I have read about. There is no way he should have been convicted.

What this, and other cases show, is that the UK's CJ system is not an honest search for the truth. It is a competition between prosecution and defence and to them, it is just a game they play, sod the victims and accused.

It is an adversarial system and whoever convinces the jury the best is the winner.

Bamber had a fair trial. He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Letting him off just because you feel sorry for his sentencing is not the same thing as finding his conviction as unsafe.

 

[Nessie]

It is an adversarial system and whoever convinces the jury the best is the winner.

Bamber had a fair trial. He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Letting him off just because you feel sorry for his sentencing is not the same thing as finding his conviction as unsafe.

I think his conviction is unsafe. There is a very credible alternative, that his sister shot the family and then herself.

I do not see how any trial can be fair when evidence is not disclosed. That is a very common flaw in the UK legal system.

 

[Essexman]

I think his conviction is unsafe. There is a very credible alternative, that his sister shot the family and then herself.

I do not see how any trial can be fair when evidence is not disclosed. That is a very common flaw in the UK legal system.

The problem with Jeremy's trial was the narrative the defense chose to argue.

The prosecution argued that Sheila's blood group in the silencer made it impossible for her to kill herself.

The defense argued that the blood in the silencer was a mixture of June and Nevills blood group and that Sheila put the silencer away in the cupboard before killing herself. In hindsight it was a fatal move.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The defense argued that the blood in the silencer was a mixture of June and Nevills blood group and that Sheila put the silencer away in the cupboard before killing herself. In hindsight it was a fatal move.

So why did they make that argument?

 

[Essexman]

So why did they make that argument?

A lawyer who has worked on this case, has expressed his views on this an I have quoted him below -


"I need to be a bit careful what I say about this because I have discussed it with Jeremy Bamber so I know his own views on the matter. Obviously he was at the trial and I was not so I have to take seriously Jeremy's views on how his case was handled. I do not want to breach confidences, but I do not think Jeremy would mind me saying that he felt that given the constraints imposed by the non disclosure of evidence his two barristers did a reasonable job.

With the benefit of hindsight obviously there are aspects of the case which could have been handled in a different way. However, I suspect that the defence view was that this was a weak case based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that raising doubts about the prosecution arguments was likely to be a better course tactically than, for example, launching a direct attack on relatives alleging a conspiracy against Jeremy.

As far as the evidence of the financial gain to family members was concerned as I understand it everyone was misled, including the prosecution barristers and the judge. It would have been difficult for the defence on its own to get to the bottom of what was a fairly complex situation.

My own personal view is that although it appears that Geoffrey Rivlin and his junior did a competent job at trial more might have been done in advance of the trial by the solicitors acting for Jeremy in pursuing some lines of enquiry. I may be unfair in saying this, but I suspect that there are other firms of solicitors who might have been more effective."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1122.msg34540.html#msg34540

"A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.

Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171157.html#msg171157

 

[Dark Knight]

Something else that's bothering me:

(i). Why would Nevill Bamber remove the silencer and scope from the rifle and leave these off? What purpose would he have for such a course of action?

(ii). Why would Jeremy, who admits to using the weapon, not re-attach the scope and silencer for his own legitimate purposes?

To believe Jeremy is innocent, I think there is an onus on his defenders to plausibly explain this odd behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

So I hear Bamber has had his most recent appeal dismissed. Any thoughts?

 

[Samson]

Here is the decision

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf

Still able to go to CCRC from quick read.
I guess crime scene evidence is best ignored to preserve the workings of judicial parody.

Anyone spot any problems here?

147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear.
June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to
get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the
main bedroom door. Neville Bamber was also shot in the
bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where
there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then
shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in
their beds as they slept.
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her
medication, was also shot in the bedroom. When she was dead the
appellant set about arranging the scene to give the impression that
it had been she who had murdered her family before taking her
own life. The appellant then discovered, as he laid the gun upon
her body, that it would not have been possible for her to have shot
herself with the sound moderator attached since her arms were not
long enough to reach down to the trigger. He therefore removed
the silencer from the gun and then positioned the Bible by the
body, knowing Sheila had been preoccupied with religion in the
weeks before her death.

I can help. The sequence is crystal clear and there is only one solution, June, Neville, twins then Sheila shoots herself.
She was off medication.
And so on. Rudimentary research gets across the line on all this.

 

[Vixen]

ISTM that in those days, analysis of forensic evidence of bodily samples was according to blood type. The blood found inside the moderator (silencer) was that of Caffell and had been placed back on the rifle and returned to the cupboard. The prosecution case was that her arms were too short to have been able to shoot herself with the moderator on and obviously could not have returned the gun to the cupboard once she had done so.

Bamber's defence was that the blood inside the moderator might have been a mix of Neville and June, the parents and they were trying to requisition the original report and possibly samples. The only way this would work is if Sheila and either of Neville and June were blood type A and the other parent blood type B, with Sheila being AB.

Although it is clear to me Bamber is guilty as charged, it strikes me that it would now be useful to do a full DNA analysis of this blood to settle the matter once and for all.

 

[Samson]

The precise sequence is deemed unclear because it shows Jeremy was elsewhere.
No reconstruction works and this judge should know this.
He probably does and bloodies his evil hands to pacify England.

 

[Dark Knight]

ISTM that in those days, analysis of forensic evidence of bodily samples was according to blood type.

Of blood, it was.

The blood found inside the moderator (silencer) was that of Caffell

Not correct. The blood found has never been shown to be Sheila's. Before you mention the DNA analysis (the usual thing that guilters trot out), that was an LCN analysis without attribution to trace and was, quite rightly, dismissed as meaningless by the 2002 appellate bench.

and had been placed back on the rifle and returned to the cupboard.

Wait....I understand the point about returning the moderator to the cupboard, and clearly, even if the moderator wasn't used in the killings (which is my view about it), it's the Crown's position that it was found there, and bizarrely enough, that is (or was) the Defence position too.

The bit I don't understand is "placed back on the rifle". Who says that happened? Genuine question, I'm intrigued.

The prosecution case was that her arms were too short to have been able to shoot herself with the moderator on

This is one of those Aunt Sally prosecution points that I have always dismissed in my own mind because we don't know, and the point wasn't tested scientifically in the way it would be today. Ironically, the Defence showed post-trial, I think prior to the 2002 appeal, that she could have shot herself with the moderator on, but again, their test was no more reliable than the prosecution's back in 1985/86.

and obviously could not have returned the gun to the cupboard once she had done so.

Agreed.

Bamber's defence was that the blood inside the moderator might have been a mix of Neville and June, the parents and they were trying to requisition the original report and possibly samples. The only way this would work is if Sheila and either of Neville and June were blood type A and the other parent blood type B, with Sheila being AB.

The bloods were inconclusive, as was DNA. I am focusing here on the blood inside the baffles only. I ignore the blood on the outside of the moderator because that is too susceptible to contamination during custody and examination.

My recollection of the evidence is that, at trial, Hayward had found that the blood inside the baffles was from the same blood group as Sheila's, but he could not exclude the possibility that Nevill's and June's blood was there too or instead of it. I will accept that the bloods are probably human, which in turn must present the Defence with a serious problem because, regardless of how the bloods are grouped, an onus shifts to Bamber to, either, provide a plausible explanation within the framework of the narrative of events, or, explain why we should dismiss the finding.

Overall, though, I would dismiss the moderator. I regard it as inconclusive evidence because:

- the context of the evidence undermines it. The chain of custody is flawed and DI Cook's reputation was undermined in court;

- there is no evidence - none at all - that the moderator was used in the killings. Guilters like to mention the lack of traces of back spatter inside the rifle barrel, but in itself that does not establish the point because back spatter is not inevitable;

- the forensics are inconclusive using current available technologies. We don't know for sure whose blood it is, and it is even possible that it's not human blood (a remote possibility, but the defence expert, Webster, put it at 5%, which is too high if we're talking about keeping somebody in prison). Despite guilters' disingenuous claims, we also don't know whose DNA is there;

- the Crown offered no evidence concerning the quantity of blood inside the internalised baffles. In retrospect, this was a serious error in my view, because a significant quantity of human blood would have amounted to evidence in and of itself with an onus on Bamber to rebut or refute; and,

- the Crown did not provide supporting evidence for the expert view that the patterning of the blood in the baffles was consistent with a gun shot. We are asked to rely on the opinion of experts in this regard, which given the context of the evidence, I don't consider is good enough.

Although it is clear to me Bamber is guilty as charged, it strikes me that it would now be useful to do a full DNA analysis of this blood to settle the matter once and for all.

Agreed.

 

[Dark Knight]

On the subject of the moderator, it may additionally help to set out what, hypothetically, I consider would have been good evidence from Essex Police.

I would have accepted the moderator, without question, if:

(i). Essex Police found it themselves, or a relative found it and left it securely in situ and the police collected it immediately, or it was secured elsewhere but proper and careful procedures were followed as far as could be expected;

(ii). the quantity and pattern of blood found inside was recorded and this demonstrated that it must have come from back spatter;

(iii). (using 1985 forensics) the blood group was shown to be human to a 99% extent and to a 99% extent matched to a victim who had received a contact or near-contact shot;

(iv). expert evidence supported the view that back spatter could occur in those circumstances with what victim.

With that evidence, I think the evidential onus would have shifted to Bamber.

Now let's consider what actually happened. All the points I make here are fact and are common ground in the case:

(i). Financially-vested relatives who had no affection for Bamber (they'd called him "cuckoo") found this evidence after police had searched in the same place and used the room in which the cupboard is situated as their office at the farmhouse during the on-site investigation. These relatives did not inform the police immediately, and contrary to what they claim, there was a delay of at least a few days in alerting the police due to a communications mix-up among them. In fact, the police were only informed of the silencer's existence by accident.

The relatives removed the moderator to a location several miles away, where they examined it and tampered with it, removing key forensic evidence. When a detective attended to collect the evidence, he put it in a bog roll and then got himself drunk on whiskey (this is confirmed on the Crown's own evidence) and then drove off (drinking and driving).

I could go on, but I won't. I think what I have said is enough. Most ordinary people would be rightly astonished!

(ii). The Crown rested on expert opinion concerning these matters. These experts did examine the moderator first hand, so it is open to a jury to accept their evidence that the blood was consistent with back spatter. Let's give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and accept this point.

(iii). On this point the Crown have failed completely. The forensic evidence was far from conclusive at trial and this remains the case today. This means that even if we accept the Crown's claims in (ii) above, all we can say is that there was blood inside the silencer that was consistent with back spatter, but we can't be sure it came from human victims as opposed to animals.

(iv). Here we have to rely on the expert evidence of Malcolm Fletcher, who I struggle to take seriously. But, as with (ii) above, I think we can accept that back spatter could have occurred.

We're left with two points out of four for the Crown. For me, it's not enough. Personally, I think Bamber is likely to be guilty, but it wasn't proved.

 

[catsmate]

The precise sequence is deemed unclear because it shows Jeremy was elsewhere.
No reconstruction works and this judge should know this.
He probably does and bloodies his evil hands to pacify England.

Oh good grief....

 

[Dark Knight]

So we can add the Birmingham Six case to the list of things you don't understand.

Actually, I understand that case very, very well, for reasons I won't go into. I could write a book about it and it would shock people what I have to say.

Beyond that, I don't see your point? The Birmingham Six were convicted, partly, on the basis of expert evidence that was later completely discredited - laughably so. That's aside from the antics of the police, which were exposed through documentary analysis. Yet, the appellate judges and the police kept saying the convictions were safe? Hmmmmmm........

In fact, now I think about it, the parallels with the Bamber are interesting, but this is a case about Bamber, not the Birmingham Six. I only mentioned the Birmingham Six to illustrate the foolishness of relying on the official outcomes of exhaustive due process, especially when, as here, there has been police misconduct and there is room for doubt.

Oh, and I believe Bamber probably did it, but I like to approach things impartially - unlike you. I embrace uncertainty. I recognise I don't know everything, though looking at your posts, I'm also pretty sure I know more about this case than you do. I recognise that, although I think Bamber probably did it, he protests his innocence and I may turn out to be wrong.

What was your point again...??? I don't believe you have a point. Most of what you say on here is just an exercise of your own bias and insecurities. Of course, all of us are biased to some degree, it's human, but some people can't see beyond it. That applies to both sides of this: this is a very frustrating and difficult case to discuss due to the narrow mindsets of people on forums.

 

[Dark Knight]

That's almost like saying; I hope he did it, because if he didn't the ramifications are too horrendous to contemplate.

He didn't do it, and I don't really understand how anyone who acquaints themselves broadly with the known facts doesn't see this.

Otherwise, this thread has been quite an enjoyable read of late.

I'm not taking sides and I won't go along with your simple thinking and slot into your pre-determined categories. For you, the Bamber case is a religion and Bamber's innocence is an article of faith. In contrast, my concern is with evidence, logic, facts and reason.

I lean towards viewing him as guilty, but I don't believe the evidence points conclusively either way, at the moment, and if I was a juror or appellate judge, I would not be able to convict him/sustain the convictions.

To me, 'conclusive' in a criminal case is 99%. That means any forensic evidence has to be 99% affirmed. Where it is less than 99% but still a very high level of percentage certainty (on whatever basis), then I will still consider the evidence as long as it is presented honestly and the prosecution are open and honest about the lack of complete certainty, but there must be compensatory factors that make such probabilistic evidence persuasive. For instance, with the moderator, we can only be 95% sure it is human blood and we can only say that it could be Sheila's blood, not that it is. On this basis, I would need to see that, among other things, there is a fair quantity of blood in the baffles to the extent that it could not have got there accidentally, that there is a pattern that suggests back spatter, that there is a proper chain of custody with minimal risk of contamination, and that there is no back spatter trace in the rifle barrel. Even with all this, I may not be able to accept the evidence, but if those assurances and safeguards are demonstrated, then I would definitely consider it seriously and weigh it in with everything else in deciding whether I am sure of Bamber's guilt to the greatest extent reasonably possible (i.e. 99%).

As matters stand, the moderator in the Bamber case does not even meet the basic criteria just outlined. The forensics are inconclusive, it was found by people who disliked the defendant and had a vested interest in a guilty verdict, it was collected by a drunk and transported in a bog roll, etc. I could go on, but this isn't a comedy thread and I don't want to be cruel.

I mentioned 99%. Percentages are crude, obviously, but it illustrates the point about being sure. The remaining 1% is the minor/residual doubt you have in all criminal cases. 100% is impossible to reach.

I would convict on 99%. The requirement of being 'sure', which in English courts is a modern expository synonym for 'beyond reasonable doubt', literally means 99% and it must, overall, be 99% precisely.

I would NOT normally convict on 98%, because then there is normally reasonable doubt. 98% indicates that the defendant probably did it but there isn't enough to convict.

In the case of Jeremy Bamber, I am currently somewhere between 95% and 98% sure of his guilt. That means there is reasonable doubt: Not Guilty - for now.

 

[Samson]

You want me to produce evidence? What evidence have you produced? And even if you have, why should I accept it?

Sorry, I think I will accept due process.
There have been miscarriages of justice before. You quoting one has absolutely no relevance.

As you may have in Lockerbie until an amateur investigator persuaded you otherwise.
The great advantage amateur investigators have is they are not interested in charging for billable hours but profoundly fascinated by the truth and correcting the errors, deliberate and otherwise.
Try Perfect Circle for a great read.
Missing is a meticulous book on the Bamber case. Carol Ann Lee brings all the family history to life then makes a fool of herself by tendering the crown reconstruction, a plane you would not board if herded at gunpoint.

 

[Dark Knight]

Missing is a meticulous book on the Bamber case.

On this I agree with you, but the book needs to be truly impartial and represent both sides of this fairly. The books so far are woeful.

Most useful right now would be an online document and information repository from an objective standpoint; as part of such a project, there should be a serious effort to obtain all remaining disclosure from the authorities. Even the 1991 COLP report is, I understand, not 'officially' disclosed and only came into a researcher's hands by mistake.

 

[Dark Knight]

I'm still waiting, by the way, for this evidence that the blood inside the moderator was DEFINITELY Sheila's.

As someone who, it is alleged, knows nothing about the case, I am eager to get my apprisal up the same level as these guilters, and it sounds like a real breakthrough has been made. It may even tip the balance for me.

 

[lionking]

I'm still waiting, by the way, for this evidence that the blood inside the moderator was DEFINITELY Sheila's.

As someone who, it is alleged, knows nothing about the case, I am eager to get my apprisal up the same level as these guilters, and it sounds like a real breakthrough has been made. It may even tip the balance for me.

Coming here and insulting people is hardly going to elicit the responses you want.

Despite appeals, inquiries, reviews and campaigns galore, Bamber’s guilt has been confirmed. As this has all happened in the UK and not some corrupt dictatorship, that’s good enough for me. What you are proposing required a conspiracy of massive proportions. Excuse me for not accepting this.

And “guilters”? Oh dear.....

 

[Samson]

Coming here and insulting people is hardly going to elicit the responses you want.

Despite appeals, inquiries, reviews and campaigns galore, Bamber’s guilt has been confirmed. As this has all happened in the UK and not some corrupt dictatorship, that’s good enough for me. What you are proposing required a conspiracy of massive proportions. Excuse me for not accepting this.

And “guilters”? Oh dear.....

Yes it is remarkable that the Eaton family got away with this, and the Essex police. You will be duly shocked when the evidence is laid out with clarity.
Julie Mugford got 25 thousand from a newspaper and bought an apartment for lying like a flatfish. It is a total scandal that people who make the effort get across very quickly. But welcome to the real discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Whilst it is my view that Bamber is guilty as charged (and I even have my doubts as to the likes of Paul Hill and co being innocent) I do not agree with sentencing being increased in retrospect, except through the proper channels, via a properly presented appeal. He originally got 25 years and I believe it was Gordon Brown's government who brought in a 'whole life' tariff for the most notorious of prisoners. Whilst Bamber committed the most heinous of crimes, including two innocent boys aged eight with their whole lives ahead of them, together with his parents who had very kindly adopted him and Sheila, he was a young-ish adult at the time, a mitigating factor, and 25 years should have entitled him to apply for parole now that he's older and wiser, albeit barred from inheritance due to his being the effector of the deaths. IMV it is morally and constitutionally unfair to increase a person's prison sentence in retrospect by an Act of parliament.

 

[Agatha]

Don't bicker, please. And bear in mind the membership agreements to which you agreed on joining the site, particularly the instruction to remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Dark Knight]

Whilst it is my view that Bamber is guilty as charged (and I even have my doubts as to the likes of Paul Hill and co being innocent) I do not agree with sentencing being increased in retrospect, except through the proper channels, via a properly presented appeal. He originally got 25 years and I believe it was Gordon Brown's government who brought in a 'whole life' tariff for the most notorious of prisoners. Whilst Bamber committed the most heinous of crimes, including two innocent boys aged eight with their whole lives ahead of them, together with his parents who had very kindly adopted him and Sheila, he was a young-ish adult at the time, a mitigating factor, and 25 years should have entitled him to apply for parole now that he's older and wiser, albeit barred from inheritance due to his being the effector of the deaths. IMV it is morally and constitutionally unfair to increase a person's prison sentence in retrospect by an Act of parliament.

I agree. Like you, I deplore what Bamber has done, but unless somebody is actually a present danger, it is wrong to keep somebody inside a close confinement prison for longer than is necessary, and do to so for their natural life is inhumane.

Personally I think it was wrong to abolish the death penalty; doing so has given us these dilemmas when dealing with the worst offenders. I think if you're going to keep somebody alive, then you have to accept that they will want to pursue some degree of rehabilitation and to deny this is degrading and shockingly cruel - in all cases. Even in the case of somebody like Ian Brady, my view would have been that if we don't have the moral fortitude to hang him, then we have to accept that he will one day either be released altogether or down-categorised to an open prison. Just keeping somebody locked up for no reason other than vengeance is stupid.

The history of whole life orders, and their precursors, whole life tariffs, is dubious. Some background:

Whole life tariffs came into being in 1988 as secret directives to parole boards and prisons, normally issued from ministerial level. They were not called 'whole life tariffs', as such, initially, but the understanding was that, barring a change in circumstances, the offender would be expected to serve a natural life term.

In Bamber's case, the tariff was issued in the late 1980s, very early in his sentence, by the then-Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. This was done in total secrecy, even Bamber was not informed. The tariff would only have become significant to Bamber at around the 20 year point of his sentence, when he would be considered for a resettlement prison and would have found himself denied this re-categorisation without explanation.

What intervened was a legal challenge brought in the 1990s, I think by Myra Hindley, against her unofficial natural life term. She realised that when she completed her tariff in 1996, she would be denied progress through the system and figured out that she was being kept inside on purpose.

As a result of the Hindley case, natural life terms were upheld but the practice changed so that the Home Secretary (then in charge of the justice function) had to inform all prisoners subject to these 'secret'/unofficial natural life terms, which officially became whole life tariffs, and Bamber was notified in about 1994 by the then-Home Secretary, Michael Howard.

However, at this stage a whole life tariff was not unequivocally a natural life sentence. Bingham J. in the Hindley case made it clear that the Home Secretary's power was subject to a right of the prisoner to progress to release where it could be shown that exceptional progress was made.

The big regressive change came in 2002/2003, when the Blair government introduced whole life orders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The 2003 Act took away the system of discretionary whole life tariffs that had arisen with the Bingham judgment in Hindley.

There have been a series of legal challenges since, including involving by Bamber himself, that have chipped away at the 2003 regime, to the point now that all whole life orders must be reviewed during sentence.

 

[Dark Knight]

[]