Jeremy Bamber

[Desert Fox]

I note that Sutherst was utterly unable to convince the CCRC five years ago.

That is called an argument from authority. There are plenty of cases where you have an innocent defendant and the courts rejects every item of evidence.

Has anyone made such a claim? Certainly no-one claiming she was guilty has shown how she could have handed the rifle so competently (and leaving no traces on her skin or clothes) as to kill her parents in the manner indicated, nor how she battered her father to death despite the disparity in physical size.

If were to think for half a moment, you would realize that your arguments can be explained with a few moments of thoughts.
1. A child can handle a 22 just fine. There is about zero recoil. She lived a farmer's household and likely had experience with firearms anyway.
2. I just went to the range and shot my .22 pistol. The weapon leaves minimal residue. A rifle will be even cleaner. Besides, most people may not be religious on the forum but I am sure they have heard of Pontius Pilate. According to one of the bible stories, what did he do after condemning Jesus?
3. People do not fight back real well after having several bullets in them.

 

[catsmate]

That is called an argument from authority. There are plenty of cases where you have an innocent defendant and the courts rejects every item of evidence.

It'd help if the defense released the full details of his testimony.

Andy Laws, another Imagery Analyst, quite comprehensively demolished Sutherst's testimony; showing that the pictures were taken at too great a distance to show the scratches or paint flecks. Hence it was a simple matter for the courts to dismiss because of the circumstances.
Even Bamber's lawyers dropped the Sutherst material from their second CCRC application.

Certainly Sutherst's testimony is rather overblown; the oft quoted remark about the silencer scratches not being present in the crime scene photos was explained by him not using the close-up images but rather the larger area pictures of the Aga. The pictures of the scratches, which Bamber's apologists were so enthused about, weren't taken until a later examination of the scene when their significance was realised.

If were to think for half a moment, you would realize that your arguments can be explained with a few moments of thoughts.
1. A child can handle a 22 just fine. There is about zero recoil. She lived a farmer's household and likely had experience with firearms anyway.

Yet no-one can ever recall her handling a firearm. Ever. When it comes to firearms culture the UK is nothing like the USA.
Further Sheila would have had to reload at least twice, under immense pressure.

2. I just went to the range and shot my .22 pistol. The weapon leaves minimal residue. A rifle will be even cleaner.

But still leaves residue, even if you can't see it (that's why there are tests). She (supposedly) fired 25 shots remember.

Besides, most people may not be religious on the forum but I am sure they have heard of Pontius Pilate. According to one of the bible stories, what did he do after condemning Jesus?

Please don't try an lecture me, it merely exposes your ignorance. Washing does not reliably eliminate even powder residue. Further there was no trace of it on her clothes, except in the immediate vicinity of the entry wounds.
And just why would Sheila have bothered to wash if she'd just killed four people and planned to kill herself?

3. People do not fight back real well after having several bullets in them.

Yet he also took several severe blows (including a fractured skull) and made it from his bedroom downstairs. After being beaten he was shot four times in the head, which Dr. Vanezis listed as the fatal injury.
And Sheila supposedly did this without sustaining any injury herself.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let us start with the GSR
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html
Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. (Molina et al, 2007) A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported. (Dalby et al, 2010)

This is detecting GSR with modern (well, at least 2007) not slapdash 1985 level detection methods.

So it appears as if you were definitely wrong that washing cannot eliminate GSR.

1. A .22 rifle leaves minimal GSR in many cases.
2. She may have washed her hands
3. Over three hours had gone by since the gun had been fired

 

[catsmate]

Let us start with the GSR
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html
Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. (Molina et al, 2007) A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported. (Dalby et al, 2010)

This is detecting GSR with modern (well, at least 2007) not slapdash 1985 level detection methods.

So it appears as if you were definitely wrong that washing cannot eliminate GSR.

1. A .22 rifle leaves minimal GSR in many cases.
2. She may have washed her hands
3. Over three hours had gone by since the gun had been fired

None of which answers why she'd have done so (and not changed her clothes which were also residue free).

Also the primary detection method for powder particles is microscopic so please don't throw around terms like "slapdash 1985 level detection methods" merely because your opinions require there to be no residue.

Finally remember that your theory requires Sheila to fire two shots after washing her hands (the two that killed her); yet there still was no powder residue on her hands.....

It's almost as if someone else did all the shooting.

 

[Desert Fox]

None of which answers why she'd have done so (and not changed her clothes which were also residue free).

Also the primary detection method for powder particles is microscopic so please don't throw around terms like "slapdash 1985 level detection methods" merely because your opinions require there to be no residue.

Finally remember that your theory requires Sheila to fire two shots after washing her hands (the two that killed her); yet there still was no powder residue on her hands.....

It's almost as if someone else did all the shooting.

Congratulations, you just demonstrated Moving the Goalposts.

The articles argued that simply time or movement can destroy gunshot residue which would already be minimal from a .22 rifle.

By the way, a standard .22 LR has only 1.25 grains or something like .08 grams of powder using modern smokeless powders. It is minuscule and if they were using subsonic, it would probably be less.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I'm lining up with Catsmate. Guilty. As I'm already discussing this in two other places I'm not sure I want to get too involved here. My position is highly provisional as there is much I don't know about the case but essentially:

1 I believe Julie Mugford, and
2 I completely fail to buy the three phone calls:
(a) Nevill to Bamber
(b) Bamber to Julie, and
(c) Bamber to the cops

(c) and (b) may be in the wrong order but that's Bamber's fault as he contradicted himself about who he called first.

That said, the case was submerged beneath an all but impenetrable blanker of police incompetence certainly and perhaps, as some argue, corruption, so getting to the bottom of it is far from easy.

MikeG - can we have more of the local gossip please.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, I'm lining up with Catsmate. Guilty. As I'm already discussing this in two other places I'm not sure I want to get too involved here. My position is highly provisional as there is much I don't know about the case but essentially:

1 I believe Julie Mugford, and
2 I completely fail to buy the three phone calls:
(a) Nevill to Bamber
(b) Bamber to Julie, and
(c) Bamber to the cops

(c) and (b) may be in the wrong order but that's Bamber's fault as he contradicted himself about who he called first.

That said, the case was submerged beneath an all but impenetrable blanker of police incompetence certainly and perhaps, as some argue, corruption, so getting to the bottom of it is far from easy.

MikeG - can we have more of the local gossip please.

I kind of want to divorce myself from what anybody said and only look at what the crime scene tells us. As far as I can tell, there is at least nothing about the crime scene that indicates that Shelia could not have done this.

There was a similar issue with the Norfolk Four. Every indication was that the rape and murder was committed by a single individual but nobody could get over the confessions.

Even if Bamber is guilty, Catmate's reasons that I have read are basically just bad. I consider getting the right conclusions for the wrong reasons pretty much useless.

 

[anglolawyer]

I kind of want to divorce myself from what anybody said and only look at what the crime scene tells us. As far as I can tell, there is at least nothing about the crime scene that indicates that Shelia could not have done this.

There was a similar issue with the Norfolk Four. Every indication was that the rape and murder was committed by a single individual but nobody could get over the confessions.

Even if Bamber is guilty, Catmate's reasons that I have read are basically just bad.

Well, sorry, but you can't do this however much you want to. She is a key witness. Without her the case hardly stands up. Essex police certainly were not going to take it further until she came forth. In that sense, she is analogous to the bodies bobbing up out of SF Bay in the Scott Peterson case. She completely changes the landscape and her evidence must be weighed.

Still, if you find something in the crime scene that makes it impossible for Bamber to be the culprit, then you win. No one has come with anything yet.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, sorry, but you can't do this however much you want to. She is a key witness. Without her the case hardly stands up. Essex police certainly were not going to take it further until she came forth. In that sense, she is analogous to the bodies bobbing up out of SF Bay in the Scott Peterson case. She completely changes the landscape and her evidence must be weighed.

Still, if you find something in the crime scene that makes it impossible for Bamber to be the culprit, then you win. No one has come with anything yet.

I understand your argument but it seems as if you are accepting that there is nothing that indicates that Shelia could not have committed the crime.

One of my biggest pet peeve is when you run against people who argue that she could not have done it.

One item which is hard to explain is that as a gun owner (of a .22), there are many dynamics of the crime scene which indicate that Shelia is far more likely to be the solo shooter.

 

[MikeG]

........nor how she battered her father to death despite the disparity in physical size.

Her father was shot (from memory) 4 times, including a number of times in the head and neck. I'm not sure that "battered her father to death" is a fair reflection of the actuality.

 

[MikeG]

.........One item which is hard to explain is that as a gun owner (of a .22), there are many dynamics of the crime scene which indicate that Shelia is far more likely to be the solo shooter.

You may have been short of time with this posting, perhaps, but elucidating those "dynamics of the crime scene" implicating Sheila is something of a prerequisite for having your ideas on the matter discussed further, I'd have thought.

 

[MikeG]

.....MikeG - can we have more of the local gossip please.

Well, hot at the moment is the local farmer's wife who appears to be having an affair with her head stablegirl. Apparently they were seen emerging............oh sorry, you meant about the Bamber case......

The pub discussions on the matter don't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the pub. Mainly to do with how troubled Sheila was.........that she couldn't take care of herself, let alone her kids. Jeremy Bamber seems to be universally disliked, mainly as being arrogant, but this doesn't seem to stand in the way of people saying he's been stitched up (there an element of critical thinking even in local pubs, sometimes!). Lots of people seem to get excited by the police log of the 'phone calls, which seem to support JB's version of the events and, it's said, weren't available as evidence in his trial. The general consensus, if there is such a thing, is that all his appeals have been dismissed because the judiciary ("the establishment") close ranks in these circumstances, and don't want to make fellow judges look bad. So, as well as critical thinking, pubs can be hot-beds of conspiracy.

 

[Desert Fox]

You may have been short of time with this posting, perhaps, but elucidating those "dynamics of the crime scene" implicating Sheila is something of a prerequisite for having your ideas on the matter discussed further, I'd have thought.

It was meant as a relatively quick response to Anglo.

One problem is that everything is about as clear as mud when it comes to this case.

First off, there were other weapons in the house. If I am trying to kill people, I am not using a .22. I have read that there were at least shotguns in the house. Might have been a 410 but still better than a .22. The 410 loaded with slug is about equal to the .45 ACP (my favorite round) in muzzle energy.

Getting back to a .22, it is a chancy weapon. You have to hit somebody perfectly to kill somebody. Neville is by far the biggest threat. I likely would unload on him until he goes down and then put one to the center of the skull to be sure.

Whomever did the shooting seemed to fire a few shots and Neville and then a few shots at June. It looks more like somebody going crazy not a deliberate act.

I speculate that there was an argument with Shelia having the rifle. June and Neville tried to talk to Shelia in order to calm her down. Somewhere, everything went crazy.

There are also elements of strange ritual. I took my .22 pistol to the range and shot off 100 rounds. I put my hand on front of the barrel and it was barely even warm. I think the weapon almost had to have been manually heated up such as putting it on a stove. Every indication is that his injuries were not constant with the moderator not being on the weapon either.

 

[MikeG]

It was meant as a relatively quick response to Anglo.

One problem is that everything is about as clear as mud when it comes to this case.

First off, there were other weapons in the house. If I am trying to kill people, I am not using a .22. I have read that there were at least shotguns in the house. Might have been a 410 but still better than a .22. The 410 loaded with slug is about equal to the .45 ACP (my favorite round) in muzzle energy.

Getting back to a .22, it is a chancy weapon. You have to hit somebody perfectly to kill somebody. Neville is by far the biggest threat. I likely would unload on him until he goes down and then put one to the center of the skull to be sure.

Whomever did the shooting seemed to fire a few shots and Neville and then a few shots at June. It looks more like somebody going crazy not a deliberate act.

I speculate that there was an argument with Shelia having the rifle. June and Neville tried to talk to Shelia in order to calm her down. Somewhere, everything went crazy.

There are also elements of strange ritual. I took my .22 pistol to the range and shot off 100 rounds. I put my hand on front of the barrel and it was barely even warm. I think the weapon almost had to have been manually heated up such as putting it on a stove. Every indication is that his injuries were not constant with the moderator not being on the weapon either.

I know nothing much about guns.....but couldn't the reason for choosing the .22 be that it had a silencer and a magazine? Whereas with a shotgun, one shot and everyone in the house is awake. Two shots and you're re-loading.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, hot at the moment is the local farmer's wife who appears to be having an affair with her head stablegirl. Apparently they were seen emerging............oh sorry, you meant about the Bamber case......

The pub discussions on the matter don't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the pub. Mainly to do with how troubled Sheila was.........that she couldn't take care of herself, let alone her kids. Jeremy Bamber seems to be universally disliked, mainly as being arrogant, but this doesn't seem to stand in the way of people saying he's been stitched up (there an element of critical thinking even in local pubs, sometimes!). Lots of people seem to get excited by the police log of the 'phone calls, which seem to support JB's version of the events and, it's said, weren't available as evidence in his trial. The general consensus, if there is such a thing, is that all his appeals have been dismissed because the judiciary ("the establishment") close ranks in these circumstances, and don't want to make fellow judges look bad. So, as well as critical thinking, pubs can be hot-beds of conspiracy.

Well, that's still pretty interesting (the farmers wife and the stable girl especially!)

The records of the telephone calls seem to be a blind alley. The innocenters would have you believe Nevill got through to the cops but they seem to be misreading the documents and in the process invoking an extensive and puzzling conspiracy. It would certainly exonerate Bamber if this call could be shown to have been made, but I don't buy it.

As for the establishment cover up, I see two main areas of interest:

(1) the utter shambles of the enquiry may have led some to be tempted to twist the evidence against Bamber to ensure his conviction and cover up police mistakes, and

(2) the dealings, if any, between Julie Mugford and the DPP in order to secure her evidence.

Both are fertile avenues of enquiry, for sure, but neither requires Bamber to be innocent as some kind of opposite pole.

Keep your eyes and ears open down there willya?

 

[MikeG]

It would certainly exonerate Bamber if this call could be shown to have been made, but I don't buy it.

Isn't it ridiculous that something as easy as the police properly recording a phone conversation could lead to the difference between a whole life tariff and freedom?

As for the establishment cover up, I see two main areas of interest:

(1) the utter shambles of the enquiry may have led some to be tempted to twist the evidence against Bamber to ensure his conviction and cover up police mistakes, and

Indeed. Frankly, if I were to analyse my fence-sitting position, I would say I leant towards this being the most likely summary.

(2) the dealings, if any, between Julie Mugford and the DPP in order to secure her evidence.

Both are fertile avenues of enquiry, for sure, but neither requires Bamber to be innocent as some kind of opposite pole.

Very true. I doubt the DPP kept proper records of such dealings, but if they did, they would certainly be interesting.

Keep your eyes and ears open down there willya?

Especially with regard to the farmer's wife and her stable girl, I presume?

 

[The Atheist]

In a case as parallel as I can imagine, 23 year old David Bain was accused of killing his mother, two sisters and brother, before successfully staging the suicide of his father.

The father did it.

In your opinion, which is 100% incorrect in my view, and while the thread's about Bamber, there is an eerie coincidence with the Bain case:

2. The lack of traces on Sheila's body and clothes consistent with repeatedly loading and firing the .22 rifle. Or indeed indicative of any violent actions.

Just like Baino.

Do you specialise in cases where the murderer is actually guilty?

Seems to me catsmate has this one nailed:

3. The utterly ludicrous set of events necessary for Sheila to be guilty; she'd have had to mount the silencer in order to carry out the killings, the unmount it before killing herself (shooting herself twice) and put it away, while leaving only one identifiable fingerprint on the rifle.
4. It appears unlikely that Sheila (a small and lightly built woman under the influence of haloperidol) would have been able to carry out the violent assault on her physically fit and far larger father.
5. There is only the unsupported word of Bamber that Sheila had any experience with firearms, no supporting evidence or witnesses have ever been produced. Thus it's highly unlikely she could have carried out the assault which would have required multiple, rapid, reloads of the rifle.
6. There is no evidence to support Bamber's account of his actions that night, no-one saw him cycle to the farm, there was no trace on his clothing of him being in a fight.
7. The re-positioning of the phones in the farmhouse is interesting; the handset that was normally on Nevill Bamber’s bedside table had been removed from that room and substituted for the kitchen phone, which was hidden downstairs.
8. Bamber had a strong motive, in fact two. Hatred of his adoptive mother and a desire for money. Remember he'd carried out a burglery a few months earlier and wanted his parents' money. If Sheila had acted out of psychotic rage this wouldn't have happened, it does fit well with the scenario of a pre-planned murder for gain by Bamber.
8a. Nevill Bamber had earlier confided in Barbara Wilson (the farm secretary) that he suspected Jeremy was planning to kill him.

And you think only 8a is problematic?

 

[Desert Fox]

I know nothing much about guns.....but couldn't the reason for choosing the .22 be that it had a silencer and a magazine? Whereas with a shotgun, one shot and everyone in the house is awake. Two shots and you're re-loading.

Most 410 shotguns I know of are pump action so you have enough rounds to take everybody down.

I also however got into the mindset if all I had was a .22 to commit the crime.

 

[MikeG]

Most 410 shotguns I know of are pump action so you have enough rounds to take everybody down.

I also however got into the mindset if all I had was a .22 to commit the crime.

One thing I do know about shotguns is that most farmers here have double-barrelled breech-loading shotguns. In fact, I have never seen or heard of any other type in the area, and I've lived in the countryside all my life.

 

[Desert Fox]

One thing I do know about shotguns is that most farmers here have double-barrelled breech-loading shotguns. In fact, I have never seen or heard of any other type in the area, and I've lived in the countryside all my life.

Might I ask what the most common use of shotguns are in the UK countryside?
Mostly, this is just curiosity.

Otherwise, what about what I argued if I was using a .22 rifle. Neville was hurt, he would not have moved fast. Shelia, if she were crazed, might allow him to escape initially but do you thing Jeremy would?