Jeremy Bamber

[MikeG]

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

Shooting pheasants for sport. This is massive, with some farmers earning more from that than from farming. Shooting rabbits and pigeons, probably the two biggest pests in this arable farming area.

You may be interested to know that it is an offence to travel with them loaded, and that etiquette, strictly adhered to, is that whenever they are not about to be fired, they are opened. Obviously, they have to be stored in a locked gun safe, which can be inspected by the police without notice.

 

[Desert Fox]

Shooting pheasants for sport. This is massive, with some farmers earning more from that than from farming. Shooting rabbits and pigeons, probably the two biggest pests in this arable farming area.

You may be interested to know that it is an offence to travel with them loaded, and that etiquette, strictly adhered to, is that whenever they are not about to be fired, they are opened. Obviously, they have to be stored in a locked gun safe, which can be inspected by the police without notice.

I do not believe that in 1985, the rules were that restrictive in the UK with regards to rifles and shotguns at least.

 

[anglolawyer]

Shooting pheasants for sport. This is massive, with some farmers earning more from that than from farming. Shooting rabbits and pigeons, probably the two biggest pests in this arable farming area.

You may be interested to know that it is an offence to travel with them loaded, and that etiquette, strictly adhered to, is that whenever they are not about to be fired, they are opened. Obviously, they have to be stored in a locked gun safe, which can be inspected by the police without notice.

This is an important issue in the Bamber case as Nevill seems to have had guns lying around all over the place, in breach of the terms of his licence. In fact, when he drew a plan of the farmhouse for the tactical firearms people during the 'siege' Bamber included two rifles in the depiction of the kitchen.

Nevill must have taken 2-3 minutes at least calling Bamber when he could instead have defended himself and his family from Sheila with one of the firearms lying around.

 

[MikeG]

I do not believe that in 1985, the rules were that restrictive in the UK with regards to rifles and shotguns at least.

Yeah they were.

However, enforcement of the rules has always been notoriously slack, at least within the home. In contrast, if you fired a shotgun near a road or public footpath, or were seen driving around with an unsecured gun, the sky would fall in on your head.

 

[MikeG]

......Nevill must have taken 2-3 minutes at least calling Bamber when he could instead have defended himself and his family from Sheila with one of the firearms lying around.

Not if they weren't in his bedroom. If they were only loose in his kitchen maybe that's the reason he headed to the kitchen once injured.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not if they weren't in his bedroom. If they were only loose in his kitchen maybe that's the reason he headed to the kitchen once injured.

We know he made it to the kitchen. He may simply have been trying to escape out the kitchen door. If shot through the jaw, badly smashing his face, and in the left arm and in the back, he probably wasn't in a state to find and fire a gun.

He can't have been injured when he made the supposed call as his speech was normal and there was no blood on the phone. So we have to imagine that he was fit and fully able to defend himself while in the kitchen on Bamber's account. That means he chose to make this bizarre call rather than blaze away with a shotgun or run outside to save himself.

 

[MikeG]

I'll certainly concede that this course of action seems odd.

Do we know where he was when he was first shot?

 

[MikeG]

I guess the single most often (in the pub) cited piece of questioning of the verdict revolves around the death of Sheila. I've seen this re-enacted by the not-quite-sober more than once: how do you kill someone using a rifle in such a way as for it to appear to be suicide?

 

[Desert Fox]

This is an important issue in the Bamber case as Nevill seems to have had guns lying around all over the place, in breach of the terms of his licence. In fact, when he drew a plan of the farmhouse for the tactical firearms people during the 'siege' Bamber included two rifles in the depiction of the kitchen.

Nevill must have taken 2-3 minutes at least calling Bamber when he could instead have defended himself and his family from Sheila with one of the firearms lying around.

Except he probably did not want to shoot her but instead calm her down

Edit: Think of it this way - imagine your daughter going crazy, can you kill her? One of the classic rules of firearms is that once you pull a firearm, you better be prepared to use it.

 

[Samson]

I guess the single most often (in the pub) cited piece of questioning of the verdict revolves around the death of Sheila. I've seen this re-enacted by the not-quite-sober more than once: how do you kill someone using a rifle in such a way as for it to appear to be suicide?

I see the only way for this to work was to shoot her first. He could enter silently, and if she woke up, abort the mission. But Catsmate says she slept through it. What sort of a plan would have that as a realistic expectation?

ETA But this would seem to have its own problems, why two shots? If the first shot was only a wound, she would immediately be out of position for the killing shot, and if the first shot killed, why risk the plan by making it an unlikely two shot suicide?

 

[anglolawyer]

I'll certainly concede that this course of action seems odd.

Do we know where he was when he was first shot?

The hypothesis is that he was in the bedroom but because the cops stripped all the bloodied wallpaper and carpets the next day (can you believe that?) it ceased to be possible to distinguish his blood from anyone else's.

I guess the single most often (in the pub) cited piece of questioning of the verdict revolves around the death of Sheila. I've seen this re-enacted by the not-quite-sober more than once: how do you kill someone using a rifle in such a way as for it to appear to be suicide?

Easy. Well, sort of. I figure it this way. Bamber points the rifle at her and tells her to do as he says and she will be safe. She complies. He orders her into the master bedroom and tells her to close her eyes. When she does he fires upward through her throat. That first shot went up and back so one can imagine the rifle was angled a bit. She fell to the floor, probably crumpled. He straightened her out, noticing she wasn't dead, and put a second bullet into her this time holding the rifle horizontally.

This business of straightening her out is important. She was found straight. That's not how she would have fallen. At the 2002 appeal the prosecution wanted to introduce evidence of its own from a Dr Ismail. This evidence purported to prove her body had been pulled by the feet once on the floor. Supposedly it meant suicide was impossible. The funny thing is, there is a pair of photographs which seem to show she was moved in that fashion after the police had control of the crime scene.

It would be awesome to see that report. The appeal judges did not allow it to be used although they evidently found it telling. Very, very mysterious.

 

[anglolawyer]

Except he probably did not want to shoot her but instead calm her down

Edit: Think of it this way - imagine your daughter going crazy, can you kill her? One of the classic rules of firearms is that once you pull a firearm, you better be prepared to use it.

Well, if she is threatening you, your wife and your grandchildren I would think it a distinct possibility, but not a certainty, you're right. However, I find the phone call to Bamber vastly less credible both in practical and logical terms.

 

[catsmate]

Congratulations, you just demonstrated Moving the Goalposts.

Nope.

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

And I pointed out that Sheila, should one accept the ludicrous theory that she was the killer, fired 25 shots. Even if one was to accept the idea that all the powder residue from the four murders disappeared somehow, the final two shots would have been fired by her while hugging the rifle. After that there'd be little movement from Sheila...

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.

But still a detectable amount. There's also the lead residue, or rather the lack of it, from reloading at least twice.
And 25 shots, even with 1.25gr each, is equivalent to six or seven 9x19mm shots, would you dismiss such a discharge?

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.

Really? Wow it does seem a popular topic. Really it's not like there's a huge amount of doubt in the conviction.

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.

Plus there's no evidence that (a) ever happened. Rather damning that.

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.

Oh hell yes. A complete mess, especially from the golf playing DCI Jones who bought Bamber's lies until his subordinates starting showing him the problems.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm nothing like as strident about this one as you, Catsmate. There's a lot of dodgy stuff here and plenty to argue about. Indeed, I reserve the right to wobble back and forth in a decidedly feeble fashion. However, for the moment, I'm PPG (provisionally pro-guilt).

 

[catsmate]

Nevill must have taken 2-3 minutes at least calling Bamber when he could instead have defended himself and his family from Sheila with one of the firearms lying around.

Or overpowered her. Even after the first shots he was still far bigger and should have prevailed in a fight.
Of course in reality Nevill and Sheila never struggled; there were no injuries on her, or damage to her clothes, from such a struggle.

Not if they weren't in his bedroom. If they were only loose in his kitchen maybe that's the reason he headed to the kitchen once injured.

It's likely he was trying to telephone for help.
Oddly the phone that was normally in his bedroom had been removed and plugged into the socket in the kitchen while the kitchen phone had been removed and hidden.
Not something can could be reasonably attributed to Sheila acting impulsively.
But quite in keeping with Bamber's planned murders.

I guess the single most often (in the pub) cited piece of questioning of the verdict revolves around the death of Sheila. I've seen this re-enacted by the not-quite-sober more than once: how do you kill someone using a rifle in such a way as for it to appear to be suicide?

She was under the influence of haloperidol, this may have slowed her.
The PM indicates that she was sitting when the shots were fired, it's possible that she was taken unawares and killed quickly and then moved to the master bedroom. Or forced by Bamber at gunpoint or by threat to her children. The pathologist was unable to say conclusively if her death was murder or suicide based purely on her body.

 

[catsmate]

I see the only way for this to work was to shoot her first. He could enter silently, and if she woke up, abort the mission. But Catsmate says she slept through it. What sort of a plan would have that as a realistic expectation?

No I didn't.

ETA But this would seem to have its own problems, why two shots? If the first shot was only a wound, she would immediately be out of position for the killing shot, and if the first shot killed, why risk the plan by making it an unlikely two shot suicide?

The first wound, to her throat, would have killed her fairly quickly, within minutes. The second was almost immediately fatal.

Well, if she is threatening you, your wife and your grandchildren I would think it a distinct possibility, but not a certainty, you're right. However, I find the phone call to Bamber vastly less credible both in practical and logical terms.

But if Sheila was threatening Nevill the kids weren't there. And if she'd killed June already then Neill would have known that he life was in immediate danger.

I'm nothing like as strident about this one as you, Catsmate.

I find it annoying how many seemingly rational people fall for Bamber's self-serving lies and are perfectly happy to slander Sheila Caffell in the process.
And then there are the truly ludicrous theories about a police conspiracy with Boutflour/Eaton.

There's a lot of dodgy stuff here and plenty to argue about. Indeed, I reserve the right to wobble back and forth in a decidedly feeble fashion. However, for the moment, I'm PPG (provisionally pro-guilt).

Wobble all you like (just not fatally). There were a lot of mistakes made in the investigation.
However one of the factors that causes me to dismiss the idea of police misconduct (rather than stupidity) is the lack of motivation for such. The White House Farm murders just don't match the typical cases; while there was immense public and media interest the police had a ready-made solution in the form of Bamber's lies about his sister and the press lapped it up. The pressure on the police to solve the case simply wasn't there.

 

[Samson]

The hypothesis is that he was in the bedroom but because the cops stripped all the bloodied wallpaper and carpets the next day (can you believe that?) it ceased to be possible to distinguish his blood from anyone else's.


Easy. Well, sort of. I figure it this way. Bamber points the rifle at her and tells her to do as he says and she will be safe. She complies. He orders her into the master bedroom and tells her to close her eyes. When she does he fires upward through her throat. That first shot went up and back so one can imagine the rifle was angled a bit. She fell to the floor, probably crumpled. He straightened her out, noticing she wasn't dead, and put a second bullet into her this time holding the rifle horizontally.

This business of straightening her out is important. She was found straight. That's not how she would have fallen. At the 2002 appeal the prosecution wanted to introduce evidence of its own from a Dr Ismail. This evidence purported to prove her body had been pulled by the feet once on the floor. Supposedly it meant suicide was impossible. The funny thing is, there is a pair of photographs which seem to show she was moved in that fashion after the police had control of the crime scene.

It would be awesome to see that report. The appeal judges did not allow it to be used although they evidently found it telling. Very, very mysterious.

It is absolutely amazing how form trumps function to keep people in jail in these cases. Constrain the pursuit of truth to legal protocols, and it does everything for the system, and nothing for justice.
This will change with the internet age, but there is a lead time we are engaging with.

 

[MikeG]

Another detail which has intrigued me is the report from one of the first officers to look into the kitchen that there were TWO bodies there......Neville & Sheila. Jeremy, of course, had been with the police continuously for about 4 hours, and indeed, the police had reported hearing and seeing movement from within the house during this period. Yet, when they eventually gained entry to the house, there was only one body in the kitchen, and Sheila was upstairs, dead, but with still-flowing blood (this shows quite clearly in the police photos). That needs explaining before Jeremy is guilty.

 

[Samson]

Another detail which has intrigued me is the report from one of the first officers to look into the kitchen that there were TWO bodies there......Neville & Sheila. Jeremy, of course, had been with the police continuously for about 4 hours, and indeed, the police had reported hearing and seeing movement from within the house during this period. Yet, when they eventually gained entry to the house, there was only one body in the kitchen, and Sheila was upstairs, dead, but with still-flowing blood (this shows quite clearly in the police photos). That needs explaining before Jeremy is guilty.

It seems to turn on 20 year old Julie Mugford's very detailed statement. She is specific about times of a great number of events post the homicides. There is no chance they are contained within spontaneous testimony. All the times are specified, for days and weeks in 10 minute rounded notation. It is suggested on IA that and elsewhere that she was coached.
Can a 20 year old be coached as jilted lover to create the villain of English history?
Hell, I don't know.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another detail which has intrigued me is the report from one of the first officers to look into the kitchen that there were TWO bodies there......Neville & Sheila. Jeremy, of course, had been with the police continuously for about 4 hours, and indeed, the police had reported hearing and seeing movement from within the house during this period. Yet, when they eventually gained entry to the house, there was only one body in the kitchen, and Sheila was upstairs, dead, but with still-flowing blood (this shows quite clearly in the police photos). That needs explaining before Jeremy is guilty.

That's an easy one . When they looked through the window they thought they saw a female body but when they entered they realised it was male. Back at the note-taking end they recorded one female and one male. Those who wish to argue that Sheila was dead on the kitchen floor but the cops thought it would be a spiffing wheeze to lug her upstairs are welcome to indulge their fantasies. I could use a larf.