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?