Jeremy Bamber

[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]

[]