Thoughts On The Case

[Brancher]

EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________

I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.

My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt.  I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe.  I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons.  Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.

If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.

Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory: 

1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.

2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be. 

3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.

4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.

5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.

6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.

7. There was blood on the Bible.  At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.

8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone.  Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber.  I take a different view.  I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.

9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).  Facts that point to Sheila are:

9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.   
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur. 
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.

Notes:

(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.  Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence.  I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.

(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied.  It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.

(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings.  Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent.  It may be that it wasn't that moderator.  Or it may be no moderator was used at all.  I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously.  It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police.  Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty.  People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.

(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.

[G-Unit]

You have made some good points, Brancher.

[The General]

I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.

My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt.  I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe.  I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons.  Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.

If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.

Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory: 

1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.

2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be. 

3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.

4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.

5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.

6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.

7. There was blood on the Bible.

8. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).  Facts that point to Sheila are:

8.1. She was mentally-ill.
8.2. She was set against June.
8.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
8.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums.
8.5. She was found with the rifle.   
8.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
8.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur. 
8.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
8.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.

Notes:

(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.  Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence.  I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.

(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied.  It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.

(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings.  Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent.  It may be that it wasn't that moderator.  Or it may be no moderator was used at all.  I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously.  It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police.  Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty.  People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.

(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.

I concur with some of that, particularly the 'evidence' and the bar of reasonable doubt.
Welcome by the way.

[Nicholas]

I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.

Hi Brancher,

Sounds like you’re referring to ‘lurking doubt’ also known as the Cooper test

[Nicholas]

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

513. It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury's conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury's verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.

[Brancher]

Hi Brancher,

Sounds like you’re referring to ‘lurking doubt’ also known as the Cooper test

No, I'm referring to any manner of doubt or dissatisfaction that could overturn the convictions.  Of course, that is a matter for the courts and not specifically why I started the thread.  I just want to see if anybody can put me right on the above reasons and convince me of his factual guilt, or it may be that there are pro-Bamber people here who can underline/reinforce my points.

[Caroline]

No, I'm referring to any manner of doubt or dissatisfaction that could overturn the convictions.  Of course, that is a matter for the courts and not specifically why I started the thread.  I just want to see if anybody can put me right on the above reasons and convince me of his factual guilt, or it may be that there are pro-Bamber people here who can underline/reinforce my points.

You believe that Julie lied but you think he's guilty? That seems like a bit of a conundrum?

[mrswah]

I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher. 

I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.

I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.

[Caroline]

I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher. 

I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.

I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.

I'm pretty much 100%

[Brancher]

You believe that Julie lied but you think he's guilty? That seems like a bit of a conundrum?

Not at all.  I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy.  The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it). 

She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things.  Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went.  Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove?  She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody.   The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true.  That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury. 

Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing. 

But why should we believe what she said?  First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right.  Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber.  She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.

Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal.  Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is?  It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill".  How naive would that be?  I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum.  Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford.  Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford.  Why should I?  More to the point: why is it even necessary?

I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended.  Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind.  As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people.  Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone.  If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself.  It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.

[Holly Goodhead]

Since JM was holed up over days at the police training camp cut office from the outside world we have no idea what the interviewing officer put to her.

[Brancher]

Since JM was holed up over days at the police training camp cut office from the outside world we have no idea what the interviewing officer put to her.

I suspect she was arrested, maybe even as an accomplice to murder, and told that she had to 'come clean'.

Naturally, she then lies and/or exaggerates.  Lots of ordinary people would in that situation.  If you look closely at her evidence, essentially she's telling them what they want to hear but without seriously incriminating Jeremy.

The tall tale about the hitman is, in my view, a 'tell' - very possibly, she's trying to get Jeremy off the hook by telling a deliberate lie.

Doesn't mean Bamber is innocent.  Doesn't mean he is guilty, either. 

I really just don't believe her evidence means anything at all.  But it was used, so I've included her in my list.

I genuinely think that anybody who believes her is as naive as the people who believe Jeremy - both sides are as bad as each other.  Why believe either?

[Caroline]

Not at all.  I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy.  The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it). 

She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things.  Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went.  Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove?  She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody.   The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true.  That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury. 

Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing. 

But why should we believe what she said?  First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right.  Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber.  She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.

Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal.  Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is?  It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill".  How naive would that be?  I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum.  Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford.  Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford.  Why should I?  More to the point: why is it even necessary?

I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended.  Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind.  As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people.  Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone.  If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself.  It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.

Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.

[Brancher]

Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.

If the story makes no sense, what does that tell you?

Actually, this brings up a question I have.  It's about a point I think I checked years ago but have now forgotten.

Did Julie Mugford independently know of Matthew McDonald?  Or to put it another way, could she have known who he was outside of a conversation with Jeremy?

Even if the answer is 'no', this wouldn't settle it because she may still have made it all up.  Jeremy could have just been boasting or joking to her, etc., about knowing such-and-such a criminal in some context, and she then twists that conversation into something entirely different [drawing on a real conversation would assist her in coming across as convincing].

But if the answer is 'yes', that - for me - just adds further to the argument for dismissing her evidence altogether.

[mrswah]

I'm pretty much 100%

Only pretty much?  (LOL)