The 1986 trial. A brutal highlighting of guilt ?

[adam]

The excellent defence team hired in 1985 immediately realised and privately agreed the case was going to be extremely difficult to win. This belied the outwardly confident and positive Jeremy.

Experts were hired who unfortunately failed to assist the defences efforts to show Sheila could have committed the massacre. A not so 'confident & positive' Jeremy could only say 'I don't know' when his defence team asked who else it could be if it wasn't Sheila.

Jeremy bravely took the stand at trial.  Realising that the evidence against him was substantial and there was nothing to lose. His charm and demeanour would make him look respectable and nothing like a brutal murderer. Whether this convinced the two female jurors to vote 'not guilty', as Stan Jones says, no one knows.

Unfortunately Jeremy was also unconvincing at trial.  Repeatedly being told to speak up by the judge. And admitting things that helped incriminate him further. Culminating in increasingly short/flippant answers and telling the prosecutors 'that is what you have to establish'. See the 'Jeremy's court testimony' thread on the Blue forum.

The judges summing up of the evidence and testimony knocked the defence's case further.  But the judge can only summarize on the evidence presented at court.

Jeremy remained outwardly confident prior to the verdict. Complaining to his lawyers about the NOTW figure, he had negotiated upon his expected acquittal.

However, such was the weight of evidence, the relatives were confident of a guilty verdict being reached quickly. Robert Boutflour complaining the jury were taking hours, rather than minutes to return a guilty verdict. The jury were still very quick in reaching their verdict after such a long trial.

Stan Jones said Jeremy showed no emotion or surprise when 'guilty' was announced. Probably because Jeremy knew the truth and had sat through the compelling evidence against him. His gamble of taking the stand, having mixed results.

Do people agree the trial brutally highlighted Jeremy's guilt ?

[John]

Most certainly his smug arrogance was there for all to see.  Adam, I found it very interesting what you posted on the other thread about how Bamber smashed up his cell and wrote that he was innocent in his own excrement after his complaint about police was thrown out.  Just goes to show what sort of a character he has morphed into.  A prison cell is far too good for him for what he did, the hangman's noose would have been much more cost effective.

[puglove]

Most certainly his smug arrogance was there for all to see.  Adam, I found it very interesting what you posted on the other thread about how Bamber smashed up his cell and wrote that he was innocent in his own excrement after his complaint about police was thrown out.  Just goes to show what sort of a character he has morphed into.  A prison cell is far too good for him for what he did, the hangman's noose would have been much more cost effective.

Bamber is a monster. QED.

[Holly Goodhead]

Most certainly his smug arrogance was there for all to see.  Adam, I found it very interesting what you posted on the other thread about how Bamber smashed up his cell and wrote that he was innocent in his own excrement after his complaint about police was thrown out.  Just goes to show what sort of a character he has morphed into.  A prison cell is far too good for him for what he did, the hangman's noose would have been much more cost effective.

At the time of the excrement incident he had been in prison for 7 years.  If he's innocent then I would imagine the sense of injustice and frustration at the system would need an outlet?  Its a wonder he hasn't gone stir crazy.  I wasn't aware that he smashed up his cell too?

Apart from the above he appears to have been a model prisoner during his long incarceration.  Two incidents of unprovoked attacks.  Apparently in one he retaliated and the other he didn't have an opportunity to respond.

You have something in common with Lookout as she believes in capital punishment.  This makes me laugh as she doesn't seem to realise that JB would be long gone by now and she would be in need of another hobby! 

[Holly Goodhead]

The excellent defence team hired in 1985 immediately realised and privately agreed the case was going to be extremely difficult to win. This belied the outwardly confident and positive Jeremy.

Experts were hired who unfortunately failed to assist the defences efforts to show Sheila could have committed the massacre. A not so 'confident & positive' Jeremy could only say 'I don't know' when his defence team asked who else it could be if it wasn't Sheila.

Jeremy bravely took the stand at trial.  Realising that the evidence against him was substantial and there was nothing to lose. His charm and demeanour would make him look respectable and nothing like a brutal murderer. Whether this convinced the two female jurors to vote 'not guilty', as Stan Jones says, no one knows.

Unfortunately Jeremy was also unconvincing at trial.  Repeatedly being told to speak up by the judge. And admitting things that helped incriminate him further. Culminating in increasingly short/flippant answers and telling the prosecutors 'that is what you have to establish'. See the 'Jeremy's court testimony' thread on the Blue forum.

The judges summing up of the evidence and testimony knocked the defence's case further.  But the judge can only summarize on the evidence presented at court.

Jeremy remained outwardly confident prior to the verdict. Complaining to his lawyers about the NOTW figure, he had negotiated upon his expected acquittal.

However, such was the weight of evidence, the relatives were confident of a guilty verdict being reached quickly. Robert Boutflour complaining the jury were taking hours, rather than minutes to return a guilty verdict. The jury were still very quick in reaching their verdict after such a long trial.

Stan Jones said Jeremy showed no emotion or surprise when 'guilty' was announced. Probably because Jeremy knew the truth and had sat through the compelling evidence against him. His gamble of taking the stand, having mixed results.

Do people agree the trial brutally highlighted Jeremy's guilt ?

As you might imagine Adam I don't think JB's trial was fair at all. 

Kinglsey Napley

As I understand it this was Kinglsey Napley's first case financed via legal aid which some argue held them back in terms of securing expert testimony, tests etc. 

Communication

Appalling.  Both in terms of cross-communication between expert witnesses and expert testimony being presented in a way that lay people eg judge and jury could understand.  Examples:

- Dr V's testimony - need to have made clear NB's limitations having received the first four shots in the bedroom
- Blood evidence - clear from jury's deliberations that they misunderstood and were misled

Dr F - June and SC's mental illness

There was an over reliance on Dr F who imo was conflicted by his earlier treatment of June in 1959.  When he said "Both June and Sheila suffered delusional states of religion and Sheila's illness was influenced by her mother although I do not think the illnesses were caused by the same problem", I think he was aware of the negative impact June's depression circa 1959 is likely to have had on SC but appears to have brushed this under the carpet.  I think Dr F was fully aware that June's lifelong depression was bound up with her inability to have birth children and perhaps to some degree her religiosity/sexual morality in terms of accepting illegitimate children.

I don't believe the jury were told about June's mental illness circa 1959? And that SC was placed in foster care during this period? 

JB should have been properly assessed psychologically with the jury advised accordingly.  And an emphasis on the high levels of mental illness in 1 family given that it was a family created by adoption and not biology/genes.

Firearms expert

Major Mead was instructed for the defence and yet it is not clear if he even carried out tests to determine whether blowback was possible with a .22.  The lack of skin tissue is worrying as this is normally a feature with blowback ie blood and skin tissue present together not just blood?

Shooting range

Jury were taken to an outdoors shooting range.  Why?  The shots were fired inside.  Surely an indoor facility could have been made available eg police/military training centre?  Lets not forget too that the late Edmund Lawson qc decided against travelling on the coach with the jury and others and instead travelled in his car alone getting lost    Yet this is the guy who his peers claim could secure the results that no other could.  Ummm yes if only he didn't get lost en route 

Broken lampshade

No measurements taken to see if SC could be ruled out.  (Although I am sure some would argue she wore heels).

SC's nails

Dr V said he was not competent to say whether SC's nails would break/chip if she fired/loaded the rifle.  He said it was the province of ballistics.  This doesn't appear to have been followed up.

Buckets in the kitchen

The buckets AE claims to have found in the kitchen containing bloody water and SC's underwear/clothing were not forensically analysed.  Assuming these buckets were in the kitchen when the raid team entered why were they not noted on their statements?  I have seen a soc picture depicting the broken lampshade/crockery and buckets so I assume they were there when the raid team entered.

Character witnesses

They appear to have been loaded in favour of the prosecution.  Those who witnessed SC's disturbed periods such as FE and SC's neighbour Mrs Temple were not called.  Neither were those who could provide positive accounts of JB eg his former employers at Sloppy Joes the owners Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters who JB also lived with at one stage.  His former girlfriend Suzette Ford who I believed he also lived with. Yet the likes of James Richard were called for the prosecution.   

Prosection witnesses

GR should have wripped these witnesses to shred but instead seems to have applied a light touch.  Some people have a killer instinct and some don't.  I don't believe GR did.  Perhaps he realised this himself and that's why he quit advocacy and took on the role of judge.

Defence Strategy

The jury were not given the realistic option of contamination.  Important given the way the silencer was found and subsequently handled. 

Instead the jury were told by the defence that SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard having shot her adoptive parents and twin sons.  The blood in the silencer was said to be an intimate mix of NB's and June's.  This imo was just not credible at all.

Anyway I'm bored now with all this so shall have a rest.  Byeeeeee 

[Tim Invictus]

Hols you are an enigma; you're way too smart and considered to still think Bamber is innocent!  Fair or not, the trial is irrelevant to the one irrefutable fact: Sheila could not (and would not) have committed the murders.

Please look again at the physical evidence. No gun oil on her fingers or clothing after reloading of the rifle at least twice is proof in itself she could not have fired that rifle. No gun shot residue either. No scrapes or bruises or even a chip to her manicured fingernails. No blood or sugar or broken glass on the soles of her feet after a life or death struggle in the kitchen.

Bamber has no support from any of his remaining extended family or neighbours or old friends. Literally no one who knew him before his killing spree thinks him anything but guilty as sin. No one is fighting his lost cause save a bunch of internet cranks many of whom Bamber himself has disowned! Who are the cranks to say they know better than literally everyone in almost 30 years who has been directly involved with the case?

Look at the mountain of evidence against Bamber again Hols and that lightbulb above your head will flash into life!

[John]

I agree Holly that the trial could have been done better but one has to remember this was 1986 and not 2014.  Regardless, what hope did the defence have when the case came down to deciding between Sheila and Jeremy when Sheila held all the ace cards.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hols you are an enigma; you're way too smart and considered to still think Bamber is innocent!  Fair or not, the trial is irrelevant to the one irrefutable fact: Sheila could not (and would not) have committed the murders.

Please look again at the physical evidence. No gun oil on her fingers or clothing after reloading of the rifle at least twice is proof in itself she could not have fired that rifle. No gun shot residue either. No scrapes or bruises or even a chip to her manicured fingernails. No blood or sugar or broken glass on the soles of her feet after a life or death struggle in the kitchen.

Bamber has no support from any of his remaining extended family or neighbours or old friends. Literally no one who knew him before his killing spree thinks him anything but guilty as sin. No one is fighting his lost cause save a bunch of internet cranks many of whom Bamber himself has disowned! Who are the cranks to say they know better than literally everyone in almost 30 years who has been directly involved with the case?

Look at the mountain of evidence against Bamber again Hols and that lightbulb above your head will flash into life!

I have studied most aspects of the case carefully for almost 5 years to the best of my ability.

I'm no expert on guns but if SC showered and changed her clothes would gun oil and residue be present from loading (?) firing the gun twice?  Her hands were swabbed and showed low levels of lead compatible with handling every day items, but if she showered before taking her own life this might be compatible with such low levels.

I wouldn't expect any visible signs of a struggle on SC as I don't think there was any struggle.  The twins were shot in their sleep.  June was shot and severely disabled in bed.  NB was shot and severely disabled while standing in the bedroom.  By the time poor NB reached the kitchen he was imo too injured to do anything other than raise his right arm in an attempt to shield himself from blows raining down probably from the rifle.

As far as I am aware there was no blood, sugar or broken glass on NB's soles either.  If he was involved in a struggle in the kitchen then surely he was just as likely to pick up debris as SC would?   

Reading the WS's of the extended family it appears that they disliked JB from the off.  Whether or not these views were justified and JB was a dislikeable sort of character I wouldn't like to say.  In any event even if he was dislikeable by most peoples' standards it doesn't mean he was capable of mass murder.  Based on RWB's diary entries it appears his dislike of JB stemmed from JB choosing to lead a different lifestyle to that of the Boutflours and Eatons eg not joining YFC, taking time out to travel, working at Little Chef, having a friend who wore a feather.  Oh and the fact he was adopted and referred to as a "b........" at school.

Many of the testimonies here seem to indicate enduring friendships pre and post prison:

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/

When I visited the WHF area last summer I had Sunday lunch in JB's local, The Chequers at Goldhanger, I was introduced to several people who knew JB personally pre prison and none thought he was responsible and all described him in positive terms.  I agree the likes of Mike do JB no favours whatsoever hence JB wisely chooses to distance himself.  The same cannot be said for many others:  Michael Turner QC, Andrew Hunter (former MP and Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club) Scott Lomax (Author), Eric Allison (Journalist), little ol me and some of the regular sensible posters on Blue: Abs and Petey (fence sitters) Jan, Tyler and Reader (inclined towards innocence).  It is preposterous to think any of these people would support JB being the victim of a MoJ if they thought he was guilty of the crimes he has been convicted of.  Most (99.99%), including the criminal underworld, find the idea of any sort of intentional harm to small children abhorrent. 

Talking of enigmas and mountains hopefully you will get to know me a little better when we meet up for our ski race.  I promise not to wear my 'Free Bamber' tshirt 

[abs]

I have studied most aspects of the case carefully for almost 5 years to the best of my ability.

I'm no expert on guns but if SC showered and changed her clothes would gun oil and residue be present from loading (?) firing the gun twice?  Her hands were swabbed and showed low levels of lead compatible with handling every day items, but if she showered before taking her own life this might be compatible with such low levels.

I wouldn't expect any visible signs of a struggle on SC as I don't think there was any struggle.  The twins were shot in their sleep.  June was shot and severely disabled in bed.  NB was shot and severely disabled while standing in the bedroom.  By the time poor NB reached the kitchen he was imo too injured to do anything other than raise his right arm in an attempt to shield himself from blows raining down probably from the rifle.

As far as I am aware there was no blood, sugar or broken glass on NB's soles either.  If he was involved in a struggle in the kitchen then surely he was just as likely to pick up debris as SC would?   

Reading the WS's of the extended family it appears that they disliked JB from the off.  Whether or not these views were justified and JB was a dislikeable sort of character I wouldn't like to say.  In any event even if he was dislikeable by most peoples' standards it doesn't mean he was capable of mass murder.  Based on RWB's diary entries it appears his dislike of JB stemmed from JB choosing to lead a different lifestyle to that of the Boutflours and Eatons eg not joining YFC, taking time out to travel, working at Little Chef, having a friend who wore a feather.  Oh and the fact he was adopted and referred to as a "b........" at school.

Many of the testimonies here seem to indicate enduring friendships pre and post prison:

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/

When I visited the WHF area last summer I had Sunday lunch in JB's local, The Chequers at Goldhanger, I was introduced to several people who knew JB personally pre prison and none thought he was responsible and all described him in positive terms.  I agree the likes of Mike do JB no favours whatsoever hence JB wisely chooses to distance himself.  The same cannot be said for many others:  Michael Turner QC, Andrew Hunter (former MP and Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club) Scott Lomax (Author), Eric Allison (Journalist), little ol me and some of the regular sensible posters on Blue: Abs and Petey (fence sitters) Jan, Tyler and Reader (inclined towards innocence).  It is preposterous to think any of these people would support JB being the victim of a MoJ if they thought he was guilty of the crimes he has been convicted of.  Most (99.99%), including the criminal underworld, find the idea of any sort of intentional harm to small children abhorrent. 

Talking of enigmas and mountains hopefully you will get to know me a little better when we meet up for our ski race.  I promise not to wear my 'Free Bamber' tshirt 

 

[puglove]

Hols you are an enigma; you're way too smart and considered to still think Bamber is innocent!  Fair or not, the trial is irrelevant to the one irrefutable fact: Sheila could not (and would not) have committed the murders.

Please look again at the physical evidence. No gun oil on her fingers or clothing after reloading of the rifle at least twice is proof in itself she could not have fired that rifle. No gun shot residue either. No scrapes or bruises or even a chip to her manicured fingernails. No blood or sugar or broken glass on the soles of her feet after a life or death struggle in the kitchen.

Bamber has no support from any of his remaining extended family or neighbours or old friends. Literally no one who knew him before his killing spree thinks him anything but guilty as sin. No one is fighting his lost cause save a bunch of internet cranks many of whom Bamber himself has disowned! Who are the cranks to say they know better than literally everyone in almost 30 years who has been directly involved with the case?

Look at the mountain of evidence against Bamber again Hols and that lightbulb above your head will flash into life!

There will always be cranks, amateur detectives and angry old people who have a computer, a superiority complex and a limited social life. In the case of Bamber, years of his "supporters" churning out unremitting BS and staggeringly ignorant, pompous bluster have made him look even MORE guilty, even more of a mug. I've lost count of the people who have changed from "guilty" to "innocent." And the forum in his name, which has hosted dozens of disgusting attacks on a bereaved family, now appears mainly to be used to discuss/defend the consequences of drug abuse.

I wonder who pays for this?     &%+((£