UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Various internet articles about the Jeremy Bamber case => Topic started by: Padgates staff on January 08, 2013, 11:39:22 AM
-
Crime, Hearts and Coronets.
http://crimeheartsandcoronets.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/jeremy-bamber-guilty-as-charged.html
FRIDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2010
Jeremy Bamber - Guilty As Charged?
For the purposes of a prosecution, the decision concerning what account of events to accept is one to be decided, once and for all, by a magistrate or jury.
If the case later winds up in a higher court, it will generally be so that a point of law can be decided. Only in certain circumstances can a dispute over the facts form the basis for an appeal.
But the imagination of anyone with an interest in criminal law is easily captured by infamous past cases, particular those where someone has been convicted of serious offences against the person, but doubts have emerged as to their guilt.
Jeremy Bamber is one of 39 prisoners in British jails serving sentences that will keep them behind bars for the whole of their natural lives. He is the only one who protests his innocence.
Might Bamber really have served half his life in jail for a crime he did not commit?
Tuesday 6 August 1985, and the south Essex coast was cool for the time of year. Temperatures overnight dipped to 11 degrees and there were brief rain showers.
At approximately 03:30 the next morning, an officer at Chelmsford police station answered the phone to a young man identifying himself as Jeremy Bamber of Head Street, Goldhanger. The caller had dialled the station directly, instead of being patched through after ringing 999.
Bamber told PC Michael West that a few minutes earlier he’d been woken by the sound of his phone ringing. It was his father, calling from the family farm in Tolleshunt D’Arcy. “Please come over, Jeremy” Nevill Bamber had urged his adopted son, “your sister’s gone crazy and she’s got the gun”.
Sheila was Jeremy’s 28-year-old sister and the divorced mother of twin boys, custody of whom was principally in the hands of their father. She had been adopted by the Bambers a few a years before Jeremy (himself adopted) was born, and the two were not related by blood. A former model, she had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and spent time at St Andrew’s Hospital, Northampton.
Bamber wanted police to collect him on their way to White House Farm, but West urged him to make his own way there and rendezvous with officers who would be in attendance outside.
The constable then contacted Witham station, which was seven miles closer to Tolleshunt. At 03.35, patrol car CA7 was despatched from Witham. Although he lived just a few minutes drive from his parents’ property, Bamber was overtaken by the white Ford Sierra as it sped towards the village of Tolleshunt D’Arcy.
At 03.48 the three occupants – Sergeant Bews and PCs Myall and Saxby – reached Pages Lane, the private road leading to White House Farm. A few minutes later, Bamber arrived at the scene. The three officers were parked a short distance into the lane; Bamber pulled up behind them and left his silver Astra to speak with them. After identifying himself, he was asked to clarify what his father had managed to tell him before being abruptly cut off. The young man reiterated that Nevill, sounding very distressed, had asked him to come over at once because his sister Sheila had gone crazy and got hold of a gun. Sheila (whose married name of Caffell he couldn’t recall), was “a nutter” and recent psychiatric in-patient. As was to be expected, there were a number of guns on the farm, and Sheila was capable of handling them. Bamber told the officers that his mother June also lived at the house, and Sheila’s children, six year old Daniel and Nicholas, were staying on the farm.
Two adults and two children were therefore at the mercy of a mental patient wielding a firearm which she may or may not have discharged. The officers’ first step would be to approach with caution and make a visual assessment. Ideally, Nevill would now have control of the situation and would emerge from the farm house to greet them. The police could then decide whether Sheila needed medical assistance or should be taken into custody.
With Saxby remaining in the vehicle to monitor the radio, Bamber and the remaining officers walked down the lane together in the direction of the property. They stealthily approached the front door, at one point crouching behind a hedge in an effort to remain inconspicuous. It was nearing 04:00, but dawn would not break for another 90 minutes. At the right side of the house on the first floor was Jeremy’s parents’ bedroom. Lights were blazing here and in several other rooms.
Suddenly, there seemed to be movement upstairs. The trio retreated and a decision was made to summon the Tactical Firearms Group. As the group waited next to the patrol car, armed support was an hour away and several decisions had yet to be weighed up.
-
Accounts of what happened in the hours that followed have been revisited many times in the intervening quarter century. At his trial Bamber didn’t challenge the police timeline or account of events, but when he later gained access to additional material recounting the officers’ experiences that morning, he identified several statements and pieces of information that he claims help exonerate him from responsibility for the murders.
It is common ground that the firearms team entered the farm house shortly after half past seven and reported that everybody was dead.
More than three hours prior to this, Jeremy Bamber and the officers were at an impasse, and faced seeing out what was left of the night in a frustrating wait.
An additional patrol car arrived from Chelmsford, and British Telecom were asked to perform a check against phone number 0621 860209 (there were multiple handsets at the farm but only one line). The operator reported that the phone was off the hook. Sending a signal to clear the engaged tone, she was able to listen in to sounds inside the property, and told the police that the only thing audible was the sound of a barking dog (the Bambers’ Shih Tzu Crispy was later found cowering under their bed). The line could be monitored continuously from this point.
A radio operator was recording details of transmissions made by the officers using their CBs, and this later served to provide a running accounts of events.
The Tactical Firearms Group arrived close to 05:00, and, giving the farm house itself a wide berth, everyone repositioned themselves inside a barn at the rear, which allowed them to scan the back of the property and prepare their next move. With the sun due to rise in barely half an hour, the logical thing for the armed response team to do was to bide their time.
Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response”
Additional firearms officers arrived at 06.45 and were greeted by Sergeant Bews. Fresh on the scene, PC Woodcock from the Firearms Training Department was told by his colleagues that a siege was underway and a young woman with mental health issues was presumed either to have killed everyone or to be holding them hostage. Whatever had taken place, there had been no response from anyone in the farm at any time, and because of this the group were preparing to force entry into the property.
Inspector Montgomery and Police Sergeant Adams put together the raid team, consisting of PCs Collins, Delgado, Woodcock, Hall, Alexander-Smart and acting Sergeant Manners. The team, working from a plan of the building sketched by Jeremy, divided the property into “White”, “Green” and “Black” zones. Woodcock was nominated to break down the rear door using a sledgehammer. Collins and Delgado lined up on one side of the door. To their right was the kitchen window. Collins peered inside and reported seeing the body of a woman.
The door gave way when Woodcock pounded it several times with the sledgehammer. As the armed officer led the others into the property, he turned into the kitchen and saw the same person witnessed by Collins, obviously dead. In fact it was not a woman but 61-year old Nevill Bamber. A chair was on its side to the left of an Aga oven, and Nevill’s corpse was sat awkwardly on one edge of the backrest. He was slumped forward with arms at his side and his head fully inside a silver-topped bucket – in fact a coal scuttle. Blood had run thickly down the sides of this hod. The body was facing the window Collins had looked through, and all that was visible of Nevill’s head was a dishevelled shock of grey hair. This was why Collins had mistaken farmer Bamber for an old woman.
With Collins having stated over his police radio that he’d seen a woman in the kitchen, and Woodcock now reporting the body of a man, the wireless operator made the following entry at 07.37:
“one dead male and one dead female in kitchen”.
The error was insignificant in itself, but when Bamber obtained a copy of the log in 2005, he quickly sought out anything that could be represented as an inconsistency and manipulated to support his claim that he’d been framed for the crime.
At this stage Hall was covering a set of steps that led upstairs from the kitchen, Manners covered the hallway and Alexander-Smart was also occupied in a monitoring capacity. An additional officer entered the premises, and Woodcock, Collins and Delgado made a brief excursion up yet another set of stairs leading from the kitchen, then descended again and flanked the main stairwell in readiness to move up to the first floor landing. Using an extending mirror, Collins could see a female body sprawled in the door of the front-facing main bedroom: this was Jeremy’s adoptive mother June.
The team mounted the stairs and entered the bedroom. The door in which June was lying opened to the right and there was a window over the front of the farm house to the left. Lying on the other side of the room with her feet protruding beyond the foot of the bed, Collins found the body of Sheila Caffell. There was a rifle on her chest and two bullet wounds to her neck.
Her six year old twin sons were found last – shot dead in their separate beds in what had once been Sheila’s bedroom. An officer later told the boys’ father Colin that when he entered the room he had thought the children were sleeping, and decided not to wake them until the terrible scenes beyond their room had been partly covered up.
Colin was never able to bring himself to view the bodies of his children, which left him to imagine their condition and the terrible scene. When he later sought reassurance from the police that the boys hadn’t suffered for any length of time, the officer may have stretched the truth in order to make the bereaved father feel better. However, it seems true to say that the boys were unaware of their fate until it had overcome them. One died sucking his thumb after being shot repeatedly in the back of the head.
Throughout this time the wireless operator was recording updates, with an entry roughly every five minutes. At 08.10 another anomaly appears in the log. Hearing that everybody was now accounted for – and deceased – and not yet aware that one person, rather than two, was dead in the kitchen, the operator totted up “three further bodies found upstairs”. Bamber has taken this discrepancy at face value and woven it into his own narrative of what may have taken place once police entered the building.
Reports of Bamber’s conduct after being informed of the deaths of his family indicate a mixture of apparent grief and curious indifference. He was outwardly devastated and uncomprehending. Later he appeared to vomit in a field off Pages Lane. But he would switch into callous indifference, and within two hours cooked and ate a substantial breakfast at his flat in the presence of Detective Sergeant Stan Jones. Colin Caffell later observed that Jeremy seemed to ape his own behaviour, copying his refusal to re-enter the farm house, as if he needed to take his cue from others as to what was expected of a grieving relative.
But however hard it is to understand, it isn’t Bamber’s behaviour following the tragedy for which he is in jail. Nor can anyone mandate how a person should respond to grief and shock.
To begin with, police were not looking for anyone in connection with the deaths. Sheila, everyone concluded, had experienced a psychotic episode, murdered her family and taken her own life.
The case against Bamber
But within weeks Jeremy Bamber would appear at Chelmsford Crown Court charged with five murders.
The case against Bamber hinged on three things:
- Bamber’s girlfriend Julie Mugford remained Jeremy’s confident for a month after the event, but later became the key prosecution witness and testified that she had known all along that he was guilty.
- Bamber had backed himself into a corner by claiming to have received the call from his father. It wasn’t possible in the mid-1980s for BT to tell what calls had been placed when, so there was no evidence to support or disprove his claim. But if Nevill hadn’t telephoned, there was no way Jeremy could have known about the murders unless he’d been somehow involved. If the call had happened, Bamber had no reason to lie about its contents, and Nevill’s statement that Sheila had gone crazy with a gun. Therefore the only possible culprits were Sheila or himself – and forensic evidence suggested Sheila didn’t do it.
- A silencer designed for the Anschutz was recovered from a gun cupboard in the days following the massacre. Just visible inside was dried blood matching Sheila’s blood type. The silencer, which was also contaminated with red paint that matched scratches on the mantle shelf above the Aga, was discovered by Bamber’s relatives when they visited White House Farm with the specific intent of gathering evidence to substantiate their suspicions of Jeremy. As it was not on the gun found on top of Sheila, it was plainly not used by her to commit suicide, in which case, how did her blood get in there?
Bamber had spent years telling anyone who would listen exactly what he thought of his family. His father was ready to be put out to pasture. His mother was insane, having spent time in a psychiatric hospital herself for illnesses expressed as religious mania. Sheila, of course, was barking mad. And the children were bound to have been screwed up by their troubled upbringing.
Despite this, if Bamber’s antics after the deaths hadn’t been so impossible for those around him to understand, he might never have come under real suspicion for the murders.
The ease with which Bamber accepted his loss and began selling off the farm house’s contents alienated his cousins David Boutflour and Ann Eaton, and their parents. Detective Sergeant Stan Jones, who spent a great deal of time in Bamber’s company, suspected him of involvement in the massacre after just one day, when he and Julie disappeared upstairs in his cottage at Goldhanger. Jones thought he could hear Jeremy laughing, and Julie later confirmed that Bamber had been in self-satisfied form that morning, telling her, “I should have been an actor”. By any account, Bamber lived it up after the deaths of his family, and spent a great deal of time partying with friends and preparing to disperse his parents’ property. Meanwhile, he attempted to sell the press topless photos of Sheila uncovered at her Maida Vale flat, and didn’t even attend the memorial service for his family held on the Sunday following the killings.
The funeral of the Bambers and Sheila (the boys were buried in London) was a different matter – here Jeremy got to play the bereaved son in full view of the world’s media. With his apparent inability to judge appropriate behaviour in the circumstances, he laid on an excessively theatrical display, complete with a well-timed collapse as the cortège left the church and came into view of press photographers.
-
Doubts emerge amongst the Bambers’ relatives
As facts about the events at White House Farm began to leak out, Bamber’s relatives arrived at the conclusion that Sheila couldn’t have been responsible for the massacre. The 28-year-old mother of two may have grown up on a farm but was not used to handling firearms. At a stretch, the Boutflours could imagine her loosing off .22 bullets from a single shot rifle, but the Anschutz used to kill everyone was semi automatic. Her ex-husband would add that the effects of anti-psychotic drug haloperidol had made her uncoordinated and clumsy. Loading and reloading the 10 bullet-magazine and still managing to hit the target 25 times out of 26 shots was not a feat they could realistically attribute to her, even in the grip of a presumed psychotic frenzy. Certainly, they reasoned, she would not have been found with her manicured fingernails intact and almost no traces of residue on her nightdress and hands.
Living in close proximity to weaponry doesn’t make a person into a firearms expert. June had lived at White House Farm for decades, but her brother recalls her referring to magazine cartridges as “the thingy” that slots into the gun. Interestingly, this was during a conversation in which June asked Robert Boutflour his opinion of an incident she witnessed in the weeks leading up to the murders, in which Jeremy had tried to get Sheila to load bullets into “the thingy”.
Robert recalls that his first thought, at a time when no-one could have imagined what would transpire, was “he’s obviously trying to get her fingerprints all over the magazine”. He hadn’t shared this thought with June at the time, instead merely asking her “She didn’t do it, did she?” (the answer was “No”).
This sort of hearsay evidence could scarcely form the basis of a successful prosecution. But past events of this kind helped bring Bamber’s relatives, and in turn the police, to a tipping point at which Jeremy’s involvement in the deaths began to cross over from ominous possibility to seeming likelihood.
Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).
The picture acquired from detailed accounts of Bamber’s lifestyle and behaviour combines with a great deal of circumstantial evidence to create an inference of guilt greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, that is not a satisfactory standard of proof for the purposes of a criminal conviction.
-
The confession of Julie Mugford
But the most powerful evidence pointing to Bamber’s culpability is the confession of Julie Mugford. Contemporary commentators and the crown court judge made the point that Mugford’s sum testimony had “the ring of truth about it”. Her story of life in the month after the murders is a convincing tale of a person’s conscience unravelling due to the burden of carrying a great and terrible secret.
Why did Bamber confide in Julie? By every account, Jeremy was prone to verbal incontinence regarding the ins and outs of his personal life, and was particularly fond of hard luck stories about the raw deal meted out to him by his parents. He had no compunction sharing with all and sundry thoughts about the awfulness of his family, and the obstacle they presented to his overwhelming desire for money and status. He had been telling Julie Mugford for so long how he intended to put them all out of their misery (at one time he considered drugging the family and then setting fire to the farm house), that she had long since dismissed it as idle talk. She thought little of what he told her on the phone on the evening of 6 August: “it’s now or never”. She even dismissed Bamber’s 3am phone call to tell her that everything was going well. It therefore came as a catastrophic shock to her when Bamber called again at around 8am, this time from a phone box in Tolleshunt, to tell her that everyone at White House Farm was dead. Later, wishing to put some distance in Julie’s mind between the man she knew and loved and the savage who had meted out such brutality in the farm house, Bamber invented a proxy in the form of a hit man, and told his girlfriend that this person had carried out the killings for £2,000 (the man he named was proven to be alibi). Throughout this period, Bamber remained confident that Mugford was sufficiently under his spell as to represent no threat to him, regardless of what she knew.
As the weeks passed, Julie moved from disbelief to fear, partly perhaps for herself and the responsibility she bore for failing to turn Bamber in on day one. But when Jeremy took her into the bedroom at Bourtree cottage and laughed that his façade was fooling the police so effectively, he little knew that at that very moment seeds of doubt were being sown in the mind of DS Stan Jones, waiting quietly downstairs.
Julie’s already fractious relationship with Bamber was torn apart by the insanity of August 1985. With his family cremated and Jeremy the beneficiary of almost the entire estate, grandiose plans were made and promises broken, played out to a soundtrack of drink and drug induced oblivion.
Just as Mugford broke, confessing to close friends and readying herself to approach the police, Sergeant Jones had nearly finished pulling together his own case against Bamber. Had Julie not visited the police station in September, the detective would in any case have pulled her in for questioning.
Bamber convicted … just
At Bamber’s trial, the jury were divided, and found the defendant guilty by a 10-2 majority. As sentence was passed, two female jurors wept.
Before reaching a verdict, the jury had asked for clarification concerning the blood in the silencer. They needed to be sure that it was Sheila’s – forensic evidence was plainly needed to put the matter of Bamber’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in their minds.
In fact, the silencer is problematic as a piece of evidence. It was discovered not by the police, but by relatives with a financial interest in preventing him from securing his inheritance. Evidence provided by DNA testing would be used to catch a criminal in Britain for the first time only 12 months later. But at the time of the White House Farm murder, biological profiling techniques were little different from those employed during the war: distinguishing between blood groups was the summit of the forensic evidence that could be obtained. Procedures at Huntingdon lab were in any case starkly criticised in later years, and some authorities came to the view that no results produced around that time can be considered reliable.
In February 1996, Essex police took the bizarre decision, in contravention of their own guidelines, to destroy the outstanding forensic evidence relating to the case: therefore all we will ever know about the blood found in the silencer is that it could have been Sheila’s, and could not have been either Nevill’s or June’s alone, although there was a remote possibility it was a mixture from that of both. This was important as the latter possibility would not have excluded Sheila being responsible for the deaths and then returning the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life, albeit that this would seem hard to fathom.
Bamber’s own views regarding the silencer stretch into the realms of conspiracy. He claims it was not necessarily used in any of the shootings. The scenario he prefers is one which weaves every anomaly in the police record into a (barely) coherent narrative in which Sheila, responsible for the deaths of the other four people in the house, doesn’t take her own life until the police are actually inside the farmhouse. Subsequent to this, Bamber’s cousins pounce upon the opportunity provided by his crass conduct to put him in the frame for murder, and go about fabricating evidence to support this assertion.
From the point of view of the defence, any inconsistency or error in the thousands of documents that make up the case file can potentially be exploited to undermine the prosecuting authorities and sow doubt in the minds of people unfamiliar with the facts.
-
A call from Nevill Bamber?
Approaching the evidence chronologically, Bamber first takes issue with police reports of his telephone call to Chelmsford station.
After speaking to Bamber, PC West contacted his colleague Malcolm Bonnett in the Chelmsford HQ Information Room. There was also contact with an officer at Witham police station, which is halfway between Chelmsford and Tolleshunt. Bonnett wrote up a memo headed “daughter gone bezerk”, in which he paraphrases what Nevill is supposed to have told Jeremy about Sheila having “got hold of one of my guns”, and adds “Information passed to CD [control at Chelmsford] by Mr Bamber’s son”, confirming that Bonnett’s source was Jeremy Bamber via PC West.
West times Bamber’s own call from Goldhanger to Chelmsford Control at 03.36, whereas the other memo times West’s conversation with Bonnett in the Information Room at 03.26, so at least one timing is inaccurate. But Bamber concludes that the timing is spot on: his suggestion is that the other officer didn’t get his information from West, but from no less a person than Nevill Bamber. The officer, Jeremy maintains, must have taken an emergency call from the 61-year-old farmer and noted Nevill’s words as he’d spoken them.
Aware that a problem existed reconciling the order in which calls between the parties were placed and the time at which they were said to have happened, the Crown liaised with Bonnett. He confirmed that he’d spoken to West at 03.26, passing on the information received from Jeremy Bamber moments beforehand. Later he filled out an official Document Record to this effect.
At no time had he heard from Nevill Bamber or anyone else in connection with the incident at White House Farm. Presumably then, West had misread the clock when he filled out his call log, or just mistakenly wrote 03.36 instead of 03.26.
At 03.35, patrol car CA7 was dispatched to attend the scene from Witham, and Chelmsford directed CA5 to attend at 03.36. Overlooking the fact that the police were co-ordinating their response across relevant parts of the county, Bamber’s supporters also ask why the Essex constabulary should send a car from each station unless the police were responding separately to different reports?
There is something darkly comic about the image of Nevill Bamber, under a hale of bullets, leafing through the phone book to get hold of the number for his local station instead of dialling 999.
Plainly, there is little for Bamber’s defence team to get their teeth into here, but that hasn’t stopped them promoting the risible scenario of a call from Nevill to Witham police station. Earlier this summer the mainstream press picked up on the story: the Mail and Mirror were among papers reporting it on 5 August as a dramatic new find that had the potential to clear the supposed killer.
These papers uncritically reported that all along, documented proof seems to have existed that police had heard about Sheila’s rampage not only via Jeremy but directly from Nevill. If this information was correct, Jeremy’s account was vindicated and he could not possibly be guilty of the murders.
It’s worth considering the implications of the defence’s claim. If it were true, several members of the Essex constabulary would have been aware of the existence of a call from Nevill on the morning of the murders. When officers began to suspect the son of involvement and started poking around for discrepancies in Jeremy’s story, they would quickly have turned up accounts of Nevill’s call, snuffing out any doubts they had about Sheila’s culpability.
In these circumstances, police would only have continued to pursue Bamber for the murders if they were intentionally attempting to frame him.
In fact, Bamber maintains that this is exactly what happened, although he casts the net much wider to take in his relatives as well as the Essex constabulary.
Bamber’s legal team must be aware that claims about Nevill telephoning police withstand no scrutiny. Perhaps their strategy is to keep throwing anything at all to the papers, the better to build a groundswell of feeling that their client is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The long retired Stan Jones recently told the Essex Chronicle that Bamber "consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings”, manipulating its supposed meaning to support his claim to be wrongly convicted.
Discrepancies in the wireless log
But other evidence adduced by Bamber is, at least, more substantive than the call report.
He has claimed that officers were in conversation at 05.25 with a person inside the farm, which is what a strict reading of the wireless log would appear to suggest. The implication from Bamber is that officers were trying to reason with a very much alive Sheila. If this was really the case, Jeremy was plainly alibi when Sheila met her death.
What’s curious is that although Jeremy was present at the time, he never suggested that officers were speaking to his sister until years later when he obtained the wireless log. It’s inconceivable that officers at the scene would not have updated him to this effect at any time that morning, particularly since they may have sought his involvement in any attempt to “talk Sheila down”. When Bamber was finally charged with the murders, why didn’t he tell the police incredulously that officers must know of his innocence, as some of them had spoken to Sheila while she was alive and when Jeremy’s whereabouts were well accounted for? The defence team never raised any such objection, then or in the years which followed, until one sentence in a log written up by an operator miles away seemed to throw up an inconsistency which could be exploited.
Bamber also maintains that at 07.30 PC Collins did see a female in the kitchen: a dazed Sheila, having self-inflicted the first of two wounds (and one which pathologists accept would not have killed her outright), who is roused by the sound of Woodcock smashing down the main door and flees upstairs to her parents’ bedroom.
By this account, she delivered the second, fatal wound as the police prepared to move upstairs. The officers heard no rapport from a rifle. But Bamber has no difficulty concluding that they covered up the truth or were leaned upon to do so.
In support of this theory, Bamber’s supporters adduce that photographs taken circa 09.00 show fresh blood running from Sheila’s wounds, and note that the gun on her body changes position between post-mortem photographs.
But there are prosaic explanations for this. The officers did interfere slightly with Sheila’s corpse: by their own account, the rifle was removed from her body and then returned when photographs were taken in order to represent the condition in which she was found. A bible belonging to June, which was discovered at Sheila’s waist, appears at the level of her shoulder in the photographs.
At the farm that morning, police had no difficulty accepting that Sheila had carried out the murders and taken her own life. This is what they had been primed to believe by Jeremy Bamber. They didn’t think there was any need to preserve the scene beyond what was necessary for the purposes of an open and shut coroner’s investigation. Nor were scene of crime procedures anything like as fastidious in 1985 as they are today.
There have been claims that rigor mortis is visible in photographs of Nevill, June and the twins, and that those of Sheila Caffell show no rigor or lividity. This claim does not seem ever to have been adduced by a medical professional rather than a layperson.
A consistent feature of objections to the Crown case is that they rest upon arguments from personal incredulity. Surely the blood on Sheila’s neck couldn’t look as “fresh” as it does in the photographs if she’d been dead for at least six hours?
Well, yes, it could. Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.
Sheila could certainly not have shot herself once in the kitchen and once upstairs: the photographs show no blood down the front of her pale blue nightdress. The blood that has run from the two wounds flows at an angle down the mother of two’s neck and along her right arm, with a patch spreading onto her right bosom. If she was on her feet for anything more than a moment after receiving the initial shot, blood would have run vertically down her sternum.
-
Bamber passes a polygraph with flying colours
In 2007, Jeremy Bamber convincingly passed a lie detector test conducted by Terry Mullins, an expert in the field. Asked a series of twelve questions including “Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985?”, “Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family?” and “Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting?”, Bamber gave answers that indicated his innocence and affirmed the sighting, and no indices of deception were apparent in the results recorded by the polygraph.
But despite its notoriety as a ruthless instrument of detection, the polygraph test has almost no credibility within the scientific community. The ability of such a device to accurately assess the truthfulness of answers is in reality little better than chance, relegating the science of polygraphy to the level of astrology and tarot cards. What’s more, the technique is particularly ineffective when applied to individuals with [ censored word]ocial/psychopathic personality disorders, tendencies which are often displayed by people who kill deliberately. Gary Ridgway, the man convicted on the basis of DNA evidence (and later his own confession) as Utah’s Green River killer, passed a polygraph with flying colours at an early stage of the investigation. Conversely, Bill Wegerle, an innocent man, failed two separate tests after coming under suspicion of the murders.
Mystery of the missing scratches
Probably the most potent post-trial evidence the defence can summon is found in the conclusions of forensic image analyst Peter Sutherst, who was asked to examine photographs of surfaces above the Aga in the farm kitchen, where Nevill lost his life after what seems to have been a fierce struggle with the killer.
The silencer found by David Boutflour, which provided a key element of the case against Bamber, was not contaminated only with blood. The knurled end from which the bullets emerge was embedded with red paint made up of nine coats, exactly matching that on the surface above the Aga where scratches were found and photographed. The jury, or at least ten of them, believed the Crown’s contention that these marks were made when the gun, with sound moderator fitted, was flung about during a tussle between Nevill and his adopted son.
Arranging photographs of the scene chronologically in his cell, Bamber realised that he couldn’t make out the scratches in the first photographs which show most of the room: they were visible only in the close up pictures taken more than a month later, after police were alerted to their existence. The defence team also suggest that flakes of the bright red paint which were scratched out of the wall ought to be visible on the carpet in the first photograph.
It’s perfectly true that no such flakes are visible to the naked eye, and also that scratches to the paintwork cannot be made out in photographs showing greater portions of the kitchen.
To my mind, the marks ought not to be apparent in these photographs since they were made to the underside of the mantelshelf, which is simply not visible in the broader shots. However, I wouldn’t presume to argue with an expert on the topic.
This claim certainly has implications for the safety of Bamber’s conviction. Unlike disputes over what was scribbled in a wireless message log, the photographs have the potential to falsify evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that if the marks were made at a later date, this does not exonerate Bamber. What it would suggest is that one or other party was determined to shore up the evidence against him.
However, since the jury were asked to rely upon the scratches as proof that the red paint on the silencer had got there on the night of the murders, the Court of Appeal would have no choice but to quash Bamber’s conviction if they now found reason to think that the evidence was planted. Whether they will have the opportunity to make that decision depends upon the outcome of the CCRC’s latest review of the evidence. The Commission is due to report its findings at any time. If Bamber gets a third appeal, he will be the first convicted murderer to do so.
Bamber waits for yet another day in court
The defence make various other claims concerning the reliability of police evidence, almost none of which bear any scrutiny. Sometimes, competing possibilities are floated that wildly contradict each other (Bamber himself has recently raised the possibility of an unidentified killer, a person who, if he is innocent, he must know cannot exist, since his father is supposed to have told him alone that the person going crazy with a gun was Sheila). On the evidence of the post-trial objections raised by Bamber’s various defence teams over the years, he and his representatives have tended to value quantity over quality when it comes to protesting Jeremy’s innocence.
The prosecution case, however, was supported by reams of additional evidence as to how Jeremy carried out his crime.
It remains true that there is no “smoking gun” in the Bamber case. But I for one was drawn to the story of White House Farm by fears a miscarriage of justice had taken place, and instead found myself resolutely convinced of the defendant’s guilt.
Some people have suggested it’s a coincidence too far that a sometimes deranged young woman who believed her relatives possessed by demons was visiting the farm when the murders were carried out. It isn’t a coincidence at all – it is the very reason Bamber choose that evening to carry out his plan, and why he thought he’d get away with it. Things went broadly in line with the young man’s expectations that night, but there was more than one hiccup. Nevill refused to give up without a fight, and Bamber must have blanched at realising a second shot was needed to finish off Sheila. Suicide victims don’t often shoot themselves twice through the head.
Bamber gave little of his feelings away when 10 of 12 jurors found the 25-year-old guilty following a potent summation by Judge Drake. At times, the cracks have shown. When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed his concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “Free Bamber he is innocent” in excrement on the walls.
For the most part though, Bamber patiently waits. As his own correspondence illustrates, he exists in a state of limbo in which he continually believes freedom to be a matter of weeks away.
Elated after receiving the results of his 2007 polygraph test, Bamber told the Daily Mirror “I didn’t do it, I couldn’t have done it, I wouldn’t have done it.”
But he could have done it, seemingly would have done it and very probably did do it. Nevertheless, if the CCRC accepts that his latest submissions cast any doubt on the safety of his 1986 conviction, this fact may not be enough to keep him behind bars.
http://crimeheartsandcoronets.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/jeremy-bamber-guilty-as-charged.html
Thats all of it-if you're still awake!
-
Thanks [Name removed]o .... that is a very good read and covers the case in detail and very accurately. If you add to that account a few of the other small but damning facts (imo) of the case, I find in incredible that any intelligent and objective person could possibly believe Bamber could be innocent.
Facts such as Barbara Wilson's testimony that Neville himself had told her he feared being killed by Jeremy in some farm 'accident'. Or June's mud splattered pushbike being found at Jeremy's cottage after the murders for no apparent reason. You can then add a miriad of details of Jeremy's behaviour after the murders; his callous greed, excessive partying and pure arrogance and you have what Judge Drake rightly called a mountain of circumstantial evidence that proves Bamber guilty beyond any reasonable doubt!
I wonder how a few of the intelligent Bamberettes would respond to this article?
-
I must admit I missed this excellent post too. Well found [Name removed]o. 8@??)(
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
-
I havent read that site, so i wont comment.
A poster called 'Martin' who posts on blue think that starryian and steve-uk are the same person, as i say starry is banned from blue.
I dont believe the police shot sheila or that her body was moved, i also dont believe that you will find maddie by looking at clouds.
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
I don't think that Steve UK and Starryian are the same posters although both are convinced of Bamber's guilt. Starryian's analysis always seemed considered and logical but Steve gets carried away with his own inventive interpretation particularly in relation to things like Sheila's personality, Nevill and June , other members of the extended family etc . Some of his posting is highly inaccurate and at times just as defamatory and offensive as some of the " We love Jeremy " brigade. For once I have to actually agree with the likes of Lookout,
Patti, Lugg etc that Steve seems to draw heavily on books written about the case and then seems to extrapolate from these.
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
I don't think that Steve UK and Starryian are the same posters although both are convinced of Bamber's guilt. Starryian's analysis always seemed considered and logical but Steve gets carried away with his own inventive interpretation particularly in relation to things like Sheila's personality, Nevill and June , other members of the extended family etc . Some of his posting is highly inaccurate and at times just as defamatory and offensive as some of the " We love Jeremy " brigade. For once I have to actually agree with the likes of Lookout,
Patti, Lugg etc that Steve seems to draw heavily on books written about the case and then seems to extrapolate from these.
A lot of people are reading books about the White House Farm murders and are quoting parts of them as fact when we know that some of the information published within them is purely speculation. Best we keep to the facts and then we can't go wrong.
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
I don't think that Steve UK and Starryian are the same posters although both are convinced of Bamber's guilt. Starryian's analysis always seemed considered and logical but Steve gets carried away with his own inventive interpretation particularly in relation to things like Sheila's personality, Nevill and June , other members of the extended family etc . Some of his posting is highly inaccurate and at times just as defamatory and offensive as some of the " We love Jeremy " brigade. For once I have to actually agree with the likes of Lookout,
Patti, Lugg etc that Steve seems to draw heavily on books written about the case and then seems to extrapolate from these.
A lot of people are reading books about the White House Farm murders and are quoting parts of them as fact when we know that some of the information published within them is purely speculation. Best we keep to the facts and then we can't go wrong.
Couldn't agree with you more, David. I have read most of the books too, but also have direct information from family sources, trial transcripts etc. Wilkes gives the most accurate view, IMO, Lomax is poorly written and inaccurate , Colin Caffell has a biased perspective etc.
-
Now that the circumstances surrounding the events at WHF on that fateful night have been established I look forward to a proper documentary being made which will end the speculation for ever. Bamber must not be allowed to get away with this fiasco indefinitely. 8(0(*
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
I don't think that Steve UK and Starryian are the same posters although both are convinced of Bamber's guilt. Starryian's analysis always seemed considered and logical but Steve gets carried away with his own inventive interpretation particularly in relation to things like Sheila's personality, Nevill and June , other members of the extended family etc . Some of his posting is highly inaccurate and at times just as defamatory and offensive as some of the " We love Jeremy " brigade. For once I have to actually agree with the likes of Lookout,
Patti, Lugg etc that Steve seems to draw heavily on books written about the case and then seems to extrapolate from these.
That is the way I see it as well. Starryian has always made well balanced and informative posts on this forum when he was around and it is the worse for his absence.
-
Now that the circumstances surrounding the events at WHF on that fateful night have been established I look forward to a proper documentary being made which will end the speculation for ever. Bamber must not be allowed to get away with this fiasco indefinitely. 8(0(*
I don't think that there is enough interest in Bamber to justify another documentary, David. The last one achieved absolutely b....r all.
-
Now that the circumstances surrounding the events at WHF on that fateful night have been established I look forward to a proper documentary being made which will end the speculation for ever. Bamber must not be allowed to get away with this fiasco indefinitely. 8(0(*
I don't think that there is enough interest in Bamber to justify another documentary, David. The last one achieved absolutely b....r all.
Quite agree hun. Hes toasted cheese by the looks of it fantasies and all. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
-
Now that the circumstances surrounding the events at WHF on that fateful night have been established I look forward to a proper documentary being made which will end the speculation for ever. Bamber must not be allowed to get away with this fiasco indefinitely. 8(0(*
I don't think that there is enough interest in Bamber to justify another documentary, David. The last one achieved absolutely b....r all.
Quite agree hun. Hes toasted cheese by the looks of it fantasies and all. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Maybe a documentary might be a good idea, on second thoughts. This forum could put some questions to him, I'm sure that we could all think of some pertinent ones. Like....why didn't he attend his patents' memorial service, considering how much he doted on them? No photo opportunities for his "sad orphan" face, I suppose.
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
Its already started Joanne. 8(0(*
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
Its already started Joanne. 8(0(*
Has the family agreed to it, insider?
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
Its already started Joanne. 8(0(*
Has the family agreed to it, insider?
It's at an early stage I believe Shona but location doesn't appear to be an issue.
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
Its already started Joanne. 8(0(*
I've got to admire the way you keep us all in suspenders.... it's like a twenty-first century "What's My Line ?"
Does the analysis and location concentrate on White House Farm, or are we talking more about the antipodean adventures?
Is there anything that we don't already know going to be revealed?
Has B***t C*****s agreed to take part, and/or are interviews with former officers on the cards?
(crosses fingers hoping to get a non-confuzzling reply without a wink)
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
Its already started Joanne. 8(0(*
I've got to admire the way you keep us all in suspenders.... it's like a twenty-first century "What's My Line ?"
Does the analysis and location concentrate on White House Farm, or are we talking more about the antipodean adventures?
Is there anything that we don't already know going to be revealed?
Has B***t C*****s agreed to take part, and/or are interviews with former officers on the cards?
(crosses fingers hoping to get a non-confuzzling reply without a wink)
By the looks of it Brett has disappeared into the Australian bush.
-
I personally don't find the crimes hearts and coronets site factual,but that is just my opinion.
Actually, it is reasoned and fairly accurate account of the White House Farm murders, IMHO
The author only reveals himself as Israel Rank (posted by Connedro), a pseudonym based on the name of a novel from which the film 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' was made.
His bibliography includes a reference to the following transcript taken from Total Essex (online news) :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALDON: Detective rejects new evidence 'Bambi' went 'berserk' as farcical
Thursday, August 12, 2010
CLAIMS of vital new evidence that could clear Jeremy Bamber of five horrific murders have been dismissed by the former detective at the heart of the investigation as "farcical".
Bamber is reported to have uncovered a police phone log that he hopes will show he was innocent of the shooting deaths of five members of his family on August 7, 1985.
Reports in a national newspaper suggest the missing phone log shows Bamber's adoptive father Nevill, 61 – who died with his wife June, Bamber's adopted model sister Sheila "Bambi" Caffell and her six-year-old twin boys – called police at 3.26am to alert them that Sheila had gone berserk with a gun.
It was ten minutes ahead of Jeremy Bamber's call to the police station at Chelmsford – timed in a log at 3.36am – in which he said his father had called him and also claimed Sheila had gone berserk.
But former detective sergeant Stan Jones, a 30-year veteran of the force, said the note of the timing was a mistake and there was only one call.
"All this came out in the original Chelmsford Crown Court trial," he told the Chronicle. "It is irrelevant.
"The only person who telephoned the police was Jeremy Bamber. There is no way his father phoned. To suggest it is farcical," said Mr Jones, who still lives in the Maldon area.
Although the logs are said to have been uncovered by Bamber sorting through 100,000 pieces of paper in his cell at Full Sutton Prison near York, Mr Jones said that all the paperwork, including statements that were not used in the trial, were given to the defence.
The family died in White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, in a massacre that has become notorious worldwide.
Bamber, now 50 and serving a whole life sentence, has always protested his innocence and says Sheila, who suffered from schizophrenia, was responsible.
New evidence is being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to see whether there should be a third appeal after Bamber's conviction in 1986, but a decision is not expected for some time.
Mr Jones, now 71, said it came out at the trial that Jeremy had even telephoned his girlfriend Julie Mugford at around 3am – before the call to the police – to tell her "something had happened at the farm."
At first, police did think Sheila, 28, had carried out the shootings before turning the gun on herself.
But they switched the focus of the investigation a month later when Bamber's girlfriend Julie Mugford came forward with vital new information and told them Jeremy had discussed killing his family.
Mr Jones said he was always sceptical of Bamber's innocence and raised his concerns at a meeting of detectives.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
"When I chatted to Bamber I didn't get the reaction of someone who had lost all his family. On the day of the discovery I was chatting to him at his home in Goldhanger when Julie turns up."
As the couple spoke he thought he heard Bamber laugh.
"I thought 'was that a laugh or a cough' and later she confirmed it was a laugh and Jeremy said 'what an actor I am'."
Mr Jones said: "I knew the family were not happy and I was not happy."
He took possession of what became vital evidence, a silencer found in a cupboard, on which he noticed red paint stains and blood.
Mr Jones said the red paint came front the home's mantelpiece where he noticed scratches on the underside, scratches which were later vital in Bamber's conviction.
In February this year, a forensic expert claimed new photographic evidence would clear Bamber.
During Bamber's trial the jury was shown a close-up image of the scratch marks allegedly made by a silencer fitted to a .22 Anschutz semi-automatic rifle.
Prosecution lawyers said the marks were made during a violent struggle between tenant farmer Nevill and Bamber.
However, the forensic expert's analysis of negatives of early images, some never used in evidence, found no trace of the scratch marks.
Bamber's expert claimed the photo shown to the jury was taken 34 days after the murders.
Sheila was found upstairs with the .22 gun with no silencer. She had been shot twice.
Mr Jones pointed out that her manicured fingernails were still intact, but the killer would have had to have reloaded the gun at least twice.
Sheila's blood was also found in the silencer, but it would have been impossible for her to shoot herself with it attached as she wouldn't have been able to reach the trigger.
Mr Jones said there was a pile of circumstantial evidence which eventually pushed the detectives to their conclusion.
"Bamber consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings.
"It seems wrong to me that he should be allowed an appeal on the recent things he has mentioned.
"On top of all this he causes upset to the Bamber relatives as a result of his continued claims."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first time I've seen any recent direct comments by Stan Jones
-
The Crime Hearts and Coronets piece is probably one of the best articles I have read on the Bamber case. Though for an impartial, balanced, detailed and unbiased piece you can't beat the Wikipedia article. I can't believe people think Starryian and Steve_UK are one and the same. The only comparison is that they both believe Bamber to be guilty. I actually think Steve is an intelligent poster but why he continues to bang his head against the wall on the blue forum I have no idea. My only criticism is he does take a lot of artistic licence with his posts. But that hardly makes him unique over there. Who was Starryian on blue? Why was he banned?
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
And just what is your idea of 'facts' then erm....'Cheryl'? We are all waiting in anticipation.
-
Isn't the author of that site Steve_uk? Or better known on this forum as starryian? It appears that he has had many of his theories scuppered on the JB forum,by some of the more knowledgeable posters! If it suits you to believe his less than factual account,then that is your choice I guess.Personally,I prefer to work with the facts of the case!
Starryian is banned from the blue forum. We deal with the facts of the case on this forum !!
I don't think that Steve UK and Starryian are the same posters although both are convinced of Bamber's guilt. Starryian's analysis always seemed considered and logical but Steve gets carried away with his own inventive interpretation particularly in relation to things like Sheila's personality, Nevill and June , other members of the extended family etc . Some of his posting is highly inaccurate and at times just as defamatory and offensive as some of the " We love Jeremy " brigade. For once I have to actually agree with the likes of Lookout,
Patti, Lugg etc that Steve seems to draw heavily on books written about the case and then seems to extrapolate from these.
Dillon, you are spot on. I am not nor have ever been 'steveuk' This was bandied about simply because we seem to both believe in Bamber's guilt. In short, it was a transparent and immature smear tactic by the 'colluded and deluded' over on the blue forum in order to discredit any views on the case they dont share. Your intuitive grasp of exactly what's going on is excellent Dillon. 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
The Crime Hearts and Coronets piece is probably one of the best articles I have read on the Bamber case. Though for an impartial, balanced, detailed and unbiased piece you can't beat the Wikipedia article. I can't believe people think Starryian and Steve_UK are one and the same. The only comparison is that they both believe Bamber to be guilty. I actually think Steve is an intelligent poster but why he continues to bang his head against the wall on the blue forum I have no idea. My only criticism is he does take a lot of artistic licence with his posts. But that hardly makes him unique over there. Who was Starryian on blue? Why was he banned?
I was banned Goatboy for posting views of Bamber's guilt that they simply did not want to hear...i.e the truth. I would not for one minute go along with their laughable scenarios nor shameful, disgusting and unfounded accusations about Sheila or crackpot theories orchestrated simply to protect a clearly guilty psychopathic, child-murderer. True-to-form the forum that likes to promote the fact that it has balanced views on both sides' is simply a lie. The scenario usually goes like this; when you start posting views which contradict theirs, they start to get nasty (I personally received rather threatening and accusatory messages from their so-called 'moderators' threatening a ban virtually when I was verciferously defending a point - which they euphemistically call 'goading') They then try to sideline you and start accusing you of subversion, then the inevitable happens - one of the cronies in charge of the site promptly bans you and then they group together and gloat over it. Sychophantic, inarticulate and biased numpties such a Grahame Belton, Roch and an idiot called 'Martin regularly trawl the pages of the forum surreptitiously bullying anyone that disagrees with them. The site is nothing more than an illusion and a joke. Manned by sychophantic, self-absorbed cronies only interested in sharing and inventing deluded theories. The site has lost any modicum of respect it ever had. Some of the more astute posters have sensibly deserted the forum and have come to view it with scorn. The die-hard such as those mentioned above are now so completely deluded that if Commander-In-Thief Mike Tesko said that the world would end tomorrow they would ask in unison "at what time". Put into it's crudest terms, all Tesko has to do is fart and they would crawl up and take a crap.
On a similar note, I can say for the record, with hand on heart that I have never been 'steveuk' He is a very good poster from what I have read. But our views are somewhat different in many issues.
-
That's right Ian. Why they vociferously defend Mike in spite of his constant BS, but worse his foul mouthed ranting when someone sees through his lies or disagrees with him, is a mystery. If you are pressed about a particular issue and you feel the need to become abusive I think it is pretty clear you have lost the argument. I must admit when I first found the blue forum and noted his attention to detail and knowledge about the minutiae of the case I was very impressed. However, not long afterwards his comments about having evidence that would prove Jeremy's innocence but failing to post them or even supply them to someone who could help Jeremy get out of prison proved he was full of s**t. Add his outright lies and nonsense about informants to the mix and you quickly realise that nothing he says is of any substance. And the worst thing is that if Bamber is a genuine miscarriage of justice (which I doubt almost entirely) then much damage would have been done to his cause by Tesco's rantings.
-
That's right Ian. Why they vociferously defend Mike in spite of his constant BS, but worse his foul mouthed ranting when someone sees through his lies or disagrees with him, is a mystery. If you are pressed about a particular issue and you feel the need to become abusive I think it is pretty clear you have lost the argument. I must admit when I first found the blue forum and noted his attention to detail and knowledge about the minutiae of the case I was very impressed. However, not long afterwards his comments about having evidence that would prove Jeremy's innocence but failing to post them or even supply them to someone who could help Jeremy get out of prison proved he was full of s**t. Add his outright lies and nonsense about informants to the mix and you quickly realise that nothing he says is of any substance. And the worst thing is that if Bamber is a genuine miscarriage of justice (which I doubt almost entirely) then much damage would have been done to his cause by Tesco's rantings.
That's a perfect synopsis, Goatboy. It's just a shame that the last two intelligent posters over there (good grief, not you, Gladys and logout, back on your commodes) should encourage the naughty little burglar.
-
That's right Ian. Why they vociferously defend Mike in spite of his constant BS, but worse his foul mouthed ranting when someone sees through his lies or disagrees with him, is a mystery. If you are pressed about a particular issue and you feel the need to become abusive I think it is pretty clear you have lost the argument. I must admit when I first found the blue forum and noted his attention to detail and knowledge about the minutiae of the case I was very impressed. However, not long afterwards his comments about having evidence that would prove Jeremy's innocence but failing to post them or even supply them to someone who could help Jeremy get out of prison proved he was full of s**t. Add his outright lies and nonsense about informants to the mix and you quickly realise that nothing he says is of any substance. And the worst thing is that if Bamber is a genuine miscarriage of justice (which I doubt almost entirely) then much damage would have been done to his cause by Tesco's rantings.
A good view of the situation Goatboy. I too was at first imprsssed by Tesko only to realise what he was saying he couldn't back up. I lost count of the number of times I asked him to support what he was saying with hard evidence. Every single time he failed to produce it. I then learned of his criminal background and his association with Bamber. This proved to be the final straw for me. It was clear that he was going to try to secure Bamber's release by any means necessary. Whether he had to lie, cajole, manipulate or disseminate mattered little to him insofar as the ultimate objective. He was trying to get released a convicted mass killer and child murderer. Innocence or guilt didn't seem to matter to him, his sole and primary focus was securing Bamber's release. I was absolutely sickened by this and vowed to fight it tooth and nail. I believed at this stage that Sheila was completely innocent of the appalling accusations levelled at her by her 'brother' and his cronies. I also realised that we were dealing with a very clever, devious and highly manipulative psychopath in Jeremy Bamber. However, I had the comfort of knowing that he had a whole life sentence and will never see the light of day again., despite repeated attempts by him and his cronies to secure his release. I am satisfied that this case is now finally closed and the beast Bamber has finally been defeated. I also know that his back-slappers, leeches and cronies would not be able to accept this as Bamber is the common thread that binds them all together. Expect there to be a whole welter of theories each more ridiculous than the last as they mount in desparation. However, somewhere we all may be in for a shock. It is possible that Bamber, sometime in the future may, just may, admit his guilt or acknowledge at least some culpability for the murders. He will do it in a very convoluted and disconnected manner, but I think he might just do it. He has no other options left to him and time is now running out. However, regardless of this the truth is, is that he will never be released and will certainly die behind bars. In his cell I am sure he has reason to think back on that August night in 1985 and regret his own arrogance and stupidity and misfortune in getting caught for a crime he almost certainly believed would never be uncovered. In this he was very, very mistaken.
-
Good posts everyone, most of us have had the same treatment at the Jeremy Bamber Forum which does go to show they really do want to stifle debate when it clearly indicates Bamber's guilt.
On a more general note, lets set a good example to the newcomers and keep the language friendly? 8)-)))
-
I do think there is room for a documentary (albeit, it's never going to happen) and I think it should be 60 minutes in length, half telling people how he did it and half for the defense and see what people make of it. There hasn't really been what anyone could call a decent documentary done about this case, the crimes that shook britain episode never really showed people how he did it and then we had a real crime which I cant remember seeing that episode and then another concerning his sentance being in 'doubt'. All what I've seen has been piss poor.
This is indeed the fundamental issue. No reconstruction is possible, because it must not only defy the bullet trajectories through Nevill, it must show the dialogue with Sheila as he persuades her to lie down in the room where her mother is dead, and be shot. That is why no program has ever been made, nor will ever be made. Jeremy Bamber did not do this crime.
We will instead create a film that shows how Sheila did this, beginning with the disturbance with the buckets and the bloody knickers that brought Nevill down to investigate.
-
This is indeed the fundamental issue. No reconstruction is possible, because it must not only defy the bullet trajectories through Nevill, it must show the dialogue with Sheila as he persuades her to lie down in the room where her mother is dead, and be shot. That is why no program has ever been made, nor will ever be made. Jeremy Bamber did not do this crime.
We will instead create a film that shows how Sheila did this, beginning with the disturbance with the buckets and the bloody knickers that brought Nevill down to investigate.
Samson we sing from the same song sheet in terms of a reconstruction along with Charlie, David1819 and Nostalgia NZ. However the reason(s) SC and NB were downstairs, how long they had been there and their exact locations are surely an unknown? I don't understand why you place so much emphasis on the buckets and knickers? It seems from the housekeeper's ws that the buckets in the kitchen/clothes soaking were a normal part of the laundry process at WHF? It is well documented that SC had disturbed sleep patterns so could have been up and about for any reason? I think the buckets and knickers dilute the argument/reconstruction in that there's no direct evidence to support this? The totality of the physical evidence at soc: blood staining to carpets and bedding and/or lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks overwhelmingly support our argument which I've no doubt will be supported by relevant experts in the fields of ballistics, blood pattern analysis, crime scene analysis and reconstruction and pathology.
As far as I am concerned the starting point is NB making the call to JB from the kitchen and SC climbing the stairs to shoot June.
-
Samson we sing from the same song sheet in terms of a reconstruction along with Charlie, David1819 and Nostalgia NZ. However the reason(s) SC and NB were downstairs, how long they had been there and their exact locations are surely an unknown? I don't understand why you place so much emphasis on the buckets and knickers? It seems from the housekeeper's ws that the buckets in the kitchen/clothes soaking were a normal part of the laundry process at WHF? It is well documented that SC had disturbed sleep patterns so could have been up and about for any reason? I think the buckets and knickers dilute the argument/reconstruction in that there's no direct evidence to support this? The totality of the physical evidence at soc: blood staining to carpets and bedding and/or lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks overwhelmingly support our argument which I've no doubt will be supported by relevant experts in the fields of ballistics, blood pattern analysis, crime scene analysis and reconstruction and pathology.
As far as I am concerned the starting point is NB making the call to JB from the kitchen and SC climbing the stairs to shoot June.
Everything I see is the case being binary. If Nevill was downstairs when the shooting started it was Sheila doing the shooting.
I have seen no guilter suggest a reco where Jeremy started by shooting a sleeping June while Nevill was downstairs, yet if he was the case is more or less settled.
Therefore filling out the most likely narrative that arrives at this scenario at 3 am is relevant, and all elements of the crime scene come into play. Bloody knickers and tampon parts downstairs in a prudish household have an explanation, and if it is relevant to the crime it should be part of a hypothetical reconstruction. It certainly does not suggest a drowsy and drugged Sheila making herself available to be shot next to the wrecked body of her mother which is what the guilters describe.
-
Everything I see is the case being binary. If Nevill was downstairs when the shooting started it was Sheila doing the shooting.
I have seen no guilter suggest a reco where Jeremy started by shooting a sleeping June while Nevill was downstairs, yet if he was the case is more or less settled.
Therefore filling out the most likely narrative that arrives at this scenario at 3 am is relevant, and all elements of the crime scene come into play. Bloody knickers and tampon parts downstairs in a prudish household have an explanation, and if it is relevant to the crime it should be part of a hypothetical reconstruction. It certainly does not suggest a drowsy and drugged Sheila making herself available to be shot next to the wrecked body of her mother which is what the guilters describe.
The difficulty is that there isn't a scrap of evidence which places Sheila downstairs I'm afraid. Check out the first responders statement about the soles of her feet.
-
The difficulty is that there isn't a scrap of evidence which places Sheila downstairs I'm afraid. Check out the first responders statement about the soles of her feet.
Remember Sherlock Holmes and the varied iterations of this theme
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
I am not saying she did so, but if it is indeed impossible for the soles of her feet to be unaffected or stained from being downstairs, and soc reports are unassailable, then she bathed her feet before shooting herself.
-
Remember Sherlock Holmes and the varied iterations of this theme
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
I am not saying she did so, but if it is indeed impossible for the soles of her feet to be unaffected or stained from being downstairs, and soc reports are unassailable, then she bathed her feet before shooting herself.
There were glass shards all over the kitchen floor, bathing would have made no difference.
-
There were glass shards all over the kitchen floor, bathing would have made no difference.
All over? Where would I see the detail/photos?
You assume a fight, the classic reconstruction has no such fight. Sheila may have vandalised as an act after killing Nevill. The problem starts with the bedroom scene precluding him being shot there. This problem never goes away except for those who don't confront it in the first place
-
All over? Where would I see the detail/photos?
You assume a fight, the classic reconstruction has no such fight. Sheila may have vandalised as an act after killing Nevill. The problem starts with the bedroom scene precluding him being shot there. This problem never goes away except for those who don't confront it in the first place
The fight was over the kitchen table adjacent to where Nevill was found slumped in a chair with his head in the coal scuttle having succumbed to the final shots to his head. The glass lantern above the table was smashed in the fight having been struck by the rifle as it was swung around. It was during this fight that the stock of the rifle was damaged, the missing piece of wood from the stock being found in front of the Aga cooker. Had Sheila been party to this scrap over the kitchen table she would have borne the marks to prove it. Jeremy Bamber on the other hand had unexplained marks on his arms which the police failed to follow up on at the time.
-
The fight was over the kitchen table adjacent to where Nevill was found slumped in a chair with his head in the coal scuttle having succumbed to the final shots to his head. The glass lantern above the table was smashed in the fight having been struck by the rifle as it was swung around. It was during this fight that the stock of the rifle was damaged, the missing piece of wood from the stock being found in front of the Aga cooker. Had Sheila been party to this scrap over the kitchen table she would have borne the marks to prove it. Jeremy Bamber on the other hand had unexplained marks on his arms which the police failed to follow up on at the time.
AE re JB's arms:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3419.msg143404#msg143404
SC had a graze wound to her abdomen covered by a dressing along with 2 holes in her nightdress and a question mark about burns, a black mark and particles. All unexplained.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
There were glass shards all over the kitchen floor, bathing would have made no difference.
I haven't seen any evidence of glass shards all over the kitchen floor. Just a broken glass lampshade. Glass lampshades are usually made of toughened glass to withstand heat from bulbs.
The pathologist confirmed at trial the soles of NB's feet were free of any bloodstaining. If NB was in some sort of struggle in the kitchen with the perp then why does it follow a bare-footed SC would sustain injury and debris if NB didn't?
-
AE re JB's arms:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3419.msg143404#msg143404 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3419.msg143404#msg143404)
SC had a graze wound to her abdomen covered by a dressing along with 2 holes in her nightdress and a question mark about burns, a black mark and particles. All unexplained.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670)
The graze might have been done anytime that day or days before, and nothing to do with the murders.
Ditto for the hole in the nightdress, if it was a cigarette/cigarette ash burn.
If connected with either of the two bullets fired at her neck, then the hole could be from a red-hot casing which dropped onto her nightie, before rolling onto the floor when the rifle was arranged to make it appear she commited suicide. Or from bits of burning propellant which dropped out of said casing.
-
I haven't seen any evidence of glass shards all over the kitchen floor. Just a broken glass lampshade. Glass lampshades are usually made of toughened glass to withstand heat from bulbs.
The pathologist confirmed at trial the soles of NB's feet were free of any bloodstaining. If NB was in some sort of struggle in the kitchen with the perp then why does it follow a bare-footed SC would sustain injury and debris if NB didn't?
During the kitchen struggle, Nevill's position probably remained closer to the sink, well away from where most of the shattered lightshade and pottery landed on the floor near to the table and kitchen/main hall doorway, so less likely that his soles would sustain cuts or grazes. If Sheila was the killer, she must have walked through this debris-strewn area to get back upstairs... but her soles were clean and undamaged.
-
The graze might have been done anytime that day or days before, and nothing to do with the murders.
Ditto for the hole in the nightdress, if it was a cigarette/cigarette ash burn.
If connected with either of the two bullets fired at her neck, then the hole could be from a red-hot casing which dropped onto her nightie, before rolling onto the floor when the rifle was arranged to make it appear she commited suicide. Or from bits of burning propellant which dropped out of said casing.
I agree the graze wound and damage to the nightdress might be completely unrelated but these issues don't appear to have been investigated. I can't ever recall having a graze wound to my abdomen or holes and black marks/burns to a nightdress so to my mind they seem unusual but I've never smoked so maybe these things happen to smokers? Caroline was at one time a smoker she might know?
Your scenario might be a possibility. Does the casing ejection port, or that area of the rifle, get hot?
Another possibility is bullet DRH/5 intended for June ricocheted back and hit SC.
-
During the kitchen struggle, Nevill's position probably remained closer to the sink, well away from where most of the shattered lightshade and pottery landed on the floor near to the table and kitchen/main hall doorway, so less likely that his soles would sustain cuts or grazes. If Sheila was the killer, she must have walked through this debris-strewn area to get back upstairs... but her soles were clean and undamaged.
I thought the "violent struggle" took place near the Aga hence the scratch marks and paint from mantle on the silencer?
I can't find any evidence from the raid team about broken glass just broken crockery. Although other docs refer to a broken lampshade. There's no evidence that the perps exit from the kitchen was debris-strewn to the extent anyone barefooted would sustain injuries. If any debris attached then it might well have detached en route upstairs. As Geoffrey Rivlin said at trial there was a lot of carpet from the kitchen to SC's resting place. Are there any close up pics of the broken crockery or is it restricted to the broken butt?
No evidence of injury to Crispy's paws or bloody paw prints.
The bride appears to be dancing barefooted during a bit of plate smashing but she might be wearing flip flops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQ6pk0eJ8A
-
I agree the graze wound and damage to the nightdress might be completely unrelated but these issues don't appear to have been investigated. I can't ever recall having a graze wound to my abdomen or holes and black marks/burns to a nightdress so to my mind they seem unusual but I've never smoked so maybe these things happen to smokers? Caroline was at one time a smoker she might know?
Your scenario might be a possibility. Does the casing ejection port, or that area of the rifle, get hot?
Another possibility is bullet DRH/5 intended for June ricocheted back and hit SC.
I would think the port does get hot, because that's the region where propellant is ignited, burned and hot smoke & gas exhausted. Some burning remnants of powder from a casing which dropped on her nightie when she was shot might have caused the two holes.
-
I thought the "violent struggle" took place near the Aga hence the scratch marks and paint from mantle on the silencer?
I can't find any evidence from the raid team about broken glass just broken crockery. Although other docs refer to a broken lampshade. There's no evidence that the perps exit from the kitchen was debris-strewn to the extent anyone barefooted would sustain injuries. If any debris attached then it might well have detached en route upstairs. As Geoffrey Rivlin said at trial there was a lot of carpet from the kitchen to SC's resting place. Are there any close up pics of the broken crockery or is it restricted to the broken butt?
No evidence of injury to Crispy's paws or bloody paw prints.
The bride appears to be dancing barefooted during a bit of plate smashing but she might be wearing flip flops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQ6pk0eJ8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQ6pk0eJ8A)
What I meant was that the struggle took place in half of the room nearest to the window, with the table being shoved towards the Welsh Dresser when they were wrestling for control of the rifle, which also caught the lampshade overhead and mantleshelf underneath. Most of the translucent glass from the shade and broken crockery landed near the doors to the main hall and dairy, away from where the action occurred, so more chance for anyone walking through it to collect debris on and/or damage their feet.
There's no evidence of a Big Fat Greek plate-smashing wedding taking place in the kitchen either.
-
I would think the port does get hot, because that's the region where propellant is ignited, burned and hot smoke & gas exhausted. Some burning remnants of powder from a casing which dropped on her nightie when she was shot might have caused the two holes.
But although this might be an explanation for the burns and black mark this doesn't determine anything in terms of JB or SC as the fallout would be the same whether JB shot SC or SC shot herself?
Seems odd we hear so little about the damage to SC's nightdress and the graze wound.
-
What I meant was that the struggle took place in half of the room nearest to the window, with the table being shoved towards the Welsh Dresser when they were wrestling for control of the rifle, which also caught the lampshade overhead and mantleshelf underneath. Most of the translucent glass from the shade and broken crockery landed near the doors to the main hall and dairy, away from where the action occurred, so more chance for anyone walking through it to collect debris on and/or damage their feet.
There's no evidence of a Big Fat Greek plate-smashing wedding taking place in the kitchen either.
I've only ever heard the lampshade referred to as broken nothing about how many pieces and debris on the floor. There's more evidence about broken crockery eg raid team make mention of but the soc image seems to show a clear path out of the kitchen albeit the exit/entrance is slightly out of view.
There's a clear soc image of broken piece of butt but afaik nothing for the broken crockery?
-
Thanks for your support everyone. Great analysis [Name removed]o. Succinct accurate and straight on point. Some truly excellent analysis of what is an often perplexing case.
Can I just clear something up for the record here? I am definitely NOT steve_UK I find it almost laughable that we were even compared solely because he both believed in Bamber's guilt. I have hopefully ended that puzzling speculation put forward by one or two Bamber supporters
I have been absent from the forum for family reasons but I can hopefully pop in from time to time and read the insightful and knowledgable views of the members here. It is heartwarming to read the intuitive views of some of the members when addressing myself. You were absolutely spot on. This is the same intuition and insight you have displayed in your comments about the Bamber case, which, I believe are equally spot on.
Great to be back 8((()*/
-
Thanks for your support everyone. Great analysis [Name removed]o. Succinct accurate and straight on point. Some truly excellent analysis of what is an often perplexing case.
Can I just clear something up for the record here? I am definitely NOT steve_UK I find it almost laughable that we were even compared solely because he both believed in Bamber's guilt. I have hopefully ended that puzzling speculation put forward by one or two Bamber supporters
I have been absent from the forum for family reasons but I can hopefully pop in from time to time and read the insightful and knowledgable views of the members here. It is heartwarming to read the intuitive views of some of the members when addressing myself. You were absolutely spot on. This is the same intuition and insight you have displayed in your comments about the Bamber case, which, I believe are equally spot on.
Great to be back 8((()*/
Hello Ian... you still debunking all the other inane comments on YouTube Bamber documentaries? You know, the ones who think Bamber is innocent because they don't like David Boutflour's laugh or his hairstyle?
Holly Goheavily and Delilah's nemesis have yet to be convinced, but it seems the only thing that'll move them is a deathbed confession, which like Brady, will probably never happen.
-
Thanks for your support everyone. Great analysis [Name removed]o. Succinct accurate and straight on point. Some truly excellent analysis of what is an often perplexing case.
Can I just clear something up for the record here? I am definitely NOT steve_UK I find it almost laughable that we were even compared solely because he both believed in Bamber's guilt. I have hopefully ended that puzzling speculation put forward by one or two Bamber supporters
I have been absent from the forum for family reasons but I can hopefully pop in from time to time and read the insightful and knowledgable views of the members here. It is heartwarming to read the intuitive views of some of the members when addressing myself. You were absolutely spot on. This is the same intuition and insight you have displayed in your comments about the Bamber case, which, I believe are equally spot on.
Great to be back 8((()*/
Hi Starryian
I don't think we've exchanged posts in the past but look forward to doing so when you pop in.
-
Hello Ian... you still debunking all the other inane comments on YouTube Bamber documentaries? You know, the ones who think Bamber is innocent because they don't like David Boutflour's laugh or his hairstyle?
Holly Goheavily and Delilah's nemesis have yet to be convinced, but it seems the only thing that'll move them is a deathbed confession, which like Brady, will probably never happen.
Blimey what about all the guilters who place a lot of credence on JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy?
Huh Goheavily, initially I thought you had missed a comma out and were referring to David1819 8(8-))
Brady confessed to his crimes during his lifetime. He was unable or unwilling to identify the location where he murdered Keith Bennett.
-
Blimey what about all the guilters who place a lot of credence on JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy?
Huh Goheavily, initially I thought you had missed a comma out and were referring to David1819 8(8-))
Brady confessed to his crimes during his lifetime. He was unable or unwilling to identify the location where he murdered Keith Bennett.
That's what I meant!... god, your finicky. Right... must dash, for the second and last time.
-
Blimey what about all the guilters who place a lot of credence on JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy?
Huh Goheavily, initially I thought you had missed a comma out and were referring to David1819 8(8-))
Brady confessed to his crimes during his lifetime. He was unable or unwilling to identify the location where he murdered Keith Bennett.
I'm with you on this one Holly, I don't think his behaviour before and after the murders is necessarily a strong indicator of his guilt. Except for perhaps the Osea caravan park incident, which does tell us that right/wrong meant nothing to him.
However, the veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the right person is behind bars.
His parents gave him everything a young man could wish for in life, a stable and loving family, a job, nice car, good education, shares in their company, extended trips abroad and so on. And how did he repay them ? he repaid them by sneaking into their home in the middle of their night and murdering them all. Just so he could acquire what was theirs. For their money.
-
The things he spent a month doing & places he went to, straight after the massacre, all cost money.
Or he was trying to make money by selling things, getting things valued or discussing future finances with Basil Cock.
He certainly stopped farming.
-
I'm with you on this one Holly, I don't think his behaviour before and after the murders is necessarily a strong indicator of his guilt. Except for perhaps the Osea caravan park incident, which does tell us that right/wrong meant nothing to him.
However, the veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the right person is behind bars.
His parents gave him everything a young man could wish for in life, a stable and loving family, a job, nice car, good education, shares in their company, extended trips abroad and so on. And how did he repay them ? he repaid them by sneaking into their home in the middle of their night and murdering them all. Just so he could acquire what was theirs. For their money.
Please forgive me if I tire of hearing that he was given everything "a young man could wish for in life". HE is the only one who could vouch for that. HE is the only one who knows whether or not he FELT loved. All those things you list as being given him, MAY have resulted in him feeling that he'd accrued a debt, which because of the interest, was impossible to repay. He MAY have felt like a necessary commodity, bought in for the sole reason of carrying on the family business (in which he had little interest), rather than a loved son. None of which condones or exonerates him from committing murder.
-
Please forgive me if I tire of hearing that he was given everything "a young man could wish for in life". HE is the only one who could vouch for that. HE is the only one who knows whether or not he FELT loved. All those things you list as being given him, MAY have resulted in him feeling that he'd accrued a debt, which because of the interest, was impossible to repay. He MAY have felt like a necessary commodity, bought in for the sole reason of carrying on the family business (in which he had little interest), rather than a loved son. None of which condones or exonerates him from committing murder.
Fair point, I understand and accept the valid point you have made. Personally, I see it differently as anyone with capacity for that basic human emotion of empathy can vouch for the fortunate start he had in life, including myself who also benefited from a luckier start than most. And we know what to call that individual who, like Bamber, is incapable of any empathy at all for others.
In agreement with your last sentence, If he had felt as strongly as you suggest there are other ways of protesting to his family.
-
Fair point, I understand and accept the valid point you have made. Personally, I see it differently as anyone with capacity for that basic human emotion of empathy can vouch for the fortunate start he had in life, including myself who also benefited from a luckier start than most. And we know what to call that individual who, like Bamber, is incapable of any empathy at all for others.
In agreement with your last sentence, If he had felt as strongly as you suggest there are other ways of protesting to his family.
Just a point, and I have no way of verifying it. I wonder how much empathy was shown to either Sheila or Jeremy. There seemed to have been a mould into which they were both required to fit -to establish them as being Bambers?- and it seemed not to have been a major consideration that they may not want to/couldn't. They HAD to. End of?
-
Good morning April. I'm not sure. It is a good point and one I have not pondered before.
I doubt whether it was quite the be all or end all that he absolutely had to work on the farm come what may.
For example had Jeremy shown his mum and dad a payslip that showed he had sufficient talent to make it in life elsewhere I doubt they would have stood in his way, certainly Nevill appears to have been a pragmatic type.
But he didn't, quite the opposite really. His dreams of being a frogman or whatever it was were snuffed out early on, and Nevill could see the farm as the best way forward for him. What else was he going to do? Just as many parents try to usher their children into the family business thinking they know best for them.
-
Good morning April. I'm not sure. It is a good point and one I have not pondered before.
I doubt whether it was quite the be all or end all that he absolutely had to work on the farm come what may.
For example had Jeremy shown his mum and dad a payslip that showed he had sufficient talent to make it in life elsewhere I doubt they would have stood in his way, certainly Nevill appears to have been a pragmatic type.
But he didn't, quite the opposite really. His dreams of being a frogman or whatever it was were snuffed out early on, and Nevill could see the farm as the best way forward for him. What else was he going to do? Just as many parents try to usher their children into the family business thinking they know best for them.
Hello S_T and Happy Bank Holiday Weekend. We have a distinct difference of opinion here. I'm inclined to think that Jeremy's sole purpose -the one designated for him- was to take over the running of the farm. We see him trying his hand at all sorts of everything RATHER than knuckling down to working on the farm whilst Nevill bided his time waiting for the boy to come to his senses? There is an acceptance by SOME parents of adopted children that, out of a sense of gratitude, their children will fulfill roles that they had planned for biological children. I strongly feel that ANY vocational work (and I believe farming is such) undertaken is something -a need?- that's felt gut deep. I don't believe Jeremy ever had the desire to farm, other than from a lucrative aspect. Not for a moment is this something I hold against him. Being square pegs in round holes is extremely uncomfortable. MOST of those who find themselves in such a situation, DON'T kill in order to extricate themselves.
-
Yes it must have been daunting the prospect of taking over from Nevill when he clearly wasn't 'up' for the farming life. Farming appears to be the last thing he wanted to do. And although certainly no midget I don't see Jeremy as built for physical back breaking work like Nevill either.
Having grown up with my natural parents, I'm sure it is difficult for adopted children in ways it's difficult to realise until you have been in their shoes. You too happy bank holiday.
-
Yes it must have been daunting the prospect of taking over from Nevill when he clearly wasn't 'up' for the farming life. Farming appears to be the last thing he wanted to do. And although certainly no midget I don't see Jeremy as built for physical back breaking work like Nevill either.
Having grown up with my natural parents, I'm sure it is difficult for adopted children in ways it's difficult to realise until you have been in their shoes. You too happy bank holiday.
He is now, after thirty years of free gym membership and looking forward to buying that elusive farm on the proceeds of his autobio.
-
That's true. According to his blog apparently he always loved farming life and in particular misses the spring plough http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/)
-
That's true. According to his blog apparently he always loved farming life and in particular misses the spring plough http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/)
Think I'd have gone all Fotherington-Thomas, cooped up in an 8 by 6 cell for thirty odd years and reminiscing on what might have been had I not been so stupid. It's enough to drive anyone dafferdowndoolally.