Some Basic Questions

[LuminousWanderer]

I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions. 

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not.  If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.

Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence.  However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions.  I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained.  That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.

Some questions that spring to mind are below.  These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice.  My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues. 

Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions.  I will expand on my thoughts later.

Questions:

Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both? 

Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims?  If so, which of the victims?

Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood?  If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?

Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call?  Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect?  If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?

Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly.  The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.

Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?

Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths?  If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions?  What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance?  What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?

Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths?  If so, what are the details?

Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm?  If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?

Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?

I may have more questions later, but that will do for now.  I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.

[Angelo222]

Questions:

Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both? 

Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims?  If so, which of the victims?

Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood?  If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?

Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call?  Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect?  If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?

Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly.  The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.

Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?

Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths?  If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions?  What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance?  What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?

Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths?  If so, what are the details?

Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm?  If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?

Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?

I may have more questions later, but that will do for now.  I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.

Q1 There is no forensic evidence which can link JB directly to the murders as he had access to the farmhouse and the rifle on a daily basis so any connection to him could easily be explained away.

Q2 No contact gunshot wounds on any of the other victims.

Q3 The sound moderator did contain Sheila's blood.  As far as I am aware JB doesn't dispute this as he claims she shot herself.

Q4  From memory, NB told Jeremy to come over quickly, that Sheila had gone crazy and had the rifle.  His version of events has not changed.

Q5 The police are very clear about the telephone logs.  Only JB telephoned the police and not both of them.  No police officer or civilian operator received any call from Nevill Bamber.  Only Bamber supporters have claimed that NB phoned the police but this is not supported by the evidence.

Q6 As the local telephone exchange was of the old switch type there was no way of checking JB's claim.

Q7 Jeremy Bamber sought out his parents wills prior to the murders, he knew that he and Sheila would inherit from their adoptive parents.  He knew that if Sheila and her son's also died that he would inherit the lot.

Q8 Nevill Bamber kept Jeremy on a tight leash.  He got his wages from the farm, was given a cottage in Goldhanger rent free and was given several thousand pounds to pay debts and travel costs associated with his trip to New Zealand.  He also had a car bought for him plus was given some help to furnish his cottage.

Q9 Sheila hated guns to the extent she wouldn't even allow her twin sons to play with toy guns. She had no recent experience of guns.  She did handle a gun previously on a shooting trip but she had no real knowledge of how they worked.

Q10 We know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it.  Jeremy blames Sheila off course.  The evidence however shows that Sheila could not have done it.

[LuminousWanderer]

Thanks.  Your responses seem to represent what might be characterised as the 'anti-Bamber' side (apologies if that's clumsy in your case), so I'll be interested to know what others with a different view think. 

For now, let me briefly respond to your points: please see below.  This is not to initiate some sort of lengthy debate/argument, and let me stress again, I take NO definitive view on Bamber's culpability, as I do not believe that is a fruitful avenue.  My interest purely is in the legal safety of the conviction, a different question.

Q1 There is no forensic evidence which can link JB directly to the murders as he had access to the farmhouse and the rifle on a daily basis so any connection to him could easily be explained away.

Noted, but isn't this just another way of saying that the crime scene wasn't adequately controlled and investigated by the police?  Surely, if Bamber did this (and to be clear, I'm NOT saying he did or didn't), there would be ample forensic opportunities, including (inter alia) evidence of a physical altercation with at least Nevill.  Looking at this objectively, would you accept that the absence of forensic evidence is a major flaw in the Crown's case?  (You can treat that as an isolated question - I am not trying to back you into a corner or trick you).

Q2 No contact gunshot wounds on any of the other victims.

My question was: Were contact wounds inflicted on ANY of the victims.  Are you saying there were no contact wounds?  Sorry but I'm not quite clear on your reply.

Q3 The sound moderator did contain Sheila's blood.  As far as I am aware JB doesn't dispute this as he claims she shot herself.

For me, this raises at least one further question, but I will defer on that for now.  I'd like to have an answer to Q2 above first, please.

Q4  From memory, NB told Jeremy to come over quickly, that Sheila had gone crazy and had the rifle.  His version of events has not changed.

Noted.

Q5 The police are very clear about the telephone logs.  Only JB telephoned the police and not both of them.  No police officer or civilian operator received any call from Nevill Bamber.  Only Bamber supporters have claimed that NB phoned the police but this is not supported by the evidence.

Thanks, but unfortunately I will have to differ from you on this point.  The telephone logs, on their face, are evidence of two separate phone calls from two different people.  That is clear to anybody who looks at the documents, which read the same way whether you are pro- or anti-Bamber, or indifferent like me.  That is not to say the telephone logs record the whole story: there's a context to this, I appreciate, and we must leave open the possibility that these documents in fact only recorded one telephone call. 

And on that last point, let's assume you are probably right about this; we'll assume - just for the moment - that we think only one phone call was made.  Is there any witness evidence from a police operator confirming this, that the telephone logs are evidence of only one call?  This should preferably come from the operator who actually took the call and spoke at length to Bamber.  Does such evidence exist?

Q6 As the local telephone exchange was of the old switch type there was no way of checking JB's claim.

Yes, but would it be technically possible for such a call to be diverted to a local police operator?  I appreciate this is nitpicking, but there may be something in it.  My initial thought would be that when dialling 999 it is necessary to speak to an operator to identify the emergency service required, so Bamber can't have been diverted in the way I speculate, but the set-up back then might have been different in some parts of the country.  Alternatively, Bamber may have called 999, got through to the emergency operator, who then put him through to a local police station. 

Q7 Jeremy Bamber sought out his parents wills prior to the murders, he knew that he and Sheila would inherit from their adoptive parents.  He knew that if Sheila and her son's also died that he would inherit the lot.

Noted.  Did Bamber receive formal confirmation of the legal position from Nevill's solicitors or from his own lawyer, or was he reliant on Nevill's word on the matter?

Q8 Nevill Bamber kept Jeremy on a tight leash.  He got his wages from the farm, was given a cottage in Goldhanger rent free and was given several thousand pounds to pay debts and travel costs associated with his trip to New Zealand.  He also had a car bought for him plus was given some help to furnish his cottage.

Noted.

Q9 Sheila hated guns to the extent she wouldn't even allow her twin sons to play with toy guns. She had no recent experience of guns.  She did handle a gun previously on a shooting trip but she had no real knowledge of how they worked.

Noted, but you've just contradicted yourself.  She clearly did have experience of guns, as you yourself state.  If she did handle guns previously, that means she must have had at least a rudimentary working knowledge of how they worked.  How recent was the shooting trip, and how many of these shooting trips and other gun-related excursions had she been on?  How old were these twin sons whom she didn't allow to play with guns?

Q10 We know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it.  Jeremy blames Sheila off course.  The evidence however shows that Sheila could not have done it.

How do we know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it?  Not that I doubt this, but I wish to establish why precisely.  A painfully obvious question, perhaps, but important.

[Holly Goodhead]

Q1.  No.

Q2.  NC sustained at least 1 contact gsw

Q3.  The blood found inside the silencer was tested by way of blood serology.  This type of testing was the precursor to DNA although the method used is the same.  Enzymes and proteins present in blood are analysed using gel electrophoresis which measures size and charge of macromolecules.   SC's blood serology groups were shared by about 8% of unrelated white British people.

Q4.  In the absence of a recording we are reliant upon listening skills and memories.  The most reliable seems to be:

NB: "Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun". 

There are various takes in this link:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984

Q5.  If you drill down a call from NB to EP doesn't stack up. 

Q6.  Why would there be?  By JB's own admission he looked up the number for the local station and dialled it.

Q7.  JB said he was aware of the contents of the wills having looked at them although I don't believe that was recent to the murders.  Broadly speaking once NB and June passed, SC and JB would inherit 50:50.

Q8.  Putting aside JB's remuneration for working at WHF and OCP I understand his parents helped fund his trips to Oz and NZ.

Q9.  How would anyone know SC's level of experience with firearms?  She may have let off a few shots in NB's company or in the company of others over the years eg school friends etc.  JB said SC had some experience.  The soc is indicative of an inexperienced shooter compared with other mass shootings inside private dwellings eg Bain and DeFeo.  By this I mean number of cartridges used and number of shots sustained by NB and June.  JB was a marksman at Greshams so if he's responsible he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and manic.

Q10.  Not really, no.  JB's claims of a phone call from NB:

"Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun"

 pretty much narrows it down to JB or SC. 

[Eleanor]

I came here initially with interest of The Bamber Case.  I got diverted.  But that's another thing.

I have read more about Jeremy Bamber than I can remember.  But others are more au fait.

I still don't know what I believe, but it for certain sure it was an unsafe conviction.

[LuminousWanderer]

Q1.  No.

Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?

Q2.  NC sustained at least 1 contact gsw

But not Sheila?  If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox?  How did it get there?

Q3.  The blood found inside the silencer was tested by way of blood serology.  This type of testing was the precursor to DNA although the method used is the same.  Enzymes and proteins present in blood are analysed using gel electrophoresis which measures size and charge of macromolecules.   SC's blood serology groups were shared by about 8% of unrelated white British people.

It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this.  What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's.  A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.

Q4.  In the absence of a recording we are reliant upon listening skills and memories.  The most reliable seems to be:

NB: "Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun". 

There are various takes in this link:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984

Noted.  The gun?  Did the family have only one gun in the house?  Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?

Q5.  If you drill down a call from NB to EP doesn't stack up.

This doesn't address the telephone logs.  How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill?  Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999? 

Q6.  Why would there be?  By JB's own admission he looked up the number for the local station and dialled it.

Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked.  Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did?  Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points.  He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented.  It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.

Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility.  Looks like nobody has.

Q7.  JB said he was aware of the contents of the wills having looked at them although I don't believe that was recent to the murders.  Broadly speaking once NB and June passed, SC and JB would inherit 50:50.

Noted.  The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway?  The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill.  I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented.  You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait.  Motive is not probative anyway, of course.

Q8.  Putting aside JB's remuneration for working at WHF and OCP I understand his parents helped fund his trips to Oz and NZ.

Noted.

Q9.  How would anyone know SC's level of experience with firearms?  She may have let off a few shots in NB's company or in the company of others over the years eg school friends etc.  JB said SC had some experience.  The soc is indicative of an inexperienced shooter compared with other mass shootings inside private dwellings eg Bain and DeFeo.  By this I mean number of cartridges used and number of shots sustained by NB and June.  JB was a marksman at Greshams so if he's responsible he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and manic.

Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself.  You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms!  I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.

Q10.  Not really, no.  JB's claims of a phone call from NB:

"Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun"

 pretty much narrows it down to JB or SC.

Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty. 

If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle.  That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part.  I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow.  To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.

If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people?  You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did.  I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.

It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside.  That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila.  But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances? 

[LuminousWanderer]

I came here initially with interest of The Bamber Case.  I got diverted.  But that's another thing.

I have read more about Jeremy Bamber than I can remember.  But others are more au fait.

I still don't know what I believe, but it for certain sure it was an unsafe conviction.

Well, let's see!

[adam]

Nevill - No contact shots. 

June - No contact shots. 

Daniel - No contact shots. 

Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter. 

Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.

[adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9056.msg428397.html#msg428397

[adam]

It is human blood in the silencer & Sheila's.

Some supporters say the relatives scrapped period blood off soaking wet underwear into the silencer. Then scratched the aga without knowing what the already taken kitchen crime scene photos showed.

Others say the police fabricated the silencer then asked the relatives to sign false witness statements saying they found the silencer. Why the police did this no one has said.

[LuminousWanderer]

Nevill - No contact shots.

June - No contact shots.

Daniel - No contact shots.

Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.

Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.

Thanks.  The implications from the blood-splattered moderator do require that we accept the provenance of the find and also rely on the conclusion of the forensics, but looking at this narrowly in terms of legal safety, it does not look good for Bamber.  If you put all this together and accept the relevant evidence at face value, Sheila could not have killed herself with the moderator attached to the firearm, nor could she have detached the moderator before shooting herself, as the moderator was found elsewhere. 

[LuminousWanderer]

It is human blood in the silencer & Sheila's.

Is it, though?  That's the question.  Somebody else in one of the comments above seems to be admitting that it wasn't an exact match, more of a broad statistical match.

Has there been any attempt to independently re-verify the test result? 

Also, has anybody run tests with the same firearm to evaluate the extent of noise suppression when using the moderator?  We can assume Bamber was familiar with these types of guns, so if I follow this correctly, the presumed motive in utilising the moderator was to avoid alerting anybody near the farmhouse to what was going on.  He then placed the moderator back in the cupboard (or wherever it was) as he realised it would not make sense for the theory of 'Sheila-as-shooter' to leave it on the firearm.  But why leave the moderator around to be found?  Why not just take it and dispose of it?

[Holly Goodhead]

Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?

No.  The jury no doubt found the blood/silencer very compelling as evidenced by questions to the judge.  I agree the whole crux of the case IMO is how the test results from the lab came about!?

But not Sheila?  If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox?  How did it get there?

Apologies I thought you had some basic understanding of the case.  I took it as read you were aware SC sustained a contact gsw.  I agree the whole crux of the case is how the test results from the lab came about!?

It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this.  What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's.  A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.

A more neutral way?  I quoted from expert testimony.

Noted.  The gun?  Did the family have only one gun in the house?  Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?

The murder weapon was actually a rifle so you could ask why NB didn't  say 'Sheilas gone crazy she's got the rifle'.  You might also ask why Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution referred to the rifle as a shotgun during the trial.  If you're expecting all concerned demonstrating attention to detail you will be sorely disappointed.

This doesn't address the telephone logs.  How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill?  Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999? 

The receive and send boxes make no mention to NB.  It's obvious to me the logs are referring to JB's call.  Had NB called EP I'm pretty sure word would have gone around on morning of 7th Aug when the gravity of the situation was appreciated. 

Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked.  Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did?  Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points.  He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented.  It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.

Was he confused?  It seems to me he was quite clear in his WS he looked up the number for the local police station in his directory.  I'm not sure how one get confused about this?

Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility.  Looks like nobody has.

Noted.  The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway?  The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill.  I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented.  You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait.  Motive is not probative anyway, of course.

Noted.

Think all of this is subjective.  Most parents leave their estates to each other and thereafter in equal shares to children. During parents lifetime most are happy to help/indulge their children (adoptive, birth, foster or step) if they're in a position to do so.  Today we have the 'bank of mum and dad'. 

How many middle class families end up like the Bambers ie murdered to fast-forward an inheritance?  It's statistically rare. 

Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself.  You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms!  I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.

Where have I given a potted rundown of SC's experience with firearms? 

Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty. 

If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle.  That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part.  I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow.  To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.

If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people?  You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did.  I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.

It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside.  That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila.  But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?

The defence and prosecution at trial agreed it was either SC or JB.  I think most reasonable minded would agree with this.  I'm not in the business of drifting into bizarre conspiracies and theories. 

6. Unusually in a case of this kind, it was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. The first, as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant had killed all five members of his family, shooting them with a .22 rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate. The second, the defence case, was that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide. The view realistically accepted by all at trial was that the facts that were common ground enabled any other possibility to be ruled out.

I don't think it was difficult at all (logistically) for SC to murder her parents and children if you understand the soc, whereabouts of victims.  Far more difficult for JB based on the prosecution case of all victims sleeping in their respective bedrooms.

[John]

Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different.  As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila.  In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame.  However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.

Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was.  In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress.  In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.

These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him.  Either way, he is still guilty.

[LuminousWanderer]

No.  The jury no doubt found the blood/silencer very compelling as evidenced by questions to the judge.  I agree the whole crux of the case IMO is how the test results from the lab came about!?

I'm not sure I agree.  We're left with the indisputable fact that no forensic evidence directly links Bamber to the scene.  That is highly significant in its own right.  Given the facts alleged, I think the police should have been able to produce some.

Apologies I thought you had some basic understanding of the case.  I took it as read you were aware SC sustained a contact gsw.  I agree the whole crux of the case is how the test results from the lab came about!?

On this point, I think I agree. 

A more neutral way?  I quoted from expert testimony.

I don't see how that makes it neutral.  The plain fact is that if your summary of the forensic evidence is correct, then the expert testimony does not confirm who the blood was from. 

The murder weapon was actually a rifle so you could ask why NB didn't  say 'Sheilas gone crazy she's got the rifle'.  You might also ask why Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution referred to the rifle as a shotgun during the trial.  If you're expecting all concerned demonstrating attention to detail you will be sorely disappointed.

But I'm not appealing for greater attention to detail.  You misrepresent my point, which was to query why he might refer to THE [rifle/firearm/shotgun].  Was there just one such weapon in the house?  It's a relevant question.

The receive and send boxes make no mention to NB.  It's obvious to me the logs are referring to JB's call.  Had NB called EP I'm pretty sure word would have gone around on morning of 7th Aug when the gravity of the situation was appreciated.

"Obvious to you" is quite telling, suggesting that it's not obvious at all.  If it were, then it would not just be obvious to you, would it.  For my part, I am sure of what I have seen.  No doubt in my mind.  The telephone logs that I have seen are definitely written as if there were two calls from two different people.  As I have been at pains to emphasise, that does not mean there were two calls, but in the absence of corroboration for only one call (see my request for this above), it is not unreasonable to take the records on the face of it.  If you disagree, then produce the telephone logs on which you base your opinion.  That would seem to me the way to resolve this.  I will err on the side of caution and rely on your version.

Was he confused?  It seems to me he was quite clear in his WS he looked up the number for the local police station in his directory.  I'm not sure how one get confused about this?

Means nothing.  People get it wrong in witness statements every day of the week and on Sundays.  I've already explained why he might have got it wrong.  It's a reasonable point that I make. 

Think all of this is subjective.  Most parents leave their estates to each other and thereafter in equal shares to children. During parents lifetime most are happy to help/indulge their children (adoptive, birth, foster or step) if they're in a position to do so.  Today we have the 'bank of mum and dad'.

Of course it's subjective - and that being the case, you'll see that I have pointed out how the argument can be put both ways!  Yes, on the face of it, Bamber had a motive to kill.  He also had a motive not to kill.

How many middle class families end up like the Bambers ie murdered to fast-forward an inheritance?  It's statistically rare.

I don't see your point.  You seem to be assuming things backwards.  Yes, if we say Bamber killed his parents, inheritance is the obvious motive.  The word there is 'if'.

Where have I given a potted rundown of SC's experience with firearms?

The point is that this idea that Sheila wasn't capable of firing a gun is groundless.  She had fired guns.  I take issue both with you and a commenter above on this point because, the way I read the relevant parts of your posts, you seem keen to give the impression that she couldn't or absolutely wouldn't have fired a gun.  In reality, there is no basis for this conclusion.

The defence and prosecution at trial agreed it was either SC or JB.  I think most reasonable minded would agree with this.  I'm not in the business of drifting into bizarre conspiracies and theories.

Tell me where I have advanced a conspiracy theory here?  Nowhere!  What I gave you is logic.  It is a mere assumption, nothing more, that Sheila must have been the killer if Bamber couldn't have been, or vice versa.  That does not mean I think it was a third party.  I only speculate.

6. Unusually in a case of this kind, it was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. The first, as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant had killed all five members of his family, shooting them with a .22 rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate. The second, the defence case, was that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide. The view realistically accepted by all at trial was that the facts that were common ground enabled any other possibility to be ruled out.

I disagree with what the court said here - and I have explained why, using logic.  As stated, the phone call does not exclude the possibility of a third party.  What would make third party involvement improbable is if the farmhouse was secured, and my understanding is that there were no reports of any signs of forced entry, but in that regard I ask again: do we know if the farmhouse was fully locked? 

I don't think it was difficult at all (logistically) for SC to murder her parents and children if you understand the soc, whereabouts of victims.  Far more difficult for JB based on the prosecution case of all victims sleeping in their respective bedrooms.

Noted.