EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible. At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.
8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone. Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber. I take a different view. I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
Your conclusions are wrong — and what’s more, with due respect — your “conclusions” are irrelevant. Just as mine are, or anyone else’s. But whatever conclusions you come to (and we all know what they’d be) what could you do with them? Do you think the courts will say “Oh, we were wrong — a poster on a forum called Brancher says so! We must release Bamber immediately!”
The jury found him guilty on FIVE counts of murder, and they heard and saw far more than you or anyone on here did. So you saying you’d like to come to a final settled view on the case when the conclusion was made by a jury in a courtroom of PROFESSIONAL QCs, and you’re clearly unaware of most of the facts; you’re making wild guesses; ignoring facts; ignoring the jury’s decision; ignoring the appeal court judges conclusion; making assumptions; ignoring forensic evidence; ignoring ALL the evidence — and you’re obviously biased to boot — simply makes your story look desperate
None of your points make any sense whatsoever. None.
Your first point that EP messed up the crime scene is wrong. It’s true that the raid team had to smash the door down and search through all the rooms — so of course they had to walk all over the house. How else were they supposed to find everyone? Taff Jones was inept, that’s true, and they shouldn’t have destroyed much of the evidence — but that only highlights how right they were to convict him when much evidence was lost, and he was represented by one of the top QC’s at that time. If a brilliant top QC couldn’t get Jeremy off, what does that tell you?
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?
The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else. How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me. Or are you going to suggest like some of his other supporters do, that the appeal court judges are corrupt too? That the whole of Essex Constabulary, all the lawyers, QCs, forensic scientists, ballistic experts, pathologists, psychiatrists, witnesses, the judge, the appeal court judges, the judges at the court of Human Rights, neighbours, acquaintances, friends, family, journalists, everyone involved were all corrupt, all lied, and wanted to set him up?
And there’s nothing remotely strange about why the silencer which Jeremy used wasn’t found on the day of the murders: Jeremy had hidden it. Have you not read the case through?
Do you not realise that Sheila’s blood, including both June’s and Nevill’s were found in that silencer Jeremy hid? Does that not prove to you that it was used in the killings? Don’t you realise Jeremy used the silencer so as not to wake everyone when he first shot the twins in their heads? Do you not realise that Jeremy didn’t want nearby neighbours hearing bullets firing?
You then say you “think” Julie was lying. You think. But you don’t know her, nor did you. You’ve even come out with the ludicrous suggestion that Julie herself was arrested! That’s utter nonsense. She wasn’t arrested at all, and to even suggest that makes you look like a conspiracist — and no-one takes any notice of those....
Julie came forward of her own volition, as did her friend. Julie VOLUNTEERED all the information she had, warts and all, and she told the police things Jeremy had told her AFTER he’d murdered his family, that she couldn’t have possibly known about the killings. She knew exactly where all the bodies were found; how they were laying; their exact positions; how many bullets they’d each received; how Jeremy entered and left the house (which proved correct); and various other things that were NOT made public and the only way she could have known those things was from being told by the killer: Jeremy. He did indeed lie and made out he’d paid a hitman to do it, but the rest of what he told her was all true...even down to the “dropped glove” and Jeremy’s “made-up hitman” being worried about the fingerprints on the rifle. How could she have known THAT? Tell me how she could have known there’d be few fingerprints on the rifle when no-one was told at that time?
Julie’s statement was NOT hearsay at all: she repeated what Jeremy had told HER. Why do you think the judge told the jury they could convict him on just her evidence alone? Do you seriously think the court would allow HEARSAY? Do you not think the defence would have objected?!
And for you to say you think she’s an abominable woman because she made one foolish mistake of making out she’d lost her cheque book to commit fraud, is somewhat severe. She confessed to it; felt shame and remorse; and paid the money back to the bank. Yes, it was wrong what she did, but Jeremy didn’t think so. He was pleased as punch when she illegally bought him a top of the range coffee maker with her “stolen” cheque book, and actually praised her. He was a DREADFUL influence on her.
And this nonsense that Sheila’s body was moved by the police is a ridiculous lie. She wasn’t moved at all. The photographs PROVE that. They only moved her arm to take photos of the blood beneath.
The Bible was staged by Jeremy, as was the rifle. Sheila couldn’t have opened the Bible, pressed her hand into her own pool of blood as she was losing consciousness, imprinted her blooded hand inside the Bible; closed it; opened it again; then positioned it next to herself when she was gurgling for breath. The mirrored imprint inside the Bible actually tripped him up... It’s actually too ludicrous to even comment on. The same as the rifle. Had Sheila shot herself the rifle would have fallen on the floor, as would her arm. And how could she shoot herself with just one arm? Her left arm was tucked up beside her head. Explain that. And the telephone — Nevill couldn’t SPEAK as he’d already been shot by in his mouth by Jeremy upstairs and had a ripped tongue and larynx. Forensics and ballistics PROVED that. But you’re ignoring that. You’re ignoring ALL the facts. Why?
Yes, Sheila was suffering from a MH condition, one in which it’s never been known for someone with mild schizophrenia, such as Sheila had, and who’s on medication to ever kill. Ever. Sheila’s medication had been reduced, but it was STILL too strong for her. She could barely walk. She was weak, heavily tranquillised, unable to focus; shaky; had no coordination; and had NO MOTIVE to kill her adored sons and her parents. Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, either — but Jeremy Bamber is. And he had a HUGE MOTIVE to kill them all; which he carried out.
I’m not sure about the first gunshot wound, but the only correct thing you’ve said is that Sheila was shot (definitely the second time) without the silencer; and Jeremy HAD to do that as he realised Sheila wouldn’t have been able to reach the trigger with the silencer attached.
Sheila could NOT have shot herself twice, as Dr Vanezis concluded AFTER seeing the crime scene, the rifle, and the photographs. Dr Vanezis was actually furious with Taff Jones for misleading him at the PM. He said afterwards that Sheila could NOT have walked after the first shot — so how and why — would/could she have gone downstairs to hide the silencer when part of her spine had been shattered; she was pouring with blood, struggling to breathe...and not a single drop of her blood was found ANYWHERE downstairs, in the cupboard, on the landing...not even by the bedroom door. Perhaps you could explain that to Professor Vanezis: I can forward you his phone number if you’d like?
And to come out with that silly old chestnut: Sheila cleaned herself after shooting her children and parents dead, beating Nevill to a pulp exposing his brain, before shooting herself TWICE near where her mother lay dead is nuts. If Sheila was going berserk and had lost her mind, why would she remove her heavily bloodstained clothes that would have had tissue parts from Nevill all over her, in her hair, up her nose, inside her ears...take a shower or bath, then insert a tampon, put her wristw..ch back on and then shoot herself dead? Where were her bloodstained clothes? Where did they go? Any idea?
You suggesting Sheila used TWO rifles like some kind of saloon bar cowgirl on a rampage is laughable. Where WAS this other gun?
You’re obviously desperate to try and make him look innocent ...and I give you 10/10 for highlighting his guilt.
