Thoughts On The Case

[Nicholas]

All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court.  She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.

What are you claiming JM wouldn’t get away with Aunt Agatha?

What’s wrong with you ? ‘she cried through most of it’

She was clearly upset and suspect most normal people would have been given the circumstances

[Nicholas]

All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court.  She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.

What are you on about ?

[Nicholas]

All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court.  She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.

So what

She got through it

[Nicholas]

No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too.....but instead she was used as a witness.  Strange that!

Please explain what’s strange about her being used as prosecution witness

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

I quickly perused your detailed response to my reply,  Brancher: I’m honoured you took such time and effort in replying to  each of my paragraphs. Thank you 😊

I shall respond to your answers a little later as I have a chicken on the BBQ — so am strapped for time to go through your various responses. However, and I do apologise for going off-subject, but as you’ve brought up so many hypothesis I thought I’d throw one into the mix. I hope you don’t mind.

You mentioned the telephone in the kitchen and said you’d “come to that later”; suggesting you’ve solved the mystery of why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen and had no blood on it.

I’m eager to know what you’ve concluded!

I’m not sure if you’re aware of all the facts as you’ve said yourself you’ve forgotten much of it, so I’m interested to know what you make of this:

Nevill was found dead in the kitchen, as you must know. That was the room where he was killed.

Forensics and ballistic experts proved that Nevill received the first four shots to his face and upper arm when upstairs. This proves beyond doubt that Nevill then made his way down to the kitchen whilst he was unable to speak and blood was pouring out of him.

On the wall INTO the kitchen forensics found a blood smear belonging to Nevill. This also proved that as he went into the kitchen he was already bleeding having been shot four times upstairs.

So how was Nevill able to phone Jeremy when blood was pouring from his throat and mouth  without leaving a single trace on that telephone?

As an aside, his watch flew off in the violent struggle and landed across the kitchen, which also had his blood on it; so we know for certain that Nevill put up an immense fight.

So can you enlighten everyone and tell us how Nevill managed to phone Jeremy whilst bleeding profusely, yet left not one tiny drop of blood on it?

[Nicholas]

Bamber and his team have been aware of this from the beginning, as was I.

Bamber is committing innocence fraud and your statements highlight this

In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing.

Bamber knew his father hadn’t phoned anyone because he’d killed him

[Caroline]

By who?

She means by the police, but that being the case, Liz Rimmington, Malcolm Waters and Susan Battersby would all have to be forced to lie.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy.  Sorry.  This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.

The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun.  I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.

But Nevill was first shot upstairs and was unable to speak.

Read my previous response and you’ll have a better understanding...

[Nicholas]

She means by the police, but that being the case, Liz Rimmington, Malcolm Waters and Susan Battersby would all have to be forced to lie.

Her post reads as though she’s suggesting the police came up with ‘an accomplice’ theory and MM was it ?

Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.

[G-Unit]

I quickly perused your detailed response to my reply,  Brancher: I’m honoured you took such time and effort in replying to  each of my paragraphs. Thank you 😊

I shall respond to your answers a little later as I have a chicken on the BBQ — so am strapped for time to go through your various responses. However, and I do apologise for going off-subject, but as you’ve brought up so many hypothesis I thought I’d throw one into the mix. I hope you don’t mind.

You mentioned the telephone in the kitchen and said you’d “come to that later”; suggesting you’ve solved the mystery of why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen and had no blood on it.

I’m eager to know what you’ve concluded!

I’m not sure if you’re aware of all the facts as you’ve said yourself you’ve forgotten much of it, so I’m interested to know what you make of this:

Nevill was found dead in the kitchen, as you must know. That was the room where he was killed.

Forensics and ballistic experts proved that Nevill received the first four shots to his face and upper arm when upstairs. This proves beyond doubt that Nevill then made his way down to the kitchen whilst he was unable to speak and blood was pouring out of him.

On the wall INTO the kitchen forensics found a blood smear belonging to Nevill. This also proved that as he went into the kitchen he was already bleeding having been shot four times upstairs.

So how was Nevill able to phone Jeremy when blood was pouring from his throat and mouth  without leaving a single trace on that telephone?

As an aside, his watch flew off in the violent struggle and landed across the kitchen, which also had his blood on it; so we know for certain that Nevill put up an immense fight.

So can you enlighten everyone and tell us how Nevill managed to phone Jeremy whilst bleeding profusely, yet left not one tiny drop of blood on it?

By using the phone before he got shot?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I’m certain. The contract was only signed after his conviction. I’m not aware of any other deal outside of this.

Agatha,

I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.

Julie Mugford was never arrested — ever.

The one crime she carried out (cheque fraud claiming her cheque book had been stolen) she openly admitted to the police.  She felt scared and ashamed for what she’d done when she went shopping with her friend one Saturday and bought clothes and a coffee machine for JB; then when she gave the coffee machine to jeremy in order to “impress” him, because she was stupid, naive and gullible, she unwittingly put herself deeper into his clutches. I dare say he encouraged her to do that. After all, why would she have told him she’d done such a thing? A normal boyfriend would be disgusted and alarmed. Yet not only did she tell him, she bought him an expensive gift too, which he eagerly accepted.

It’s obvious she was under his control.

In the same way he “suddenly” coerced her into being a “watch out” when he burgled and stole money from his own family’s caravan park. I don’t believe the thought suddenly occurred to him as they strolled along. He pre-planned it. Not just for the cash; but to tighten his grip on her. He knew she was besotted; knew she didn’t want to let him down; and so she went along with it to please him. She was his Bonnie to his self-styled Clyde, and she was trapped.

I can just see how Jeremy threatened her near the end of their relationship, and told the terrified, gullible Julie: “If you say a WORD about the murders I will tell the police YOU committed bank fraud! Your teaching career will go down the pan. You’ll lose me. And you’ll end up being a waitress in a pizza parlour for the rest of your life — and that’s after you’ve spent years in prison!”

That’s why he felt confident that she wouldn’t squeal on him when they broke up: he had something on her.

Of course, you can’t compare a shopping spree on “stolen” cheques with MURDERING all your family, but Julie was young, gullible and absolutely terrified.

In the event, she had to confess as she couldn’t stand the strain. And that’s why the police, CPS and bank didn’t press charges against her. On top of which, she admitted it without having to — and she eventually paid all the money back.

To go onto the NOTW deal: Julie never approached them. THEY approached her — AFTER she’d been to the police and told them the whole putrid truth. So Julie had no IDEA that she’d get paid for speaking to the press when she went to the police voluntarily;  she didn’t even know if she herself would be implicated in Jeremy murdering his family. He’d warned her the police wouldn’t believe her — yet she still confessed because the stress must have been unbearable.

What you also “conveniently “ forget to say is that Jeremy Bamber went to the press BEFORE the press approached Julie, and signed a £40k deal exclusive that if he was found innocent he’d sell them his story.

Not only did he approach THEM, FIRST, but he pestered them whilst on remand demanding he wanted £100k. They told him NO, but what does that tell you about his psyche? He was bartering for blood money.

[Nicholas]

Agatha,

I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.

Suspect Aunt Agatha knows Bamber was seeing Anji Greaves and may well know when and why their relationship ended

Wonder if AA knows it was Anji Bamber was on the phone to and not Virginia as has been written ?

It’s quite possible Virginia lied to the police to cover for her sister and/or Bamber

[Nicholas]

Wonder if AA knows it was Anji Bamber was on the phone to and not Virginia as has been written ?

It’s quite possible Virginia lied to the police to cover for her sister and/or Bamber

Bamber’s relationship with Anji Greaves started on 18th August 1985 according to her interview with the Sun - 2 days after the families funerals & he was still clearly leading JM on

Re 4th September 1985 JM stated,

“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do

Source for the above

Julie Mugford witness statement page 28

[Nicholas]

All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court.  She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.

JM was clearly in an abusive relationship AA

“I was annoyed with him about the call as he had told me he had asked out another women. The phone then rang again and it was Virginia. I walked out of the room and into the bedroom as I was so angry. I picked a Chinese box of Jeremy and threw it against a mirror which smashed. When that broke he came into the room with the phone, still on it to Virginia and then put it down.
He asked me why I did it and I said it was a cruel thing to do to ask out another women whilst I was there
He became very cross and I slapped his face. 
He then got hold of my right arm and twisted it up my back, pushed me onto the bed and then he raised his arm as if to hit me

And Bamber treated you in a similar way to how he treated JM

[G-Unit]

Agatha,

I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.

Julie Mugford was never arrested — ever.

The one crime she carried out (cheque fraud claiming her cheque book had been stolen) she openly admitted to the police.  She felt scared and ashamed for what she’d done when she went shopping with her friend one Saturday and bought clothes and a coffee machine for JB; then when she gave the coffee machine to jeremy in order to “impress” him, because she was stupid, naive and gullible, she unwittingly put herself deeper into his clutches. I dare say he encouraged her to do that. After all, why would she have told him she’d done such a thing? A normal boyfriend would be disgusted and alarmed. Yet not only did she tell him, she bought him an expensive gift too, which he eagerly accepted.

It’s obvious she was under his control.

In the same way he “suddenly” coerced her into being a “watch out” when he burgled and stole money from his own family’s caravan park. I don’t believe the thought suddenly occurred to him as they strolled along. He pre-planned it. Not just for the cash; but to tighten his grip on her. He knew she was besotted; knew she didn’t want to let him down; and so she went along with it to please him. She was his Bonnie to his self-styled Clyde, and she was trapped.

I can just see how Jeremy threatened her near the end of their relationship, and told the terrified, gullible Julie: “If you say a WORD about the murders I will tell the police YOU committed bank fraud! Your teaching career will go down the pan. You’ll lose me. And you’ll end up being a waitress in a pizza parlour for the rest of your life — and that’s after you’ve spent years in prison!”

That’s why he felt confident that she wouldn’t squeal on him when they broke up: he had something on her.

Of course, you can’t compare a shopping spree on “stolen” cheques with MURDERING all your family, but Julie was young, gullible and absolutely terrified.

In the event, she had to confess as she couldn’t stand the strain. And that’s why the police, CPS and bank didn’t press charges against her. On top of which, she admitted it without having to — and she eventually paid all the money back.

To go onto the NOTW deal: Julie never approached them. THEY approached her — AFTER she’d been to the police and told them the whole putrid truth. So Julie had no IDEA that she’d get paid for speaking to the press when she went to the police voluntarily;  she didn’t even know if she herself would be implicated in Jeremy murdering his family. He’d warned her the police wouldn’t believe her — yet she still confessed because the stress must have been unbearable.

What you also “conveniently “ forget to say is that Jeremy Bamber went to the press BEFORE the press approached Julie, and signed a £40k deal exclusive that if he was found innocent he’d sell them his story.

Not only did he approach THEM, FIRST, but he pestered them whilst on remand demanding he wanted £100k. They told him NO, but what does that tell you about his psyche? He was bartering for blood money.

Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]

A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.