Lets review the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

Adoption psychology; June's mental illness/depression circa 1959; Adoption reunions

The expert witnesses called at trial made no reference to the above: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley, Prof Knight. 

Adoption psychology

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Psychology-Adoption-David-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737

June's mental illness/depression circa 1959

See attached pdf

Lack of empathy/attachment disorder potentially caused by June's mental illness/depression/neglect

http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Simon-Baron-Cohen.htm

Adoption reunions

http://www.videojug.com/interview/nicky-campbell-on-adoption

Nicky Campbell (adoptee) radio and tv presenter and patron of British Association Adoption and Fostering states in his video above re his reunion with his birth parents:

"You have to feel right about it and you've got to protect yourself because it is tough, it can be very, very tough.  You're talking about raw emotional truths that your confront".

How did Sheila cope with the above just weeks before the murders?

[goatboy]

Suffering from depression is one thing, killing four people in cold blood is quite another.

The fact is it is highly unlikely that Sheila would have had the physical coordination and dexterity to load the rifle so many times in the midst of a killing spree. It beggars belief that she could have done all of this (including battering Bamber senior senseless) without showing any signs of a struggle or any blood, gun oil residue etc on her. Bringing up the possibility she had a shower seems like grasping at straws to me. I feel that if she had had a weapon that didn't need reloading and that was more powerful then potentially she could have committed the shootings. However, the fact that the killer hit the target so many times leads me to believe a flaky and psychotic person couldn't have done this. They would have panicked and missed. Also we've discussed this at length, you believe a petite an uncoordinated model could have beaten Nevill severely, including clubbing him on the head with the rifle butt with such power that it broke a bit off. I don't think so. Moreover, Sheila wouldn't have been concerned about cleaning up after them. Who would have gone to great lengths to tidy up after themselves? There's your answer.

Do you believe Mugford's testimony was a complete fabrication Holly? What was the motivation if so? A woman scorned?

[Angelo222]

You would make an excellent lawyer Holly, everything except evidence.      

[Holly Goodhead]

Suffering from depression is one thing, killing four people in cold blood is quite another.

The fact is it is highly unlikely that Sheila would have had the physical coordination and dexterity to load the rifle so many times in the midst of a killing spree. It beggars belief that she could have done all of this (including battering Bamber senior senseless) without showing any signs of a struggle or any blood, gun oil residue etc on her. Bringing up the possibility she had a shower seems like grasping at straws to me. I feel that if she had had a weapon that didn't need reloading and that was more powerful then potentially she could have committed the shootings. However, the fact that the killer hit the target so many times leads me to believe a flaky and psychotic person couldn't have done this. They would have panicked and missed. Also we've discussed this at length, you believe a petite an uncoordinated model could have beaten Nevill severely, including clubbing him on the head with the rifle butt with such power that it broke a bit off. I don't think so. Moreover, Sheila wouldn't have been concerned about cleaning up after them. Who would have gone to great lengths to tidy up after themselves? There's your answer.

Do you believe Mugford's testimony was a complete fabrication Holly? What was the motivation if so? A woman scorned?

I don't think I explained very well; I wasn't claiming Sheila was suffering from depression which resulted in the murders (although she may well have been suffering from depression). I was putting forward a theory that as a result of June suffering from depression circa 1959 when Sheila was circa 2 yoa that this caused changes in sheila's brain circuitry due to what is known as "serve and return" interactions or rather lack of them.  The PDF above from Harvard university/National scientific council explains far better than I can. 

Prof Knight in CoA doc made reference to murderers going about mundane or "ritualistic" tasks such as cleaning up before committing suicide:

91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide.

I believe most of the shots were very close range?  Colin Caffell's witness statement states that Sheila threw pots and pans at him but he doesn't say whether or not she missed.

I don't think anyone beat Nevill while he was alive.  It was not necessary as he was so badly injured in the bedroom that by the time he reached the kitchen he was unable to put up any sort of defence whether it be Sheila or Jeremy.

Yes I believe JM's testimony was a complete fabrication.  I think she was probably told by Stan Jones that EP had the evidence to nail JB and if she didn't cooperate she was in BIG trouble.  The fact that she was also given immunity from prosecution over her criminal past preserved her teaching career.  It appears that her mother accompanied her throughout the trial.  Where was her father?  A young 21 yoa woman with no male/father present other than EP.  Did she receive independent legal advice?  JB claims she told him she was physically abused by her step-father.  She claims she suffered a brutal anonymous rape while on holiday in France.  Then she claims that her boyfriend of some 2 years brutally murdered his entire immediate adoptive family.  That's a lot of violence for one young woman born and bred in UK from a middle classish background who attended grammar school and university.  If its true she was certainly very, very unlucky and I am pleased she has been able to move on with her life.

[Holly Goodhead]

You would make an excellent lawyer Holly, everything except evidence.      

We shall see who wins the wager!  All to be played for my friend, all to be played for   

[Angelo222]

Thinking this and believing that and quoting mental health theory won't get JB off the hook Holly.  The real evidence has him dead to rights.  Don't you realise he destroyed any chance of parole the moment he wrote to the Eatons threatening them too??

No Justice Secretary worth his salt will ever let a mass murderer back out onto the Essex streets and as for going to New Zealand, good luck to him with that one!!!   Afraid as puglove has already posted it will be many mushy sprout Christmases to come for Jerry.   

...but then you know different eh??

[Holly Goodhead]

Thinking this and believing that and quoting mental health theory won't get JB off the hook Holly.  The real evidence has him dead to rights.  Don't you realise he destroyed any chance of parole the moment he wrote to the Eatons threatening them too??

No Justice Secretary worth his salt will ever let a mass murderer back out onto the Essex streets and as for going to New Zealand, good luck to him with that one!!!  Afraid as puglove has already posted it will be many mushy sprout Christmases to come for Jerry.   

...but then you know different eh??

I don't want him getting off the hook.  If a MoJ has occurred then procedures are in place for this to be remedied.  Nothing to do with me. 

I wasn't aware that he threatened the Eatons other than with perjury?  No idea about anything to do with New Zealand?

I heard he has given up on soap on the rope and is back on the old slippery bars so he's probably as happy as a pig in s**t 

[Angelo222]

He will be well institutionalised after all these years but then that's what happens when you shoot your entire family.  Don't get me wrong though, if evidence of his innocence is ever found I will be one of the first to welcome it.

[goatboy]

Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?

It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?

It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.

[John]

Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?

It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?

It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.

A pretty concise evaluation of it all goatboy.  Something which isn't widely understood by many casual readers of the case though is the fact that Jeremy Bamber created a situation whereby the guilty party could only ever be him or his sister Sheila.  That for me was the fatal flaw in his master plan.

By introducing the story that his father Nevill had phoned him and told him that his sister had the gun and had lost control he effectively destroyed his case.  It always came down to this.  If it was true then Sheila did it all then committed suicide by shooting herself in the neck twice.  If it was untrue then Jeremy made it all up and he was guilty of mass murder.  Even if he had an accomplice and didn't pull the trigger he was still guilty in terms of joint venture.

The evidence is substantial which supports the latter scenario.  Jeremy is guilty and has spent the last 28½ years trying to persuade anyone that will listen that he isn't.

Short of a miracle, his case will never be referred back to the Appeal Court ever again.

[puglove]

Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?

It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?

It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.

Your posts are consistently excellent, goatboy. In the last few years that I've had an interest in the Bamber case (and consequently changed my view from horribly stitched-up to glaringly, obviously guilty) I've read REAMS of "new evidence found", "exciting new break-throughs" and some utter, utter jaw-dropping crap. And nothing has changed, it never will. Bamber continues to plead his innocence because he is an arrogant psychopath, he has nothing else to do, and it amuses him. With the exception of Aggie, Holly and maybe a couple of others, his supporters are a bunch of fruitcakes.

[Holly Goodhead]

Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?

It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?

It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.

The blood evidence only shows that SC's blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer.  Many others share SC's blood type/group. For example Robert Boutflour's blood/type group matched SC's and the sample found in the silencer.  Imo this is an important point as Robert Boutflour had a hand in finding the silencer. Why did Geoffrey Rivlin QC not present to the jury the realistic possibility that the silencer had been contaminated either accidentally or deliberately? (Why does Misty's owner bang on about EP but seems oblivious to the cock up at trial by Geoffrey Rivlin QC?)  It is also clear from RB's diary that he hated JB for no reason other than he was different in terms of  lifestyle choices all of which were acceptable and legitimate.

How does the DNA analysis support JB's conviction?  The findings of the DNA analysis show that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer.  Operative words are MAY and DNA.  DNA does not equate to blood.  The DNA testing in this instance, LCN-DNA, is not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg skin cell, blood, saliva, perspiration or any other biological matter.  It's a completely moot point as the scientists involved and 3 appeal court judges ruled that the DNA analysis was "completely meaningless".  The Court of Appeal concluded:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

There haven't been "numerous" CCRC referrals.  JB has made two submissions.  One of which was referred to CoA.  Since the CCRC's formation only 2.97% (source below) of cases submitted are referred to CoA.  The fact that JB's case fell into that small % tells me its a close call along with the jury's verdict of 10-2.  All of these facts will just make the eventual quashing of the conviction even more sensational   

http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission

[goatboy]

Well, it certainly would be sensational, one thing we can all agree on!

[John]

How does the DNA analysis support JB's conviction?  The findings of the DNA analysis show that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer.  Operative words are MAY and DNA.  DNA does not equate to blood.  The DNA testing in this instance, LCN-DNA, is not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg skin cell, blood, saliva, perspiration or any other biological matter.  It's a completely moot point as the scientists involved and 3 appeal court judges ruled that the DNA analysis was "completely meaningless".  The Court of Appeal concluded:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

It very simple actually.  DNA found deep within the silencer was found to have 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell.   In plain English this means that the chances that it doesn't belong to her is something like 10 million to 1.   Not enough for a British judge to confirm it in terms of English Law but the numbers speak for themselves.

Another point which I don't believe has ever been touched on before is the matter of the positioning of the rifle before that all important last fatal shot.  We know that it isn't easy to shoot oneself in the neck with a rifle and Sheila would have struggled as much if not more than anyone.  To carry out such a shot the person has to make sure the muzzle is on target.  The only way someone can do this is to hold the muzzle against their neck.  For Sheila to have taken a second shot would have been nigh impossible given her condition, for her to have positioned the muzzle properly was impossible since there were no blood smear marks on her neck.

In addition, there was no gun shot residue (GSR) on her hands or fingers or any indication that her finger tips had come into contact with what by then would have been a hot muzzle. Taken together, these facts indicate that Sheila never fired that rifle.

[Holly Goodhead]

It very simple actually.  DNA found deep within the silencer was found to have 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell.   In plain English this means that the chances that it doesn't belong to her is something like 10 million to 1.   Not enough for a British judge to confirm it in terms of English Law but the numbers speak for themselves.

Another point which I don't believe has ever been touched on before is the matter of the positioning of the rifle before that all important last fatal shot.  We know that it isn't easy to shoot oneself in the neck with a rifle and Sheila would have struggled as much if not more than anyone.  To carry out such a shot the person has to make sure the muzzle is on target.  The only way someone can do this is to hold the muzzle against their neck.  For Sheila to have taken a second shot would have been nigh impossible given her condition, for her to have positioned the muzzle properly was impossible since there were no blood smear marks on her neck.

I don't know why everyone, pro and anti, can't accept the LCN DNA findings of the scientists and three appeal court judges ie that they were "utterly meaningless".  The reason for this is that in 85/86 LCN DNA was not even envisaged.  As such exhibits were not protected against contamination by those who handled them eg staff at fss, court officials, and jurors who handled the silencer along with other exhibits such as the victims' nightwear.  LCN DNA is so sensitive that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat.