Bamber's former lawyer Ewen Smith and the Silencer/DNA evidence.

[John]

In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence.  In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied.  No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber.  This is not just hearsay, this is fact.

The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence.  We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie.  Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am.  A police car was despatched at 3.36 am

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this.  Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.

One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.

[John]

Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.

Andrea I honestly do not know as there is simply no conclusive evidence either way.  Please see my previous post.

I appreciate that Sheila was not a blood relation and this is the biggest obstacle for me to overcome in believing Jeremy to be guilty.  I understand that 1 in 6 suffers mental illness.  Although some figures seem to suggest it is as high as 1 in 4.  Either way this equates to 16.66% or 25.00% of the population.  So for me to believe Jeremy to be guilty I have to accept that 4 individuals thrown together pretty much at random by that I mean via marriage and adoption exceed the statistical average by up to 58.34% (June and Sheila mental illness, Jeremy personality disordered) It is this statistical anomaly that I have difficulty with.

Peter Vanezis stated that if Jeremy is responsible he would have to have been mad.  Peter Vanezis is not a psychologist/psychiatrist so probably not really qualified to make such a statement.  But I am sure most would agree that if Jeremy is responsible he surely cannot be defined as 'normal'.  I understand Jeremy has been tested numerous times and shows no signs of psychopathy.  But if we assume Jeremy is responsible this must mean 75% of the family were suffering from mental illness/personality disorder.  Whereas the statistical norm is 16.66% to 25.00%.

Imagine walking along any street anywhere in the world and taking four people at random, who are not genetically related, and finding that three of the four suffered from mental illness/personality disorder.    >@@(*&)

It is unusual certainly but by no means impossible.  You also have to factor in that both Jeremy and Sheila were adopted and that in itself can bring certain psychological disadvantages for young adults.  Both of them sought out their birth parents so we don't know how that affected them.

We know for example that Sheila sought out and contacted her mother behind June's back even going as far as to telephone her while at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger.   That in itself brought pressures for a girl who was already suffering from mild mental illness.

At the end of the day one has to put semantics to the one side and only consider the established facts.  I have yet to read anything which shows Jeremy Bamber to be innocent.  By his own actions both prior to and after the murders he has shown himself to be a most callous character and very capable of murder if the price was right.

The evidence of Julie Mugford and others was the topping on the cake for the police, it was the mortar which filled in all the gaps in order to make the case watertight. Bamber has had 28 years to provide evidence which might support him but failed at every juncture.  That says it all for me.

[Holly Goodhead]

For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence.  We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings.  It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom.  June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.

The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.

We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies.  Not a single police officer or operator received such a call.  The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.

Why did Jeremy Bamber lie?   Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.

I understand that White House Farm had a panic alarm installed due to Mr Bamber's role as a magistrate and a threat made by a father over his son's sentence.  Any ideas as to why the alarm was not activated? 

If Jeremy crept in via a window would Crispy the dog not have started barking and/or the outside guard dog?

Did Jeremy have a key to White House Farm?  If so why not enter via the door, lock it and exit via the window?  I think the relatives found the smashed in door outside with a key in it?  If so then I guess this would have prevented Jeremy from entering via the door?

[John]

As far as I understand the alarm was connected to the police but it wouldn't operate whilst the telephone handset was not on its cradle.  Yet another reason why Sheila is not the person responsible.

Farm dogs will react to strangers but the dog at the farm undoubtedly knew Jeremy's voice so would not have alerted those inside the house.  Crispy would have been asleep in June's room and most probably did not hear Jeremy enter the house or come up the stairs until it was too late.  An interesting point though, I have never seen it mentioned that either dog was sedated.

A key to the farmhouse would not have been of any use as they are barred from the inside.  The back door did have a key in it on the inside, this was the door the police used a sledgehammer to force entry.

[Holly Goodhead]

Roger Wilkes also interviewed and consulted with Bamber while writing Blood Relations, not just the wider family.

Have you read the book Andrea?  If so did you find it fair in terms of objectivity?  I did, I didn't think it was pro or anti Jeremy.  Yes Roger Wilkes interviewed Jeremy and he received some remuneration for his 'cooperation' which allowed him to finance some further tests by a US expert that ended up supporting the prosecution 

[Andrea]

I have all  the books published on this case, i havent read the Wilkes book cover to cover yet.

[Holly Goodhead]

In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence.  In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied.  No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber.  This is not just hearsay, this is fact.

The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence.  We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie.  Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am.  A police car was despatched at 3.36 am

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this.  Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.

One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.

Thank you John for your previous post/reply.

I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.

Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger?  In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike?  I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall?  Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain.  I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining?  All tests were negative?

[Holly Goodhead]

I have all  the books published on this case, i havent read the Wilkes book cover to cover yet.

Yes I normally dip in and out of books but I made myself read it from cover to cover.  I found it a bit heavy at times.  Bridget Jones Diary is more my thing 

[John]

In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence.  In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied.  No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber.  This is not just hearsay, this is fact.

The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence.  We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie.  Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am.  A police car was despatched at 3.36 am

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this.  Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.

One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.

Thank you John for your previous post/reply.

I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.

Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger?  In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike?  I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall?  Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain.  I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining?  All tests were negative?

Although the bicycle failed to provide much forensic evidence, the tyre wall's were covered in soil yet the treads were clean indicating that it had been thorough deep mud and then ridden on the highway.  Jeremy made the excuse that the bike was at his house so that Julie could use it to get to the station but Julie denied ever hearing about this.

When Jeremy's uncle, Robert Boutflour, heard of this he went out and tried to find cycle tracks along the lanes but was unsuccessful.  You must remember that there are many farm tracks which criss-cross the farm which Jeremy could have taken that morning to avoid being seen.  At 3am in the dark on a bicycle he would have both seen and heard any vehicles approaching him and hidden quite easily.

[Myster]

I think a bike journey rather than on foot to be the more reasonable assumption... the adrenaline would be pumping, sweat pouring, thoughts haywire if he had just killed five family members. He would have been tired and sweating like a pig by the time he reached Goldhanger, more so if he had walked (both ways)... before he had even the time to think what to say on the phone to Julie and the police. We're talking about 3-4 miles by the shorter road route, even further by the circuitous sea wall or farm tracks.

Doesn't it seem both strange and telling that the bike should appear at his cottage shortly before the murders, and he told Julie that it was for her use?

[Holly Goodhead]

In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence.  In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied.  No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber.  This is not just hearsay, this is fact.

The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence.  We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie.  Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am.  A police car was despatched at 3.36 am

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this.  Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.

One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.

Thank you John for your previous post/reply.

I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.

Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger?  In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike?  I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall?  Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain.  I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining?  All tests were negative?

Although the bicycle failed to provide much forensic evidence, the tyre wall's were covered in soil yet the treads were clean indicating that it had been thorough deep mud and then ridden on the highway.  Jeremy made the excuse that the bike was at his house so that Julie could use it to get to the station but Julie denied ever hearing about this.

When Jeremy's uncle, Robert Boutflour, heard of this he went out and tried to find cycle tracks along the lanes but was unsuccessful.  You must remember that there are many farm tracks which criss-cross the farm which Jeremy could have taken that morning to avoid being seen.  At 3am in the dark on a bicycle he would have both seen and heard any vehicles approaching him and hidden quite easily.

Thank you John.  I hope I'm not an irritating Newbie asking lots of obvious questions.  I'll be back at uni next week so will have less time to post then 

1985 is a bit before my time but maybe some posters can recall the weather conditions at the start of August 1985 in terms of rainfall which would have made the fields full of deep mud?  What if anything is known about the geology of the said fields?

Yes he might have had advance warning of a motorised vehicle by engine sound and lights but what about another cyclist and/or walker. 

The difficulty I have with the bike is the exiting and re-entering Goldhanger which in my opinion would be very high risk compared with being on foot which surely offers more protection in falling under the radar quite literally.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think a bike journey rather than on foot to be the more reasonable assumption... the adrenaline would be pumping, sweat pouring, thoughts haywire if he had just killed five family members. He would have been tired and sweating like a pig by the time he reached Goldhanger, more so if he had walked (both ways)... before he had even the time to think what to say on the phone to Julie and the police. We're talking about 3-4 miles by the shorter road route, even further by the circuitous sea wall or farm tracks.

Doesn't it seem both strange and telling that the bike should appear at his cottage shortly before the murders, and he told Julie that it was for her use?

Hello Myster.  You might be right I have no real idea.  I just think on foot it afforded more protection in operating covertly.  Plus cycling through fields full of deep mud seems like hard work to me.  Also on foot it would have been easier to use a pocket torch.  Could he have cycled in darkness or taken the risk of using lights on the bike.

There are bound to be lots of coincidences in a case like this.  For example Taff Jones who believed in Jeremy's innocence falling off a ladder.  I personally think this was a tragic accident.  I have read on other sites that some conspiracy theories surround this.  The finding of the bike at Goldhanger might be innocent or sinister.  Any ideas as to how Jeremy got the bike from White House Farm to Goldhanger in the first place?  Did he transport it via a vehicle or cycle home on it?

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.

Andrea I honestly do not know as there is simply no conclusive evidence either way.  Please see my previous post.

I appreciate that Sheila was not a blood relation and this is the biggest obstacle for me to overcome in believing Jeremy to be guilty.  I understand that 1 in 6 suffers mental illness.  Although some figures seem to suggest it is as high as 1 in 4.  Either way this equates to 16.66% or 25.00% of the population.  So for me to believe Jeremy to be guilty I have to accept that 4 individuals thrown together pretty much at random by that I mean via marriage and adoption exceed the statistical average by up to 58.34% (June and Sheila mental illness, Jeremy personality disordered) It is this statistical anomaly that I have difficulty with.

Peter Vanezis stated that if Jeremy is responsible he would have to have been mad.  Peter Vanezis is not a psychologist/psychiatrist so probably not really qualified to make such a statement.  But I am sure most would agree that if Jeremy is responsible he surely cannot be defined as 'normal'.  I understand Jeremy has been tested numerous times and shows no signs of psychopathy.  But if we assume Jeremy is responsible this must mean 75% of the family were suffering from mental illness/personality disorder.  Whereas the statistical norm is 16.66% to 25.00%.

Imagine walking along any street anywhere in the world and taking four people at random, who are not genetically related, and finding that three of the four suffered from mental illness/personality disorder.    >@@(*&)

It is unusual certainly but by no means impossible.  You also have to factor in that both Jeremy and Sheila were adopted and that in itself can bring certain psychological disadvantages for young adults.  Both of them sought out their birth parents so we don't know how that affected them.

We know for example that Sheila sought out and contacted her mother behind June's back even going as far as to telephone her while at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger.   That in itself brought pressures for a girl who was already suffering from mild mental illness.

At the end of the day one has to put semantics to the one side and only consider the established facts.  I have yet to read anything which shows Jeremy Bamber to be innocent.  By his own actions both prior to and after the murders he has shown himself to be a most callous character and very capable of murder if the price was right.

The evidence of Julie Mugford and others was the topping on the cake for the police, it was the mortar which filled in all the gaps in order to make the case watertight. Bamber has had 28 years to provide evidence which might support him but failed at every juncture.  That says it all for me.

Yes I understand adoptees are at greater risk of emotional/pyschological issues than their non-adopted peers but this does not account for the mental illness suffered by Mrs Bamber which first occurred when Sheila was around 1 or 2 years of age and before Jeremy was even conceived.  If Jeremy is guilty then to have 3 out of 4 adoptive family members suffering from mental illness/personality disorder is an alarming statistic.  Of course if Jeremy is innocent the statistic is still alarming but more believable.  Who was it who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies  and statistics"?

According to Colin Caffell's book Sheila met with her natural mother around May 1985.  I believe some letters were also exchanged.  I was not aware of any phone conversations.  Are you able and willing to provide your source for the said call made from Goldhanger?  Colin's book states that in the aftermath of the tragedy Sheila's natural mother found it difficult to liaise via phone as her other other children were unaware of Sheila's existence and her husband was unsupportive. 

As far as I'm aware Jeremy has not met his natural parents in adulthood.  After his failed 2002 appeal he sought the support of his natural parents via his probation officer but they did not want to know.

Are you able to provide examples of what you deem to be callous behaviour by Jeremy?  He sounds like a role model compared with some of the guys I have to endure at uni who can be quite boorish.  He was certainly no Mick Philpott et al prior to the night of the tragedy.

I struggle to treat anything said by Julie Mugford seriously as I fail to understand how any 'normal' woman could continue an intimate relationship with a man (Jeremy) who, according to her witness statement dated 8/9 Sept, confessed to her on the day of the murders to hiring a hitman to murder his entire immediate adoptive family.  Why did she wait until she was dumped to fess up?  Had she have fessed up straight away more 'evidence' would have been preserved eg the carpets.  Why was she not charged with peverting the course of justice?

[John]

Thank you John.  I hope I'm not an irritating Newbie asking lots of obvious questions.  I'll be back at uni next week so will have less time to post then 

1985 is a bit before my time but maybe some posters can recall the weather conditions at the start of August 1985 in terms of rainfall which would have made the fields full of deep mud?  What if anything is known about the geology of the said fields?

Yes he might have had advance warning of a motorised vehicle by engine sound and lights but what about another cyclist and/or walker. 

The difficulty I have with the bike is the exiting and re-entering Goldhanger which in my opinion would be very high risk compared with being on foot which surely offers more protection in falling under the radar quite literally.

Not irking at all as it helps those of us who have followed the case for such a long time to keep abreast of the basics.

I don't think there would have been too many people walking or cycling around in the dark at 2.45am in the morning.

We don't know that he cycled both directions, for all we know he never left the farm the previous evening and used the bike to return to Goldhanger after the shootings.

[John]

Hello Myster.  You might be right I have no real idea.  I just think on foot it afforded more protection in operating covertly.  Plus cycling through fields full of deep mud seems like hard work to me.  Also on foot it would have been easier to use a pocket torch.  Could he have cycled in darkness or taken the risk of using lights on the bike.

There are bound to be lots of coincidences in a case like this.  For example Taff Jones who believed in Jeremy's innocence falling off a ladder.  I personally think this was a tragic accident.  I have read on other sites that some conspiracy theories surround this.  The finding of the bike at Goldhanger might be innocent or sinister.  Any ideas as to how Jeremy got the bike from White House Farm to Goldhanger in the first place?  Did he transport it via a vehicle or cycle home on it?

Could I clarify one think here Holly.  There was no need for Jeremy to cycle "in the fields" as there are many farm tracks available to him.  Usage of some would have required him to traverse a gate.