UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Myster on January 13, 2021, 08:59:15 AM
-
by Andrew Rigsby. An updated version, worth another read on Jem's 60th...
http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/ (http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/)
-
Never considered Bamber may have had one or two fully loaded cartridges with him. Together with the fully loaded rifle. Possible.
He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre. If not he would have expected to immobilise everyone with his first 11 shots. Giving him time to go downstairs.
Once Nevill headed downstairs, he had the option of reloading upstairs. However chose to fight Nevill instead.
-
Never considered Bamber may have had one or two fully loaded cartridges with him. Together with the fully loaded rifle. Possible.
He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre. If not he would have expected to immobilise everyone with his first 11 shots. Giving him time to go downstairs.
Once Nevill headed downstairs, he had the option of reloading upstairs. However chose to fight Nevill instead.
That's one of Andrew Rigsby's points which is debatable, and I doubt whether a second magazine was used. By the time EP had eventually got their act together, isn't it possible they interviewed Radcliffe's again to see if father or son were sold an extra one later than their first purchase of rifle, magazine and scope? Or did EP enquire at other local gunsmiths? Before the internet age, the only other way to obtain another one was privately, in the classifieds of shooting or farming periodicals say, or bought/borrowed from someone whom he knew. If any of those read about the murders and Bamber's involvment, would they have contacted EP with this info?
Bamber's original plan, imo, was to eliminate all with one full magazine, two bullets to each of his victims' heads whilst they slept, but his parents were already awake, up and aware, which made them moving targets and necessitated him taking drastic action by firing off the Anschutz willy-nilly in an attempt to stop their efforts to resist or escape the onslaught. Hence the haphazard nature of their wounds, whereas those of Sheila and the twins were accurately placed.
-
His two options were an 11 shot massacre, or a multi shot massacre.
The 11 shot massacre being his best option. He could kill everyone while they slept. Then moved Nevill onto the bedroom floor & taken the bedroom phone off the hook. As if Nevill was up & had phoned him.
-
He may have hoped 11 shots, but once that fails it's just reacting to events, there is no plan B. Is it possible Bamber started with one shot each to the head of Nicholas and Daniel and perhaps hearing movement in Nevill and June's room entered there next by necessity, inflicting 5 shots on June and 4 on Nevill. Bamber then having to go downstairs to reload and was followed and surprised by a wounded Nevill approaching him from behind. This perhaps more likely than Jeremy following Nevill downstairs, although that clearly possible? I think the bullet casings could support these scenarios. Otherwise, if he entered his parents bedroom first then we have to assume Jeremy only fired 9 times upstairs and fired two further at his father in the kitchen before having to reload? I think it more likely that Bamber had run out of bullets upstairs. Mainly because it doesn't make sense for him not to further disable his wounded father with shots as he was on the move downstairs? June was clearly massively incapacitated early in the rampage.
-
Julie said Bamber said he shot the twins first.
One head shot each will kill two out of the 5 targets. The shots would be impossible to hear by the other 3 people sleeping in other rooms.
Suspect June & Nevill were still sleeping. Bamber opened fire on June, which resulted in Nevill starting to wake & get out of bed. Resulting in Bamber only managing 2 head shots into Nevill prior to 2 torso shots.
Believe Nevill got past Bamber and headed downstairs.
Possible he left an alive but wounded Nevill upstairs to go downstairs to reload. But wouldn't an injured Nevill save his energy and confront Bamber upon his return upstairs?
-
Can't see the logic of Nevill waiting upstairs for Bamber to return and he didn't do that. Waking Sheila and getting her to hide or sneak out etc would also appear logical in hindsight but I've no doubt despite being heavily wounded he perceives his only hope for his family was somehow overpowering Jeremy. Nevill would sleep heavier than June I would speculate that June (a light sleeper) would have woken to someone creeping upstairs or the twins gunfire and perhaps woke Nevill causing him to get a slight head start on moving out of bed as Jeremy burst in. I still favour Jeremy going downstairs to reload ahead of Nevill, rather than Nevill heading downstairs first.
-
If Nevill was wounded but still alive upstairs & Bamber out of bullets, Bamber may have attacked him upstairs, to knock him out. He had a weapon available - the rifle & would now be hyped up.
Bamber may have heard Nevill going downstairs, so would be ready. Nevill's injuries show the attack was very one sided, Nevill just defending himself.
Bamber reloading downstairs would only take a few seconds if he had a fully loaded cartridge downstairs. As suggested in the article.
Bamber could reach June & Nevill from June's side of the bed. His 9 shots were probably from there. Bamber being in that position meant there was a pathway for Nevill through the bedroom door as Bamber was not blocking it.
-
Some good points raised there supporting that scenario. But to be blunt I don't believe he brought a full magazine to the farm and took it away with him. I don't think he even owned or had access to one, he may have considered the risk of being caught with it as too big. Also, if you're taking an empty cartridge home why not take the silencer? Furthermore, if he had an additional magazine why leave it downstairs, that isn't logical. The scenario regarding Nevill depends on how incapacitated he was by the four shots you described. Was he able to maintain forward motion continuosly despite these shots? If he was he may have got downstairs first. Difficult to say, he would have been stunned or stopped at some point, I expect. I wouldn't expect Nevill to have left the room while Jeremy was still firing at his wife. Another factor, how long does it take to discharge 9 shots with a semi-automatic? As you suggest, if Nevill was going downstairs first you would expect evidence of a struggle in the upper hallway, stairwell or lower hallway. There isn't any evidence of that, although there is Nevill's blood on the wall in the downstairs hallway. The struggle in the kitchen suggests to me Nevill slightly surprising Jeremy while he was reloading individual bullets not a magazine. Perhaps he reloaded 4 at this point which he used on Nevill in the kitchen before needing to reload again. If Jeremy had followed Nevill downstairs why did he not attack him from behind, pushing him downstairs for instance could've rendered serious damage. And remember Nevill never reached the phone or too close to any exiting door, so if Jeremy was behind him it wasn't very far.
-
He may have hoped 11 shots, but once that fails it's just reacting to events, there is no plan B. Is it possible Bamber started with one shot each to the head of Nicholas and Daniel and perhaps hearing movement in Nevill and June's room entered there next by necessity, inflicting 5 shots on June and 4 on Nevill. Bamber then having to go downstairs to reload and was followed and surprised by a wounded Nevill approaching him from behind. This perhaps more likely than Jeremy following Nevill downstairs, although that clearly possible? I think the bullet casings could support these scenarios. Otherwise, if he entered his parents bedroom first then we have to assume Jeremy only fired 9 times upstairs and fired two further at his father in the kitchen before having to reload? I think it more likely that Bamber had run out of bullets upstairs. Mainly because it doesn't make sense for him not to further disable his wounded father with shots as he was on the move downstairs? June was clearly massively incapacitated early in the rampage.
Wouldn't Nevill have armed himself with something before following JB downstairs?
-
Suppose it's all about those 20 seconds while Nevill gets his 4 shots while simultaneously getting out of bed.
Does Nevill physically attack Bamber upstairs or vice versa when Bamber runs out of bullets.
Does Bamber run downstairs to re load, knowing Nevill is alive upstairs & now knows what is happening. and will be a moving, resisting target upon his return.
Is Nevill aware what weapon Bamber is using & whether he has run out of bullets. A shot gun or the rifle still having bullets will kill him if he receives more shots, so his survival instint is to run.
Don't believe Bamber would attack Nevill on the stairs. It's too ackward. Bamber was trying to avoid getting injured. He may not have caught up with him on the stairs anyway.
Nevill's only resistance in the kitchen was wrestling for the rifle. Prior to sufferring his terrible injuries from being hit with the rifle.
-
Well, one of his arms was completely incapacitated and he'd been shot in the head twice. Who knows if he tried to pick something up or how he planned to survive downstairs. I assume he knew it was Jeremy and he had witnessed him run out of bullets, so time was of the essence. Do you have a theory about who may have gone downstairs first or the order of the shots, General?
-
Good point, Adam, about Nevill perhaps being physically beaten upstairs. I've always considered the non bullet wounds to have been inflicted in the kitchen but we don't know that. His instincts would be to seize Jeremy upstairs or down, I believe, not merely to flee when his whole family was in mortal danger. If Nevill was ahead of him Jeremy would've been desperate to stop him getting to the phone or doors by any means. But the scrapes on the AGA mantelpiece suggest to me Nevill approached Jeremy for possession of the gun after following him down whether before, during or after reloading. If Nevill had got into the kitchen first his destination would be phone, door or gun cupboard and the evidence suggests he didn't reach these places.
-
Well, one of his arms was completely incapacitated and he'd been shot in the head twice. Who knows if he tried to pick something up or how he planned to survive downstairs. I assume he knew it was Jeremy and he had witnessed him run out of bullets, so time was of the essence. Do you have a theory about who may have gone downstairs first or the order of the shots, General?
No, not really. Well, yes, but only half-baked. I don't see anyone going down after him totally unarmed, apart from maybe Nevill knew everyone was dead, so tried to scupper his plan as a final, dying act of defiance. He may have tried to arm himself, but there was nothing to hand, but could explain why he was found by the fireplace - this may have been the only place where he may have found a weapon, with Jeremy stood between him and the rest of the kitchen.
This would also suggest that Jeremy was manually re-loading, as opposed to simply loading a new mag.
-
Agree regarding the manual loading. So do you think that Nevill went downstairs to flee/phone or arm himself before the assailant? The scrape marks on the AGA suggest to me he did engage him physically, and that Nevill approached him, because he felt he had to take action knowing that at least his wife was fighting for her life.
-
Agree regarding the manual loading. So do you think that Nevill went downstairs to flee/phone or arm himself before the assailant? The scrape marks on the AGA suggest to me he did engage him physically, and that Nevill approached him, because he felt he had to take action knowing that at least his wife was fighting for her life.
Seems plausible. He now knows the phone is gone, he musters one last stand and basically fights for both of their lives in any way possible. He didn't get far with nothing to protect himself, as with the gunshot wounds, the life would have been ebbing out of him at that point.
As for Jeremy's state of mind at this point, I'll bet he was panicking big time, seeing Nevill somehow still coming at him. He knew would have thought his best chance to win the fight would be to shoot him again, so reloading in between the physical struggle was his priority. All my opinion, of course.
The ****ing coward.
-
Bamber going downstairs first, gives Nevill the chance to stay upstairs. He can turn lights on & check on Sheila and the twins. As well as see if June was still alive. As well as check on himself and recover from the shock of what just happened.
The twins, Nevill and Sheila awake & out of bed makes things a lot harder for Bamber when he returns upstairs. Nevill can arm himself with something such as a chair or a lamp. Or even clothes which he could throw over Bamber's head to disorientate him.
Nevill would only have a couple of minutes to decide to follow Bamber downstairs. Doubtful he made that decision.
-
Nevill running from a shooting Bamber would be a natural reaction.
He would have minimal time to consider that he was leaving June, Sheila & the twins. Sub conciously he would know he would be chased, which at least meant Bamber couldn't fire any more immediate shots upstairs.
What was Nevill's plan was when he got downstairs? He didn't have time to think of one.
-
Yes, I agree certainly plausible that Nevill went downstairs first, the position of the Aga mantelpiece in the kitchen and where the bullets were situated provide us additional information. If Nevill went downstairs first he obviously had an intention to do something. I do think that Jeremy wouldn't have allowed a struggle for control of the gun unless he was taking a little by surprise (in which case Jeremy came down first), or if he was trying to stop Nevill doing something such as reaching the phone or arming himself with something near the AGA. If Jeremy was right behind him and possibly even attacking his back with the rifle, almost shepherding him as he went down that would make sense to me. Any notion that Nevill ever got any significant distance ahead of Jeremy wouldn't make sense, Bamber wouldn't have allowed that.
-
Interesting what he said about the roure -:
'It was a wet day when I found and cycled the route on the 04 Feb 19. The last 400 metres on the approach to White House Farm was muddy.
My mountain bike was probably better than the bike Wilkinson used and I was 63 and considering the conditions I did it in 17 minutes on approach and 18 minutes into a slight headwind on return. That was pure riding time. I stopped to take photographs.
There was only one gate to open. The route was easy and it would have been equally simple at night with the available ambient light. If Bamber used this route he was a young and fit 24 year old and the tracks would have been dry in the summer of 1985.
If he had used additional rifle magazines, he could have taken them along with any .22 rounds he had in them or loose on his person. They would have been easy to dispose.
Jeremy Bamber’s defence maintain that this route was a ridiculous exaggeration and nobody witnessed him. That might be true. I didn’t see or meet a single person on the farm track portion of the route and that was in daylight. Who saw me?'
-
The additional magazines is, of course, very possible. But the prosecution would have to establish where he got them from. Would Pargeter etc have known if specific magazines for that rifle were missing from WHF after the killings? Do you need a license to buy them? Also why would you not take these magazines
upstairs with you on a shooting spree? His arrogance may have be a factor in that granted he believed he might not need them. But I still think the scratches on the AGA suggest individual reloading of one magazine. That Nevill got close enough to grab the rifle and, however briefly, wrestle for control suggests to me that Bamber had to do more than simply slot in a new magazine. Overall, very difficult to conclude either way, perhaps.
-
‘Jeremy Bamber’s defence maintain that this route was a ridiculous exaggeration and nobody witnessed him’
Bamber’s defence also chose to not call Charles Marsden to given evidence?
What reason has Bamber given over the years regarding this?
And why have Bamber and his defence teams chosen to attempt to hide his violent past re the alleged drug/date rape of the female from the Chequers public house ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11533.msg592331#msg592331
-
Bamber’s defence also chose to not call Charles Marsden to given evidence?
What reason has Bamber given over the years regarding this?
And why have Bamber and his defence teams chosen to attempt to hide his violent past re the alleged drug/date rape of the female from the Chequers public house ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11533.msg592331#msg592331
Why would the defence call Charles Marsden?
-
Why would the defence call Charles Marsden?
No - I asked why didn’t the defence call Charles Marsden - ‘What reasons has Bamber given over the years regarding this?’
Surely his evidence supported the prosecutions theory and part of Julie’s evidence?
What was decided in pre trial hearings regarding Marsden’s evidence?
From ‘Blood Relations’ by Roger Wilkes
‘In December 1984, Jeremy had announced that his entire family were getting together to celebrate Christimas. This was unusual. During a drinking session at a wine bar in Maldon, Jeremy had confided to Charles Marsden that if the farmhouse were to burn down over Christmas, everything would be his. 'I thought at the time that this was a strange thing to say,' Marsden reported, 'but didn't particularly take any notice.'
-
No - I asked why didn’t the defence call Charles Marsden - ‘What reasons has Bamber given over the years regarding this?’
Surely his evidence supported the prosecutions theory and part of Julie’s evidence?
What was decided in pre trial hearings regarding Marsden’s evidence?
From ‘Blood Relations’ by Roger Wilkes
‘In December 1984, Jeremy had announced that his entire family were getting together to celebrate Christimas. This was unusual. During a drinking session at a wine bar in Maldon, Jeremy had confided to Charles Marsden that if the farmhouse were to burn down over Christmas, everything would be his. 'I thought at the time that this was a strange thing to say,' Marsden reported, 'but didn't particularly take any notice.'
The prosecution had the option of calling Charles Marsden. Don't know why they didn't.
-
The prosecution had the option of calling Charles Marsden. Don't know why they didn't.
Marsden’s evidence - especially re Bamber ‘confiding’ in him around December 1984 over the farmhouse burning down and everything being his - would have bolstered Julie’s evidence
I’d be interested to know what discussions took place in relation to Charles Marsden’s evidence and why he wasn’t called to give evidence
It’s possible the prosecution initially wanted to call him but pre trial the defence argued against this ?
From ‘Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes’
‘Stan Jones leafed through a sheaf of typewritten papers on the table in front of him. 'So,' he said, 'you know Charles Marsden?' Jeremy said he did. 'He and I were very close a few years ago, and not so close now as I don't really see him that often.' The detective continued to look through his papers. 'Do you remember me yesterday putting to you that Julie had said that you intended to drug the family and burn the farm down when they were all in it ? Bamber said he remembered and that Julie was telling lies. 'You see' said Stan Jones, running a finger down one of the statements, 'Charles Marsden also says the same thing. He says that around Christmas time last year, when all the family, your parents, Sheila and twins were there, you told him that if you burned the house down with all them in it, you'd get everything. Is he telling lies as well? Jeremy said he didn't remember discussing the matter with Marsden, and that he concluded that his friend was lying. Stan Jones put the statement down on the table. Julie's telling lies.' he said, recapping 'and he is telling lies. For what reason? 'No comment.'
-
Marsden’s evidence - especially re Bamber ‘confiding’ in him around December 1984 over the farmhouse burning down and everything being his - would have bolstered Julie’s evidence
I’d be interested to know what discussions took place in relation to Charles Marsden’s evidence and why he wasn’t called to give evidence
It’s possible the prosecution initially wanted to call him but pre trial the defence argued against this
Don't believe the defence could have stopped the prosecution calling Charles Marsden.
Maybe the prosecution considered it not worth calling Marsden regarding a short conversation with Bamber regarding one thing. The defence will just try to undermine him.
-
Don't believe the defence could have stopped the prosecution calling Charles Marsden.
Really - what makes you say this?
-
Maybe the prosecution considered it not worth calling Marsden regarding a short conversation with Bamber regarding one thing. The defence will just try to undermine him.
No doubt the defence would try to undermine him but Charles Marsden was one of the first people Bamber turned to following the murders and according to Bamber they were very close
-
Really - what makes you say this?
What grounds could the defence use to prevent Marsden being called up by the prosecution?
-
What grounds could the defence use to prevent Marsden being called up by the prosecution?
Could Marsden’s evidence have been unworthy of belief at the time?
Or maybe the prosecution made a mistake by choosing to not call him?
“Charles Marsden gave a statement that was of particular interest to detectives. He asserted that Jeremy had never ‘made mention either in a jocular fashion or otherwise of doing harm to his family’, except obliquely on one occasion in December 1984. The two of them were in a Maldon wine bar when Jeremy commented that the whole family was getting together and that ‘if the house were to burn down at Christmas everything would be his.’ Charles thought it ‘a strange thing to say’ but dismissed it as typical Jeremy, trying to shock.”
“At quarter to five, the interview was paused for two hours. Returning, Jones asked:
‘Did you decide not to burn the house down because of the valuables in it? Because Julie says you did.’
‘You are implying that I planned to burn the house, which is lies,’ Jeremy responded.
‘She has said it and Charles Marsden also says you said it to him. Are they both lying?’
‘Yes.’
‘What for?’
‘Matter of opinion.’
‘You could say she is lying perhaps because of a broken down romance, but what reason would he have for saying such things about you?’
‘Who knows.’
After another series of rapid, seemingly random questions, Jones asked, ‘Do you still love Julie?’
‘No comment.’
‘Didn’t you give DC Barlow a piece of paper with a message on it to be delivered to her since you have been in custody?’
‘That was personal and you had no right to read it.’
‘What did it say in the letter or note?”
(Excerpts from The Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee)
-
There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".
In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.
I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.
Maybe he wasn't considered reliable?
Not that any of this matters, the 'big' evidence provides all the evidence needed. All these tiny pieces of the jigsaw are neither here nor there.
-
There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".
In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.
I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.
Maybe he wasn't considered reliable?
Not that any of this matters, the 'big' evidence provides all the evidence needed. All these tiny pieces of the jigsaw are neither here nor there.
I don’t agree
The ‘jigsaw’ isn’t complete without ALL the evidence
-
There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".
In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.
I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.
Marsden was spoken to by detectives several times. It’s not known how many witness statements he may have made - we are only aware of one
He may have only made one?
-
Marsden's testimony about Bamber talking about killing his family would've been absolute gold dust to the prosecution. It defies logic that they wouldn't use him if he was willing. Especially in light of Bamber telling the judge halfway through the trial that Julie and Robert Boutflour were lying through their teeth. There would be no possible motivation for Marsden to make that up, and it would've significantly enhanced the prosecution case that the idea had all been months and months in the planning.
-
Marsden's testimony about Bamber talking about killing his family would've been absolute gold dust to the prosecution. It defies logic that they wouldn't use him if he was willing. Especially in light of Bamber telling the judge halfway through the trial that Julie and Robert Boutflour were lying through their teeth. There would be no possible motivation for Marsden to make that up, and it would've significantly enhanced the prosecution case that the idea had all been months and months in the planning.
So why wasn’t Charles Marsden called to give evidence ?
-
The problem for the prosecution is that you cannot cross-examine your own witness. If Mardson had turned hostile to the prosecution while in the witness box it would have been difficult for them and the defence could then cross-examine him. It would have been better for the prosecution if the defence had called him.
-
The problem for the prosecution is that you cannot cross-examine your own witness. If Mardson had turned hostile to the prosecution while in the witness box it would have been difficult for them and the defence could then cross-examine him. It would have been better for the prosecution if the defence had called him.
Why would he turn hostile to the prosecution.
-
Why would he turn hostile to the prosecution.
Just theorising why they might not have called him. Hostile is perhaps a bit strong but if he wandered from his story he could not be cross-examined by the prosecution. It does happen at times and with being a murder trial they might have not thought it was worth the risk. Once he was in the witness box Marsden could have been swayed by his previous closeness to Bamber.
-
Doubt that Marsden would have turned hostile in the witness box & committed perjury.
He just had to testify about the one conversation he had with Bamber. The defence could accuse him of lying, but why would he?
In a murder trial there has to be a line drawn over testimonies about who said what to who and when. Exceptions being Barbara Wilson, Julie and Mary Mugford who had more to say. The defence also called a couple of character witnesses for Jeremy.
-
Doubt that Marsden would have turned hostile in the witness box & committed perjury.
He just had to testify about the one conversation he had with Bamber. The defence could accuse him of lying, but why would he?
In a murder trial there has to be a line drawn over testimonies about who said what to who and when. Exceptions being Barbara Wilson, Julie and Mary Mugford who had more to say. The defence also called a couple of character witnesses for Jeremy.
Perhaps testimony to Japan Olympics chief who said women talk too much!
Yoshiro Mori, an 83-year-old former prime minister with a record of insensitive and sexist pronouncements, had tried to justify the lack of women at a senior level in the Japanese Olympic Committee by saying women talk too much at meetings and make them run on too long.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-olympics-mori-women-resign/2021/02/11/ce8458f4-6c1f-11eb-a66e-e27046e9e898_story.html