Early in the year, Michael O'Brien, a campaigner for Jeremy Bamber and against miscarriages of justice in general, gave an interview to alternative radio presenter/interviewer, Richie Allen.
Richie Allen is a good interviewer, but for anybody with some knowledge of the case, the content of the interview is not very illuminating as O'Brien goes over the usual pro-Bamber 'talking points'; meanwhile, for the ordinary public, what O'Brien has to say is deeply misleading. I won't go into the relevant points exhaustively, as it's not my intention to nitpick. Instead, I'd like to focus on a fundamental issue raised in the interview, which is O'Brien's contention that the crux of the case is an alleged criminal conspiracy against Bamber involving the police and members of the extended family.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this beyond unsupported inferences drawn from certain facts. It is true that Boutflour and Eaton had the means, motive and opportunity to manufacture the moderator evidence, but so what? It does not follow from this that they did so. Evidence is needed, and not only is that evidence lacking, but a jury at trial decided that the evidence incriminating Bamber was satisfactory and enough to convict him. That is where we are.
It may be true - and I for one suspect this is the case - that Boutflour and Eaton deliberately and intentionally set out to find evidence that would put Jeremy in the frame, but that in and of itself is not illegal or improper. They thought Jeremy had done it and they were determined to find evidence to show he had done it. They did this because they disliked Jeremy and they wanted to stop him inheriting the family's wealth and selling their land. OK, so what? There's nothing illegal in framing somebody if the evidence supports the framing. If the evidence says he did it, then that's what the evidence says. The motives of the framers, even if selfish and unpleasant in their own right, are unimportant.
If the axiom of Bamber's case is going to be a conspiracy to fabricate evidence, then I believe his legal prospects are dead in the water. It's too high a bar to jump, and in my opinion, it is not necessary to prove a conspiracy anyway. The focus should be on what can be proved or demonstrated from the known facts and evidence.
The central weakness in the Crown's case is the lack of forensic evidence directly connecting Bamber to the scene of the crime, and while that in itself is somewhat irrelevant and not a ground for appeal, it does represent an underlying structural and narrative weakness in the Crown's position and does mean that should just one pillar of the Crown's case fall, the whole case against Bamber collapses.
Based on what I have read so far, I believe the line of attack should be on the following points:
(i). The forensic evidence found in the moderator is weak as it is, being inconclusive when considered in isolation. It can be undermined further if it can be shown either that, there is a significant risk of contamination or inaccuracy in the results, or the conclusion derived from the results could be in error, or both.
(ii). The report from the ballistics expert is incomplete and unsatisfactory, and just might be the Achilles heel in the Crown's case. The gunshot wounds and blood splatter patterns to Sheila suggest that she was not shot while standing up or with a moderated rifle. If expert opinion can support this, then it would discredit Fletcher's report conclusively.
I may change my view on those points in the detail or generality, and new points may be added as I learn more, but what matters is the overall message conveyed in this post about focusing on what matters. Either of (i) or (ii) would be enough to quash the conviction, and preferably both avenues should be pursued. No conspiracy is needed.
