The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer

[guest29835]

Sorry QC just got back from my friends watching the latest MM documentary. Jeremy told me himself that Anne really really liked him but he was never interested (they were obviously not real cousins) so as well as the friction over land I think Ann had a personal grudge over that. She seemed very obsessive from what he told me and made a fool of herself.

Well I would have boned her.

Sorry Steve, but I would. 

[JackieD]

He wasn't.

I say that as somebody who leans towards 'guilty'.  Unlike you, I don't tell lies about him.

Apart from doubts about the evidence itself, one reason I am not willing to go all out and declare him guilty is because of people like you.  You actually harm your own cause.

I think you are a stranger to the truth.  I don't believe you have even the remotest sense of truth, justice or objectivity.  Your approach is emotional and judgemental.  Your idea of truth and justice is whatever suits your feelings about whatever matter is under discussion. 

Jeremy is evil, greedy, he wanted a Porsche, blah, blah, blah.....You got it all from that Michael Winner drama, or was it that risible book by Carol Ann Lee?

I say again: Your purpose here is to deter and divert inquiry into the case, disrupt threads and ruin the forum.  I see through people, you've shown your hand, and it's obvious.  I'm surprised you're still here.  I can only think that Jeremy's supporters have a very broad and generous idea of free speech.  Personally, I wouldn't allow somebody in my house who had declared his intention to burn it down.  I certainly wouldn't be inviting him in for a chat on the sofa.

I don’t believe Jeremy was intelligent enough to even plan this murder, I definitely don’t think he hated his parents enough to carry out these murders and I definitely don’t think he had the guts or stomach to carry out the murders and he has hardly ever (I think once or maybe twice) been involved in anything violent in prison. He certainly wasn’t bought up with violence
Obviously all my thought

[JackieD]

You have me laughing now.  No chance of me impersonating your posts then

[gringo]

A starting-point for researchers should be the wills and probate documents and information from the Land Registry and Companies House - all of which are public documents and disclose objective factual information. 

The Bamber and Speakman wills were probated, so are available for public viewing.  Some knowledge of company law, land law, charity law and agricultural tenancies and how they work would be required (which I have).

Then you have to consider the flow of information.

The intentions of June and Nevill were probably communicated to Pam Boutflour, who would have leaked the information to the other relatives through gossip and private discussions and what not.

Additionally, Barbara Wilson was indiscreet - a sort of petty slanderer and gossip-mongerer.

Mabel Speakman's intentions were known.

Immediately following the deaths, the relatives must have known that Jeremy would likely inherit the estate, including the fief, freeholds and tenancies of other lands and farms, shares in two limited companies and property, various valuable chattels, and so forth.

Why specifically would that harm them?  And if they knew this was coming anyway, because Jeremy was the son, then why weren't they steeled for it?

What specific allegations did the relatives make about Jeremy's intentions for the estate?  How did Jeremy communicate these intentions to them?

The point about vital interests is that there is a distinction to make.

It's one thing to say Jeremy would have caused them heartache, trouble and aggravation: he was acting insensitively and giving away family heirlooms, or he was going to sell his shares in the caravan park to a mysterious Russian with a clipped Hampshire brogue, or he was a bit of a woofter and prancing around in women's clothes, or he was saying how he was going to give up the family farming tradition and sell out for a smallholding on the South Island of New Zealand, or whatever. 

None of these things could drive the family to malevolence on the level you posit. 

But it's another thing entirely to say that Jeremy threatened them vitally, i.e. in some way fundamentally. 

Here's what I consider examples of intérêts vitaux under threat that may lead to a slide into corruption and dishonesty on the part of the relatives:

Jeremy's inheritance threatened them with bankruptcy/insolvency and effective homelessness.

Jeremy was going to throw them off their land and had clearly expressed his intention to do so.

Nevill's estate was owed a substantial amount of money - a life-changing amount - by the relatives and Jeremy had indicated he would enforce the debt and wanted repayment of the principal, and he had a loan agreement and security/lien to support this threat.

Before I leave you with this, let's go back to things that might have annoyed or troubled the relatives.  I've said that such a thing would not lead them to intentionally frame Jeremy for murder without regard for his guilt or innocence, but it might however lead them down a road to find evidence that backs up their suspicions that he is the murderer.  For instance, let's say Ann is heartbroken that Jeremy intends to sell Vaulty Manor and he goads her about it.  Ann would not on this basis intentionally frame Jeremy for murder, but it might make her more determined to find evidence that he is a murderer - if you see the distinction - and it might also make her blind to countervailing facts, views and opinions that point to Jeremy's innocence.

   My own reading of the relatives is that they were consumed by hatred and jealousy of Jeremy. This is obviously a subjective opinion but their behaviour and attitude towards heirlooms, from their own statements, comes across not as good faith concern but rather selfish self interest.
     Whether this would be enough to cause them to frame him knowing him to be innocent is unknowable but it cannot be assumed that one or more wouldn't.
     As to the point that you make that Ann may have hardened her determination to find evidence proving him the murderer, this is a reasonable scenario. Once someone wants to believe something then yes, they can and do become blind to contrary evidence.
     Mark Twain sums this up as he does most things;
    "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled"

[Steve_uk]

Just ignore PC Lay's witness statement of 1 October 1985, just ignore Julie's witness statement of 8 September 1985 and her trial testimony, just ignore Michael Fielder, Colin Caffell, James Richards: dismiss it all as lies, and have Jeremy Bamber telling the unvarnished truth..

[Steve_uk]

He wasn't.

I say that as somebody who leans towards 'guilty'.  Unlike you, I don't tell lies about him.

Apart from doubts about the evidence itself, one reason I am not willing to go all out and declare him guilty is because of people like you.  You actually harm your own cause.

I think you are a stranger to the truth.  I don't believe you have even the remotest sense of truth, justice or objectivity.  Your approach is emotional and judgemental.  Your idea of truth and justice is whatever suits your feelings about whatever matter is under discussion. 

Jeremy is evil, greedy, he wanted a Porsche, blah, blah, blah.....You got it all from that Michael Winner drama, or was it that risible book by Carol Ann Lee?

I say again: Your purpose here is to deter and divert inquiry into the case, disrupt threads and ruin the forum. I see through people, you've shown your hand, and it's obvious.  I'm surprised you're still here.  I can only think that Jeremy's supporters have a very broad and generous idea of free speech.  Personally, I wouldn't allow somebody in my house who had declared his intention to burn it down.  I certainly wouldn't be inviting him in for a chat on the sofa.

I'll let others judge for themselves, not some Johnny-come-lately, however erudite.

[guest29835]

   My own reading of the relatives is that they were consumed by hatred and jealousy of Jeremy. This is obviously a subjective opinion but their behaviour and attitude towards heirlooms, from their own statements, comes across not as good faith concern but rather selfish self interest.
     Whether this would be enough to cause them to frame him knowing him to be innocent is unknowable but it cannot be assumed that one or more wouldn't.
     As to the point that you make that Ann may have hardened her determination to find evidence proving him the murderer, this is a reasonable scenario. Once someone wants to believe something then yes, they can and do become blind to contrary evidence.
     Mark Twain sums this up as he does most things;
    "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled"

Exactly.  This also happens with police officers.  They're only human.  It's just human nature.  The system is supposed to contain checks and balances to filter this out, but sometimes that fails: hence what we call 'miscarriages of justice'.  The system is human and sometimes justice miscarriages due to mistakes and prejudices.  I wonder if that is what has happened here?  I also wonder if the relatives went one step further and, genuinely thinking Jeremy was guilty and worried about police incompetence, they introduced fabricated evidence? 

I very much doubt they would have done it malevolently, even if they hated him.  For that to happen, there would have to be either a vital interest or some specific incident in the past between David Boutflour and Jeremy.  That's because David Boutflour is the one who found the silencer, it is claimed, so even if it was a group effort, he would be central to it as he's the one with his neck on the line.

Now, that's given me a thought.  Since Aunt Agatha knows all about the 'dangerous liaisons' going on at these farms, she may be able to help.

Was the relationship between David Boutflour and Sheila something more than Platonic?

Is it possible that David Boutflour harboured unrequited romantic feelings and sexual ideations viz. Sheila?

Is it possible that this inner psychological complex clouded David Boutflour's judgement, and consciously or unconsciously, he set about 'proving' that Jeremy was the murderer, to the extent that he 'introduced' some key evidence of his own?

Thoughts?

[Steve_uk]

David Boutflour and Sheila Bamber attended a few Farmers Dances together but that had been ten years previously, before she married Colin and before she became ill. Sheila only ever really loved one man, but the nature of her illness meant that she had pushed him away and the marriage irretrievably broke down.

[Steve_uk]

They told the police it was involved in the shootings. They knew there was blood and paint from the mantle shelf prior to the lab confirming that was the case.

It was no mistake.

I agree David. I could embellish but will not.

[guest29835]

I'll let others judge for themselves, not some Johnny-come-lately, however erudite.

Erudite, eh?  That's high praise from you Julie, I mean, Steve. 

[gringo]

I'll let others judge for themselves, not some Johnny-come-lately, however erudite.

   You bring it on yourself and got what you deserved. If you were enjoying the thread then why did you enter it only to derail with a personal attack. You have a tendency to attack posters and make ridiculous assumptions about them as soon as you find yourself out of your depth in the actual debate. You have made idiotic and wrong comments towards me previously as well as other posters.
     Using your legendary powers of deduction you managed to assume that I was some 20 year old loner in a basement rather than a 56 year old husband and father of four girls and grandfather of four, who I can assure you is not some lonely social inadequate as you assumed. Maybe that is your projection that Chevalier referenced.
    Based on your previous, I have already judged for myself and Chevalier is entirely correct and pretty amusing in very eloquently tearing you a new one.

[Steve_uk]

   You bring it on yourself and got what you deserved. If you were enjoying the thread then why did you enter it only to derail with a personal attack. You have a tendency to attack posters and make ridiculous assumptions about them as soon as you find yourself out of your depth in the actual debate. You have made idiotic and wrong comments towards me previously as well as other posters.
     Using your legendary powers of deduction you managed to assume that I was some 20 year old loner in a basement rather than a 56 year old husband and father of four girls and grandfather of four, who I can assure you is not some lonely social inadequate as you assumed. Maybe that is your projection that Chevalier referenced.
    Based on your previous, I have already judged for myself and Chevalier is entirely correct and pretty amusing in very eloquently tearing you a new one.

Because it was vulgar. I said that you hadn't contributed much. Maybe I was wrong. In my view the Jeremy supporters are wrong, but I do try not to make personal attacks.

[guest29835]

I don’t believe Jeremy was intelligent enough to even plan this murder, I definitely don’t think he hated his parents enough to carry out these murders and I definitely don’t think he had the guts or stomach to carry out the murders and he has hardly ever (I think once or maybe twice) been involved in anything violent in prison. He certainly wasn’t bought up with violence
Obviously all my thought

Well you know him better than any of us, and if a man says he is innocent, then he needs people to speak for him. 

I really don't know.  There are questions I would like to ask him. 

I'd like to ask him:

Did you kill those two innocent little boys, your nephews, as they slept in their beds? 

Did you kill your father, Nevill, who gave you everything and offered you a future? 

Did you kill June, your mother, who chose you and took you in as her own son, and who wrote a note saying how much she loved you? 

Did you kill your sister, Sheila? 

I'd like to look him in the eyes when I ask him.

I think at the trial his barrister should have asked him those questions over and over again until he broke down.

But he may not have because he realised that Jeremy's heart was not in the family.  He was an adopted son, he didn't share the genetics of his immediate and extended families, he didn't fit, and he knew it. 

That does not mean Jeremy is guilty, though.

[guest29835]

Because it was vulgar.

If you are referring again to me, my quip was just humour, vulgar or not.  Vulgarity can be funny.  What's wrong with being funny and making people laugh?

Can't we lighten the mood with some humour once in a while?  It's normal and natural for people to do this.

Inappropriate humour is anyway a typical English trait.  If I want to add a bit of black humour, I will, and humour isn't humorous unless it's offensive to somebody. 

The problem is that you're not normal, Steve.  You're a bossy pompous Puritan who wants to tell other people what they should post on here out of some weird notion that you are a moral policeman. 

This, I believe, comes from your background in teaching.  It's a common thing among teachers and ex-teachers.  You have spent your life talking down to people half your height and this transfers into your dealings generally.  You forget that we're adults, and I for one don't appreciate your attitude.  If, however, the moderators agree with you, then it's their prerogative, and by all means I will cease posting.

In any case, you yourself have indulged in humour on here many, many times and made far worse comments.  Would you like me to quote some of your comments from the past? It could be embarrassing, as it would reveal what a sanctimonious bullying hypocrite you are.

Sorry, you are a pestilential irritation and I really should ignore you, but I must defend myself.

[guest29835]

Just ignore PC Lay's witness statement of 1 October 1985, just ignore Julie's witness statement of 8 September 1985 and her trial testimony, just ignore Michael Fielder, Colin Caffell, James Richards: dismiss it all as lies, and have Jeremy Bamber telling the unvarnished truth..

I have not seen a witness statement from PC Lay, only a typed incident log.  Perhaps you could link us to it or provide it, along with the statement of the person you referred to in the other thread who gave an account of Sheila?  Let's be fair about this: you are claiming to have read these statements because you draw from them, so let us see them please.

What specifically did Julie Mugford's evidence actually prove?  Just for the sake of argument, let's say that everything Julie Mugford said at trial was true.  Does it prove that Jeremy was the killer?  There isn't a transcript available currently, but as I understand it, the only confession she reported was false in that it was shown that Matthew MacDonald could not have carried out the shootings and this was accepted by the prosecution.  Jeremy of course, variously, refuted and denied her evidence, but could that be because he had said those things as a joke or to sexually-excite Julie, or on account of some other similar flippancy, and Julie had misconstrued him?    He therefore decided that he was left with no alternative but to lie, which if so was unwise, but that does not make him guilty.  The question remains: What, if anything, did her evidence prove?

Turning to Michael Fielder, he did not give evidence.  We could stop there, but I'll continue and say he was a proven liar.  Not just in the sense that Julie was a liar, in that she was going through a phase in her life and was immature and had difficulties - something that can be understood - rather Mr Fielder was a mature man who lied and sensationalised things by trade, as a tabloid journalist.  This is well proved.  His word cannot be relied on and is worthless in any law-governed criminal trial.  Indeed, his word on any subject, including the price of chips, is absolutely valueless.  I would add, most sincerely, that I think he was a horrible man and I am glad he is dead - and I suspect lots and lots of people will join me in that sentiment.

As for Colin Caffell, a similar observation applies as with Julie Mugford.  What does his evidence prove in regard to the shootings?  Again, we don't have the transcript, but even if we accept everything he is thought to have said, it still leaves open the possibility that Sheila could have been the killer.  That's not to say his evidence was worthless.  Obviously the Crown have a right to a fair trial as well, and clearly Colin's evidence was of relevance because he knew her intimately - I have no dispute with that.

James Richards' evidence is next-to-worthless.  Virtually every single person reading this has at one point held a lucid thought of hatred against their own parents, and very many people have said it.  It's normal to hate your parents at times.  You can't seriously propose that people should be sent to prison on such evidence?  Oh wait, you do think that.  That being the case, there's really nothing that anybody can say to you.  You're just biased beyond all reason.  You have no sense of fairness.  You are unjust.  It is to be hoped that you never serve on a jury.