The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[Roch]

This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.

That is exactly what David needs to prove.  I am pleased to say I agree.

As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.

And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.

Getting back to the trivial distraction of individually held case stances.. Are you still about 80-20 in favour of guilt? Or have you edged to 60-40?

[guest29835]

Getting back to the trivial distraction of individually held case stances.. Are you still about 80-20 in favour of guilt? Or have you edged to 60-40?

I am above 90% but below 99%.  I think I have listed my 10 reasons why I think he is likely guilty, but I have also said that I do not believe he should have been convicted, as there is reasonable doubt.

The way I see the percentages working is:

100% - Probably impossible to reach.  Even if somebody is caught red-handed, you do not know for sure their state of mind.  100% is a philosophically-unattainable standard.  That's why we say 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond doubt'.

99% - Beyond reasonable doubt/sure.  To me, this is what is meant by saying you are 'sure' about something in a realistic sense.

Anything less than 99% is normally acquittal.  The remaining 1% is residual/minor doubt that arises in virtually all cases.

98% normally must mean acquittal because as soon as you start to allow doubt to creep in to a conviction, it looks unsafe.  Yet there is probably no definite identifiable red line when a conviction actually becomes unsafe, and maybe sometimes 98% is enough to convict. But it is a slippery slope because if you accept doubt about one thing and convict anyway then why not overlook doubt about something else?  Percentages are an arbitrary representation of something that can't be reliably defined for all cases.

[lookout]

Well we know it wasn't a unanimous verdict, nor was it beyond reasonable doubt which for the type of crime that was carried out does leave questions unanswered.

[Roch]

I am above 90% but below 99%.  I think I have listed my 10 reasons why I think he is likely guilty, but I have also said that I do not believe he should have been convicted, as there is reasonable doubt.

The way I see the percentages working is:

100% - Probably impossible to reach.  Even if somebody is caught red-handed, you do not know for sure their state of mind.  100% is a philosophically-unattainable standard.  That's why we say 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond doubt'.

99% - Beyond reasonable doubt/sure.  To me, this is what is meant by saying you are 'sure' about something in a realistic sense.

Anything less than 99% is normally acquittal.  The remaining 1% is residual/minor doubt that arises in virtually all cases.

98% normally must mean acquittal because as soon as you start to allow doubt to creep in to a conviction, it looks unsafe.  Yet there is probably no definite identifiable red line when a conviction actually becomes unsafe, and maybe sometimes 98% is enough to convict. But it is a slippery slope because if you accept doubt about one thing and convict anyway then why not overlook doubt about something else?  Percentages are an arbitrary representation of something that can't be reliably defined for all cases.

It always amazes me when I read this from you, as your posting record seems to indicate differently.  You seem more inclined to empathise with us lot in the innocence camp. More often than not, your posts seem to undermine the guilter cause.

[guest29835]

Well we know it wasn't a unanimous verdict, nor was it beyond reasonable doubt which for the type of crime that was carried out does leave questions unanswered.

This is a very important point. We must remember that it was not a unanimous verdict.  Two jurors who heard the case throughout found reasonable doubt.  In the past, he would have walked (and I think he should have done).

[David1819]

Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript

In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.

In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.

The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.

Here is the relevant letter. Page 3

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6295.msg277947.html#msg277947

[JackieD]

This is a very important point. We must remember that it was not a unanimous verdict.  Two jurors who heard the case throughout found reasonable doubt.  In the past, he would have walked (and I think he should have done).

What a ridiculous post
You are almost sure Jeremy carried out the murders but you think he should have walked ??

[guest29835]

What a ridiculous post
You are almost sure Jeremy carried out the murders but you think he should have walked ??

Do you understand how the legal system works? Are you familiar with the burden of proof and presumption of innocence?

[JackieD]

Do you understand how the legal system works? Are you familiar with the burden of proof and presumption of innocence?

Just to make my position crystal clear incase you haven’t grasped it yet. I believe Jeremy is innocent and I would not have wanted him to walk anywhere if I thought he had murdered his Mother, Father, Sister or two children

In all your long detailed posts you haven’t shown any clear proof that Jeremy is guilty considering your at 99%

[guest29835]

Just to make my position crystal clear incase you haven’t grasped it yet. I believe Jeremy is innocent and I would not have wanted him to walk anywhere if I thought he had murdered his Mother, Father, Sister or two children

In all your long detailed posts you haven’t shown any clear proof that Jeremy is guilty considering your at 99%

I don't follow how this relates to what I have just said.  You are entitled to take your own view, but I don't have to agree with everything you say or adopt your way of looking at things.

If a juror isn't sure, then he must vote to acquit.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused actually did it.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is an absolute bastard.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is very dangerous to the community.  The jury has one job only.

That's the standard I am applying - i.e. the standard applied by the courts.  It seems reasonable to me because this approach to things is the basis of all objective/neutral inquiry anyway.  To my mind, your last two posts underline very clearly one of the flaws in the jury system, which is that the vast majority of people simply don't understand the burden of proof.  Like you, most people think that what they think about a case counts or is important in some way.  It doesn't.  What counts is the evidence.  A jury is supposed to put aside their own views, feelings and prejudices and just look at the evidence they have heard and make a decision.

This is why we had the unanimity rule for juries.  The idea is that in every group of 12 or so people, you have an intelligent one or two people.  That intelligent minority - i.e  people like me - could block the mob majority and ensure that cases that didn't reach the standard of proof were thrown out.  This was one of the protections against wrongful convictions.  When two jurors in the Bamber case maintained their Not Guilty vote, Jeremy should have been acquitted on that basis alone.

My decision, so far as I am able 35 years later, is Not Guilty, because the evidence isn't quite enough.  He may be a very dangerous person who killed five people in their own homes with a semi-automatic rifle.  I'm still saying Not Guilty, because the evidence doesn't reach the bar that entitles me to convict him.

[JackieD]

Your saying 99% Jeremy didn’t walk did he and didn’t have the chance of a fair trial because as everyone knows thousands of documents were withheld from the jury not allowing them to come up with a fair decision.
Just the signing of the NOTW deal before trial would have been a major factor in the decision by all jurors and obviously the withholding of positive character references.
I will stick to my 99% based on all the information I have read and all the people I have spoken to who knew him growing up.

[Adam]

For me 90% would be enough to vote guilty.

Optimistic to expect 99% when 50% of the time there are highly skilled defence lawyers disputing everything and bringing up there own evidence & witnesses. The defendent has also pleaded 'not guilty'.

Obviously the Bamber case is 99.9%. Doubtful there is a case with so much incriminating evidence where the defendent has pleaded 'not guilty'. The 0.1% is due to the one in a million chance there was an industrial frame.

[guest29835]

For me 90% would be enough to vote guilty.

Optimistic to expect 99% when 50% of the time there are highly skilled defence lawyers disputing everything and bringing up there own evidence & witnesses. The defendent has also pleaded 'not guilty'.

The evidence is either strong enough or it isn't.  If it is, then the jury are entitled to convict.  If it isn't, then the defendant is Not Guilty.  That, in a nutshell, is the system we have. 

My use of percentages is easy to mock, but as I've made clear already, it's just an arbitrary way of putting across the relevant concepts.  We could say 90%, if it makes you feel better, but the point is that the remaining 10% must represent residual or trivial doubt only.  That's why I prefer the 99%/1% way of explaining it.

If in everyday conversation you say to somebody: "I'm 99% sure", then that's taken to mean you are sure and that any doubt you may harbour is of a trivial sort.  That, in simple of terms, sums up the burden of proof, and that's what I am trying to get across.

Obviously the Bamber case is 99.9%. Doubtful there is a case with so much incriminating evidence where the defendent has pleaded 'not guilty'. The 0.1% is due to the one in a million chance there was an industrial frame.

It seems to me this is just your opinion.  The accused is entitled to plead Not Guilty, or enter no plea at all, and remain silent throughout proceedings.  It is for the Crown to prove their case.  If the Crown present a case to answer, then some of the onus shifts to the defendant, who then has to come up with explanations in response.  But the point is that the overall burden always remains with the prosecution.

Two of the jurors who heard the case in 1986 voted Not Guilty.  Was it just that they were impressed with the stylish suits Jeremy was wearing for court?

The whole point of the unanimity rule that existed until the 1960s was that criminal defendants were protected from a mob mentality that could take hold on juries, where a few strong, bullying personalities could say, "Look, you heard Adam, the expert witness, go through the 97 pieces of evidence.  It's 99.9999% that he's guilty.  What more do you want?  Just say Guilty so we can all go home.  I want to see my family...", etc., etc. 

The system under the unanimity rule allowed for an intelligent minority to block people like this and say, "Wait, let's think about this a bit more carefully..." and "What about this....", etc..  Ultimately, the intelligent/sceptical one or two jurors could block the majority.  This was an essential protection against miscarriages of justice.

I don't expect you or anybody else on here to listen to what I am saying - it is just the way of the world that most people are mob-minded - but there it is.

[guest29835]

Your saying 99% Jeremy didn’t walk did he and didn’t have the chance of a fair trial because as everyone knows thousands of documents were withheld from the jury not allowing them to come up with a fair decision.
Just the signing of the NOTW deal before trial would have been a major factor in the decision by all jurors and obviously the withholding of positive character references.
I will stick to my 99% based on all the information I have read and all the people I have spoken to who knew him growing up.

Jeremy didn't walk because it would appear the jury made a mistake.  Of course, none of us were there to hear what the jury heard, and we must always take that into account and be humble in our criticisms of the jury.  Yet at the same time the following points are inescapable:

1. At least three of jury dissented, and two of them stuck to their Not Guilty vote to the bitter end.  This fact alone shakes my confidence in the prosecution case.  Until the 1960s, the unanimity rule would have protected Jeremy in these circumstances and there would either have been a hung jury and a re-trial (with a greatly morally-weakened prosecution) or Jeremy would have been discharged altogether.  We could argue that we don't know what effect the maintenance of the unanimity protection would have had on a jury's decision in any particular case, but given the issues with the evidence, it must be considered likely that it would have favoured Jeremy, and once three or four jurors express scepticism under protection of law, then other jurors probably would have spoken up too, and he could well have been acquitted altogether.

2. The jury were misdirected by the trial judge on the blood evidence and Julie Mugford's criminal history.

3. Julie Mugford misled the court about her dealings with the press.

4. The response of Robert Boutflour to the jury's question was misleading in that he answered the question over-literally, omitting a crucial fact that his family would benefit from the estate.  If you stop to reflect on this: a normal honest person naive about the law would have answered the question expansively with something like, "Not me, but my wife...", etc.  Robert answered it more in the way a lawyer might.  Clearly he must have taken advice on his answer before giving it, which means there was collusion over the answer he should provide to the jury. 

5. The significance of Sheila Caffell's psychiatric history was not completely disclosed to the jury.  The evidence from Sheila's psychiatrist did not cover all bases (though in fairness, this was not the fault of Dr Ferguson - to the contrary, it was Dr Ferguson himself who raised the issue after the trial). The only caveat to this point is that reliance is placed in this regard on Jeremy's assertion that fostering of the children was discussed immediately prior to the tragedy.

6. The pharmacological evidence was incomplete or misleading.  As far as I am aware, no expert clinical pharmacological evidence was heard.

7. One juror admitted to an Essex newspaper reporter that the jury didn't know what to make of it all after they were sent out and, had it not been for the second direction from the trial judge, which was a misdirection, Jeremy (quote) "would have walked". 

8. Overall, reasonable doubt arises in the evidence, for a number of reasons I won't expand on here.  Anybody who is honest and looks at this case properly can see that.

[lookout]

I wonder if it was ever stressed / repeated to the jury about the type of blood that Sheila had ? This in itself would have swayed the jury into giving the verdict that they did----silencer and blood----but they were never told that RWB had also tested for exactly the same blood type !