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

[guest29835]

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 !

Yes.  For me, it's also the fact that it was never emphasised that the blood was not a precise match.  It was just the same blood group, but the jury were left with the impression that it was a match.  Even now, in retrospect with the DNA findings, anybody who says the blood was definitely Sheila's is just blustering.  The simple fact is that the blood in the silencer cannot be linked to Sheila with a level of certainty required for a criminal conviction.  Once you acknowledge this simple fact, a keystone of the prosecution case looks at least questionable, maybe falls away - depending on the overall view you take of things.

The anti-Jeremy camp will say that you have to consider everything in the round and the blood findings alongside Julie's evidence and the forensic findings from Sheila's body and clothing all point to Jeremy.  In other circumstances, I might have been persuaded by this sort of 'connect-the-dots' argument and accepted that 97% is enough, but in this case the police did not find the silencer, despite searching the property.  The relatives handled it and admitted that they tampered with it, and the relatives strongly disliked Jeremy and are emotionally- and financially-vested in Jeremy's convictions.  When you consider this and also consider the simple fact that the blood found in the silencer need not have come from Sheila and it has not been proved that it did, and then you consider the inconclusiveness of the later DNA findings, it's just not quite good enough, I'm afraid.

If you add 97 to 97 to 97 to 97, you still end up with 97% of 400.  The result is a picture that makes Jeremy look very guilty indeed, but that doesn't quite meet the bar to justify his conviction and incarceration.

[lookout]

Was it right though that the jury were told that the blood belonged to Sheila when initially it had been said that the findings of it had been inconclusive as to whose blood it was ? I'd have concluded that it was contaminated after having changed hands and with so much blood inside the property, a mixture of June's and Nevill's too, besides the remains of rabbit's blood for which it was originally used for.
Was the blood of Sheila just tested from the silencer or taken from a vein, because I've always had a problem with the AK1 being in the grouping ?

[Adam]

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.

You do like to write a lot about not very much.

The verdict was 10-2.

The jury knew about Julie's minor cheque book fraud. It was Sheila's blood. Even David agrees.

Both Julie & Bamber would have signed their NOTW deals at the right time. As advised by their lawyers.

The jury were well aware the relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.

The defence & Jeremy did all they could to paint Sheila as a possible killer.

Pharmacological evidence?

Have you got a source for 7?

[guest29835]

You do like to write a lot about not very much.

Well you're the expert in that field.

The verdict was 10-2.

You'll see I mention that above.  Is there a reason you need to tell us again?

The jury knew about Julie's minor cheque book fraud.

They were misled about her criminal record.

It was Sheila's blood. Even David agrees.

We don't know it was Sheila's blood.  That was not established.  The fact you refuse to see this just underscores my point that everybody is misled about it.  It's all just bluster and arrogance.

Both Julie & Bamber would have signed their NOTW deals at the right time. As advised by their lawyers.

Thanks Adam.  You may not realise this, but a witness in a case must not act under such a conflict of interest without informing the court.  The only exception to this is the defendant/accused, who can sign deals with whomever he likes and when he likes, as there is no conflict in that case.

It's interesting how the defenders of Julie, like you, minimise all of her wrongful and criminal court.  She misled the court.  She committed cheque book fraud.  She helped Jeremy in the theft from the caravan park.  But it was all Jeremy's fault. 

The jury were well aware the relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.

No they were not.  You are being sneaky and dishonest.  They were misled about the extent to which a witness would benefit.  As I have explained above, his response to the jury's question must have been coached, and the jury would hardly have asked the question if they had been put in the picture.

The defence & Jeremy did all they could to paint Sheila as a possible killer.

Given that Jeremy is saying Sheila was the killer, that is hardly surprising.

Pharmacological evidence?

?  Do you have a dictionary in your possession?

Have you got a source for 7?

Powell and/or Carol Ann Lee.  One of the authors.  Can't remember which one.

[Adam]

Well you're the expert in that field.

You'll see I mention that above.  Is there a reason you need to tell us again?

They were misled about her criminal record.

We don't know it was Sheila's blood.  That was not established.  The fact you refuse to see this just underscores my point that everybody is misled about it.  It's all just bluster and arrogance.

Thanks Adam.  You may not realise this, but a witness in a case must not act under such a conflict of interest without informing the court.  The only exception to this is the defendant/accused, who can sign deals with whomever he likes and when he likes, as there is no conflict in that case.

It's interesting how the defenders of Julie, like you, minimise all of her wrongful and criminal court.  She misled the court.  She committed cheque book fraud.  She helped Jeremy in the theft from the caravan park.  But it was all Jeremy's fault. 

No they were not.  You are being sneaky and dishonest.  They were misled about the extent to which a witness would benefit.  As I have explained above, his response to the jury's question must have been coached, and the jury would hardly have asked the question if they had been put in the picture.

Given that Jeremy is saying Sheila was the killer, that is hardly surprising.

?  Do you have a dictionary in your possession?

Powell and/or Carol Ann Lee.  One of the authors.  Can't remember which one.

You said 3.

How were the jury misled? Why does it matter? The judge said both had committed previous crimes but that does not mean they lied in this trial.

It was human blood. Who else received contact shots in a location of high blood flow? The court evidence was it was Sheila's. With a remote chance of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.

The defence would have asked if she had signed a NOTW deal. She would say 'no'. She hadn't.

It's up to the defence to expose how the relatives would benefit. They had Bamber to advise them. The relatives couldn't deny documentation. The defence could always use Basil Cock.

[guest29835]

You said 3.

 I said it is likely there were at least 3 jurors and 2 held out to the end. 

How were the jury misled? Why does it matter?

I've already explained in my post how they were misled.  You may not think it matters, but the CCRC, the entire judiciary, the legal profession and - I would hope - most ordinary people would disagree with you and would say that it matters greatly if a jury is misled about significant matters.

The judge said both had committed previous crimes but that does not mean they lied in this trial.

I explained to you in a previous thread, months ago, why this particular point matters when you made the same remarks.  I don't want to explain it again.  It's tiresome.

It was human blood. Who else received contact shots in a location of high blood flow? The court evidence was it was Sheila's. With a remote chance of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.

You're missing the point.  The court could not be sure it was Sheila's and still cannot be sure.    In view of the chain of custody of the evidence, I see reasonable doubt.

The defence would have asked if she had signed a NOTW deal. She would say 'no'. She hadn't.

She had.  NG1066 says so and I believe him on this point.  Furthermore, contracts can be oral.  An oral agreement would be enough if the question was put to her.

It's up to the defence to expose how the relatives would benefit. They had Bamber to advise them. The relatives couldn't deny documentation. The defence could always use Basil Cock.

I accept this point.  I do not know why Jeremy's lawyers didn't challenge the reply provided by Robert Boutflour.  They must have been aware of the question put and his response.

[Adam]

I said it is likely there were at least 3 jurors and 2 held out to the end. 

I've already explained in my post how they were misled.  You may not think it matters, but the CCRC, the entire judiciary, the legal profession and - I would hope - most ordinary people would disagree with you and would say that it matters greatly if a jury is misled about significant matters.

I explained to you in a previous thread, months ago, why this particular point matters when you made the same remarks.  I don't want to explain it again.  It's tiresome.

You're missing the point.  The court could not be sure it was Sheila's and still cannot be sure.    In view of the chain of custody of the evidence, I see reasonable doubt.

She had.  NG1066 says so and I believe him on this point.  Furthermore, contracts can be oral.  An oral agreement would be enough if the question was put to her.

I accept this point.  I do not know why Jeremy's lawyers didn't challenge the reply provided by Robert Boutflour.  They must have been aware of the question put and his response.

The last point does undermine a long term argument of supporters.

Bamber met Basil Cock two days after the massacre & probably more times. So would be aware how the relatives would benefit if he was convicted.

If Bamber was unsure, the defence can ask Basil Cock.

Either way the jury would know the next of kin/relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.

[guest29835]

The last point does undermine a long term argument of supporters.

Bamber met Basil Cock two days after the massacre & probably more times. So would be aware how the relatives would benefit if he was convicted.

If Bamber was unsure, the defence can ask Basil Cock.

Either way the jury would know the next of kin/relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.

Thanks Adam.  At this rate, I'll be PM'ing you soon for moral support.

[Adam]

Would like to see RB's trial transcript.

Don't know how he could say he would not benefit if Bamber was convicted. If he did, the defence should have been able to slaughter him.

Maybe it's another long term myth.

Thanks QC.

[guest29835]

Would like to see RB's trial transcript.

Don't know how he could say he would not benefit if Bamber was convicted. If he did, the defence should have been able to slaughter him.

Maybe it's another long term myth.

Thanks QC.

It's not a myth.  I've seen the jury's note and the note he wrote in response.

Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

It's not a myth.  I've seen the jury's note and the note he wrote in response.

Thanks Adam.

Someone needs to post the section.

[guest29835]

Someone needs to post the section.

It's on the Forum already.

Thanks Adam.

[David1819]

It's on the Forum already.

Thanks Adam.

You would have thought with the amount of time Adam spends on this forum, he would know the case very well yet the opposite is the case.

Mike has uploaded some 20,000 pages of case evidence and Adam has bothered to read none of it.

[Adam]

It's on the Forum already.

Thanks Adam.

Don't lie or post it.

Thanks QC.

[guest29835]

Don't lie or post it.

Thanks QC.

I don't mind being accused of lying if I am telling an untruth.  It's then for me to explain myself.  But to accuse me of lying when you have no basis for doing so is abuse and a clearly a breach of the Forum Rules.

As David has pointed out to you, countless documents have been uploaded by Mike to this Forum, including the documents I have just mentioned.  You don't know about them because you have no genuine interest in them.  It's obvious that you are someone close to the case and you are here to bang a drum.