QC -V-QT
i). Julie Mugford's evidence cannot be considered reliable because the account she gave of the killings is wrong. It could be that Jeremy is guilty and gave her this account as a way of discrediting her, but we can only deal with the evidence we have. You also have ask why Jeremy would tell her anything. It simply doesn't make sense. Furthermore, large parts of Mugford's behaviour make no rational sense at all. I don't necessarily doubt that Jeremy and Julie had certain conversations, but the bottom line for me is that it is just as plausible that Jeremy was joking with her as it is that he was being serious.
The trial judge warned the jury about the reliability of former Ms Mugord's evidence so unlikely they put much weight on it. The defence had copies of all her witness statements so were able to challenge.
(ii). I believe Julie Mugford misled the court about her dealings with a tabloid newspaper. I simply cannot believe she had not entered into a contract, oral or written, prior to giving evidence.
No knowledge of.
(iii). The jury were also clearly misled on Julie Mugford's criminal record, and although this was a minor point, I believe it was significant and I think the police and prosecution acted intentionally to mislead the court in this respect.
Trial judge warned jury about the reliability of former Ms Mugford's evidence so unlikely they put much weight on it.
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
(iv). Sheila was shot at very different angles, which is apparent when you triangulate it. On the face of it, this establishes Jeremy's guilt, due to the belief that Jeremy adjusted the rifle after realising Sheila was not dead after the first shot. But on further reflection you have to ask how, if Jeremy is guilty, this is consistent with the pathologist's evidence. Dr. Vanezis says Sheila fell back after the second shot. That can't be true if Jeremy did it. Mr Ismail's evidence, which is inconsistent with Dr Vanezis', does not assist on this point and is wrong anyway.
Defence pathologist, Prof Knight, made the point at trial that Sheila's gunshot wounds were the only ones inflicted upwards. What other point, if any, are you endeavouring to make?
(v). The lack of post-mortem rigidity (rigor mortis) in Sheila's body, as confirmed in the witness statement of Ron Cook, who attended the body and moved Sheila's arm.
How does the fact DI Cook lifted Sheila's arm to enable DC Bird to photograph bloodstains indicate a lack of rigidity?
(vi). The apparent lack of lividity (livor mortis) in Sheila's body, as confirmed by the crime scene photographs.
If what your seeing in authentic images is correct, relevant and capable of assisting the defence then how come Prof Knight for the defence overlooked?
(vii). Jeremy must have gone to and from the farmhouse on foot. For a number of reasons, I find it doubtful he could have accomplished this in the time frame assumed. By push bike or car was too risky for somebody who supposedly planned the act, because he could have run into somebody or easily been seen.
Must he? The fact you are doubtful about something means fook all in the grand scheme of things. How do you intend proving how he got there and back?
(viii). There is none of Nevill's blood in the bedroom. I think this is one of the biggest problems for the prosecution. It means that the incident sequence/choreography is thrown all over the place unless you either ignore the lack of Nevill's blood in that position or you switch around the position of the spent cartridges. Otherwise, it makes more sense if Sheila is the killer and the phone call that Jeremy claims he received is consistent with a Sheila choreography. For Jeremy to be the killer, he would have had to shoot Nevill on the main stairs, but that stairway is steep and narrow and it just doesn't seem likely to me.
Prof Knight for the defence at trial told the court there's a delay of a few seconds between wounds producing blood as the blood vessels go into shock and contract. Why wound those at the scene on 7th Aug be moving cartridge cases around? This was all adjudicated on at trial. Ed Lawson QC challenged Macolm Fletcher who confirmed Mr Bamber's upstairs gunshot wounds were all inflicted in the bedroom.
(ix). There is also the question of where Sheila was shot by Jeremy and when and how he managed to subdue her without incurring injuries or leaving Sheila with obvious injuries. The prosecution explain this by trying to say that Sheila was sedated, but we have no evidence that she was sedated. It's also not explained why Sheila would not react if, as the prosecution claim and rest on, a mayhemic and chaotic assault was taking place in the house only yards from where she was sleeping. I don't accept that Jeremy, June and Nevill (if he was upstairs) would have agreed to be silent or extra quiet just so as not to wake up Sheila.
The toxicology report provides detailed info re Sheila's meds found within her blood and liver.
(x). The blood and DNA evidence remains inconclusive:
(a). It has never been established that Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. There is even a possibility is was not human blood at all.
As far as the court at trial was concerned Sheila's blood was in the silencer based on a number of inferences ie Sheila's contact gunshot wounds, paint on silencer. The blood was most definitely human in origin as analysed by Glynnis Howard and John Hayward biologists at FSS.
(b). The jury at trial were misdirected by the judge on the blood evidence.
First appeal was centred on an unfair summing up so redundant.
(c). DNA testing was carried out on the silencer in the 1990s, but the DNA samples were not blood-based, thus the findings cannot be considered probative. Remember that these people lived at this house, or in Sheila's case, stayed there quite often, and the silencer could have been left around, which means there was a possibility of innocent contamination. In any case, the findings were scientifically inconclusive.
The DNA was all meaningless as the silencer was exposed to too much contamination in a pre DNA world.
(xi). I believe at least two silencers were examined by the FSS and recorded as bearing two sets of incriminating evidence.
You believing something means fook all. The resident barrister here has confirmed the lab examined at least 4 identical silencers so your point is?
(xii). I do not believe the scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece of the aga oven could have been made by the silencer while it was attached to the rifle.
So does the prosecution. At least you can agree on something.
(xiii). The rifle pull-through test was completely unscientific and unreliable. The rifle should have been subject to either chemical testing or been dismantled by machinists. But if we accept Fletcher's findings at face value, then we have to believe either that the blood in the silencer has defied the laws of physics or there is some physical argument rooted in tension dynamics that explains the lack of blood in the rifle.
Why would blood be found in the rifle barrel? The silencer contains 15 baffles and blood was only detected as far down as the 8th baffle so why would it skip the the last 7 baffles and end up in the rifle barrel?
(xiv). The chain of custody of the silencer was completely unsatisfactory. First, the police failed to find and/or record and remove the silencer immediately at the scene, despite (they claimed) a thorough search. Then there was a failure to isolate the exhibit itself, and the exhibit was tampered with, and potentially valuable forensic evidence was lost. The officer who took the evidence away was inebriated.
The court heard all about how the silencer was found.
(xv). The distribution of blood in the silencer is consistent with contamination. The relatives had the means, motive and opportunity to contaminate the silencer. That, I stress, is not to say they did contaminate the silencer and I do not make that allegation - nor do I need to, as we only need doubt.
In what way is the distribution of blood in the silencer consistent with contamination. Rivlin sowed the seeds at trial about the relatives contaminating the silencer by asking Mr Boutflour snr and jnr if they had ever had cuts to the fingers when handling. Jury still found Bamber guilty.
(xvi). The fingerprint evidence on the rifle, collected and recorded by Ron Cook, is more consistent with Sheila as the killer. The lack of prints, with only two or three found, means that somebody wiped the rifle. The person who wiped the rifle was the killer. Jeremy had no motive to wipe the rifle, as it was effectively his rifle anyway, so any prints found could not incriminate him. Sheila did have a motive to wipe the rifle, if she had just used it to kill her twins and parents, as she would not want to use it on herself if it had their blood on and/or she may have ritualistically cleaned it.
The lack of fingerprints is entirely consistent with both handling at some time for some reason.
Fingerprints are difficult to capture on certain surfaces firearms being one.
(xvii). Jeremy's behaviour after the incident is often cited as a further reason to suspect him, but these same people also want us to believe Jeremy coldly planned the whole thing. Would a cold-blooded mass murderer conduct himself as Jeremy did? Furthermore, a lot of the behaviours that are seen as suspicious could be interpreted the opposite way. Jeremy was obviously acting at the funeral, but the funeral was being broadcast on the TV in front of millions. What was he supposed to do? Jeremy started hurriedly selling the valuable contents of the farmhouse. Certainly this could be considered tactless and insensitive, but somebody had to attend to the estate and selling the contents is the obvious thing to do and would the expected course of action of an innocent person. A guilty person might have been more cautious.
Did the jury hear about any of this subjective stuff?
(xviii). Jeremy, who is supposed to have planned it all out, answered police questions freely and openly. Wouldn't a cold-blooded inheritance killer who had just committed mass murder have been a bit more reticent and cautious? It should be stressed that there is a right to silence and an innocent person could well remain silent under such circumstances (indeed, that is normally the advice received from lawyers), but Jeremy was taking a big risk as a guilty man answering police questions and giving away all that information. He had already given witness statements. Why not just ask the police to refer back to those?
Just your opinion.
(xix). In my view, the inheritance motive falls down, mainly to do with the legal and practical complexities of the estate. Jeremy was not a lawyer, but as a farmer's son, and having regular conversations with Nevill, he would have been aware of a lot of these issues. I appreciate that a guilty Jeremy would have had in mind getting his hands on family money, but it was not a simple matter of killing his family and then receiving loads of ready cash. He must have known this.
And your point is?
(xx). The police destroyed a lot of evidence immediately at the scene and then later in the mid-1990s, important evidence was destroyed.
What evidence was destroyed pre trial that might have assisted? Court of appeal 2002 took a dim view of exhibits destroyed post trial and were prepared to rule in Bamber's favour as they did to some extent with the DNA evidence.
