Jeremy is given the opportunity to accuse Robert Boutlour of lying in order to get the inheritance and his response is curiously half-hearted "I can only surmise reasons ...."
I have always though his half-hearted response was very strange. What do people think?
From the appeal ruling:
Ground 10 – the question of inheritance
Ground 10 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose that Robert Boutflour, the appellant's uncle, who gave evidence for the prosecution, whilst having no direct interest in the Bamber estate was aware that if the Appellant inherited, he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been a part of Robert Boutflour's wife's family's estate.
June Bamber's sister, Pamela, was married to Robert Boutflour. He gave evidence that in about March 1985 the appellant had made a remark "Oh Uncle Bobby, I could kill anybody. I could easily kill my parents." This allegation was categorically denied by the appellant, and when he was in the witness box and under cross-examination he was asked by Mr Arlidge QC whether he knew of any reason that Mr Boutflour might have for making such an untrue allegation. The appellant's reply was (transcript PMS/15 page 54):
"I can only surmise reasons. I don't know any specifics, but I can only surmise reasons, and I think it is very dangerous to do so."
On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies?
Could it be his uncle and family?
A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
As a result of this question, a statement was taken from Mr Boutflour dealing with his understanding of the legal position. This was to the effect that on the assumption that the five deceased persons died in order of seniority he personally would have had no claim on the estate and would not have benefited in any way. However, Mr Lawson, QC, no doubt having carried out the necessary research, produced an agreed note for the jury which is acknowledged before us as being an accurate statement of the law. This can also be summarised to the effect that if the deceased died in order of seniority (presumed in the absence of contrary evidence) or if Sheila was found to have survived her parents then, subject only to any specific legacies in any wills (as to which no-one had any information) the Bamber estates would pass to June Bamber's and Pamela Boutflour's mother, Mabel Speakman. At the relevant time Mrs Speakman was a very old lady and died shortly thereafter. Accordingly and subject to any specific bequests, and the establishing by the Court of the order of death, there was a real possibility that the Boutflour family, in the person of Pamela Boutflour, would benefit if any interest that Jeremy Bamber might otherwise have had in those estates were forfeited by reason of his conviction for murder.
Plainly, this was an issue to which the entire defence team must have been alive - as was the jury. However, in the internal Essex Police review conducted by Superintendent Dickinson, the following passage appears:
"44….The conviction of Jeremy Bamber for murder is likely to result in material benefit to the Boutflour family. It was known to the Boutflours that had Jeremy inherited the estate he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been part of the Speakman family estate. In addition to this, he would have sold an area of land which, unknown to any member of the family, Ralph Bamber had purchased intending to sell it at a later date to Peter and Anne Eaton when they had sufficient funds. This piece of land had previously been owned by the Eaton family.
45.It is not suggested that this interest in any way influenced the Boutflours in what they told the police during the investigation: it was however known to the senior investigating officer during the initial stages and may have been a factor which affected the level of credence he placed upon the information given by the relatives."
No-one is able to supply the basis for the comments contained in these paragraphs. The senior investigating officer during the initial stages was DCI Jones, and he tragically died in an accident in the Spring of 1986, prior to trial. Mr Robert Boutflour is now a very old man and is, we are told, unfit to give evidence. But there is not now and never has been any admissible evidence available to the prosecution which could or should have been disclosed to the defence, since Mr Turner rightly concedes that the views or beliefs of an investigating officer are immaterial and inadmissible. If anybody had any evidence to give in respect of this topic it could only have been Mr Jeremy Bamber himself, as the so called "knowledge" of the Boutflours could only have been based upon something that he himself had said. He declined to proffer any such explanation when invited to do so by Mr Arlidge QC in cross-examination, and if he thought that there was any realistic possibility that such a consideration might have influenced Mr Robert Boutflour in the evidence that he was willing to give then we can see no reason why he should not have put it forward for the jury's consideration. As it seems to us, by no stretch of the imagination can the contents of the paragraphs quoted from the Essex review be regarded as fresh evidence. In truth they are not evidence at all. In our judgment there is nothing in this ground of appeal either. Equally it seems to us that even if evidence was available to show that Robert Boutflour was aware that the appellant intended to sell his inheritance, this could not have had any significantly greater impact on the jury than the correct answer to their question which was given to them.
