Mindset of Jeremy Bamber, at time he was informed, that all his family was dead

[Alias]

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

30. Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby

Where can you see that list?

There's a list of guns on the drawing which Jeremy produced.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=217.0;attach=498;image

THANKS!!

[mike tesko]

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

30. Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby

Where can you see that list?

--------------------

Here you are, this is the diagram which JB was asked to draw by the firearms team, which also lists all the weapons that were or would be found inside the farmhouse once the police went in:-

[Alias]

Thanks to you too, Mike!
I was a bit confused by the use of the word "gun" versus "rifle". I heard about guns AND rifles in the house (BTW, they sure had a LOT of them!).
I thought that a gun was a pistol, but I was wrong. They only had long barrelled rifles/guns at the WHF, right?
I was just thinking that if you committed suicide/wanted to make it appear that someone committed suicide, a pistol would be a more natural choice than a long barrelled rifle.

[ngb1066]

If the prosecution cherry picked evidence for the trial, the defence should have insisted on that evidence being produced.

It's not the fault of members of this forum if that happened - maybe some members are more insistent than the defence ever were that the proper evidence be produced to back up claims of his innocence.

I can go with that.  Perhaps he was defended poorly. Perhaps he made the wrong choices himself in challenging his own defence counsel.  But in a scenario were Bamber is innocent... neither he nor his defence team know what actually happened on the morning of 7th Aug.  If you buy the scenario of a ruthlessly focussed EP, in full possession of the evidence, setting out to railroad everyone down a certain path and haven taken extreme measures to do so,  I think this would have severely hampered Bamber's defence team's focus, efforts, direction and counter arguments.  They would have been led a merry dance.  I accept though that not everyone buys that version.  But the peole who dont buy that version need to explain PII as far as I'm concerned.

If Jeremy was innocent - and he's the only one who truly knows if he is or not - then he must have known that the prosecution case was nonsense. He must have known that Sheila's blood couldn't possibly be in the silencer. They all knew that the blood in the silencer evidence would come up, and yet they shilly shallied around with some theory about it being June and Nevill's blood and ignored the issue of the silencer being in the cupboard. If Jeremy did not put that silencer there, then he must surely have had some theories as to who did, or he must have thought that the silencer was planted there with blood in it.

He must have known that if Sheila's body was staged, then either a third party did it or the police did it. The defence did not go down that road at all at the trial, so either Jeremy did not ask them to, or they did not defend him very well.

Likewise, if Jeremy saw someone at a window that morning, he should have insisted that was brought up at court, and he didn't do so, and neither did his defence.

If he thought he would get off just because there was nothing to directly link him to the crime, well he's had a long time to regret that attitude.

It seems to me that both Jeremy and his defence team just went through the motions, crossed their fingers, and hoped that the jury would not reach a guilty verdict.

At the 2002 appeal, it looks like his defence team  tried to throw as many points at the appeal judges as possible and hoped that some of them would stick. It was akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

Kaldin

I understand the point you are making but the situation facing a defendant at a criminal trial can be difficult and complex. I speak from my nearly 20 years experience in the past (including at the time of JB's trial) as a criminal barrister, often defending in serious cases. Tactics have to be agreed upon by the defence team and it is correct that in theory the defendant himself has the final say in the evidence which is presented as part of the defence case and the allegations which are put to prosecution witnesses in cross examination.  However the reality is that the defence legal team, in particular leading counsel for the defence, will present to the defendant in strong terms the way in which he considers that the defence should be conducted.  That may mean that some allegations are not raised at all, even though they are considered by the defendant to reflect what actually happened.  In JB's case at trial the silencer evidence was very important.  Undoubtedly the defence considered attacking this on the basis of a direct accusation of "fit up" by family members.  However they had little firm evidence to back that up and that approach carried the real risk that the jury would have to believe in the "fit up" in order to find JB not guilty.  That is a very big gamble, particular when there is an alternative approach which could be adopted towards this evidence. The defence therefore attacked the evidence upon the basis that the forensic evidence was not clear cut, and that therefore there was no conclusive proof that Sheila's blood was found inside the silencer.  That allowed the jury the possibilty of rejecting the silencer evidence, or at least doubting it, without having to accept the proposition that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  The fact that JB's team did not advance all the points which have subsequently been raised does not mean that JB did not raise those matters with his defence team at the time.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the way the 2002 appeal was handled.  That has not helped JB's position in relation to his current submissions to the CCRC.

[ngb1066]

Thanks to you too, Mike!
I was a bit confused by the use of the word "gun" versus "rifle". I heard about guns AND rifles in the house (BTW, they sure had a LOT of them!).
I thought that a gun was a pistol, but I was wrong. They only had long barrelled rifles/guns at the WHF, right?I was just thinking that if you committed suicide/wanted to make it appear that someone committed suicide, a pistol would be a more natural choice than a long barrelled rifle.

You are correct.  A pistol would be a more natural choice to commit suicide, and also would have been more suitable than a rifle for anyone planning the shootings at WHF.  However, there were no pistols at WHF.  The law relating to pistol ownership even at the time of the events at WHF were far stricter than for shotguns and rifles.  In the UK now it is virtually impossible to obtain approval to own a pistol.

[jon]

Great  post NGB !!

[Kaldin]

Thanks to you too, Mike!
I was a bit confused by the use of the word "gun" versus "rifle". I heard about guns AND rifles in the house (BTW, they sure had a LOT of them!).
I thought that a gun was a pistol, but I was wrong. They only had long barrelled rifles/guns at the WHF, right?I was just thinking that if you committed suicide/wanted to make it appear that someone committed suicide, a pistol would be a more natural choice than a long barrelled rifle.

You are correct.  A pistol would be a more natural choice to commit suicide, and also would have been more suitable than a rifle for anyone planning the shootings at WHF.  However, there were no pistols at WHF.  The law relating to pistol ownership even at the time of the events at WHF were far stricter than for shotguns and rifles.  In the UK now it is virtually impossible to obtain approval to own a pistol.

Yes. I'm not sure they had a good excuse to have pistols there either. The guns were supposed to be for controlling "pests" on the farm presumably or for sporting reasons. I'm not sure why they needed quite so many guns to be honest.

[mike tesko]

What about Ralph Bambers service revolver?

[ngb1066]

What about Ralph Bambers service revolver?

[/color]

I have not heard this mentioned before.  Did he have one?  If so where was it kept?  What type of revolver was it?

[mike tesko]

What about Ralph Bambers service revolver?

[/color]

I have not heard this mentioned before.  Did he have one?  If so where was it kept?  What type of revolver was it?

--------------------

Ralph Bamber worked for British intelligence during the second world war, he was effectively a spy, working behind enemy lines in the middle east as part of a cell......

[ngb1066]

What about Ralph Bambers service revolver?

[/color]

I have not heard this mentioned before.  Did he have one?  If so where was it kept?  What type of revolver was it?

--------------------

Ralph Bamber worked for British intelligence during the second world war, he was effectively a spy, working behind enemy lines in the middle east as part of a cell......

I accept that he may have retained his service revolver after the war, but is there any suggestion that he still had it at WHF at the time of his death?   

[paulg]

Just wanted to add something else I constantly get accused on here of sticking up for JB because I fancy him ridiculous because I have never even met him.

JB had a good job working on the family farm, he was given a beautiful little cottage in a beautiful village right opposite a nice country pub and restaurant he owned shares in the family caravan park and he was due some inheritance through an ailing grandmother.
He was tall dark and very handsome and had practically every girl he ever met falling at his feet


Does this sound like someone who had to carry out a mass murder to enhance his life

Paul feeling a bit jealous of JB because that's what it sounds like to me

Well, i'm certainly not jealous. I've kept my looks, had many girlfriends, and i'm now a kept man.......sorted.

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb that was a brilliant post and it's nice we have someone with such experience to give an opinion on JB s. Case
I have thought for a long time that JB s defence took did not seem very good and Jeremy didn't really has a wide criminal background where other criminals could advise him of the best defence teams to use he didn't have family and I could sit in the library and make lists and lists of innocent people that have gone to prison because of poor defence and I have come across many while reading about JB's case and I think I am probably one of a handful of people on this forum who has been a juror on a murder trial so I have seen that also.  One of the many reasons I believe JB COULD be innocent is maybe his behaviour on the stand.  If he was guilty he was up there fighting for his life he didn't act that way at all in fact he thought that the prosecution had to prove he had carried out the murders.  They didn't that's why everyone is still debating this case and the sad case is he is sitting in prison 26 years later and if he didn't carry out the murders he doesn't know who did.  It could be Sheila it could be a hitman hired by the relatives.  As I said last week if julie mugford had not testified everything else probably would have fallen apart.  What a joke!!!

As for the business re JB saying the must have shot his family it could all have been as simple as when the police told him all the family were did he probably made that statement thinking he could not beleive his sister would really murder her own children.  It was just a remark but means quite a lot to me.

[Roch]

If the prosecution cherry picked evidence for the trial, the defence should have insisted on that evidence being produced.

It's not the fault of members of this forum if that happened - maybe some members are more insistent than the defence ever were that the proper evidence be produced to back up claims of his innocence.

I can go with that.  Perhaps he was defended poorly. Perhaps he made the wrong choices himself in challenging his own defence counsel.  But in a scenario were Bamber is innocent... neither he nor his defence team know what actually happened on the morning of 7th Aug.  If you buy the scenario of a ruthlessly focussed EP, in full possession of the evidence, setting out to railroad everyone down a certain path and haven taken extreme measures to do so,  I think this would have severely hampered Bamber's defence team's focus, efforts, direction and counter arguments.  They would have been led a merry dance.  I accept though that not everyone buys that version.  But the peole who dont buy that version need to explain PII as far as I'm concerned.

If Jeremy was innocent - and he's the only one who truly knows if he is or not - then he must have known that the prosecution case was nonsense. He must have known that Sheila's blood couldn't possibly be in the silencer. They all knew that the blood in the silencer evidence would come up, and yet they shilly shallied around with some theory about it being June and Nevill's blood and ignored the issue of the silencer being in the cupboard. If Jeremy did not put that silencer there, then he must surely have had some theories as to who did, or he must have thought that the silencer was planted there with blood in it.

He must have known that if Sheila's body was staged, then either a third party did it or the police did it. The defence did not go down that road at all at the trial, so either Jeremy did not ask them to, or they did not defend him very well.

Likewise, if Jeremy saw someone at a window that morning, he should have insisted that was brought up at court, and he didn't do so, and neither did his defence.

If he thought he would get off just because there was nothing to directly link him to the crime, well he's had a long time to regret that attitude.

It seems to me that both Jeremy and his defence team just went through the motions, crossed their fingers, and hoped that the jury would not reach a guilty verdict.

At the 2002 appeal, it looks like his defence team  tried to throw as many points at the appeal judges as possible and hoped that some of them would stick. It was akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

Kaldin

I understand the point you are making but the situation facing a defendant at a criminal trial can be difficult and complex. I speak from my nearly 20 years experience in the past (including at the time of JB's trial) as a criminal barrister, often defending in serious cases. Tactics have to be agreed upon by the defence team and it is correct that in theory the defendant himself has the final say in the evidence which is presented as part of the defence case and the allegations which are put to prosecution witnesses in cross examination.  However the reality is that the defence legal team, in particular leading counsel for the defence, will present to the defendant in strong terms the way in which he considers that the defence should be conducted.  That may mean that some allegations are not raised at all, even though they are considered by the defendant to reflect what actually happened.  In JB's case at trial the silencer evidence was very important.  Undoubtedly the defence considered attacking this on the basis of a direct accusation of "fit up" by family members.  However they had little firm evidence to back that up and that approach carried the real risk that the jury would have to believe in the "fit up" in order to find JB not guilty.  That is a very big gamble, particular when there is an alternative approach which could be adopted towards this evidence. The defence therefore attacked the evidence upon the basis that the forensic evidence was not clear cut, and that therefore there was no conclusive proof that Sheila's blood was found inside the silencer.  That allowed the jury the possibilty of rejecting the silencer evidence, or at least doubting it, without having to accept the proposition that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  The fact that JB's team did not advance all the points which have subsequently been raised does not mean that JB did not raise those matters with his defence team at the time.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the way the 2002 appeal was handled.  That has not helped JB's position in relation to his current submissions to the CCRC.

Very interesting read that post. (+1)

[mike tesko]

What about Ralph Bambers service revolver?

[/color]

I have not heard this mentioned before.  Did he have one?  If so where was it kept?  What type of revolver was it?

--------------------

Ralph Bamber worked for British intelligence during the second world war, he was effectively a spy, working behind enemy lines in the middle east as part of a cell......

I accept that he may have retained his service revolver after the war, but is there any suggestion that he still had it at WHF at the time of his death?

---------------------------------------------

I don't have any evidence of this, only the fact that some of the bullet entry wounds found in some of the victims measured half inch in diameter, and that a service revolver could fire bullets that made half inch diameter bullet entry wounds...