Author Topic: Who were the Defendants in this case?  (Read 34960 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Who were the Defendants in this case?
« on: June 07, 2012, 08:18:PM »
Who were the Defendants in this case?

The trial judge put it to the jury that the killer had to be either Sheila or Jeremy, and that there was no evidence to suggest the involvement of any other person in the killings...

The defendants were, therefore, Sheila Caffell, and Jeremy Bamber...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2012, 08:22:PM »
Who were the Defendants in this case?

The trial judge put it to the jury that the killer had to be either Sheila or Jeremy, and that there was no evidence to suggest the involvement of any other person in the killings...

The defendants were, therefore, Sheila Caffell, and Jeremy Bamber...
So automatically, if you felt for example, Sheila couldn't possibly have battered Ralph, because she was too slight, by a process of eliminating Sheila, Jeremy had to have battered Ralph. No need to prove Jeremy had done so and neither any need to prove Sheila hadnt.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2012, 08:24:PM »
So automatically, if you felt for example, Sheila couldn't possibly have battered Ralph, because she was too slight, by a process of eliminating Sheila, Jeremy had to have battered Ralph. No need to prove Jeremy had done so and neither any need to prove Sheila hadnt.

A legal paradox, no less...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2012, 08:27:PM »
The following might interest many of you, concerning how five people were tried after their deaths?

Please follow the following link address:-

(1) - http://listverse.com/2008/06/20/5-prominent-people-put-on-trial-after-their-death/

(A) John Wycliffe was a dissident in the Catholic Church in the 1400s. He was opposed to Papal power in non-church affairs. In his lifetime he organized a translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible into English. Despite his teachings being extremely controversial, he was never excommunicated (kicked out of the Church). He died during Mass in December 1384. The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his body be exhumed. The latter did not happen till twelve years afterward, when at the command of Pope Martin V they were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift that flows through Lutterworth.

(B) Martin Bormann was a prominent Nazi official who hid with Hitler in the final days of the war. According to Wikipedia, during the chaotic closing days of the war, there were contradictory reports as to Bormann’s whereabouts. For example, Jakob Glas, Bormann’s long-time chauffeur, insisted he saw Bormann in Munich weeks after 1 May 1945. The bodies were not found, and a global search followed including extensive efforts in South America. With no evidence to confirm or deny Bormann’s death, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg tried Bormann in absentia in October 1946 and sentenced him to death. His court-appointed defense attorney used the unsuccessful defense that the court could not convict Bormann because he was already dead. [Source] It was later proven (by DNA) that Bormann was, indeed, dead at the time of the trial.

(C) 24 Years after Saint Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by renegade Bishops, her case was reopened by Pope Callixtus III (at the request of Joan’s mother, Isabelle Romée, and Jean Brehal, the Inquisitor General – head of the Office of Inquisition) and three Bishops were appointed to the trial (which is known as the nullification trial). They found overwhelmingly that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and she was vindicated. The final summary, in June, 1456, describes Joan as a martyr and implicates the late Pierre Cauchon with heresy (believing things contrary to the Catholic Church beliefs) for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a non-religious vendetta. 500 years later she was declared a saint by Pope Benedict XV.

(D) St Thomas Becket was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 12 century. St Thomas fought against reforms by King Henry II who wanted to reduce the ties of the clergy (priests and monks) to Rome. Consequently, Henry II ordered the man killed. He was executed in the Cathedral. Henry II later repented of his crime. Some 300 years later, King Henry VIII, who had broken from the Catholic Church and created the Anglican Church because he could not divorce his wife, ordered St Thomas’ bones to be put on trial – a trial in which Becket was found guilty of treason. His bones were publicly burnt and his burial place desecrated. Ironically, the Anglican church consider him a saint and venerate (worship) him.

(E) Pope Stephen VI was made a Bishop (possibly against his will) by Pope Formosus who, during his reign, was excommunicated for leaving the Papal seat and “conspiring to destroy the papal see” (in other words, leaving the Vatican in an attempt to escape from being Pope). He was eventually forgiven and returned to Rome. When Stephen VI came the Papal Throne, he had the body of formosus dug up and put on trial (this is the famous Cadaver Synod (meeting) of 897 AD). Formosus was accused of various breaches of church law, of lying, and of pretending to be a Bishop when he wasn’t one. Stephen had Formosus’ papal clothing removed and two fingers from his right hand cut off. Formosus’ body was thrown in to the Tiber river. After the Synod, public opinion turned against Stephen. He was overthrown in an uprising and strangled to death.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 08:34:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2012, 08:36:PM »
Mike and Maggie, you're both 100% correct. We all, and I include myself here, saw this fragile looking girl looking out from a soft focus picture and wondered how it was possible that she could have done something so dreadful. And then there was this cocky little sod, who at times appeared to be enjoying his moment in the limelight and it was no contest. When his Lordship decreed that it had to be either Jeremy or Sheila, it obviously was Jeremy!!! Is it possible for a judge to be sued for giving incorrect information to a jury?!!!

Offline bob

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1321
  • 78.6%
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2012, 08:43:PM »
Mike and Maggie, you're both 100% correct. We all, and I include myself here, saw this fragile looking girl looking out from a soft focus picture and wondered how it was possible that she could have done something so dreadful. And then there was this cocky little sod, who at times appeared to be enjoying his moment in the limelight and it was no contest. When his Lordship decreed that it had to be either Jeremy or Sheila, it obviously was Jeremy!!! Is it possible for a judge to be sued for giving incorrect information to a jury?!!!
I don't think you can blame the judge for that april.

It was Jeremy himself who brought about that summing-up, by insisting that Ralph had phoned him and told him Sheila had gone berserk with the rifle - that claim alone means that it can only have been Sheila (Jeremy told the truth) or Jeremy (Jeremy lied) that was responsible.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 08:52:PM by bob »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2012, 08:44:PM »
Mike and Maggie, you're both 100% correct. We all, and I include myself here, saw this fragile looking girl looking out from a soft focus picture and wondered how it was possible that she could have done something so dreadful. And then there was this cocky little sod, who at times appeared to be enjoying his moment in the limelight and it was no contest. When his Lordship decreed that it had to be either Jeremy or Sheila, it obviously was Jeremy!!! Is it possible for a judge to be sued for giving incorrect information to a jury?!!!
I don't think you can sue a judge for any comments he made during his summing up speech during a trial, but one thing is for sure, the jury were left in no doubt at all that both Sheila and Jeremy were on trial, which was / is a paradox really because there was only Jeremy in the dock. In essence he was on trial along with Sheila for these murders, yet at the same time he was on trial all by himself. In such circumstances, how could he have received a fair trial when the jury are being told that there were / are two possible defendants in this case, and that they had to choose between both who had done it, whilst only one of the named defendants was actually in the dock and at peril of being convicted and sentenced should the jury reject the involvement of the other defendant who as it were was not present in the dock?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 08:54:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Nuala

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • I am not a number
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2012, 08:53:PM »
I don't think you can blame the judge for that!

It was Jeremy himself who brought about that summing-up, by insisting that Ralph had phoned him and told him Sheila had gone berserk with the rifle - that claim alone means that it can only have been Sheila (Jeremy told the truth) or Jeremy (Jeremy lied) that was responsible.


Hi Bob,

Not quite, you're ruling out the possibility of coercion, which in my view is unwise.

Coercion could explain the mystery that the trial failed to address: those burn marks on Nevill's back x

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2012, 08:57:PM »
I don't think you can sue a judge for any comments he made during his summing up speech during a trial, but one thing is for sure, the jury were left in no doubt at all that both Sheila and Jeremy were on trial, which was / is a paradox really because there was only Jeremy in the dock. In essence he was on trial along with Sheila for these murders, yet at the same time he was on trial all by himself. In such circumstances, how could he have received a fair trial when the jury are being told that there were / are two possible defendants in this case, and that they had to choose between both who had done it, whilst only one of the named defendants was actually in the dock and at peril of being convicted and sentenced should the jury reject the involvement of the other defendant who as it were was not present in the dock?

The other absurd feature of this paradox, is that if Sheila and Jeremy were supposedly both defendants, why didn't the prosecution offer any evidence to indicate her possible guilt, since the original file (SC/688/85) contained all the evidence the prosecution required to prove or confirm Sheila had done it, yet all of this material was withheld under pii, so that not only Jeremy did not get to see and consider any of it, but neither did the Jury?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline bob

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1321
  • 78.6%
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2012, 08:58:PM »

Hi Bob,

Not quite, you're ruling out the possibility of coercion, which in my view is unwise.

Coercion could explain the mystery that the trial failed to address: those burn marks on Nevill's back x
That is true Keira but I deliberately didn't include that as I've always thought it unlikely. If there was coercion then the point of it would presumably have been to get Jeremy to come to the farm so that he could also be killed - in which case would they not have made a point of getting Ralph to tell Jeremy not to phone the police?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2012, 09:03:PM »
Ralph told Jeremy, "Come Quickly", which equates to get here as fast as you can...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2012, 09:05:PM »
The other absurd feature of this paradox, is that if Sheila and Jeremy were supposedly both defendants, why didn't the prosecution offer any evidence to indicate her possible guilt, since the original file (SC/688/85) contained all the evidence the prosecution required to prove or confirm Sheila had done it, yet all of this material was withheld under pii, so that not only Jeremy did not get to see and consider any of it, but neither did the Jury?
There was always the possibility of a third party.  The fact that Ralph, or someone sounding like Ralph phoned Jeremy in the middle of the night, was never examined and questioned.  If Jeremy stated someone he thought was his father phoned him in the middle of the night, we have to assume he said that because that's what happened in his opinion.  No one considered it may not have been Ralph or it may have been Ralph under duress. There were other possibilities, even though the jury were told there weren't.imho

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 09:07:PM »
The words used by Ralph were ambiguous, as explained by Jeremy in his interviews by Essex police:-

"She has got the gun", as oppose to "Sheila has got the gun". Jeremy explained to the police during interview that it was probably the person who took his call, that changed "She has", into "Sheila's", and so on and so forth?

"She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

elphick

  • Guest
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2012, 09:09:PM »
There was always the possibility of a third party.  The fact that Ralph, or someone sounding like Ralph phoned Jeremy in the middle of the night, was never examined and questioned.  If Jeremy stated someone he thought was his father phoned him in the middle of the night, we have to assume he said that because that's what happened in his opinion.  No one considered it may not have been Ralph or it may have been Ralph under duress. There were other possibilities, even though the jury were told there weren't.imho

Didn't Ralph also phone the police in the middle of the night? Doesn't the log confirm (by description) that he meant Sheila? Without a doubt?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 09:13:PM by elphick »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who were the Defendants in this case?
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2012, 09:10:PM »
A third party was definitely involved in Sheila's death, namely the police, yet none of these were on trail as defendants...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...