All fair comments Daniel and of course we've been here before, many times.
Here are the facts of the crime scene as the police (it is presumed) found it. (1) The house was locked from the inside and police had to break in to get in. (2) Ralph was found inside in the kitchen apparently shot to death. (3) Three more bodies were found upstairs. Apparently the twins in their own room. Both Sheila and June on the floor on opposite sides of the bed and Sheila holding the rifle minus the silencer and gun sites. We know all this bewcause there are pictures to prove it. (4) Absoluelty no signs of a struggle where Sheila was concerned. Just two bullet holes in her neck. (4) No evidence of forced entry. In fact no signs at all that anyone had either entered or exited the premises. (5) No footprints, bloodied or otherwise either inside or outside indicating that anybody had walked around the house. I think Bridget mentioned that it was never demonstrated at trial that Jeremy Bamber DID enter in by the window. But that he could have entered the premises that way. In other words it is only assumed that he entered through the window. But there is no forensic or indeed other evidence that he did so.
Those are the only facts that we know for sure. All the rest of the evidence comes from Julie Mugford, who remember had been dumped you remember only a few days before and the so called silencer that was "allegedly" found by the relatives, which they manhandled and even took home with them together with some other stuff,
So what else to we have? The phone call from Jeremy which as you say puts him squarely in the frame. Yes I have been there before as well as I am no lover of Jeremy either. Now the interesting thing is that who is to say he is not telling the truth? His phone call certainly fits in with the facts. Another fact is that I do not believe in the words "unlikely" or "impossible" where crimes are committed. It is quite possible that it happened as police at the beginning said it did. The only thing that stands in the way is not forensic or other apparent evidence. But whether we believe it or not. It actually boils down to our own opinions and not the evidence presented in course which was in actual fact very flimsy and unstable at best. All these other so called "witnesses" have since come forward and have spoken to writers whos only purpose is to sell books and in order to sell books they must sensationalise them.
Absolutely no forensic evidence connects Jeremy to the crime. Nothing at his place at Goldhanger. No signs that he had struggled with anyone and absolutely no evidence to connect him to the crime at the crime scene. So what it boils down to is this. A silencer allegedly found by the relatives who hated him and were by their own admission trying to find something to confirm their suspicions. A Julie Mugford's testimony who Jeremy dumped a few days earlier.
So you can see surely why people have come to different conclusions about the case? And the reason many support Jeremy Bamber is not because they are in love with him because they are women or have blinkers on. But because there are these anomalies that seem to point in another direction. As I have mentioned before I have been in both camps at different times. But looking at the evidence I have come to the conclusion that they may indeed be a miscarriage of justice here?
I agree with your synopsis Lugg, but if you are looking at it from a standpoint where you require hard physical evidence then your synopsis would be flawless both in its approach and logic. As you are well aware, this was from start to finish a circumstantial case. It was determined by Crown Court trial and several Appeal Court hearings to have sufficed the requirements needed in Criminal Law. I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is the major reason why this case has so many opinions and is somewhat controversial. As you know many trials are won or lost on the stand and in the witness box; it all comes down to who the jury chose to believe. If the jury have doubts as to the validity or credibility of a the defendant or witness this comes into consideration when making their final judgement.
In the history of jurisprudence one may see that trials hinged on little more that what a witness or defendant actually said. For example; Wayne Williams - the famous Atlanta Child Murderer was bought to book on little more than fibre evidence and suspicion after being stopped near the scene of a body dump. The prosecutors knew that they had a circumstantial case only. They decided to play Williams against himself. They knew that whoever carried out the killing was violent and had a temper. They therefore decided to 'rattle Williams on the stands and after some aggressive questioning by the lead prosecutor Williams snapped on the stand. He showed the jury a brief glimpse of the kind of anger that was necessary to kill. He lost the trail on the stand and was convicted and sentenced to Life Without the Possibility of Parole. Much akin to the Bamber case, it was and still is a circumstantial case. Bamber was undone on the stand by Julie Mugford, who damning testimony alongside other witness statements was enough to condemn him in the eyes of the jury. The prosecution also pointed out that his fatal mistake was the phonecall. This effectively made it a two-horse race. There now was no possibility of third-party involvement. It was either Sheila OR Jeremy. On the evidence presented it would have been absurd to suggest any other scenario.
They also took the view that 1. The gun with the silencer fitted, was too long for Sheila to have used it and shot herself - twice. 2. The fight in the kitchen played a major role in convicting Bamber as the jury considered it highly unlikely that a woman - deranged or not - could have done the kind of damage to Nevil that was found. furthermore, it was unlikely that Sheila could have fought her much larger and more powerful father.
Your synopsis Lugg is correct. There is no hard evidence, but that is not required by common law.
for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out. In short, circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning and not through hard evidence.
This case Lugg, has always been about putting the pieces together. The points I have listed make an inference of guilt that is far greater than the sum of it's parts. When you have chalked both Sheila and Jeremy's name on a board and write every single points that points towards guilt, then begin to erase all points that exclude them from being the culprit, you are left with only one name - that of Jeremy Bamber.
Thank you for your excellent and interesting synopsis of the case Lugg. Much appreciated.
