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.
Hi Daniel/Lugg
I think you have both given a fair discussion here which is nice to see.
Can I just go back to the possibility of there being a third party. A third party was never introduced at court and its unlikely there was one. But, I would never be able to rule that out completely. My thoughts are just thoughts and what I am about to say is not so hideous as it appears to be.
The court had accepted that someone gained entry into the house, then gained access out of it. This could have been anyone with the know how on how to get on and out of a property. The phone call according to Jeremy was a 2 second one at the most. Lets assume then, that this call did happen, and someone with a gun to NB's back had forced NB to call Jeremy, in hope that he would turn up at the farm and be the 6th victim. Now, could this be likely? Yes, of course it could be likely and, the reason being is that there is no evidence to support it happened or did not happen this way. Just has there is no concrete evidence that a call was made or it was not made. Like there was no concrete evidence that Jeremy picked up a rifle and shot his entire family.
Going back to what was discussed at trial and that it was believed that Jeremy had gone back to WHF got in through the downstairs bedroom window, got the rifle, went upstairs shot the twins, shot his mother, shot his father then shot his sister and yet no one stopped him. Well, no one could have could they? Because it simply could not have happened in that way. we are lead to believe it did. This is of course my thoughts....and I am not saying this is the case, but what I am saying is that nothing, like a third party could never be totally ruled out.
