Going down the pan

[Kaldin]

Was Peter Eaton involved in the farm business, ie a share holder or anything.

Just thinking out loud but as the house was part of the farm holding then it could have gone to him in that capacity. Just guessing, it doesn't make much sense otherwise.

As far as I know he wasnt involved in any of the Bamber buisness.Whf and its farmland was not and is not owned by the Bambers.It is leased from a charity.

Where did the money come from then? There was the caravan park of course. I think I read about other ventures but I can't remember them now.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!

That's the fatal flaw - this 'notion' of being a cool and calm murderer.

This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.

He was mid 20s, had spent a couple of years abroad 'fooling around' (in the nicest sense of the word). Nice girlfriend, a bit of money to show off (although it's not clear how much he really had or didn't have). Own home paid for by parents, and an altogether quite privileged existence, by most people's standards.
People gave testimony that he could be arrogant. He was no angel, he'd already committed burglary and knew his gf had been involved in fraud too...
What you might call a typical 'bit of a lad' with money.

If we are to believe Mugford, the night of the killing was quite spontaneous after a row of some sort... "tonight's the night" etc etc

I was never a criminal mastermind behind it (if it was sheila OR jeremy). It was just a mess. That's all.

The POLICE were the ones that turned it into a dramatic mystery, as a result of them not gathering the evidence they ought to have. Had they done so, it's highly likely this would never be such an intriguing mystery. But they didn't do their jobs properly and it widened the void between Jeremy or Sheila.

Call it a small black hole where vital evidence disappeared forever.

And we can never really say "if he was so smart, then why would he do something so stupid as to leave the silencer at the house?"

If he was so smart - then why would he do the murder in the first place? (and fail)


AND

If it was Sheila - was she SO outraged and 'mentally ill' that she killed everybody in the house, but liked to play a little 'game' and put the silencer away in a box and leave a scene that looked ritualistic?

whichever of them did it - there might be hints as to what seems to be genious, but a LOT more hint at sheer tragedy and madness

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I wasn't suggesting that the relatives didn't know Jeremy, merely that they may not have known Sheila that well. She went to London when she was pretty young, married when she was young too, and stayed in London even when the marriage broke up. She didn't sound like a farming sort of person really.

I'm really just musing about the background to these murders more than anything, and wondering why Jeremy let his relatives take over the house if he killed his family for the dosh. Did he really have no idea that they suspected him?

I think from my own experience of deaths in the family, that's it's not really 'chaos', it's just people say "yes" to anything, and there are "things that need doing".

Someone has to deal with the flowers, the funeral directors, what hymns to have, invitations, PAYING for the damn stuff etc etc... and that's just for a normal expected death.

5 dead in one go? it's probably 50 times worse.

Someone had to book the funeral, sort out the church etc so it wouldn't happen magically.

By my reckoning (and Jeremy no longer lived there remember), some members of the family said "leave it with us, we'll get it tidied".
I think that's normal really.

And, what would a young lad of 25 know about death and funerals and stuff that needs doing? zilch (usually).
I just think the family would have taken care of stuff between them, and that would include the keys to the house.


ALL of that said, two days is damn quick by anybody's reckoning! I personally would have thought most people wouldn't want to go near the place for some time, and maybe some of the farm hands, or such might have been asked to 'do what they could' to secure the place and maybe clean it up.

I really don't know. I can see it both ways:
Don't want to go near the place - get someone in to clean it up
OR
Can't expect others to do it, and we don't want trophy hunters, so let's get it over with, then it's done.

I've seen this happen when grandparents die etc... the house CAN get ripped apart very rapidly afterwards (almost a way of getting over it).... 'it's done and dusted, don't let it linger on'


What do you reckon?

[chochokeira]

@ TBM

Regarding Mugford's evidence, other factors are omitted by your account. JM changed her account, I believe, and she identified a hitman as the killer who had an alibi, so wasn't the murderer.

Most tellingly, you omit that Mugford was paid a substantial sum for her story by the News of The World.

That cash for sensational story scenario could not happen if the Bamber trial was held today, as our far stricter code of conduct would outlaw payments to Mugford. Might that factor dramatically impact on the evidence Mugford gave if such a code had been in force in 1986?

The code of ethics was tightened up after several trials were prejudiced by the press buying witnesses. The defence in the Rosemary West trial challenged the evidence of some witnesses in court, warning the jury that the more sensational accounts they gave, the more the media would pay for their stories. Several witnesses in the West trial admitted having contracts with the media.

Ten years previously, Julie Mugford was paid sufficient to buy a reasonable house for her story, far in excess of the amount paid to most of the West case witnesses. She was also (oddly?) given immunity against prosecution

"You may think that, consciously or unconsciously, that they [witnesses] know that what they will be paid is contingent upon there being convictions in this case.", the West defence stated

 The Taylor sisters' convictions for murder were squashed due to biased reporting and payment of witnesses, having prejudiced the outcome of the case. Payment of witnesses was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case too. "People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html

[Kaldin]

I wasn't suggesting that the relatives didn't know Jeremy, merely that they may not have known Sheila that well. She went to London when she was pretty young, married when she was young too, and stayed in London even when the marriage broke up. She didn't sound like a farming sort of person really.

I'm really just musing about the background to these murders more than anything, and wondering why Jeremy let his relatives take over the house if he killed his family for the dosh. Did he really have no idea that they suspected him?

I think from my own experience of deaths in the family, that's it's not really 'chaos', it's just people say "yes" to anything, and there are "things that need doing".

Someone has to deal with the flowers, the funeral directors, what hymns to have, invitations, PAYING for the damn stuff etc etc... and that's just for a normal expected death.

5 dead in one go? it's probably 50 times worse.

Someone had to book the funeral, sort out the church etc so it wouldn't happen magically.

By my reckoning (and Jeremy no longer lived there remember), some members of the family said "leave it with us, we'll get it tidied".
I think that's normal really.

And, what would a young lad of 25 know about death and funerals and stuff that needs doing? zilch (usually).
I just think the family would have taken care of stuff between them, and that would include the keys to the house.


ALL of that said, two days is damn quick by anybody's reckoning! I personally would have thought most people wouldn't want to go near the place for some time, and maybe some of the farm hands, or such might have been asked to 'do what they could' to secure the place and maybe clean it up.

I really don't know. I can see it both ways:
Don't want to go near the place - get someone in to clean it up
OR
Can't expect others to do it, and we don't want trophy hunters, so let's get it over with, then it's done.

I've seen this happen when grandparents die etc... the house CAN get ripped apart very rapidly afterwards (almost a way of getting over it).... 'it's done and dusted, don't let it linger on'


What do you reckon?

Ordinarily, I'd agree that a young man might leave it all to his relatives, but apparently Jeremy had a lot to hide didn't he? If he did it, he got away with it at first but anyone with any sense would start to worry about people poking around.

[Kaldin]

I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!

That's the fatal flaw - this 'notion' of being a cool and calm murderer.

This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.

He was mid 20s, had spent a couple of years abroad 'fooling around' (in the nicest sense of the word). Nice girlfriend, a bit of money to show off (although it's not clear how much he really had or didn't have). Own home paid for by parents, and an altogether quite privileged existence, by most people's standards.
People gave testimony that he could be arrogant. He was no angel, he'd already committed burglary and knew his gf had been involved in fraud too...
What you might call a typical 'bit of a lad' with money.

If we are to believe Mugford, the night of the killing was quite spontaneous after a row of some sort... "tonight's the night" etc etc

I was never a criminal mastermind behind it (if it was sheila OR jeremy). It was just a mess. That's all.

The POLICE were the ones that turned it into a dramatic mystery, as a result of them not gathering the evidence they ought to have. Had they done so, it's highly likely this would never be such an intriguing mystery. But they didn't do their jobs properly and it widened the void between Jeremy or Sheila.

Call it a small black hole where vital evidence disappeared forever.

And we can never really say "if he was so smart, then why would he do something so stupid as to leave the silencer at the house?"

If he was so smart - then why would he do the murder in the first place? (and fail)


AND

If it was Sheila - was she SO outraged and 'mentally ill' that she killed everybody in the house, but liked to play a little 'game' and put the silencer away in a box and leave a scene that looked ritualistic?

whichever of them did it - there might be hints as to what seems to be genious, but a LOT more hint at sheer tragedy and madness

If Jeremy did it, I think it did go wrong. I don't suppose his parents were supposed to get up again after they'd been shot, let alone one of them go down to the kitchen. That's why I think he would be more worried about evidence - he would have had to move around the house a lot more than he planned to do. The silencer bit went wrong and he had to pretend it hadn't been used. I just think that even a daft person would realise it might have blood on it.

Re Sheila, I think it's possible that she didn't intend to kill herself at first and she might have put the gun away and the silencer, then got the gun out later minus the silencer.

It's all so far fetched whichever way you look at it really. Either the son kills family in a bloodbath in the middle of the night for money, or the daughter kills the family in bloodbath because she's ill.

[Hartley]

This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.

Maybe. I still find it odd that not a single bullet missed it's target in the entire shooting spree, so that doesn't give the impression of an ill executed wild shooting party either.

[Kaldin]

@ TBM

Regarding Mugford's evidence, other factors are omitted by your account. JM changed her account, I believe, and she identified a hitman as the killer who had an alibi, so wasn't the murderer.

Most tellingly, you omit that Mugford was paid a substantial sum for her story by the News of The World.

That cash for sensational story scenario could not happen if the Bamber trial was held today, as our far stricter code of conduct would outlaw payments to Mugford. Might that factor dramatically impact on the evidence Mugford gave if such a code had been in force in 1986?

The code of ethics was tightened up after several trials were prejudiced by the press buying witnesses. The defence in the Rosemary West trial challenged the evidence of some witnesses in court, warning the jury that the more sensational accounts they gave, the more the media would pay for their stories. Several witnesses in the West trial admitted having contracts with the media.

Ten years previously, Julie Mugford was paid sufficient to buy a reasonable house for her story, far in excess of the amount paid to most of the West case witnesses. She was also (oddly?) given immunity against prosecution

"You may think that, consciously or unconsciously, that they [witnesses] know that what they will be paid is contingent upon there being convictions in this case.", the West defence stated

 The Taylor sisters' convictions for murder were squashed due to biased reporting and payment of witnesses, having prejudiced the outcome of the case. Payment of witnesses was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case too. "People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html

I read a letter on SFJ from the Prosecutors office to the Chief Constable in which the possibility of prosecuting Julie came up, so it must have been considered at some point.

I think that everyone associated with this crime behaved badly - there was blood money flying around all over the place.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

That's all quite true, but I thought I had said Mugford confessed to a hitman (which she claimed was Jeremy's story).
It was the police who disproved this, but believed that Mugford had been told that - which then pointed to JB using it as tale to hide himself as the murderer.

Yes, she was paid, and in fact, that was denied in court, but later proven to have been true.

However, are we to believe a newspaper said "we will pay you 25K if you said he did it?"It's possible but unlikely. Far more likely they said "wow, give us the story!!!, we'll pay for you to tell us"

There's LOT omitted... like Jeremy breaking and entering AFTER the deaths to get back into the house, and the trying to sell photos allegation.

The fact that Christine (Ann) Eaton now lives in the house... all adding to the 'intrigue'

I am not suggesting for one moment that Mugford told the truth or indeed lied, I simply don't know - but I am trying to summarise the chain of events 'as was' then and the probable 'swing' of opinion.

What IS fact though, is that he was convicted. So 12 good men heard a tale from both sides, and went with guilty.

[Kaldin]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.

Maybe. I still find it odd that not a single bullet missed it's target in the entire shooting spree, so that doesn't give the impression of an ill executed wild shooting party either.

It does to me... it took 25 bullets
At least two people moved around
Missing with a shotgun from 10 feet max? and most likely 1-5 feet? (two of which where asleep in bed and shot from close range)?

I do know what you're saying, but I think the evidence really does suggest it was a bit messy, esp at least one getting downstairs, and Sheila needing two shots.

[Kaldin]

I'm just not convinced about this motive really. Jeremy worked on the farm so he must have had some time for his parents - he can't have completely hated them. He went to a party with his sister the weekend before and smoked dope with her, so it doesn't sound as if he hated her or was indifferent to her.

I can imagine him trying to get more out of them, but murder? It wasn't even a huge fortune - the house wasn't theirs and the stuff in it doesn't look that posh. Did he actually know how much dosh they had?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.

I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all

Or a siege in Rothbury....

When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...

I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.

[Kaldin]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.

I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all

Or a siege in Rothbury....

When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...

I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.

Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I'm just not convinced about this motive really. Jeremy worked on the farm so he must have had some time for his parents - he can't have completely hated them. He went to a party with his sister the weekend before and smoked dope with her, so it doesn't sound as if he hated her or was indifferent to her.

I can imagine him trying to get more out of them, but murder? It wasn't even a huge fortune - the house wasn't theirs and the stuff in it doesn't look that posh. Did he actually know how much dosh they had?

300K they say which back then was probably a couple of million now. Certainly at least 1 million in today's money.

But, if HE was the 'nutter' then does the amount really mean that much? 1 million's not worth it, but 10 million might be?
It might not even have been for the money - just pure hatred, or some sick notion of impressing Julie? (after all we're led to believe he took steps to tell her, as though he wanted her to know).

There are those that say Jeremy IS mentally ill. A psychopath perhaps.

Whichever way you look at it, there are too many confounding variables, many of which are a direct result of the initial Police actions, and some of which are purely a result of disjointed family, money, infighting etc. It's almost as bad as Princess Diana. probably 3 or 4 people / institutions with reason to see her dead, and quite plausible theories for them all.

"Driving too fast" just seems so simple, we struggle to believe it.



"Arrogant brat Jeremy did it for the money" just seems too simple

"Mad Sheila in ritual self washing murder" just seems far fetched too