Did the family have enough time to plot?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

A LOT depends on when the silencer was found (and this is a subject in itself, with two ends of a spectrum ranging from 3 days to a month!).....


But:

1) If it was 3 days, is that enough time for Ann and David to 'plot' Jeremy's downfall? and, how did they get around the problem of having a witness see them find the silencer? Did they plant it earlier, only to 'discover' it in front of the witness (accountant)?, or did they find it, then have time to add more evidence when they took it home?

2) Could they have 'colluded' with Mugford? It seems unlikely because Mugford was still 'with' Jeremy at the time, and appearing as the loving g/f. Could they have ever banked on Mugford giving her story without collusion?
However, IF the silencer was found not three days later, but a month later, then this could paint a different picture.

3) Could they have obtained the DNA / blood samples needed AND with enough certainty of that forensics would determine?
I suppose they could have gathered blood from the stains in the rooms, but not easily (dried), and tricky to be sure of whos blood was whos, even knowing final body positions.

4) Was it a risk worth taking? 3 days to take this huge risk. What it forensics discovered it was framed evidence? they would lose everything - quite a gamble I'd say.

5) Did they know enough about forensics to fake the evidence convincingly?

6) It seems (to me) horrific enough that 5 were dead, and even if there seemed to be disbelief at the whole affair (pure shock) and the 100% responsibility of Sheila, it's a heck of a jump to thinking Jeremy did it. It's think most folks would say "no, it couldn't have been, he's an idiot, but THAT bad??" etc etc.
And yet, Ann's relentless 'efforts'  could be seen as distinctly quick to judge Jeremy. That impression could be wrong, and it could actually have been 'a small doubt' in the early days, to finding the silencer, and then watching Jeremy more and more, leading to a much firmer distrust of him.... but still, what was it that led Ann in particular, to almost instantly doubt the suicide story?

Again, I repeat, some of the above very much depends on when the silencer really was found, but for the moment, I'm going with 3 days later.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Obviously I have no fast answers to this but if I could just dissect your post, if you will bare with me.

Firstly,

I suppose they could have gathered blood from the stains in the rooms, but not easily (dried), and tricky to be sure of who's blood was whos, even knowing final body positions.

We know they had access to Sheilas' blood from the blood stained knickers that Pamela? found in the kitchen at WHF. As you say it is unlikely they would have access to blood from any of the other victims because the police had burned blood stained items, cleaned blood from the scene etc.

They obviously had access to the gun cupboard at WHF and could have found a silencer overlooked by the police (how careless of them!) and also owned silencers of the same make/model as the "Bamber silencer".

Also something which had not previously occurred to me before reading your post. Why was only Sheila's blood found in the silencer? All the victims were shot at close range. Why was none of their blood found on or in the silencer? Is the absence of their blood not as equally suspicious as the presence of Sheila's?

[Hartley]

Also something which had not previously occurred to me before reading your post. Why was only Sheila's blood found in the silencer? All the victims were shot at close range. Why was none of their blood found on or in the silencer? Is the absence of their blood not as equally suspicious as the presence of Sheila's?

Other blood was found on the outside but of insufficient quantities to do grouping analysis, only enough to ascertain that it was human blood. Nicholas and possibly June were the only other victims to have contact shots.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Also something which had not previously occurred to me before reading your post. Why was only Sheila's blood found in the silencer? All the victims were shot at close range. Why was none of their blood found on or in the silencer? Is the absence of their blood not as equally suspicious as the presence of Sheila's?

Other blood was found on the outside but of insufficient quantities to do grouping analysis, only enough to ascertain that it was human blood. Nicholas and possibly June were the only other victims to have contact shots.

The didn't know it was Sheila's blood either  but it was fairly likely, OR a combination of Nevill and June (from memory) OR all three. In principle, at the original trial it seems people believed some of Sheila's blood was connected with the silencer.

Since the original trial, it came to light that some DNA inside the silencer was very probably June's (there was a 1 in 3000 chance that it wasn't). That was DNA and not blood (any blood was long gone).
They also found the DNA of a male, but didn't have enough to ascertain to whom it belonged (or didn't belong). There was no positive DNA match for Sheila, but the absence of that didn't mean a great deal - it didn't prove she wasn't shot it it. Basically, they didn't have much DNA at all, and could only really assert that June + some male left DNA there.

The DNA (1 in 3000 chance of it not being June) came about as a result of having to use her sister's (Pamela's) DNA for a match since none of June's DNA existed any longer.
Sibling DNA matches can range from 0 to 100% (typically around 50%) - hence the complicated maths and odds of 3000:1 that it wasn't June.



 

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Your first point, about the accountant as a potential witness. I have read the court judgement relating to the application of the relatives re the distribution of the Bamber estate. I seem to remember mention of "irregularities in the accounts". In fact the accountant was cited as a "defendant" (I can't remember the equivalent term in the civil court).

Maybe he was afraid of this coming to light if Bamber became the sole heir. Room for some kind of arrangement between him and the relatives?

Pure speculation of course......

[Kaldin]

I don't know if the family plotted to get Jeremy convicted or not, and I'm not about to potentially libel any of them.

However, what I think is awful is the way they went after after the money pretty much from the start. It's one thing to argue over who should have it once Jeremy was convicted and disinherited, but they started much earlier than that. Robert Boutflour was trying to find out who would get the money in August as far as I can see, and one of them at least got Mrs Speakman to change her will early on - I believe she changed it on 3rd September. That was before Jeremy was even arrested let alone charged and convicted. She died before the trial, so even if he'd been acquitted he wouldn't have got anything from her will because one of them made sure he wouldn't.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I don't know if the family plotted to get Jeremy convicted or not, and I'm not about to potentially libel any of them.

However, what I think is awful is the way they went after after the money pretty much from the start. It's one thing to argue over who should have it once Jeremy was convicted and disinherited, but they started much earlier than that. Robert Boutflour was trying to find out who would get the money in August as far as I can see, and one of them at least got Mrs Speakman to change her will early on - I believe she changed it on 3rd September. That was before Jeremy was even arrested let alone charged and convicted. She died before the trial, so even if he'd been acquitted he wouldn't have got anything from her will because one of them made sure he wouldn't.

I do agree that that doesn't look flattering (but nor does Jeremy seeing his solicitor the day after the murders either).
Robert Boutflour's explanation is plausible though and he does make no bones about out...

1) From the 7th Aug (the very morning of the killings and hearing the way Jeremy was telling the story to the police) things didn't seem right (in his and Ann's view). The suspicions started that very morning.
2) Over the next few days they came to the conclusion it was him - a pretty firm conviction by now.
3) They knew that Jeremy stood to inherit from Granny Speakman (half went to Pamela, half to June. If June was dead, then her share went to Jeremy).
4) The Boutflours wanted to make sure he didn't benefit from this, and say that Granny Speakman was in agreement, in the presence of an independent witness (doctor) and changed her will to stop Jeremy getting anything.

IF they really thought Jeremy had done it - I can't say I blame them.

What strikes me as odd (at first glance) is how they went about this quite quickly. But Granny Speakman was quite elderly, and you could argue the shock of this might only shorted her life even further.
It's also fair to say that not ONLY were the Boutflour's quick off the mark, so was Jeremy - he was at it too - seeing his solicitor the day after, and starting to empty the house and Sheila's flat as soon as the keys were handed over.

I think it would be fair to say - the ENTIRE clan were quick (by most people's standards) to get down to the nitty gritty.
That may well be a trait of 'get on with it' farming stock attitudes - difficult to say. But I would think the deaths of 5 in a single night, and of this nature are pretty significant and NONE of the clan came out of it looking particularly dignified.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

This is what Colin Caffell had to say (in his book) about Granny Speakman. [Quote: On 16 February, June's mother, Granny Speakman, passed away at the age of ninety-five. I was especially sad because, since the shootings, Pam had not allowed me to visit her in case I caused a traumatic reminder of her family.]

Which is rather odd don't you think?

It sounds a little hard yes, but 'odd' - I don't know. I don't know anybody who's been involved a whole family killing of this nature.
And 'not allowed' could mean 'preferred me not to' - which is a polite version of saying no.
Let's not forget, Caffell's writing a book at this point. Many victims of such tragedies choose not to write books and don't do newspaper interviews.
You know when a child dies in a family, it's very common for the parents to turn on each other split up - constantly remembering their child in their partners eyes, and even apportioning blame deep down.
I can well see extended families showing these traits too in such horrific circumstances.

So 'odd' - it's a tricky word in this circumstance. I think I could forgive both sides for feeling strain with each other.