Getting the facts right about what Ralph told Jeremy during brief phone call...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-

(1) - "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

(2) - "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

(3) - "He has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...

(4) - "She has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...

(5) - "He has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

[mike tesko]

Details of Jeremys response to questioning by police about what Ralph said in the phone call to him, can be found in his police interview, on 11th September 1985, at 11am - (pages 50 to 57)...

[mike tesko]

Details of Jeremys response to questioning by police about what Ralph said in the phone call to him, can be found in his police interview, on 11th September 1985, at 11am - (pages 50 to 57)...

Contents to be posted later tonight...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-

(1) - "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

Infers Sheila had possession of the gun and that she had gone crazy...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-


(2) - "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

Infers, either Sheila had got the gun, and had gone crazy, or it could mean Sheila had got the gun, and June had gone crazy, or that June had got the gun and Sheila had gone crazy, or that June had got the gun, and that June had gone crazy...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-


(3) - "He has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...

Infers a male person had got the gun, and he had gone crazy...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-


(4) - "She has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...

Infers that either Sheila or June had got the gun, and that a male had gone crazy...

[mike tesko]

Ralph told Jeremy:-


(5) - "He has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...

Infers that a male had got the gun, and that either Sheila or June had gone crazy...

[mike tesko]

Other things which could be relevant, include anybody who might have been in debt to Ralph Bamber, and suffering financial hardship at the time of the shootings...

(a) - Anthony Pargeter owed Ralph Bamber £50,000...

(b) - Eatons owed Ralph Bamber a huge amount of money linked to the purchase of the farm where the Eatons lived...

[mike tesko]

Other things which could be relevant, include anybody who might have been in debt to Ralph Bamber, and suffering financial hardship at the time of the shootings...

(a) - Anthony Pargeter owed Ralph Bamber £50,000...

(b) - Eatons owed Ralph Bamber a huge amount of money linked to the purchase of the farm where the Eatons lived...

The court which tried Bamber for the murders had a right to know about monies owed to Ralph Bamber by prosecution witnesses, who stood to benefit should Bamber be convicted based upon any input of information or evidence by the aforementioned relatives or family members...

[mike tesko]

Of course this is always an interesting concept but ..... killing someone isn't the easiest  thing to do (I imagine) so if a third party were involved, I would have thought they would only eliminate those necessary to ease their burden - 'Neville' - at a push, maybe June but not Sheila and the boys. It would surely be easier at a time when they weren't staying?

Hi Caroline,

unless, the third party involvement looked at the bigger picture, not merely wishing or intending to wipe out any debt owed to the Bambers, but had set their goal on acquiring the Bamber parents estate, which was tenuously linked to them and the estates of Ralph Bambers mother, and June Bambers mother (Mabel Speakman) - in those circumstances, any third party involvement might have been waiting until the Bamber clan were altogether at the farm before setting out to kill them all. Of course, for such a dastardly plan to exceed, it would be necessary to lure Jeremy to the farm to kill him also, so that the path to a financial windfall became easier...

It should not be overlooked, that the jury concerned themselves with sending a note to the judge after they had retired to deliberate thier verdict, asking the question, as to whether or not the relatives would benefit financially should Bamber be convicted?

No doubt the jury were not only thinking about the possibility of Robert Boutflour becoming a beneficiary by default, but other prosecution witnesses who were also relatives, the Eatons, and Anthony Pargeter, for example....

[tyler]

Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself. If was a third party (impersonating Nevill on phone) and plan was to lure JB to the farm,why stage a suicide for Sheila? Couldn't a third party still have framed JB for the murders anyway after they had failed to lure him to the farm?

[Jane]

Mike if we look at "She has the gun, She has gone mad" it also implies that Jeremy would immediately know of whom he spoke and begs the question of whether similar incidents MAY have previously occurred.

[mike tesko]

There is evidence that relatives had been alerted to the fact that Sheila and her children were staying at the farm on evening, 6th August 1985, via the acknowledged telephone call that same evening, between June Bamber, Sheila and Pamela Boutflour - when it became clear that Sheila had been and was behaving strangely. In fact, June told Pamela that she intended to visit her on the following day (7th August) to speak to her about Sheila, etc...

It is therefore likely that Pamela discussed the detail of her conversation with June and Sheila over the phone, with other family members that same evening, thus alerting any participating third party to the killings of any would be plan to set in motion...

[mike tesko]

Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself. If was a third party (impersonating Nevill on phone) and plan was to lure JB to the farm,why stage a suicide for Sheila? Couldn't a third party still have framed JB for the murders anyway after they had failed to lure him to the farm?

These are excellent observations, worthy of further consideration - of course, these matters would have fallen upon the jury to decide upon, had the judge not biased the proceedings, by directing the jury along the lines that whether or not Ralph made the call to Jeremy, could determine the verdict they arrive at, since if the jury rejected the defense proposition that Ralph phoned Jeremy telling him " Sheila had got the gun", they could convict him of the murders, but the content of police interviews involving Jeremy and what was actually said by his father, had a bearing upon the truth of the matter, whether or not the judge was right to give such a specific direction to the jury, which was not entirely accurate...