Was Sheila Caffell set up by her brother Jeremy Bamber?

[grahameb]

JEREMY-
 To me, his behaviour after the horrific murders is very odd, and that doesn’t necessarily make him guilty, but when combined with the huge number of odd coincidences that occurred, it does push me towards thinking that he is responsible.
Some of the coincidences if he was innocent include: the handling of the murder weapon on the prior evening and thus his fingerprints being present; the admission of the alleged break in, which gave an alibi of sorts, saying that he broke in after and not on the night of the murders; the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy; Julie Mugford’s statement against him.
He’s either the most unlucky chap on the planet, or he’s guilty.

Unfortunately people act in the strangest of ways to grief. I'm not sure how I would react if the whole of my family had just been killed? I should imagine that I would have a whole spectrum of emotions? I can well see him trying to block it out of his mind and even pretending it never happened? Even to the extent of trying to act as normal as possible? To an outsider it might sound strange. But don't you also see it as quite odd that Ann Eaton and David Boutflour coldly looking for clues in a house where their close relations had just been murdered? Where is the grief there? Quite frankly I see their behaviour more odd than Jeremy Bambers.

Doesn't matter Grahame, as I said I'm not interested in getting into points scoring or drawing battle lines, people through human nature have different takes on things, I got asked what mine was and I replied. Besides it would be pretty boring if everyone agreed with each other all the time.

I'm fully aware of many different views and opinions.

No Problem mate. I'm too old to worry about scoring points over others anyway. You gave your opinion and I just answered it. Simple as.

[Kaldin]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

[Alias]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

No, neither do I. Not at all!

[grahameb]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

Well.....it's like this....I don't either.

[Roch]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

Well.....it's like this....I don't either.

Nail in the coffin for 10 of the 1986 Jury?

[mike tesko]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

Well.....it's like this....I don't either.

------------------

I may post surveillance that JB was under at the material time, the surveilance team observed JB entering WHF through the window, on that occasion...

[Kaldin]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

Well.....it's like this....I don't either.

------------------

I may post surveillance that JB was under at the material time, the surveilance team observed JB entering WHF through the window, on that occasion...

But what is the significance of that from the prosecution's point of view? Did they think he did that to hide evidence that he did it before on the night of the murders? Surely by then they would have gathered any such evidence, so I don't see the point of him doing it for that reason.

[Newbury1]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

Well.....it's like this....I don't either.

------------------

I may post surveillance that JB was under at the material time, the surveillance team observed JB entering WHF through the window, on that occasion...

But what is the significance of that from the prosecution's point of view? Did they think he did that to hide evidence that he did it before on the night of the murders? Surely by then they would have gathered any such evidence, so I don't see the point of him doing it for that reason.

I believe that JB had allegedly used that window on previous occasions to enter whf before the murders. Any marks left on that window could have been made before the murders, so going through the window after the murders to cover up any marks was not particularly relevant (unless he had other reasons for getting into whf other than picking up papers to go abroad with).

The window act was a really silly and incriminating thing to do  (I know this is easy to say now, but JB should have stayed away, and been advised to stay away, from whf. As there is a well known expression about "the criminal returning to the scene of the crime!!")

[VORTEX]

Hartley ...... Many thanks for your answers and I appreciate such a detailed response. I respect that you did not want to debate the answers / views put forward but I'd just like to make 2 small points that you don't need to answer.

1) Surely you must agree that Essex Police were in possession of 3 identical silencers? Why? Only the silencer that was kept at the house should have been in their possession. Police records show 2 being handed back to the relatives under signature which confirms for definite EP were in possession of at least 3 silencers in total.

2) Tampering with evidence - David Boutflour not only took the silencer away from the scene but he admitted later (in 1991) that he scraped  a large lump of blood off it with a razor blade (apparently because it fascinated him!). if evidence is discovered in a murder trial it should be left where it is and Police / forensics called, not put in the back of a car, driven around, tampered with, blood scraped off it, put on various surfaces and who knows what else. The silencer evidence was not fit to be used in court and David Boutflour should have been arrested for tampering with vital evidence. The Police were never given the opportunity to see this evidence "as discovered" in situ which makes me very very suspicious of it's integrity.   

[chelmsey]

excellent post Vortex   +1

[Alias]

Hartley ...... Many thanks for your answers and I appreciate such a detailed response. I respect that you did not want to debate the answers / views put forward but I'd just like to make 2 small points that you don't need to answer.

1) Surely you must agree that Essex Police were in possession of 3 identical silencers? Why? Only the silencer that was kept at the house should have been in their possession. Police records show 2 being handed back to the relatives under signature which confirms for definite EP were in possession of at least 3 silencers in total.

2) Tampering with evidence - David Boutflour not only took the silencer away from the scene but he admitted later (in 1991) that he scraped  a large lump of blood off it with a razor blade (apparently because it fascinated him!). if evidence is discovered in a murder trial it should be left where it is and Police / forensics called, not put in the back of a car, driven around, tampered with, blood scraped off it, put on various surfaces and who knows what else. The silencer evidence was not fit to be used in court and David Boutflour should have been arrested for tampering with vital evidence. The Police were never given the opportunity to see this evidence "as discovered" in situ which makes me very very suspicious of it's integrity.

Totally agreed. Very flimsy evidence for a lifetime sentence in my opinion.

[John]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

As a result of Mugford's statement Jeremy Bamber was arrested on 8 September 1985, as was the friend Mugford said he had implicated, though the latter had a solid alibi and was released. Jeremy told police Mugford was lying because he had jilted her.

Jeremy was bailed from the police station on 13 September 1985, after which he went on holiday to the south of France.

Before leaving England, he returned to the farmhouse, gaining entry by the downstairs bathroom window.

He said he did this because he had left his keys in London and needed some papers for the trip to France; he did not borrow keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby. When he returned to England on 29 September he was re-arrested and charged with the murders.

What other reason could he have had for revisiting the farmhouse so soon?

[Kaldin]

I've never understood the issue of Jeremy breaking into the farm after he was bailed on 13th September. 

As a result of Mugford's statement Jeremy Bamber was arrested on 8 September 1985, as was the friend Mugford said he had implicated, though the latter had a solid alibi and was released. Jeremy told police Mugford was lying because he had jilted her.

Jeremy was bailed from the police station on 13 September 1985, after which he went on holiday to the south of France.

Before leaving England, he returned to the farmhouse, gaining entry by the downstairs bathroom window.

He said he did this because he had left his keys in London and needed some papers for the trip to France; he did not borrow keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby. When he returned to England on 29 September he was re-arrested and charged with the murders.

What other reason could he have had for revisiting the farmhouse so soon?

Yes, but what is the issue from the prosecution's point of view? I don't see what they were getting at.

[John]

I might be wrong in this Kaldin, but what the prosecution were attempting to show was that Jeremy could gain entry to the farmhouse at any time and leave again even though it appeared to strangers to be locked and secure.  I can fully identify with this scenario since I have experienced the same situation with farmhouses owned by my own family over the years.

I think this is part of the Crown's case which contends that Jeremy was able to gain access to the house whenever he needed to and could have carried out the killings before leaving by the same route. The problem with a member of the family having carried out the crime is that there is a reasonable explanation why their DNA could be at the scene and in Jeremy's case, all around the window entry point.

[John]

Jeremy and Robert Boutflour disagreed on how to deal with security at the site and Jeremy owned part of it, so in theory he was stealing from himself as well as the family. I can kind of understand why he stole the money as he wasn't being given / paid the same share as his cousin Ann Eaton (so perhaps he saw it as his anyway). There is quite a difference in stealing a few quid and murder. Don't forget Mugford was happy to be involved so does that cloud your judgement of her also?

I find this quite interesting looking back.  Wasn't the murders all about stealing money too but on a grander scale??