What i will never understand in this case is whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty how he could be convicted on the evidence presented.
I thought British justice was about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof was with the prosecution to show that a suspect was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Surely the fact this case is still being discussed in forams like this one that there is such doubt.
1. No forensic to show JB was at the farm house that evening.
This itself surely gives the idea of reasonable doubt. If he cant be placed at the scene then this causes a problem. The doors were locked from the inside so the only way he can enter is through an unlocked window, but no forensic evidence shown that window was used and no evidence or blood trail found on any exits from the property.
It is possible he could have entered and exited from the farm house without leaving any forensic but without any evidence surley there must be doubt.
2. The silencer.
After an police search in the property no silencer was found. Surely this is either very poor police work or at least cast a shadow of a doubt on the family finding it at a later stage.
There appears to be know forensic on the silencer other than specks of blood identified only as some animal blood and blood possibly of the same blood type as Sheila. As there was no DNA it is impossible to say with any certainty that the blood is Sheila's . There is a good chance of any farm gun having some specks of Blood on it again this is evidence that surely must have an element of doubt.
The red paint evidence on the silencer proving that there was a struggle is again open to doubt as again the police make no mention of scratch marks on the fireplace on the initial search of the property. They suspected a struggle on finding the body in the kitchen surley they would be looking for scratches in paintwork ect to try and map out where the struggle happened. If they didnt notice it then it brings itt into doubt. This i believe is also in doubt due to photographs showing no visible scratches on the fireplace on the day of the shootings.
3. Police bias
It its quite clear that from interviews with P S bews and other officers did not like JB and from the start of the investigation seemed to be looking for excuses to believe circumstancial evidence rather than factual evidence from which there was none.
4. Motive
JB s motive was shown to be that he hated his adopted parents and wanted to have his inheritance now and not wait.
I don't think there would be many 22 year old's who if there parents had money and wanted to have a more extravagant lifestyle would feel a bit of resentment to there parents many 20 year old's feel resentment to there parents at this age as values change from generation to generation dosent make someone a mass murderer.
What evidence do we actually have that JB had planned to murder his parents, to my understanding the only witness to testify that JB had these plans was Julie Mugford. And i will cover that later. No other testimony from anyone else saying he though of murdering anyone.
5. The Phone calls
JB states he got a call from his father saying his sister had gone a bit mad and had got hold of a gun then the call rung off. He then called the police to confirm this and was told to make his way to the farm house and he would be met there by police.
The things that can be verified is that JB made call to police and he followed there instructions everything else unfortunately is speculation.
Unfortunately there is so much unclear evidence on the police call logs that any information from them have to be taken with a pinch of salt. If there was one definitive call log showing son called and no other call logs then this would be admissible evidence but there is also a call log stating that the father called police say this is the same call but just noted incorrectly on the call logs, as soon as there is a slightest admissions by police that there are dependencies then the logs are are inadmissible as evidence . JB did not say his father called the police he was unaware of this but as the call logs are so mixed up we need to give the benefit of the doubt again to the victim. There is no denial from police that JB called so this needs to be taken as fact. The fact whether the father called or not although would help JB co operate his statements it gives no added evidence to the police of JB Guilt. As of course the father could very well have called JB as stated and then he could have called the police.
The evidence that JB called Julie at 3.00 am there is no evidence of this and again is open to doubt. We need to look at actual factual evidence to show the lack of doubt.
6. Julie Mongford
The conviction of JB lies mostly in whether or not the testimony of this witness is true.
There are no proven facts to her statements so we are asked to take her at her word.
Why in British justice are we able to take anything this witness says seriously as there is no evidence to corroborate anything she says. Surely the fact she was being cheated on by JB and she found out has to taint every thing she says (even if true) as there is no actual evidence to show what she says is correct therefore gives rise to doubt.
Under the conditions of this being hearsay evidence it makes no difference what she says as there is no way to prove any of it. Does this mean anyone can just say anything about anyone and there is no doubt in what they say.
Bearing in mind that criminal charges were dropped against her for her testimony would also favour her testimony on the side of the prosecution. She also had negotiate a deal with a newspaper that she could sell her story on a guilty verdict which alone should discount her testimony completely.
But even within her testimony there seems some strange statements .
She states that on a number of occasions JB said he would murder his family yet until giving her statement to the police a month later said nothing to no one.
If she knows that this man has killed his whole family why would she still stay with him wouldn't she be scared of him. She must also realize that by saying nothing she is also guilty of conspiracy to murder and to obstruction charges which once she gives her statement do not seem to be perused by the police.
She also states that he hired hitman to kill his family. This is clearly untrue.
7. David Balfour
This guy obviously did not like JB this comes accross in every statement and interview he has been on. That is fine he can dislike whoever he wants but it surely brings into doubt any impartiality of what he says and does.
The police search the house on the day of the murders looking for any firearm evidence you would think they would search the place with a fine tooth comb after 4 Murders and a suicide to peace all the pieces together . They seemed to have overlooked the cupboard under the stairs (pretty big oversight) yet on the 10th of august 3 days later David finds a box of shells in a box along with the silencer. (how the police can miss a box of shells which you would think they would be looking for) instead of alerting the police to this leaving the box where it is and showing where it was found he took it to his sisters house.
So no evidence to even show the silencer was in the house. The police surely would have a log of where they had searched have the police ever admitted that they overlook this cupboard.
Also we then are supposed to believe JB shot so many rounds with the silencer on takes it off then calmly goes to the cupboard under the stairs puts it in a box of ammunition then finishes whatever he was doing seems again very doubtful. And if the police didn't find it in the original search and no mention of a silencer being used he could just have disposed of it the next day.
There is also an interview with David Balfour where he states he knew it was JB but they knew something would turn up , then the interviewer says and it then did the silencer. He then smirks and says yes it did.
His body language on this interview seems very suspect to me.
Conclusions,
Taking aside all the theories i have read about what could have or might have happened the simple fact is there is reasonable doubt .
No evidence he was there, the police not finding the silencer , police bias as they cleary didnt like him, police incompetence especially in the call logs, julie Mugford obviously unreliable testimony and the relatives unreliable finding of the silencer.
To me i have no clue whether he is guilty or not but the evidence certainly is not enought to convict him.
How his defense team were able to lose this case at the original trial beggars belief.
The only thing i can think of and i wast there of course is when JB gave evidence for whatever reason he must have came across as unlikeable and arrogant. This being the case if i was trying the case i would never have put him in the dock i would have made my case through lack of evidence and doubt.
British Justice
