The Jigsaw Puzzle

[Luminous Wanderer]

When I'm confronted with a complex problem, I favour simplification.  Simplifying things aids focus and logic.

Four immediate simple points we can make, that I believe everybody (pro- or anti-Bamber, or like me, neutral) should agree on:

1. First, there is no direct forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber to the crime.  This does not establish Bamber's innocence, nor does it infer guilt, but it is what it is and is worth re-stating.

2. Second, Jeremy Bamber's behaviour before and after the killings, including allegations that he went on an expensive holiday, are - even if true - of no relevance.  They don't prove he killed anybody.  Again, excluding this evidence is neutral as to the Crown and the defence.

3. Third, we can dismiss Julie Mugford's evidence entirely.  Doing so is neutral as to the Crown and defence.  It doesn't help Jeremy Bamber, nor does it hinder him.  Neither does it help or hinder the Crown.  Her evidence proves nothing one way or the other.  At best, it's bad character evidence from which a rational jury might draw adverse inferences as part of understanding the big picture, but it's not probative and it can be neutralised by evidence of Julie Mugford's own bad character.

[Credit to David1819 for raising this] 4. As discussed below with David1819, it's accepted that Bamber could have entered and egressed the farmhouse via the windows, as Bamber admits that he could do so.  Possibly at trial there was a ripe issue of how Bamber could have done so without leaving marks on the window frames, and perhaps more could have been made of this, but at this point it's not a very relevant issue.  The appellate judges will simply recognise that Bamber could have entered and left via one of the windows and there may have been an unlocked window that could be opened from the outside without being forced, and Bamber could easily have 'secured' a window simply by closing or banging it shut in a way that would keep it shut.  Nobody suggests he had to lock a window from the outside in order to fulfil his criminal scheme.

To amplify, especially with regard to point 3 above, let us consider an analogy, which I hope will help.

Many people think of cases like this one as akin to a house of cards.  The thinking goes that if you remove one card, then the whole structure tumbles down.  Thus, remove one piece of evidence, and the Crown's case collapses. 

I would contend that in the case of Jeremy Bamber, the house of cards analogy is naive, if not wholly inaccurate.  A better figuration would be to regard the Bamber case as a jigsaw puzzle, in which each node of incriminating evidence can be seen as a piece of the jigsaw.  A playing card is structurally fungible - i.e. you can replace a card, and it won't matter if the new card is blue, black or pink, the house of cards remains in place as before, the essential structure intact.  A jigsaw piece, on the other hand, is unique to that particular puzzle: a blank or 'grey' jigsaw piece is no good, ergo remove one piece of the jigsaw, and the puzzle fails.

Julie Mugford's evidence, in that figurative analogy, is the frame around the jigsaw.  Remove the frame, and the puzzle remains in place, undisturbed.  But remove a jigsaw piece, and the puzzle fails.  It's the jigsaw pieces that need to be 'tested'.

So what are the jigsaw pieces?

The bases of Jeremy Bamford's conviction are circumstantial inferences that flow from the following elements [feel free to add to this list in the comments, if you are aware of any more):

(i). The forensic evidence found on the discovered sound moderator.

(ii). The witness evidence of the two individuals involved in discovering the sound moderator.

(iii). The lack of evidence (beyond Jeremy Bamber's own statements) of telephone calls, during the incident, from Nevill Bamber to either Jeremy himself or the authorities.

(iv). The view of the Crown's ballistics expert that Sheila's fatal injuries were not self-inflicted.

(v). The lack of any forensic evidence found on Sheila that would implicate her in a murder-suicide scheme.

(vi). It is apparent that Nevill had been involved in a physical struggle in the kitchen. [Note: I might move this to the 'Irrelevant' category, I will give it further thought].

[Let me know if you have additional points, and I will edit this and add them and gladly credit you].

Undermine just one of these, and the Crown's case fails.  That's because, much like a jigsaw puzzle, each of these elements is non-fungible and interlocks with the others to form a cumulative 'puzzle', a picture of guilt.

The question we should ask and seek to answer is not, Is Jeremy innocent? or Is Jeremy guilty?, but rather, Is the conviction safe?  We can only answer that by tackling (i) to (v) above (plus any additional points others can think of).

Tackling the incriminating evidence does not necessarily mean completely exposing it as false.  All that's needed is reasonable doubt, which in the context of a criminal appeal means that the appellate judges will conclude that a rational hypothetical jury, on seeing the new evidence, could have come to a different verdict. 

Again, note the use there of the word 'could' rather than 'would'.  We are not here to decide what the jury at trial would or should have done if they had had the benefit of a leisurely retrospective, as we have.  Instead, we must hypothesise whether particular new evidence could lead to a different verdict.

[Steve_uk]

When I'm confronted with a complex problem, I favour simplification.  Simplifying things aids focus and logic.

Three immediate simple points we can make, that I believe everybody (pro- or anti-Bamber, or like me, neutral) should agree on:

1. First, there is no direct forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber to the crime.  This does not establish Bamber's innocence, nor does it infer guilt, but it is what it is and is worth re-stating.

2. Second, Jeremy Bamber's behaviour before and after the killings, including allegations that he went on an expensive holiday, are - even if true - of no relevance.  They don't prove he killed anybody.  Again, excluding this evidence is neutral as to the Crown and the defence.

3. Third, we can dismiss Julie Mugford's evidence entirely.  Doing so is neutral as to the Crown and defence.  It doesn't help Jeremy Bamber, nor does it hinder him.  Neither does it help or hinder the Crown.  Her evidence proves nothing one way or the other.  At best, it's bad character evidence from which a rational jury might draw adverse inferences as part of understanding the big picture, but it's not probative and it can be neutralised by evidence of Julie Mugford's own bad character.

To amplify, let us consider an analogy, which I hope will help.

Many people think of cases like this one as akin to a house of cards.  The thinking goes that if you remove one card, then the whole structure tumbles down.  Thus, remove one piece of evidence, and the Crown's case collapses. 

I would contend that in the case of Jeremy Bamber, the house of cards analogy is naive, if not wholly inaccurate.  A better figuration would be to regard the Bamber case as a jigsaw puzzle, in which each node of incriminating evidence can be seen as a piece of the jigsaw.  A playing card is structurally fungible - i.e. you can replace a card, and it won't matter if the new card is blue, black or pink, the house of cards remains in place as before, the essential structure intact.  A jigsaw piece, on the other hand, is unique to that particular puzzle: a blank or 'grey' jigsaw piece is no good, ergo remove one piece of the jigsaw, and the puzzle fails.

Julie Mugford's evidence, in that figurative analogy, is the frame around the jigsaw.  Remove the frame, and the puzzle remains in place, undisturbed.  But remove a jigsaw piece, and the puzzle fails.  It's the jigsaw pieces that need to be 'tested'.

So what are the jigsaw pieces?

The bases of Jeremy Bamford's conviction are circumstantial inferences that flow from the following elements [feel free to add to this list in the comments, if you are aware of any more):

(i). The forensic evidence found on the discovered sound moderator.

(ii). The witness evidence of the two individuals involved in discovering the sound moderator.

(iii). The lack of evidence of telephone calls during the incident by Nevill Bamber to either Jeremy Bamber or the authorities.

(iv). The view of the Crown's ballistic expert that Sheila's fatal injuries were not self-inflicted.

(v). The lack of any forensic evidence found on Sheila that would incriminate her in a murder-suicide scheme.

[Let me know if you have additional points, and I will edit this and add them and gladly credit you].

Undermine just one of these, and the Crown's case fails.  That's because, much like a jigsaw puzzle, each of these elements is non-fungible and interlocks with the others to form a cumulative 'puzzle', a picture of guilt.

The question we should ask and seek to answer is not, Is Jeremy innocent? or Is Jeremy guilty?, but rather, Is the conviction safe?  We can only answer that by tackling (i) to (v) above (plus any additional points others can think of).

You have simplified things to the point of cretinism.

[Luminous Wanderer]

You have simplified things to the point of cretinism.

I don't need to respond to that beyond stating the obvious: you are a buffoon.  Your purpose here is to keep us entertained.

I welcome constructive and helpful comments from serious people.

[David1819]

(iv). The view of the Crown's ballistic expert that Sheila's fatal injuries were not self-inflicted.

The "ballistic expert" came to this conclusion purely on the precence of Sheila's blood group inside the sound moderator.

[Luminous Wanderer]

The "ballistic expert" came to this conclusion purely on the precence of Sheila's blood group inside the sound moderator.

That's not exactly true, though you are close.  If we're talking about Fletcher, my understanding is that he came to this conclusion simply on the basis that she could not have shot herself with a moderated rifle.  The relevance of the blood finding was different, in that that - in his view - showed that Sheila had been shot with a moderator, not strictly the same point - and I have covered that anyway in my point (i).

[Luminous Wanderer]

Some further thoughts, continuing the opening post in this thread...

Although the evidence points are interrelated in this case, forming a conclusive whole, some evidence is more important than others, just as in a jigsaw some pieces may be bigger or more illuminating than others.  One problem that the jigsaw analogy can present is when some of the jigsaw pieces are marginal only, allowing for the solution to the puzzle to be surmised even with missing pieces.  In any complex jigsaw puzzle, you might have blue or white pieces that make up the sky or a snowy hill within a landscape scene.  Even after removing some of these, we can still see that the solution is a German castle or a Swiss mountain, or whatever.

It is possible in a case such as this for an incriminating point to be excluded entirely but for the conviction nevertheless to be ruled as legally-safe on the basis that the case remains proved and that even without the evidence that has been undermined, a hypothetical rational jury could not have come to a different verdict. 

However, I do not believe that that can happen in the Bamber case.  Each of the points listed depends on the others in forming a cohesive whole and a cumulative picture of guilt, meaning that the exclusion of only one point would amount to reasonable doubt.  For instance, if we exclude point (ii) - i.e. the witness evidence of the two individuals involved in discovering the sound moderator - then we no longer have a chain of evidence for the moderator, and given that we can't accept that the moderator could have appeared out of thin air, that means we no longer have a moderator, and therefore all the other evidence points are either rendered void or become useless and the Crown's case collapses.

That is not to say that Bamber need only raise one ground for a successful appeal.  For one thing, undermining just one evidence point may require more than one ground of appeal to be entered.  For another thing, a wise and pragmatic solicitor will probably be advising Bamber to hedge his bets with at least two or three grounds of appeal covering different areas of evidence.

[Steve_uk]

I don't need to respond to that beyond stating the obvious: you are a buffoon.  Your purpose here is to keep us entertained.

I welcome constructive and helpful comments from serious people.

..and you are the wisest fool in Christendom.

[Luminous Wanderer]

..and you are the wisest fool in Christendom.

You're an idiot, Steve.  What you and others have done here is that you've gone beyond your knowledge and made the assumption that he is guilty or innocent, depending on your own emotional inclinations, and you're shaping everything around that.  That's idiocy.  It's irrational.  It just makes you a buffoon. 

Again, all I need to do is repeat what I have said before and will go on repeating:

People like you are the reason why miscarriages of justice occur.

You are one of the unintelligent and irrational 98% of the population.  The whole point of the criminal justice system is to provide a safeguard against people like you.  That's why traditionally we had checks and balances in the system, including unanimous juries - so that the 2% intelligent minority like me and the skeptically-minded could have an influence in the system - property qualifications for jurors, the exclusion of corroborative evidence, restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, etc.

The scary thing is that those safeguards have been eroded and more and more, we're at the mercy of people like you. 

Juries have been 'democratised', evidence standards have been relaxed, majority verdicts are allowed (as in the Bamber case), etc.  We've now got something approaching mob justice.

[David1819]

Some further thoughts, continuing the opening post in this thread...

Although the evidence points are interrelated in this case, forming a conclusive whole, some evidence is more important than others, just as in a jigsaw some pieces may be bigger or more illuminating than others.  One problem that the jigsaw analogy can present is when some of the jigsaw pieces are marginal only, allowing for the solution to the puzzle to be surmised even with missing pieces.  In any complex jigsaw puzzle, you might have blue or white pieces that make up the sky or a snowy hill within a landscape scene.  Even after removing some of these, we can still see that the solution is a German castle or a Swiss mountain, or whatever.

It is possible in a case such as this for an incriminating point to be excluded entirely but for the conviction nevertheless to be ruled as legally-safe on the basis that the case remains proved and that even without the evidence that has been undermined, a hypothetical rational jury could not have come to a different verdict. 

However, I do not believe that that can happen in the Bamber case.  Each of the points listed depends on the others in forming a cohesive whole and a cumulative picture of guilt, meaning that the exclusion of only one point would amount to reasonable doubt.  For instance, if we exclude point (ii) - i.e. the witness evidence of the two individuals involved in discovering the sound moderator - then we no longer have a chain of evidence for the moderator, and given that we can't accept that the moderator could have appeared out of thin air, that means we no longer have a moderator, and therefore all the other evidence points are either rendered void or become useless and the Crown's case collapses.

That is not to say that Bamber need only raise one ground for a successful appeal.  For one thing, undermining just one evidence point may require more than one ground of appeal to be entered.  For another thing, a wise and pragmatic solicitor will probably be advising Bamber to hedge his bets with at least two or three grounds of appeal covering different areas of evidence.

Another important part the of case is how the crown asserts Jeremy entered the building that was secured from the inside. I will go into more detail later tommorow.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Another important part the of case is how the crown asserts Jeremy entered the building that was secured from the inside. I will go into more detail later tommorow.

Thanks - yes, that's very good point. 

[Steve_uk]

"Secure windows, insecure windows..it makes no difference."

Braggadocio even under Police interrogation, from someone who inherently had very little to brag about.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Another important part the of case is how the crown asserts Jeremy entered the building that was secured from the inside. I will go into more detail later tommorow.

David,

I've just looked at this issue, and it's actually quite complex, more so than I would have expected.  Please note that my immediate purpose here to decide on how this issue should be expressed as an evidence point, rather than to debate the merits or otherwise of the evidence, so bear that in mind.

As far as I can tell, it is common ground that Bamber could have entered and exited the farmhouse via a window: this is because Bamber himself freely admitted as much under police questioning. This obviously does not necessarily imply that the windows were not routinely locked, as Bamber could have used a knife or other implement to open a window.  We must remember, though, that the incident took place at the height of summer and it's quite possible that one or more windows was simply left ajar.  Suffice it to say that the question of whether he could have opened, and then entered and egressed, the farmhouse via a downstairs window is not, in itself, considered controversial.

It also doesn't particularly matter for the Crown's purposes which window was used, for either entrance or exit.  It probably also doesn't matter for the defence which window he is thought to have used to enter the house.  The only point of contention, then, is whether he could have secured a window from the outside when exiting. This matters because the house was apparently secure when the police arrived.

This is where I am slightly concerned, and again it is not my purpose to debate the evidence, I am purely for the moment interested in how to formulate this as an evidence point.

I would assume (though this is mentioned nowhere) that Bamber's ability to 'secure' a window from the outside would be limited to banging it shut - not to latch or lock it necessarily, but to give the appearance of it being secure.  In regard to the toilet window, it looks like a sliding-sash window to me, so there would have been a lock on it, but I suppose we must assume that either the lower sash was locked in the open position or the window wasn't locked at all.  If the latter, Bamber could easily have brought down the lower sash into the unlocked position, making it seem secure when inspected casually from the outside.  In regard to the kitchen window, there is a primitive locking mechanism based on a latch, and while he would not have been able to actually lock both windows on the latch, he could - had he wanted to go to the trouble - have locked the smaller upper window on the latch, by leaning in the lower window when open, then reaching up to lock it.  He could then have banged the lower window shut, but without actually locking it, to make it look secure. 

Am I correct in this summary?  I know there may be other windows to consider, but that's for another time.  For now, I just want to understand how the problem should be formulated.

Assuming I am correct, it seems to me that the evidence point isn't relevant.  It's very much a Q.E.D. because everybody agrees Bamber could have entered and exited, and the only requirement for Bamber under the logic of his criminal scheme was to ensure that the window he used to leave was apparently 'secure' - for which purpose, it was sufficient simply to shut it in a way that kept it shut.

[David1819]

David,

I've just looked at this issue, and it's actually quite complex, more so than I would have expected.  Please note that my immediate purpose here to decide on how this issue should be expressed as an evidence point, rather than to debate the merits or otherwise of the evidence, so bear that in mind.

As far as I can tell, it is common ground that Bamber could have entered and exited the farmhouse via a window: this is because Bamber himself freely admitted as much under police questioning. This obviously does not necessarily imply that the windows were not routinely locked, as Bamber could have used a knife or other implement to open a window.  We must remember, though, that the incident took place at the height of summer and it's quite possible that one or more windows was simply left ajar.  Suffice it to say that the question of whether he could have opened, and then entered and egressed, the farmhouse via a downstairs window is not, in itself, considered controversial.

It also doesn't particularly matter for the Crown's purposes which window was used, for either entrance or exit.  It probably also doesn't matter for the defence which window he is thought to have used to enter the house.  The only point of contention, then, is whether he could have secured a window from the outside when exiting. This matters because the house was apparently secure when the police arrived.

This is where I am slightly concerned, and again it is not my purpose to debate the evidence, I am purely for the moment interested in how to formulate this as an evidence point.

I would assume (though this is mentioned nowhere) that Bamber's ability to 'secure' a window from the outside would be limited to banging it shut - not to latch or lock it necessarily, but to give the appearance of it being secure.  In regard to the toilet window, it looks like a sliding-sash window to me, so there would have been a lock on it, but I suppose we must assume that either the lower sash was locked in the open position or the window wasn't locked at all.  If the latter, Bamber could easily have brought down the lower sash into the unlocked position, making it seem secure when inspected casually from the outside.  In regard to the kitchen window, there is a primitive locking mechanism based on a latch, and while he would not have been able to actually lock both windows on the latch, he could - had he wanted to go to the trouble - have locked the smaller upper window on the latch, by leaning in the lower window when open, then reaching up to lock it.  He could then have banged the lower window shut, but without actually locking it, to make it look secure. 

Am I correct in this summary?  I know there may be other windows to consider, but that's for another time.  For now, I just want to understand how the problem should be formulated.

Assuming I am correct, it seems to me that the evidence point isn't relevant.  It's very much a Q.E.D. because everybody agrees Bamber could have entered and exited, and the only requirement for Bamber under the logic of his criminal scheme was to ensure that the window he used to leave was apparently 'secure' - for which purpose, it was sufficient simply to shut it in a way that kept it shut.

In a nutshell

Late July 1985- Windows freshly painted by decorator

August 6th/7th 1985 - The killings take place.

Late August 1985 - Police investigate windows for evidence of forced entry and find nothing.

Early September 1985 - Police re-investigate the windows after Julie "comes forward" and they find nothing.

Mid September 1985 - Jeremy needs documents from the office in order to go abroad and has no key, Enters via the downstairs bathroom window using a hack saw to unsecure the latch.

Late September 1985 - Police find the hacksaw and damaged window latch.

Trial 1986 - Prosecution use the hacksaw and window damage and argue Jeremy did that on the night of the murders (withholding the evidence that there was no damage to the windows or hacksaw prior to that mid september 1985)

Appeal 2002 - Defence obtain withheld police documents and new witness testimony confirming the evidence used to convince the jury that Jeremy entered the building was created in the month after the murders. And there was no evidence of forced entry prior to mid september 1985

Prosecution counter the claim by using Jeremy's words "Secure windows, insecure windows..it makes no difference."

[Luminous Wanderer]

In a nutshell

Late July 1985- Windows freshly painted by decorator

August 6th/7th 1985 - The killings take place.

Late August 1985 - Police investigate windows for evidence of forced entry and find nothing.

Early September 1985 - Police re-investigate the windows after Julie "comes forward" and they find nothing.

Mid September 1985 - Jeremy needs documents from the office in order to go abroad and has no key, Enters via the downstairs bathroom window using a hack saw to unsecure the latch.

Late September 1985 - Police find the hacksaw and damaged window latch.

Trial 1986 - Prosecution use the hacksaw and window damage and argue Jeremy did that on the night of the murders (withholding the evidence that there was no damage to the windows or hacksaw prior to that mid september 1985)

Appeal 2002 - Defence obtain withheld police documents and new witness testimony confirming the evidence used to convince the jury that Jeremy entered the building was created in the month after the murders. And there was no evidence of forced entry prior to mid september 1985

Prosecution counter the claim by using Jeremy's words "Secure windows, insecure windows..it makes no difference."

OK.  Let me ask the question this way:

Is it common ground between the Crown and the defence that in order for Jeremy to have entered that night, he would have had to force a window? 

Or do the Crown take no view on that specificity and simply rest on Jeremy's non-specific admission in a police interview that he could enter the farmhouse via a window?

[David1819]

OK.  Let me ask the question this way:

Is it common ground between the Crown and the defence that in order for Jeremy to have entered that night, he would have had to force a window? 

Or do the Crown take no view on that specificity and simply rest on Jeremy's non-specific admission in a police interview that he could enter the farmhouse via a window?

They simply rest on Jeremy's non-specific admission in a police interview that he could enter the farmhouse via a window.


From an objective point of view, one has to assume a window was allready open before he arrived hence no damage to the window. So to my mind the whole senario is in the realm of speculation before the alleged crime takes place. Whether the Crown contemplated this I do not know.