Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on August 14, 2020, 09:26:AM
-
Occam's razor is a philosophical razor attributed to William of Ockam (https://infogalactic.com/info/William_of_Ockham).
One way of defining this razor is that when deciding between competing explanations involving the same facts, Occam's razor says that the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct. Ideally, Occam's razor relies on a complete view of the facts, which I do not believe we have, and I certainly do not pretend that what follows is an accurate solution of the case, far from it; it is merely an attempt to apply Occam's razor to the case.
Taff Jones applied Occam’s razor. I am not suggesting he did so purposefully, but then, Occam’s razor as a principle is just the expression of a common thinking process we all use in our everyday lives to some extent or other. Placing Sheila as the killer at the scene is simple as chips. Almost-all the evidence is there and it’s easy. It is the Jeremy scenario that is the more complex and difficult to imagine. In the hands of a skilled barrister, the Jeremy scenario could be made to appear laughable.
That does not make Jeremy innocent, but it does raise worrying questions for me. I am still inclined to the view that he did it, somehow. I’m just not sure how he managed it and I think, on due consideration, my verdict would have to be Not Guilty in law.
Let's start with some facts, that are common ground:
(i). Sheila is found with the weapon.
(ii). Sheila was violent (though there is dispute about in what sense).
(iii). Sheila was mentally-ill.
(iv). Her periodic psychotropic dosage had been abruptly reduced by half.
(v). All the victims have multiple gun shot wounds, except Sheila.
(vi). Suiciders can and do shoot themselves more than once.
(vii). Sheila was a recreational drug-user.
(viii). It seemed that all doors and windows were secured from the inside.
(ix). There is no proof Sheila was sedated at all, and in itself, this would not prevent her carrying out the massacre anyway. Sedated does not mean asleep.
(x). The claimed phone call from Nevill must have taken place prior to the shootings, if it happened at all.
I would also advance the following interpretations:
(xi). In the opinion of pathologists for both the prosecution and defence, it was possible for Sheila to move and re-fire after the first shot, so the difference in angles of the shots can be reasonably explained.
(xii). Jeremy’s phone calls could be seen as suspicious, but he would have been confused by the early morning call from his father, he would have been tired himself and probably not thinking straight, and he was a young man and may not have understood what to do.
(xiii). In regard to (viii) above, evidence to the contrary was not found by the police, but was found by relatives who had a vested interest in pursuing Jeremy.
A major plank of the prosecution case against Jeremy is that Sheila was found forensically clean. But is this claim really true?
Consider:
(a). Her hands were swabbed, but the results are not reliable. There is also a serious question mark over the custody of those swabs.
(b). Gun shot residues can deteriorate within hours in any case.
(c). There is confusion on the pathologist’s part about the cleanliness of Sheila’s hands.
(d). There was blood on Sheila’s feet.
(e). Sheila was not carefully examined by the police surgeon, and the pathologist was not present at the crime scene. Admittedly, it was not the police surgeon’s strict duty to count gun shot wounds and identify injuries, but his lack of thoroughness and his observational error, together with the absence of the pathologist, lends itself to a view that minor but significant injuries to Sheila that would not show up under flash photography could have easily been missed by in-situ observers, and may not have been identified by the pathologist, as the autopsy was later.
(f). Consider also that even if she was found clean, this can be attributed to ritual washing – not a wild theory at all, but a recorded phenomenon in murder-suicide incidents involving psychotics. The only missing piece of evidence for that theory is that, to my knowledge, no blooded clothing was found other than blooded knickers in the buckets downstairs.
Consider further that if Sheila really was clean, we then have to explain two things:
1. how Jeremy has managed to position her in the master bedroom; and,
2. what she was doing while Jeremy was downstairs struggling with Nevill.
We have no proof she was sedated, so how can these things be explained? Pro-guilt people say Sheila was asleep throughout, but is that realistic? Wouldn’t she have woken at some point? If you accept she was not shot in her sleep, then you have to ask when did she wake and what happened?
The prosecution enjoy saying that Nevill was big and strong, and Sheila was short and slight, therefore Sheila could not have struggled with Nevill. I completely disagree. As I never tire of repeating – because it’s a point everybody overlooks - the physical difference between Nevill and Sheila if anything makes a struggle more not less likely. But most people, even some of Jeremy’s supporters, ignore this, thinking along very simplistic lines that big must prevail over small in a physical struggle. In reality, it’s not that simple! There is another way of looking at it, which is just as simple and also obvious, but only if you have had relevant life experience. I rather suspect that most of the people who come out with this stuff have never been in fights or violent melees themselves. One thing most people aren’t aware of is that shorter and weaker people, if they are quick on their feet, are often at an advantage in a violent situation. Shorter men inclined to violence learn this from experience. In fist fights and amateur boxing, for instance, a short man has some disadvantages, but he also has one or two crucial edges that he can capitalise on against tall men.
In the incident under discussion, Sheila would have had certain physical and psychological advantages over Nevill. She’s female and his daughter, so he wouldn’t want to hit her or hurt her – a big edge for a psychotic Sheila. She’s short and light on her feet, which could make it difficult for Nevill to catch her. She’s holding the gun, which can be used to threaten Nevill and even bludgeon him. If Nevill goes for the phone, he can’t then chase Sheila around as he’s tied to the call and waiting for Jeremy. Sheila may then have stood there with Nevill in the kitchen shouting and screaming until Jeremy finally answers the phone. Sheila then suddenly goes quiet, and angrily she then runs for the main stairs. Nevill follows her. Really, it’s not a difficult scenario to imagine. And that’s before we get into the simple fact that Nevill is 61 and Sheila is 28, a violent psychotic, and waving a loaded gun around that she could easily use at any moment. Nevill may have assumed she wouldn’t actually use it, but at the same time, he calls on Jeremy for help in either calming her down or he may just have wanted Jeremy over there to help sort things out generally while he looked after Sheila. He may not even have given the call to Jeremy much thought at all. It could be that he instinctively recognised he needed to bring somebody in and thought it best that it was his son rather than an outsider who might go to the authorities and get Sheila locked up.
Julie Mugford was a major prosecution witness, perhaps the pre-eminent witness for the Crown. Yet, what does her evidence actually prove? She never actually says that Jeremy admitted the murders in so many words. The closest we come to that is a pseudo-confession from Jeremy in which he relates the adventures of Matthew Macdonald, who he supposedly contracted to carry out the killing, but it turns out that Macdonald has an alibi. The prosecution allege that by eliminating Macdonald, the burden of the confession shifts to Jeremy by default, but that is supposition that turns on whether Julie (or indeed Jeremy himself) is telling the truth at all. All the facts she relates could have been obtained secondhand, even from an entirely innocent Jeremy. Where, then, is the corroboration for anything she says? Why should we accept this evidence? We must ask: If Jeremy is lying about Macdonald, then why should we not conclude that the whole thing was made up, either by Julie or even Jeremy himself? But aside from those questions, if we apply Occam's razor, we can dismiss everything she says, not on the basis that it is untrue, but because even if true, it proves nothing of value to us.
Overall, the ballistic and blood evidence is just not consistent with Jeremy as the killer. Nevill’s movements in that scenario make little sense. Pro-guilt people have Nevill being shot in his sleep and waking up. Why doesn’t Jeremy just kill him there and then? Why does Jeremy need to struggle with Nevill at all? Why does Jeremy shoot June five times in the first fusillade? How does Nevill get all the way downstairs leaving only two noticeable spots of blood on the way and no blood in the bedroom? Where is the evidence of a struggle with Sheila, and why is she so clean?
It is said that the silencer pins the shootings to Jeremy, but the silencer is not forensically conclusive and the chain of custody of the silencer renders it unreliable as evidence. There is also no other conclusive surrounding evidence that the silencer was used. Can we really believe, for instance, that Nevill would have been shot in his sleep yet survived to be shot three more times before running down the stairs? If Jeremy was using a silencer, then why kill the twins first? Why not attack Nevill first anyway, as he is the primary threat? Julie Mugford, the star witness, never mentions the silencer – which is an odd omission considering how central to the mechanics of the shooting the silencer became. Wouldn’t this be the first thing ‘Matthew’ brings up? Wouldn’t Jeremy brag to Julie that the silencer had not been found? And why didn’t Jeremy clean the silencer properly? It is said the glass kitchen light shade was smashed during a struggle and this could only have happened with the silencer on the rifle, yet no glass fragments were found in or on the silencer or the rifle barrel and the glass could easily have been shattered by some other means. There is a belief that Sheila could not have used the silenced rifle on herself, but even if true, that can only be considered evidence if we can pin the silencer to the crime in the first place, otherwise it’s circular. Similarly, relying on a piece of evidence produced by witnesses with a vested financial interest (and possibly a ‘vital interest’, the criterion I have proposed on another thread) seems dubious, and is also circular because it involves identifying a suspect and then finding evidence to fit.
There is also evidence of negligent or intentional pollution or contamination of the evidence. The blood stain pattern inside the silencer would be consistent with intentional/designed contamination. The relatives need not have known conceptually about the blowback form of backspatter to do this, they need only have some empirical knowledge that blood can somehow get inside weapons and silencers, which any gun owner would surmise from mundane experience. In this regard, the fact no blood or other biological traces were found inside the rifle barrel ironically may assist the defence: how is it there is no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was attached the rifle barrel? The prosecution pose that question in reverse, assuming that the absence of blood in the barrel settles their case, but the question should actually be the other way round, since the blood would have to passively drip into the rifle barrel from the silencer. Furthermore, the scratch marks on the aga surround do not match the silencer itself, yet paint matching the aga surround was found on the silencer. How can that be explained? One way of resolving the apparent paradox would be to say that somebody has come along and scratched the silencer with a different implement (perhaps the Pargeter gun, which was then hastily removed) and the paint was intentionally put on the silencer. As with the blood staining on the baffles, this would be consistent with the known evidence.
Are theories of corrupt practices susceptible to Occam’s razor? Actually, we need not necessarily go down that controversial road and make such allegations. We could simply point to the chain of custody, the dismantling of the silencer by D.I. Cook under non-controlled and non-sterilised conditions, the flaws in the pull-through test and the forensic flaws in Fletcher’s controlled firing (which could have evacuated blowbacked biologic material from the interior of the barrell), and the flaws in Howard’s blood retrieval methodology (Glynis Howard probably inadvertently re-contaminated the silencer!).
This is before we get into the whole problem of placing Jeremy at the scene. A guilty Jeremy must have returned to his cottage in Goldhanger as he would not risk witnesses saying his car was not there. How, then, does Jeremy return to White House Farm without being seen? How does he enter and leave without leaving forensic traces? How does he return without being seen?
We also have great difficulty with Jeremy as the killer. There is the lack of a compelling motive. People think it’s simple: he killed for money. But let us just stop to consider that for a moment: would he really kill five people, his own family, including two children, and with all the risks this entails, just for money? It’s a bit of a stretch. And what would he actually inherit? If, as those who hate Jeremy claim, he wasn’t keen on farming, then how does he keep the farm running? Would Peter Eaton have willingly toiled under his superintendence? Perhaps Jeremy killed five of his family, including two children, so he could take control of a caravan site? When you look into it more carefully, it starts to look slightly fat-fetched, even ridiculous.
Now consider that we do not have all these difficulties with Sheila as the killer. It is very easy to place her at the crime scene. She is already there, which saves us a whole host of difficulties. Ironically, the cleanliness of Sheila arguably points to her culpability.
Using the rifle would be easy. A child could do it, the only requirement being to have seen somebody else operate it, and we know Jeremy did tutor Sheila with the rifle on at least one occasion. Sheila had also expressed an interest in guns on one of the shooting trips to Scotland and had fired a shotgun at least once. Nobody is suggesting Sheila was expert or comfortable with guns, but then, she needn’t have been. The victims were shot at close range and many bullets were wasted.
Sheila need not leave prints or marks anywhere, as she is holding the rifle throughout. This may also help explain why she has little in the way of marks on her from struggle, since she could easily have used the rifle butt against Nevill (though as I explain above, due to flaws in the investigation, we can’t know that Sheila was free of injury).
Sheila need not have broken her nails when re-loading the magazine. She just needed to take her time, which she could, as her adult victims were already shot in the first fusillade.
Sheila could make reassuring noises to the twins, telling them to stay in bed, or she could have shouted and scolded them to make them obey. They may also have remained in bed simply out of fear. She then kills them.
Five rapid shots into June is consistent with Sheila as the killer.
A struggle between Nevill and the assailant is consistent with Sheila as the killer. Nevill would struggle with his daughter because he would want to try and seize the gun off her.
Jeremy’s claim of a pre-shooting phone call also fits with Sheila as the killer.
Some conclusions:
The Jeremy scenario is not well-suited to Occam’s razor. It is complex and meandered. There are fundamental things left unexplained. In my view (for what that's worth), the conviction and continued blackening of Jeremy Bamber is not entirely rational-scientific. It is an article of faith, based on insubstantial suspicion, rumour and naked hatred and dislike for the individual.
The Sheila scenario is, on the other hand, eminently suitable for Occam’s razor and can be explained rationally.
Now let’s consider why there is this difference. I would submit it is down to underlying patterns of thinking: specifically, a dichotomy between objective and subjective thought.
Most of the points favouring Sheila's culpability and Jeremy's innocence are objective and testable scientifically.
In contrast, almost-all of the points favouring Jeremy's guilt are entirely subjective, the exception being the silencer evidence. Yet even the silencer is what I would describe as subjective-objective. It was introduced into evidence by people with vested interests who harboured bad feelings against Jeremy. With that starting point noted, it is interesting that the probative value of the silencer fell apart under scientific examination (the objective stage), in that the forensic findings were inconclusive, a grey hair attached to the silencer was lost and the chain-of-custody compromised its reliability as evidence. Tellingly, the police dismissed the silencer evidence for months, regarding it as inconclusive, and at the trial, the jury only found Jeremy guilty after being misdirected about the blood evidence by a hostile and biased trial judge. To round-off the condemnation of this evidence, we should note that the blood evidence adduced is in itself subjective as blood grouping involves an element of professional opinion and is not as black-and-white as the average person (i.e. a juror) would assume.
-
Thank you
-
Occam's razor is a philosophical razor attributed to William of Ockam (https://infogalactic.com/info/William_of_Ockham).
One way of defining this razor is that when deciding between competing explanations involving the same facts, Occam's razor says that the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct. Ideally, Occam's razor relies on a complete view of the facts, which I do not believe we have, and I certainly do not pretend that what follows is an accurate solution of the case, far from it; it is merely an attempt to apply Occam's razor to the case.
Taff Jones applied Occam’s razor. I am not suggesting he did so purposefully, but then, Occam’s razor as a principle is just the expression of a common thinking process we all use in our everyday lives to some extent or other. Placing Sheila as the killer at the scene is simple as chips. Almost-all the evidence is there and it’s easy. It is the Jeremy scenario that is the more complex and difficult to imagine. In the hands of a skilled barrister, the Jeremy scenario could be made to appear laughable.
That does not make Jeremy innocent, but it does raise worrying questions for me. I am still inclined to the view that he did it, somehow. I’m just not sure how he managed it and I think, on due consideration, my verdict would have to be Not Guilty in law.
Let's start with some facts, that are common ground:
(i). Sheila is found with the weapon.
(ii). Sheila was violent (though there is dispute about in what sense).
(iii). Sheila was mentally-ill.
(iv). Her periodic psychotropic dosage had been abruptly reduced by half.
(v). All the victims have multiple gun shot wounds, except Sheila.
(vi). Suiciders can and do shoot themselves more than once.
(vii). Sheila was a recreational drug-user.
(viii). It seemed that all doors and windows were secured from the inside.
(ix). There is no proof Sheila was sedated at all, and in itself, this would not prevent her carrying out the massacre anyway. Sedated does not mean asleep.
(x). The claimed phone call from Nevill must have taken place prior to the shootings, if it happened at all.
I would also advance the following interpretations:
(xi). In the opinion of pathologists for both the prosecution and defence, it was possible for Sheila to move and re-fire after the first shot, so the difference in angles of the shots can be reasonably explained.
(xii). Jeremy’s phone calls could be seen as suspicious, but he would have been confused by the early morning call from his father, he would have been tired himself and probably not thinking straight, and he was a young man and may not have understood what to do.
(xiii). In regard to (viii) above, evidence to the contrary was not found by the police, but was found by relatives who had a vested interest in pursuing Jeremy.
A major plank of the prosecution case against Jeremy is that Sheila was found forensically clean. But is this claim really true?
Consider:
(a). Her hands were swabbed, but the results are not reliable. There is also a serious question mark over the custody of those swabs.
(b). Gun shot residues can deteriorate within hours in any case.
(c). There is confusion on the pathologist’s part about the cleanliness of Sheila’s hands.
(d). There was blood on Sheila’s feet.
(e). Sheila was not carefully examined by the police surgeon, and the pathologist was not present at the crime scene. Admittedly, it was not the police surgeon’s strict duty to count gun shot wounds and identify injuries, but his lack of thoroughness and his observational error, together with the absence of the pathologist, lends itself to a view that minor but significant injuries to Sheila that would not show up under flash photography could have easily been missed by in-situ observers, and may not have been identified by the pathologist, as the autopsy was later.
(f). Consider also that even if she was found clean, this can be attributed to ritual washing – not a wild theory at all, but a recorded phenomenon in murder-suicide incidents involving psychotics. The only missing piece of evidence for that theory is that, to my knowledge, no blooded clothing was found other than blooded knickers in the buckets downstairs.
Consider further that if Sheila really was clean, we then have to explain two things:
1. how Jeremy has managed to position her in the master bedroom; and,
2. what she was doing while Jeremy was downstairs struggling with Nevill.
We have no proof she was sedated, so how can these things be explained? Pro-guilt people say Sheila was asleep throughout, but is that realistic? Wouldn’t she have woken at some point? If you accept she was not shot in her sleep, then you have to ask when did she wake and what happened?
The prosecution enjoy saying that Nevill was big and strong, and Sheila was short and slight, therefore Sheila could not have struggled with Nevill. I completely disagree. As I never tire of repeating – because it’s a point everybody overlooks - the physical difference between Nevill and Sheila if anything makes a struggle more not less likely. But most people, even some of Jeremy’s supporters, ignore this, thinking along very simplistic lines that big must prevail over small in a physical struggle. In reality, it’s not that simple! There is another way of looking at it, which is just as simple and also obvious, but only if you have had relevant life experience. I rather suspect that most of the people who come out with this stuff have never been in fights or violent melees themselves. One thing most people aren’t aware of is that shorter and weaker people, if they are quick on their feet, are often at an advantage in a violent situation. Shorter men inclined to violence learn this from experience. In fist fights and amateur boxing, for instance, a short man has some disadvantages, but he also has one or two crucial edges that he can capitalise on against tall men.
In the incident under discussion, Sheila would have had certain physical and psychological advantages over Nevill. She’s female and his daughter, so he wouldn’t want to hit her or hurt her – a big edge for a psychotic Sheila. She’s short and light on her feet, which could make it difficult for Nevill to catch her. She’s holding the gun, which can be used to threaten Nevill and even bludgeon him. If Nevill goes for the phone, he can’t then chase Sheila around as he’s tied to the call and waiting for Jeremy. Sheila may then have stood there with Nevill in the kitchen shouting and screaming until Jeremy finally answers the phone. Sheila then suddenly goes quiet, and angrily she then runs for the main stairs. Nevill follows her. Really, it’s not a difficult scenario to imagine. And that’s before we get into the simple fact that Nevill is 61 and Sheila is 28, a violent psychotic, and waving a loaded gun around that she could easily use at any moment. Nevill may have assumed she wouldn’t actually use it, but at the same time, he calls on Jeremy for help in either calming her down or he may just have wanted Jeremy over there to help sort things out generally while he looked after Sheila. He may not even have given the call to Jeremy much thought at all. It could be that he instinctively recognised he needed to bring somebody in and thought it best that it was his son rather than an outsider who might go to the authorities and get Sheila locked up.
Julie Mugford was a major prosecution witness, perhaps the pre-eminent witness for the Crown. Yet, what does her evidence actually prove? She never actually says that Jeremy admitted the murders in so many words. The closest we come to that is a pseudo-confession from Jeremy in which he relates the adventures of Matthew Macdonald, who he supposedly contracted to carry out the killing, but it turns out that Macdonald has an alibi. The prosecution allege that by eliminating Macdonald, the burden of the confession shifts to Jeremy by default, but that is supposition that turns on whether Julie (or indeed Jeremy himself) is telling the truth at all. All the facts she relates could have been obtained secondhand, even from an entirely innocent Jeremy. Where, then, is the corroboration for anything she says? Why should we accept this evidence? We must ask: If Jeremy is lying about Macdonald, then why should we not conclude that the whole thing was made up, either by Julie or even Jeremy himself? But aside from those questions, if we apply Occam's razor, we can dismiss everything she says, not on the basis that it is untrue, but because even if true, it proves nothing of value to us.
Overall, the ballistic and blood evidence is just not consistent with Jeremy as the killer. Nevill’s movements in that scenario make little sense. Pro-guilt people have Nevill being shot in his sleep and waking up. Why doesn’t Jeremy just kill him there and then? Why does Jeremy need to struggle with Nevill at all? Why does Jeremy shoot June five times in the first fusillade? How does Nevill get all the way downstairs leaving only two noticeable spots of blood on the way and no blood in the bedroom? Where is the evidence of a struggle with Sheila, and why is she so clean?
It is said that the silencer pins the shootings to Jeremy, but the silencer is not forensically conclusive and the chain of custody of the silencer renders it unreliable as evidence. There is also no other conclusive surrounding evidence that the silencer was used. Can we really believe, for instance, that Nevill would have been shot in his sleep yet survived to be shot three more times before running down the stairs? If Jeremy was using a silencer, then why kill the twins first? Why not attack Nevill first anyway, as he is the primary threat? Julie Mugford, the star witness, never mentions the silencer – which is an odd omission considering how central to the mechanics of the shooting the silencer became. Wouldn’t this be the first thing ‘Matthew’ brings up? Wouldn’t Jeremy brag to Julie that the silencer had not been found? And why didn’t Jeremy clean the silencer properly? It is said the glass kitchen light shade was smashed during a struggle and this could only have happened with the silencer on the rifle, yet no glass fragments were found in or on the silencer or the rifle barrel and the glass could easily have been shattered by some other means. There is a belief that Sheila could not have used the silenced rifle on herself, but even if true, that can only be considered evidence if we can pin the silencer to the crime in the first place, otherwise it’s circular. Similarly, relying on a piece of evidence produced by witnesses with a vested financial interest (and possibly a ‘vital interest’, the criterion I have proposed on another thread) seems dubious, and is also circular because it involves identifying a suspect and then finding evidence to fit.
There is also evidence of negligent or intentional pollution or contamination of the evidence. The blood stain pattern inside the silencer would be consistent with intentional/designed contamination. The relatives need not have known conceptually about the blowback form of backspatter to do this, they need only have some empirical knowledge that blood can somehow get inside weapons and silencers, which any gun owner would surmise from mundane experience. In this regard, the fact no blood or other biological traces were found inside the rifle barrel ironically may assist the defence: how is it there is no blood in the rifle barrel if the silencer was attached the rifle barrel? The prosecution pose that question in reverse, assuming that the absence of blood in the barrel settles their case, but the question should actually be the other way round, since the blood would have to passively drip into the rifle barrel from the silencer. Furthermore, the scratch marks on the aga surround do not match the silencer itself, yet paint matching the aga surround was found on the silencer. How can that be explained? One way of resolving the apparent paradox would be to say that somebody has come along and scratched the silencer with a different implement (perhaps the Pargeter gun, which was then hastily removed) and the paint was intentionally put on the silencer. As with the blood staining on the baffles, this would be consistent with the known evidence.
Are theories of corrupt practices susceptible to Occam’s razor? Actually, we need not necessarily go down that controversial road and make such allegations. We could simply point to the chain of custody, the dismantling of the silencer by D.I. Cook under non-controlled and non-sterilised conditions, the flaws in the pull-through test and the forensic flaws in Fletcher’s controlled firing (which could have evacuated blowbacked biologic material from the interior of the barrell), and the flaws in Howard’s blood retrieval methodology (Glynis Howard probably inadvertently re-contaminated the silencer!).
This is before we get into the whole problem of placing Jeremy at the scene. A guilty Jeremy must have returned to his cottage in Goldhanger as he would not risk witnesses saying his car was not there. How, then, does Jeremy return to White House Farm without being seen? How does he enter and leave without leaving forensic traces? How does he return without being seen?
We also have great difficulty with Jeremy as the killer. There is the lack of a compelling motive. People think it’s simple: he killed for money. But let us just stop to consider that for a moment: would he really kill five people, his own family, including two children, and with all the risks this entails, just for money? It’s a bit of a stretch. And what would he actually inherit? If, as those who hate Jeremy claim, he wasn’t keen on farming, then how does he keep the farm running? Would Peter Eaton have willingly toiled under his superintendence? Perhaps Jeremy killed five of his family, including two children, so he could take control of a caravan site? When you look into it more carefully, it starts to look slightly fat-fetched, even ridiculous.
Now consider that we do not have all these difficulties with Sheila as the killer. It is very easy to place her at the crime scene. She is already there, which saves us a whole host of difficulties. Ironically, the cleanliness of Sheila arguably points to her culpability.
Using the rifle would be easy. A child could do it, the only requirement being to have seen somebody else operate it, and we know Jeremy did tutor Sheila with the rifle on at least one occasion. Sheila had also expressed an interest in guns on one of the shooting trips to Scotland and had fired a shotgun at least once. Nobody is suggesting Sheila was expert or comfortable with guns, but then, she needn’t have been. The victims were shot at close range and many bullets were wasted.
Sheila need not leave prints or marks anywhere, as she is holding the rifle throughout. This may also help explain why she has little in the way of marks on her from struggle, since she could easily have used the rifle butt against Nevill (though as I explain above, due to flaws in the investigation, we can’t know that Sheila was free of injury).
Sheila need not have broken her nails when re-loading the magazine. She just needed to take her time, which she could, as her adult victims were already shot in the first fusillade.
Sheila could make reassuring noises to the twins, telling them to stay in bed, or she could have shouted and scolded them to make them obey. They may also have remained in bed simply out of fear. She then kills them.
Five rapid shots into June is consistent with Sheila as the killer.
A struggle between Nevill and the assailant is consistent with Sheila as the killer. Nevill would struggle with his daughter because he would want to try and seize the gun off her.
Jeremy’s claim of a pre-shooting phone call also fits with Sheila as the killer.
Some conclusions:
The Jeremy scenario is not well-suited to Occam’s razor. It is complex and meandered. There are fundamental things left unexplained. In my view (for what that's worth), the conviction and continued blackening of Jeremy Bamber is not entirely rational-scientific. It is an article of faith, based on insubstantial suspicion, rumour and naked hatred and dislike for the individual.
The Sheila scenario is, on the other hand, eminently suitable for Occam’s razor and can be explained rationally.
Now let’s consider why there is this difference. I would submit it is down to underlying patterns of thinking: specifically, a dichotomy between objective and subjective thought.
Most of the points favouring Sheila's culpability and Jeremy's innocence are objective and testable scientifically.
In contrast, almost-all of the points favouring Jeremy's guilt are entirely subjective, the exception being the silencer evidence. Yet even the silencer is what I would describe as subjective-objective. It was introduced into evidence by people with vested interests who harboured bad feelings against Jeremy. With that starting point noted, it is interesting that the probative value of the silencer fell apart under scientific examination (the objective stage), in that the forensic findings were inconclusive, a grey hair attached to the silencer was lost and the chain-of-custody compromised its reliability as evidence. Tellingly, the police dismissed the silencer evidence for months, regarding it as inconclusive, and at the trial, the jury only found Jeremy guilty after being misdirected about the blood evidence by a hostile and biased trial judge. To round-off the condemnation of this evidence, we should note that the blood evidence adduced is in itself subjective as blood grouping involves an element of professional opinion and is not as black-and-white as the average person (i.e. a juror) would assume.
An interesting read. I think the only way he could have 'done it' is by somehow assisting Sheila. For example, he has knowledge of events having taken a turn for the worse that evening and foreknowledge of Sheila's suicidal ideation, which he chooses to then exploit or assist, without really knowing what the results will be. He leaves the gun out for Sheila.
-
An interesting read. I think the only way he could have 'done it' is by somehow assisting Sheila. For example, he has knowledge of events having taken a turn for the worse that evening and foreknowledge of Sheila's suicidal ideation, which he chooses to then exploit or assist, without really knowing what the results will be. He leaves the gun out for Sheila.
I have thought along those same lines myself. He schemes up a Machiavellian plan to create a rift between Sheila and her parents over the children. He may even have been the one who introduced the idea of fostering into the conversation he claims took place at the kitchen table. He then loads the rifle on the pretext of looking for rabbits. He then returns and ostentatiously leaves the rifle out in a place that Sheila would surmise, believing she may go mad with it later.
It would explain why he calls the police rather than obeying Nevill, it explains his strange calls to Julie, and it also explains his anxiety with the police on reaching the farm. Of course, another explanation for those things is simply that he is guilty, the calls were staged, and his behaviour in the presence of Bews and Myall is down to him knowing what has happened because he did it and he proceeds to manipulate those officers to firm up what he thinks is his alibi.
Thinking about the incident in reverse: If Nevill has told him that Sheila has got the gun and he needs to come over right away, why didn't he just go straight to the farm? People complain that he didn't ring 999, but surely that puts the cart before the horse due to the benefit of hindsight. If you stop and think about it, why ring the police at all? Of course, you could argue it's because he's a bit of a Nervous Nelly or he knew in his gut that something was wrong, but it could also be that he just knew.
-
A point to be addressed is the absence of blooded clothing that would support the ritual washing theory.
It seems to me there are three major possible explanations that could assist the defence:
1. Sheila obsessively proceeded to wash her blooded clothes as well. She may have taken her time over this and replaced the clean clothes in her dresser in the second bedroom. This may also explain why the second bedroom looks so neat. She may at this stage also have left her knickers in the bucket (having worn two pairs at once due to hygiene issues caused by menstruation).
2. Sheila did not wash the blooded clothes, she left them out somewhere - maybe in the lounge, scullery or washroom - and they were burned or otherwise disposed of by Essex Police during the initial inquiry, or they were removed by Ann Eaton.
3. Sheila carried out the massacre in minimal clothing - knickers/bra - or even naked. She then seeks purity by washing herself and putting on a clean nightie. I note that when found, she was not wearing underwear beneath the nightie.
Personally I find 1 above the most likely of the three.
-
I have thought along those same lines myself. He schemes up a Machiavellian plan to create a rift between Sheila and her parents over the children. He may even have been the one who introduced the idea of fostering into the conversation he claims took place at the kitchen table. He then loads the rifle on the pretext of looking for rabbits. He then returns and ostentatiously leaves the rifle out in a place that Sheila would surmise, believing she may go mad with it later.
This would require Jeremy to have a good understanding of schizophrenia and altruistic fillicide. Something that was not even well understood back then. There is a property register of all the stuff they took from Jeremy’s house. The only book they found was a book on growing cannabis.
-
This would require Jeremy to have a good understanding of schizophrenia and altruistic fillicide. Something that was not even well understood back then. There is a property register of all the stuff they took from Jeremy’s house. The only book they found was a book on growing cannabis.
He knew about Sheila's problems. He didn't need to have any academic or specialist knowledge or a good understanding of these things. I also imagine Jeremy to be a regular TV watcher, and he could have got a vague idea from films and TV news and what not. He could have just intuited that a mother in that situation might kill her children and the rest of the family. It could even be that Sheila had told him that she would like to kill the family or had revealed violent ideations to him. This may have then led him to a murder plot of his own in which he stages Sheila's suicide, or to leaving the gun out in the hope Sheila would go on a rampage. It could also be that he had left the gun out over several evenings and the 6th. was the night when it happened. But what did he mean when he told Julie 'tonight's the night'? Maybe Julie just made that up?
-
This would require Jeremy to have a good understanding of schizophrenia and altruistic fillicide. Something that was not even well understood back then. There is a property register of all the stuff they took from Jeremy’s house. The only book they found was a book on growing cannabis.
Agree.
-
Agree.
I have to disagree on this point, I'm afraid.
You don't need to be a psychiatrist or psychologist, or knowledgeable about medicine or abnormal psychology, to add up the following:
1. My sister is "mad" and says strange things, including statements or intimations of violence.
2. My sister says strange things about her twins.
3. My sister has tantrums.
4. I could leave a loaded rifle out in such a way that she surmises that I have done this and knows roughly where the rifle is.
5. My sister kills everybody in the house, then kills herself.
It sounds incredible when put that starkly, but remember, that's exactly what you're saying happened and it's also what the police initially concluded. The average Essex CID officer isn't boning up on psychology.
Jeremy didn't need to have thought things through very much for it to work. He may have just had a vague notion of leaving the rifle by Sheila's body, with a Bible close by (or, as I suspect actually happened, Sheila on the bed holding the Bible and rifle). He doesn't even need to be very sophisticated about it - and maybe that's why he was caught and is in prison?
Unlike Forsyth's fictional Jackal, real-life murderers - as a rule - don't pore over academic monographs and medical papers when planning their lurid exploits.
-
Jeremy knew nothing whatsoever of Sheila's condition, only that which the parents may have mentioned in passing as even they didn't know the full extent of it.
It was only after the event and when Jeremy was imprisoned that he then read up about Sheila's illness in the prison library. He hadn't been conversant with it at all.
-
Jeremy knew nothing whatsoever of Sheila's condition, only that which the parents may have mentioned in passing as even they didn't know the full extent of it.
It was only after the event and when Jeremy was imprisoned that he then read up about Sheila's illness in the prison library. He hadn't been conversant with it at all.
Come on, Lookout. He did know. I do think that this part of what Jeremy says has always been absolute tosh. I've heard the phone interview where he delivers this claim in that simpery voice of his and it just makes him come across as an ingratiating fake. Sorry, but I've got to be honest. He knew. I'd rather he was honest about it and said: "Well, obviously she was very ill and I knew that and put 2 and 2 together when the incident occurred and I was outside with the police."
I understand what you're getting at, Lookout, and I accept that Jeremy and his parents may not have understood Sheila, etc., but that's not the same thing as realising there was something very wrong with her, which is the germane point here. His own statements to the police at the time confirm this - he relied on it, for goodness sake! It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to suppose that he could - I only say could - have schemed-up a plan to murder them all and stage the scene to implicate Sheila as a murder-suicider.
I'm impressed by honesty, partly because it's such a rare commodity. I can't even claim to be honest myself. I'd also love it if Jeremy said something like: "Frankly, to be honest, I didn't like my parents all that much, especially my mother. And I never liked Colin. And I didn't see eye to eye with Sheila and to be frank I think she gets more of a free pass in all this than she deserves. She killed them all. I'm not a murderer and I had no involvement in the killings. I am an innocent man."
-
Come on, Lookout. He did know. I do think that this part of what Jeremy says has always been absolute tosh. I've heard the phone interview where he delivers this claim in that simpery voice of his and it just makes him come across as an ingratiating fake. Sorry, but I've got to be honest. He knew. I'd rather he was honest about it and said: "Well, obviously she was very ill and I knew that and put 2 and 2 together when the incident occurred and I was outside with the police."
I understand what you're getting at, Lookout, and I accept that Jeremy and his parents may not have understood Sheila, etc., but that's not the same thing as realising there was something very wrong with her, which is the germane point here. His own statements to the police at the time confirm this - he relied on it, for goodness sake! It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to suppose that he could - I only say could - have schemed-up a plan to murder them all and stage the scene to implicate Sheila as a murder-suicider.
I'm impressed by honesty, partly because it's such a rare commodity. I can't even claim to be honest myself. I'd also love it if Jeremy said something like: "Frankly, to be honest, I didn't like my parents all that much, especially my mother. And I never liked Colin. And I didn't see eye to eye with Sheila and to be frank I think she gets more of a free pass in all this than she deserves. She killed them all. I'm not a murderer and I had no involvement in the killings. I am an innocent man."
He's not going to make a confession when he knows in his own mind that it wouldn't be true. This is all the police are waiting for and he's just as obstinate and determined not to supply them with one.
How would Jeremy have known how ill Sheila had been when nobody else knew so weren't able to speak about it.
Illness within a family has little interest in a 24 year old . It wasn't as though he was dashing to the hospital to visit when she was in there, nor phoning staff asking after her. Jeremy said himself that he'd wished he'd have taken more notice and had acknowledged Sheila's illness. He was too busy thinking about himself and his own pleasures and entertainment during that time.
You believe what you will but I say he was completely blind/ oblivious towards any mental health in his younger years, possibly because his sister joined his company on occasion in visiting various night-spots/ parties. He wouldn't have given a thought that she could have been unwell at the time, just a bit off-colour perhaps but he couldn't have rattled off chapter and verse on various forms of mental illness.
More surmising/ circumstantial methinks just to build up a case ::)
-
He's not going to make a confession when he knows in his own mind that it wouldn't be true. This is all the police are waiting for and he's just as obstinate and determined not to supply them with one.
How would Jeremy have known how ill Sheila had been when nobody else knew so weren't able to speak about it.
Illness within a family has little interest in a 24 year old . It wasn't as though he was dashing to the hospital to visit when she was in there, nor phoning staff asking after her. Jeremy said himself that he'd wished he'd have taken more notice and had acknowledged Sheila's illness. He was too busy thinking about himself and his own pleasures and entertainment during that time.
You believe what you will but I say he was completely blind/ oblivious towards any mental health in his younger years, possibly because his sister joined his company on occasion in visiting various night-spots/ parties. He wouldn't have given a thought that she could have been unwell at the time, just a bit off-colour perhaps but he couldn't have rattled off chapter and verse on various forms of mental illness.
More surmising/ circumstantial methinks just to build up a case ::)
Did he know Sheila was mentally-ill or not?
-
Did he know Sheila was mentally-ill or not?
Of course.
-
Of course.
In my view, some people here are hair-splitting. Jeremy doesn't need to have in-depth knowledge of Sheila's illness in order to decide to stage a murder-suicide.
-
Did he know Sheila was mentally-ill or not?
Certainly not to the extent that the nursing staff at Northampton did.
-
Jeremy had known his mother had been attended by her doctor in the weeks leading up to the murders but not once did he or anyone else state why. Possibly because nobody knew.
-
In Jeremy's simple mind he knew his sister was " mad, a nutter " but that was the extent of his knowledge concerning mental health. You wouldn't really expect a lad of 24 to know the ins and outs of psychiatry would you ? It covers a very large area for a start and involves intense study on each individual.
-
He's not going to make a confession when he knows in his own mind that it wouldn't be true. This is all the police are waiting for and he's just as obstinate and determined not to supply them with one.
How would Jeremy have known how ill Sheila had been when nobody else knew so weren't able to speak about it.
Illness within a family has little interest in a 24 year old . It wasn't as though he was dashing to the hospital to visit when she was in there, nor phoning staff asking after her. Jeremy said himself that he'd wished he'd have taken more notice and had acknowledged Sheila's illness. He was too busy thinking about himself and his own pleasures and entertainment during that time.
You believe what you will but I say he was completely blind/ oblivious towards any mental health in his younger years, possibly because his sister joined his company on occasion in visiting various night-spots/ parties. He wouldn't have given a thought that she could have been unwell at the time, just a bit off-colour perhaps but he couldn't have rattled off chapter and verse on various forms of mental illness.
More surmising/ circumstantial methinks just to build up a case ::)
Lookout, you have to be the strongest proponant of the theory that, because Sheila was bought up in a house where guns were kept, she'd automatically know how to use one, yet strangely, you don't apply the same principle to Jeremy, a boy bought up in a house in which his sister had always proved problematic to their parents, and latterly, just as you claim of Sheila, he had ears and he had eyes.
If I've learned nothing else about sibling rivalry, I've learned how one sibling enjoys few thing more
than hearing their parents displeasure over the other sibling's behaviour. In fact, nothing raises a smirk quicker. He may not have appeared interested in what was said, but he'd have certainly have pricked his ears up at anything which raised him in the favour stakes.
-
Certainly not to the extent that the nursing staff at Northampton did.
I've no dispute with you about this, Lookout. I think we are at cross-purposes. My point isn't that Jeremy had in-depth knowledge of Sheila's condition, rather it's that he knew enough to form the kernel of an idea to stage a murder-suicide in which Sheila would be implicated.
-
In Jeremy's simple mind he knew his sister was " mad, a nutter " but that was the extent of his knowledge concerning mental health. You wouldn't really expect a lad of 24 to know the ins and outs of psychiatry would you ? It covers a very large area for a start and involves intense study on each individual.
He wasn't planning to be a psychiatrist. He wasn't interested is mental health per se. The use of those particular words idicates embarrassment and a desire to detatch himself from her.
-
Lookout, you have to be the strongest proponant of the theory that, because Sheila was bought up in a house where guns were kept, she'd automatically know how to use one, yet strangely, you don't apply the same principle to Jeremy, a boy bought up in a house in which his sister had always proved problematic to their parents, and latterly, just as you claim of Sheila, he had ears and he had eyes.
If I've learned nothing else about sibling rivalry, I've learned how one sibling enjoys few thing more
than hearing their parents displeasure over the other sibling's behaviour. In fact, nothing raises a smirk quicker. He may not have appeared interested in what was said, but he'd have certainly have pricked his ears up at anything which raised him in the favour stakes.
Whatever he inadvertently overheard, he'd have probably been shocked to hear anyway, not realising that there was anything amiss and with the sort of life he was living it would soon have fizzled into oblivion. He was too sucked-in by other distractions as he didn't see that much of his sister really, others saw her even less.
-
Lookout, you have to be the strongest proponant of the theory that, because Sheila was bought up in a house where guns were kept, she'd automatically know how to use one, yet strangely, you don't apply the same principle to Jeremy, a boy bought up in a house in which his sister had always proved problematic to their parents, and latterly, just as you claim of Sheila, he had ears and he had eyes.
Is that true, though? Based on what I have been reading, Sheila was a pretty normal girl and young woman up to the point that she met Colin Caffell. (I'm not necessarily implying anything about Colin in that respect, let me emphasise). I know she had problems with June and there was an incident as a teenager when June caught her with a boy, but I'm not sure if that was in fact Colin or a local (there seems to be some confusion about that).
My point is that I wonder if the difficulties in the relationship with June have been overly-focalised and exaggerated within the corpus of 'true crime' literature on the case, when in reality the relationship was fairly normal, and even June's mental health issues weren't necessarily very impactful.
-
But if Sheila "inadvertantly" witnessed a gun being loaded, she processed it well enough to load and fire it competently? She wouldn't have had to go through it every day to retain the knowledge -and she had more going on in her life to distract her than Jeremy- any more than Jeremy would have spent every day wondering how Sheila was when they were apart.
-
Is that true, though? Based on what I have been reading, Sheila was a pretty normal girl and young woman up to the point that she met Colin Caffell. (I'm not necessarily implying anything about Colin in that respect, let me emphasise). I know she had problems with June and there was an incident as a teenager when June caught her with a boy, but I'm not sure if that was in fact Colin or a local (there seems to be some confusion about that).
My point is that I wonder if the difficulties in the relationship with June have been overly-focalised and exaggerated within the corpus of 'true crime' literature on the case, when in reality the relationship was fairly normal, and even June's mental health issues weren't necessarily very impactful.
There was nothing wrong with Sheila when she first met Colin. She'd been your average teenage girl, a tad rebellious ( nothing unusual ) a risk-taker within a strict household ( nothing unusual ) then found in a field with ,who was first described as, a farmhand. Whether or not it was Colin is debateable, as my thoughts are that if it had been him, why have an abortion ? From that day on Sheila was branded the " Devil's child ". An horrendous way of handling a delicate situation.
It was June who wasn't normal with her constant religious rantings which even the twins got upset about.
June's behaviour certainly did impact on Sheila after the abortion as Sheila would have silently gone through the loss which could have sparked the beginning of her and her way of life after that exacerbated a problem that lay dormant.
Initially I'd blame June, who didn't help, then Colin who couldn't handle Sheila as she was but who could himself sought help from professionals as it seemed always to have been left to Sheila's father. Girls usually go to their mums for help ?
-
In Jeremy's simple mind he knew his sister was " mad, a nutter " but that was the extent of his knowledge concerning mental health. You wouldn't really expect a lad of 24 to know the ins and outs of psychiatry would you ? It covers a very large area for a start and involves intense study on each individual.
Have to agree with you Lookout, he thought of her as a nutter. You can look at it this way, would Bamber have risked the murder suicide theory had he known about her illness? At the end of the day he didn’t know what direction the investigation would go, he could only orchestrate it so far.
-
There was nothing wrong with Sheila when she first met Colin. She'd been your average teenage girl, a tad rebellious ( nothing unusual ) a risk-taker within a strict household ( nothing unusual ) then found in a field with ,who was first described as, a farmhand. Whether or not it was Colin is debateable, as my thoughts are that if it had been him, why have an abortion ? From that day on Sheila was branded the " Devil's child ". An horrendous way of handling a delicate situation.
It was June who wasn't normal with her constant religious rantings which even the twins got upset about.
June's behaviour certainly did impact on Sheila after the abortion as Sheila would have silently gone through the loss which could have sparked the beginning of her and her way of life after that exacerbated a problem that lay dormant.
Initially I'd blame June, who didn't help, then Colin who couldn't handle Sheila as she was but who could himself sought help from professionals as it seemed always to have been left to Sheila's father. Girls usually go to their mums for help ?
Lookout, thanks.
Some points I'd like to make (assuming I am right on some or all of this, it may need to also go in the Colin Caffell thread):
1. It appears that prior to 1982, June had never been mentally-ill. She did have mental health issues that dated back to the late 1950s, but if I understand correctly, that was more along the lines of severe depression. June's psychosis started after Sheila's marriage to Colin.
2. Sheila was a normal girl/woman up to her marriage to Colin. There is simply nothing I can see in her history that is the remotest bit unusual. Indifference to academics. Trouble with June. Minor experimentation with drugs. June catches her with a local boy (or Colin or whatever). Boredom and dropping out of finishing school. Not sure what to do. Can't hold down a job. This is all normal to a degree and none of it is cause for undue alarm in relation to a young person. Furthermore, her relationship with Nevill was said to be good.
3. I accept that June calling her the Devil's child (assuming that happened) is a bit much and would have distanced her from June. The tension in the relationship is apparent in the painfully-awkward photograph taken in the garden. But really, schizophrenia...??
4. In Dr. Ferguson's statement, he says that June responded to treatment for her psychosis. Yet Colin makes great play of problems he says were caused by June. Unless I'm mistaken, the marriage was ended before the onset of June's psychosis. I wonder how much of the focus on June's supposed 'religious mania' is Colin exaggerating in order to downplay problems that could be traced back to him?
5. Assuming Dr. Ferguson's diagnosis of Sheila was correct (it may well not have been), this schizophrenia may have been a result of a confluence of causes and factors: a bit of genetics, distant relationship with June, and drug-taking. But I wonder how much of a factor her relationship and marriage to Colin was? It seems to me that Colin has a vested interest in allowing us to focus on June's religious zeal and the simple notion that she was a 'religious nut' while taking our eye off on his own role in all this.
Question:
(i). How do we know about the 'Devil's child' incident in which June caught her with somebody? Who is the source for this?
(ii). There is a letter from Colin to Nevill in which he complains about June. Am I right in saying that this letter was unsent? In other words, is it right that the source for the letter is entirely Colin himself, the letter having not been received prior to the incident?
-
Have to agree with you Lookout, he thought of her as a nutter. You can look at it this way, would Bamber have risked the murder suicide theory had he known about her illness? At the end of the day he didn’t know what direction the investigation would go, he could only orchestrate it so far.
Surely the more Jeremy knew, the more enthusiastic he would have been about a murder-suicide staging plan?
-
There was nothing wrong with Sheila when she first met Colin. She'd been your average teenage girl, a tad rebellious ( nothing unusual ) a risk-taker within a strict household ( nothing unusual ) then found in a field with ,who was first described as, a farmhand. Whether or not it was Colin is debateable, as my thoughts are that if it had been him, why have an abortion ? From that day on Sheila was branded the " Devil's child ". An horrendous way of handling a delicate situation.
It was June who wasn't normal with her constant religious rantings which even the twins got upset about.
June's behaviour certainly did impact on Sheila after the abortion as Sheila would have silently gone through the loss which could have sparked the beginning of her and her way of life after that exacerbated a problem that lay dormant.
Initially I'd blame June, who didn't help, then Colin who couldn't handle Sheila as she was but who could himself sought help from professionals as it seemed always to have been left to Sheila's father. Girls usually go to their mums for help ?
I don't think it was true that "there was nothing wrong with Sheila when she first met Colin". I think, deep down, she was a very unhappy girl who was desperate to feel appreciated and loved. She seems to have earned herself a reputation but I suspect it was more about her looking for love than sex. Like many, she didn't know there was a difference and the males she dated weren't about to tell her.
You ask why she had an abortion. Do you think she had a choice? From what we're told, it was arranged so quickly that she didn't even have time to let Colin know. Perhaps she'd been forbidden to contact him. I'm certain June would have told her it was in her best interests. Now she could get on with her life, get a job, meet a suitable boy etc, etc, etc and put the incident behind her. Except, having never conceived, June wouldn't have had the remotest idea of what that particlar loss feels like.
That June didn't understand Sheila goes without saying. Was it June's fault? It's too close to home for me to objectively answer that. Perhaps Colin could have done things differently, but the point is, whatever he may have felt for her was brief and fleeting, and without deep and devoted love, caring for a mentally ill wife who was full of insecurities and more concerned about her own needs than his, would have been intolerable.
-
Surely the more Jeremy knew, the more enthusiastic he would have been about a murder-suicide staging plan?
I would have thought he only knew a limited amount, he hadn’t a clue what was in her hospital/doctors notes, I don’t think he took her medical condition in any way, other than being a nutter?
-
I would have thought he only knew a limited amount, he hadn’t a clue what was in her hospital/doctors notes, I don’t think he took her medical condition in any way, other than being a nutter?
Being a Nutter probably fit his plan better than someone being on the verge of incapable?
-
Have to agree with you Lookout, he thought of her as a nutter. You can look at it this way, would Bamber have risked the murder suicide theory had he known about her illness? At the end of the day he didn’t know what direction the investigation would go, he could only orchestrate it so far.
The whole trial didn't even go as it should have done with hundreds of documents which would have assisted the defence were withheld, along with original photo's of the crime scene. This is all going to help with his freedom before the years out. JB wouldn't have risked anything like this in his life, he wouldn't have done it and didn't do it. I can't stress it enough as I can see the whole picture and not just half of it. The man has never been violent in his life, except in self-defence when someone tried to cut his throat, but wouldn't we all defend ourselves ?
Sheila would have fought like a man if it had been Jeremy shooting at her children.
If Drake said he could convict on the silencer alone, he was wrong wasn't he and he'll be proved so ?
-
I would have thought he only knew a limited amount, he hadn’t a clue what was in her hospital/doctors notes, I don’t think he took her medical condition in any way, other than being a nutter?
I agree. The point still stands that, knowing she was a "nutter", that provided the backcloth to his staging plan for Sheila. For context, the reason this conversation started is that some pro-Jeremy people are trying to suggest he would have needed in-depth knowledge of Sheila's condition to do this.
-
In my view, some people here are hair-splitting. Jeremy doesn't need to have in-depth knowledge of Sheila's illness in order to decide to stage a murder-suicide.
He gave a pretty good account of her illness in his first statement.
-
Except that he didn't tell them about the possible implications of having a psychotic attack. Had he known that, there'd have been no stopping him would there ?
-
Except that he didn't tell them about the possible implications of having a psychotic attack. Had he known that, there'd have been no stopping him would there ?
Maybe he didn't go into too much depth because he thought that might arouse suspicion?
On the other hand, he didn't live with Sheila and hadn't throughout the relevant period of time, so there was no reason for him to know much beyond the basics.
To be honest, I don't see the point that the pro-Jeremy side are making here. He knew she was ill. He knew she could 'go crazy'. He knew she was violent. This knowledge does not make him guilty, but it was enough to form the kernel of a plan, if he is guilty.
-
Except that he didn't tell them about the possible implications of having a psychotic attack. Had he known that, there'd have been no stopping him would there ?
He implied that that's what she did have. The words his father are supposed to have said were "Sheila has gone 'crazy', she's got the gun'. Armed with that knowledge, far from being hard to stop, he was particularly hard to start!
-
Maybe he didn't go into too much depth because he thought that might arouse suspicion?
On the other hand, he didn't live with Sheila and hadn't throughout the relevant period of time, so there was no reason for him to know much beyond the basics.
To be honest, I don't see the point that the pro-Jeremy side are making here. He knew she was ill. He knew she could 'go crazy'. He knew she was violent. This knowledge does not make him guilty, but it was enough to form the kernel of a plan, if he is guilty.
Certainly to others he'd appeared guilty---but I'm sorry, that's not enough to charge anyone with murder.
-
Certainly to others he'd appeared guilty---but I'm sorry, that's not enough to charge anyone with murder.
Nor is it enough to charge someone they categorically know to be innocent when they have a ready made culprit who can't argue with them. We know Jones was so fed up with the family that he threw them out, IF there'd been a suicide note, he'd have been only too happy to tell them to get them off his back. IF there'd been a call from Nevill telling them his daughter had gone mad and got hold of a gun, he'd have delighted in rubbing in their faces.
-
Maybe he didn't go into too much depth because he thought that might arouse suspicion?
On the other hand, he didn't live with Sheila and hadn't throughout the relevant period of time, so there was no reason for him to know much beyond the basics.
To be honest, I don't see the point that the pro-Jeremy side are making here. He knew she was ill. He knew she could 'go crazy'. He knew she was violent. This knowledge does not make him guilty, but it was enough to form the kernel of a plan, if he is guilty.
I agree, being depressed and having Schizophrenia was enough for him, it fitted his idea of a nutter.