Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on September 29, 2025, 10:11:PM
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
-
June was shot 5 times in bed. After that she would not be able to fight anyone.
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
It actually makes good sense that there was a struggle between June and Sheila, Dan!
If not, why did June end up lying beside the bedroom door?
Let me explain! We know from the blood loss from June that she got out of bed and went round to Nevills side before ending up lying beside the main bedroom door.
Now the police claim that JB chased after Nevill, leaving June badly wounded in the bedroom, before re-loading and finishing June off with two bullets to the head. But if this is so, June should have ended up falling into the bedroom with her feet beside the door, not her head. Surely the position in which June was found indicates strongly that June was shot by someone from 'within' the bedroom who must have been standing at the foot of the bed and not someone who had come upstairs and was standing outside the bedroom door? Or are we to accept that JB slipped into the bedroom and forced June towards the door for some reason before he shot her?
What logic would there be in this action? And why would JB want to trample all over Junes blood and risk leaving a footprint?
Wouldn't it have been far more sensible to stay on the landing and shoot into the bedroom?
Doesn't it make more sense that Sheila had a full magazine of bullets when she attacked June in bed, and that either the gun jammed after five shots allowing her to get out of bed and make a grab for the rifle or maybe June just managed to push it aside and make a grab at Sheila before struggling around the bed and back, before being pushed to the floor and shot?
June certainly ended up in a position by the bedroom door to support such a scenario, and Vanezis pointed out that June had been standing at some stage after being shot in bed due to the blood running down her legs and night dress. So she certainly didn't crawl round the room.
Now you could claim that JB entered the bedroom via the kids bedroom and box room, but again, why would he do this to get to June in order to finish her off? Again, makes no sense!
No, I say again, Dan, Just think about where June was found and her position and explain how she ended up there in a JB scenario??
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
It's because June has wounds also. Notably her chin and throat.
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
I have always believed Sheila and June had a scuffle, I would not say a fight as such as June would be rapidly getting weaker from her wounds.
But we know she made it round to Nevil's side of the bed before finishing up beside the bedroom door.
-
I have always believed Sheila and June had a scuffle, I would not say a fight as such as June would be rapidly getting weaker from her wounds.
But we know she made it round to Nevil's side of the bed before finishing up beside the bedroom door.
Yes, some claim that June went round to Nevills side of the bed because the phone was normally there ,Rob, and thats fair enough, but the thing is, why did she end up lying on her back beside the bedroom door as if she had been reversing back around the bed when she discovered the phone was not there?
Surely June would have turned around once she had seen that the phone wasn't there and walked back round 'facing' the main bedroom door where she would encounter a returning JB who would shoot her in the forehead and cause her to fall back into the room with her feet nearest the door, 'not' her head?
Yet if guilty, it looks as if JB returned to the bedroom after re-loading and went over to Nevills side of the bed [passing by June?] who was either reversing or had turned to face JB before being shot in the forehead.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense for JB to enter the bedroom again once he re-loaded to shoot June, does it? Surely he would have returned and shot 'into' the room?
No, it makes far more sense the killer entering the bedroom, shooting June, June then getting out of bed and struggling with the killer around the bed and back before being knocked to the floor beside the door and shot. Plain and simple, one coherent event which the crime scene suggests! The police scenario simply doesn't stack up, not in relation to where June was found.
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
The evidence is all here:
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at (https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at)
-
Yes, some claim that June went round to Nevills side of the bed because the phone was normally there ,Rob, and thats fair enough, but the thing is, why did she end up lying on her back beside the bedroom door as if she had been reversing back around the bed when she discovered the phone was not there?
Surely June would have turned around once she had seen that the phone wasn't there and walked back round 'facing' the main bedroom door where she would encounter a returning JB who would shoot her in the forehead and cause her to fall back into the room with her feet nearest the door, 'not' her head?
Yet if guilty, it looks as if JB returned to the bedroom after re-loading and went over to Nevills side of the bed [passing by June?] who was either reversing or had turned to face JB before being shot in the forehead.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense for JB to enter the bedroom again once he re-loaded to shoot June, does it? Surely he would have returned and shot 'into' the room?
No, it makes far more sense the killer entering the bedroom, shooting June, June then getting out of bed and struggling with the killer around the bed and back before being knocked to the floor beside the door and shot. Plain and simple, one coherent event which the crime scene suggests! The police scenario simply doesn't stack up, not in relation to where June was found.
I agree Snow, I don't think June was trying to get to the missing phone, a quick glance would show that it was not their which she probably knew anyway.
-
I agree Snow, I don't think June was trying to get to the missing phone, a quick glance would show that it was not their which she probably knew anyway.
My thoughts exactly, Rob!
-
June may have got to the bedroom phone. But Bamber had disabled it from downstairs.
He then put the phone in the kitchen and took it off it's hook.
-
June may have got to the bedroom phone. But Bamber had disabled it from downstairs.
He then put the phone in the kitchen and took it off it's hook.
If there was a phone in the bedroom Nevil would have tried to use it, so June would have known it had been disabled and would not have attempted trying to get round to Nevil's side of the bed.
-
If there was a phone in the bedroom Nevil would have tried to use it, so June would have known it had been disabled and would not have attempted trying to get round to Nevil's side of the bed.
Nevill wouldn't try to use the upstairs phone. Bamber was shooting at him!
-
Nevill wouldn't try to use the upstairs phone. Bamber was shooting at him!
Where do you think Bamber was standing when he shot June in the head, Adam?
-
The evidence is all here:
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at (https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at)
Bill, do you think Vanezis lied on oath?
Surely that would be a very foolish approach by the prosecution because they could easliy have been found out.
-
Where do you think Bamber was standing when he shot June in the head, Adam?
I thought he finished his mother off with one shot between the eyes whilst she was in the doorway.
-
I thought he finished his mother off with one shot between the eyes whilst she was in the doorway.
Can you expand a little, Steve?
-
Can you expand a little, Steve?
Well, the official story is June was shot in bed as Jeremy was stood in the doorway, the bullets piercing her pillow. I can't say with any certainty the sequence of events, except that she somehow managed to pull herself out of bed, one assumes whilst her son was preoccupied elsewhere. The crimes were personal, which is why there was overkill. I assume Jeremy took one last disdainful look at his mother as she lay dying and finished her off with a shot to the lower forehead right between the eyes.
Symbolic of his rage for the family that he refused to identify the bodies, leaving that task to gofer Julie. Content with his handiwork and anxious to boast to her he let out a chuckle when out of earshot, or so he thought, tantamount to dancing on five graves.
-
Where do you think Bamber was standing when he shot June in the head, Adam?
Next to June?!
-
Well, the official story is June was shot in bed as Jeremy was stood in the doorway, the bullets piercing her pillow. I can't say with any certainty the sequence of events, except that she somehow managed to pull herself out of bed, one assumes whilst her son was preoccupied elsewhere. The crimes were personal, which is why there was overkill. I assume Jeremy took one last disdainful look at his mother as she lay dying and finished her off with a shot to the lower forehead right between the eyes.
Symbolic of his rage for the family that he refused to identify the bodies, leaving that task to gofer Julie. Content with his handiwork and anxious to boast to her he let out a chuckle when out of earshot, or so he thought, tantamount to dancing on five graves.
OK, so June had already fallen to the floor by the time JB returned then, Steve? Then he shot her twice in the head!
-
OK, so June had already fallen to the floor by the time JB returned then, Steve? Then he shot her twice in the head!
There was blood on her pillow so presumably there had been a head shot prior to her leaving the bed. I believe there were also shots to her legs, but even had there or been, it wouldn't have taken much to bring her to her knees, given what she was experiencing.
-
Surely that would be a very foolish approach by the prosecution because they could easliy have been found out.
How would Vanezis’ lies be found out? Images suitable for close examination did not become available until 2011. Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.
-
There was blood on her pillow so presumably there had been a head shot prior to her leaving the bed. I believe there were also shots to her legs, but even had there or been, it wouldn't have taken much to bring her to her knees, given what she was experiencing.
No, any of the two head shots would have killed her instantly, Jane! But! I will check what Vanezis said just to make sure.
The blood on the pillow most likely came from the bullet that went right through beside her neck.
-
No, any of the two head shots would have killed her instantly, Jane! But! I will check what Vanezis said just to make sure.
The blood on the pillow most likely came from the bullet that went right through beside her neck.
They may not have been mortal head shots and they certainly weren't fatal. If you recall, the neck shot to Sheila wasn't instantly fatal but it was mortal. None the less, blood on pillows invariably comes from somewhere in the cranial area.
-
Suspect June crawled across the bedroom. Or at best, staggered.
She had been shot 5 times. Once in the knee. And had not managed to leave the bedroom.
She may have been dead or unconcious when Bamber returned upstairs. But he automatically shot her again, twice.
-
Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family
Where on earth did you get this claim from?
The only time this happens is when a plea bargain or insanity defence is being negotiated.
-
Where on earth did you get this claim from?
The only time this happens is when a plea bargain or insanity defence is being negotiated.
For cases that are proceeding to trial, it is the responsibility of Crown counsel to attempt to narrow the issues as much as possible. Towards this end, Crown Attorneys:
• Identify any legal issues that may arise and seek the defence’s position on those issues.
• More particularly, identify those issues from which defence counsel might make admissions, such as voir dires on the admissibility of statements; and
• identify witnesses whose evidence may not be necessary, so that unnecessary subpoenas are not issued.
In Jeremy’s case the process outlined above include the exchange of an agreed statement of facts. This included diagrammatic plans of White House Farm and that the hours of darkness on the night of 6th/7th August were from 21.08 on 6th to 04:59 on 7th. Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. The defence agreed with this statement.
-
For cases that are proceeding to trial, it is the responsibility of Crown counsel to attempt to narrow the issues as much as possible. Towards this end, Crown Attorneys:
• Identify any legal issues that may arise and seek the defence’s position on those issues.
• More particularly, identify those issues from which defence counsel might make admissions, such as voir dires on the admissibility of statements; and
• identify witnesses whose evidence may not be necessary, so that unnecessary subpoenas are not issued.
In Jeremy’s case the process outlined above include the exchange of an agreed statement of facts. This included diagrammatic plans of White House Farm and that the hours of darkness on the night of 6th/7th August were from 21.08 on 6th to 04:59 on 7th. Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. The defence agreed with this statement.
This is not correct. Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms. I do not know where you got this from.
-
For cases that are proceeding to trial, it is the responsibility of Crown counsel to attempt to narrow the issues as much as possible. Towards this end, Crown Attorneys:
• Identify any legal issues that may arise and seek the defence’s position on those issues.
• More particularly, identify those issues from which defence counsel might make admissions, such as voir dires on the admissibility of statements; and
• identify witnesses whose evidence may not be necessary, so that unnecessary subpoenas are not issued.
In Jeremy’s case the process outlined above include the exchange of an agreed statement of facts. This included diagrammatic plans of White House Farm and that the hours of darkness on the night of 6th/7th August were from 21.08 on 6th to 04:59 on 7th. Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. The defence agreed with this statement.
Can you please post evidence for this claim regarding Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the Prosecution that JB killed his family?
-
This is not correct. Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms. I do not know where you got this from.
From Yvonne Hartley - plus documentation. Must be some kind of error then.
-
From Yvonne Hartley - plus documentation. Must be some kind of error then.
It certainly is an error.
-
From Yvonne Hartley - plus documentation. Must be some kind of error then.
Can you post the documentation please Bill.
-
I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.
-
I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.
Thanks Bill, in other words we will take it as more none sense from yourself and the CT.
-
Where on earth did you get this claim from?
The only time this happens is when a plea bargain or insanity defence is being negotiated.
Bill Robertson talks out of his backside (no pun intended) as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath.
Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.
Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.
-
Bill Robertson talks out of his backside (no pun intended) as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath.
Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.
Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.
I think what they agreed pre trial was that the perpetrator could only be SC or JB.
They were ruling out a third party.
-
I think what they agreed pre trial was that the perpetrator could only be SC or JB.
They were ruling out a third party.
And, totally different to agree a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family
-
Bill Robertson talks out of his backside (no pun intended) as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath.
Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.
Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.
That reminds me. Its 83 days till Christmas. I'm off to William Hill 👍
-
I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.
Could it be that the defence agreed with the Crown that it was either Jeremy or Sheila?
The defence didn't agree that it was Jeremy - that must be a mistake.
-
That reminds me. Its 83 days till Christmas. I'm off to William Hill 👍
Put it on Elvis Presley being alive this year David at least give yourself a chance. Over the years UK bookmakers William Hill have taken thousands of bets that Elvis will be found alive
-
Could it be that the defence agreed with the Crown that it was either Jeremy or Sheila?
The defence didn't agree that it was Jeremy - that must be a mistake.
The defence could never admit that Bamber killed his family in a statement of fact without Bamber’s permission any way. The statement is understood to be given with the defendant's authority, and the solicitor cannot draft it without adequate, signed instructions from the client.
-
I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.
In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.
Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "
Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.
-
I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.
In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.
Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "
Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.
Good post ILB!
-
I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.
In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.
Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "
Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.
It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.
-
I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.
In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.
Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "
Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.
He told Julie you could convince anyone of anything if you put your mind to it. He'd planned the massacre for over a year, he'd divulged his diablerie to Julie, he'd attempted to curry favour with Ann Eaton for months pre-murders, as he knew she wouldn't accept his version of events.
In the passage to which you refer (Chapter 26 of Blood Relations) the psychiatrist says Bamber convinced himself he was innocent of the crime, maybe because he saw himself as his sister's accomplice (that's my opinion), and with the passage of time the awfulness of what he had done he had blocked out his mind, then forgotten it all.
I don't know what psychiatric phenomenon the professional had in mind, but it's not a bad analysis.
-
It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.
That's so true, Jane. Remember, Jeremy couldn't grieve. He had to be told to think of the dead dog, Brambles, then at the funeral Colin thought he discerned him mimicking him.
-
It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.
It would be absolutely madness for someone even as joke to play up to a defence inducted psychiatrist. Especially if claiming " my sister tragically did this, im so wronged "
-
I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.
In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.
Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "
Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.
You're correct! There's nothing about psychos/narcs which would cause one to think "this guy's a weirdo" . But overbearing, assertive and confident could be the red flags you missed. There is nothing that sets them apart from those they are trying to fit in with/emulate so it makes sense that his friends didn't see him as being "abnormal". However, the psychiatrist will have seen rather more people, charged with murder, than his friends had, and would therefore be able to pick up on those red flags that you, and his friends, missed. I'll also hazard a guess that the JB you knew wasn't the same JB that his friends knew.A
-
It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.
Why would a paid for by the Defence Psychiatrist make up his assessment of Bamber if it wasn’t what he truly believed. He wasn’t there to win the case for Bamber he was there to offer his expert opinion. Obviously once he’d done his assessment they then wouldn’t want to use him as a witness. Trust me I’ve recently got it wrong about people close to me.
-
Bamber justified to himself why he should commit the massacre -
Nevill - Past it.
June - Religious maniac.
Twins - Doing Colin a favour.
Sheila - Putting her out of her misery.
----------
Although the main reason was financial.
He started insinuating Sheila hours after the massacre & has spent the last 40 years continuing to do so. As well as protest his innocence. Blaming individuals and organisations for his conviction.
The internet increased his support from one person - Mike.
So quite possible he has blocked out the fact he did it.
-
Bamber justified to himself why he should commit the massacre -
Nevill - Past it.
June - Religious maniac.
Twins - Doing Colin a favour.
Sheila - Putting her out of her misery.
----------
Although the main reason was financial.
He started insinuating Sheila hours after the massacre & has spent the last 40 years continuing to do so. As well as protest his innocence. Blaming individuals and organisations for his conviction.
The internet increased his support from one person - Mike.
So quite possible he has blocked out the fact he did it.
Jail is a funny place.
To keep up a pretence in an environment that allows limited privacy, breeds mental health issues and loneliness and is a naturally stressful environment. To keep being able to claim innocence and so vehemently is unusual, its not unheard of but it is.
I dont believe the mike confession but im also shocked that there's never been one inkling of someone selling a Bamber confession to a red top paper. I know from experience that many in Long Lartin poo poohed his innocence claims but he has always remained steadfast and still does.
-
Why would a paid for by the Defence Psychiatrist make up his assessment of Bamber if it wasn’t what he truly believed. He wasn’t there to win the case for Bamber he was there to offer his expert opinion. Obviously once he’d done his assessment they then wouldn’t want to use him as a witness. Trust me I’ve recently got it wrong about people close to me.
Im really skeptical of terms thrown around such as " psychopath " " narcissist by " professionals me Hardy personally.
-
You're correct! There's nothing about psychos/narcs which would cause one to think "this guy's a weirdo" . But overbearing, assertive and confident could be the red flags you missed. There is nothing that sets them apart from those they are trying to fit in with/emulate so it makes sense that his friends didn't see him as being "abnormal". However, the psychiatrist will have seen rather more people, charged with murder, than his friends had, and would therefore be able to pick up on those red flags that you, and his friends, missed. I'll also hazard a guess that the JB you knew wasn't the same JB that his friends knew.A
Well Jane that's pretty obvious, when I met him he was some years into a life sentence. When his friends knew him he had all his liberties in place.
I just wonder what he did say to that psychiatrist. One would think he would be trying to put a positive impression upon him.
-
Im really skeptical of terms thrown around such as " psychopath " " narcissist by " professionals me Hardy personally.
How about just pure evil then? He did admit that "maybe there's something wrong with me" to Julie at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath.
-
How about just pure evil then? He did admit that "maybe there's something wrong with me" to Julie at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath.
Not just talking about Jeremy.
You see terms thrown about by " psychiatrists " " professionals " after being wise to the wisdom of the event.
-
Not just talking about Jeremy.
You see terms thrown about by " psychiatrists " " professionals " after being wise to the wisdom of the event.
There is often a pattern to male murderers. Many have an issue with their mothers for a start.
-
Im really skeptical of terms thrown around such as " psychopath " " narcissist by " professionals me Hardy personally.
To be honest I am skeptical as well, it’s one persons judgement I suppose, but I don’t think they lie in their assessment? I just found it strange, usually a defence expert sways with the defence. I also found it strange it was let out about this test?
-
There is often a pattern to male murderers. Many have an issue with their mothers for a start.
And many have good relationships with them.
It is a very much an individual circumstance kind of thing.
-
There is often a pattern to male murderers. Many have an issue with their mothers for a start.
In this case in point it wasnt just Jeremy who had an issue with June.
Shelia did.
Colin did.
The boys did.
Even Nevill, even thoroughly devoted to his wife highlighted in his own terms her shortcomings and problems.
-
Not just talking about Jeremy.
You see terms thrown about by " psychiatrists " " professionals " after being wise to the wisdom of the event.
But it's not a criminal offence to be a psych/narc. Both can live out their lives without coming to the notice of the law. I would argue that narc traits are more obvious than psych.............if you know what you're seeing!
-
This is not correct. Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms. I do not know where you got this from.
Dear NGB, you wrote rather tersely, “Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms” well, Yes and No. Please let me explain.
I could not easily find my source documents but yesterday, while engaged in some painful constipation and occupying the pan for a considerable time I did a search on an old laptop that I recovered from the loft while waiting for the Hardy to emerge (I call these turds Hardy's because they are thick and obnoxious).
Anyway, buried in a drive were two documents from Yvonne Hartley pertaining to the agreed facts. BU-18-02 Agreed Facts and 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts.
BU-18-02 includes the section that I referred to - Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. However, I now believe this to have been a draft document that was not agreed with the prosecution as document 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts does not include this agreement, even though it does reproduce the rest of BU-18-02 Agreed Facts. And, it seems to be a defence draft rather than a prosecution proposal.
45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts is a Stokenchurch document Box number 45 Item 33 entitled List of Admissions. It runs to eight pages and has six more agreed facts than contained in the draft document, BU-18-02 Agreed Facts.
If you were involved in the defence of JB or knew of Rivlin’s outlook, perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm whether he did in fact believe JB to be innocent? His somewhat diffident approach to the trial and his failure to question witnesses in depth, plus helping out prosecution witnesses suggests to many that he was not fully engaged in JB’s defence? It was Rivlin after all who put words into Bews’ mouth – “a trick of the light”. Perhaps if Bews had not been helped out by Rivlin he might have told the truth?
Anyway, if you were there your observations would be interesting.
p.s. The Hardy did eventually emerge and was flushed away I am pleased to report.
-
Dear NGB, you wrote rather tersely, “Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms” well, Yes and No. Please let me explain.
I could not easily find my source documents but yesterday, while engaged in some painful constipation and occupying the pan for a considerable time I did a search on an old laptop that I recovered from the loft while waiting for the Hardy to emerge (I call these turds Hardy's because they are thick and obnoxious).
Anyway, buried in a drive were two documents from Yvonne Hartley pertaining to the agreed facts. BU-18-02 Agreed Facts and 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts.
BU-18-02 includes the section that I referred to - Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. However, I now believe this to have been a draft document that was not agreed with the prosecution as document 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts does not include this agreement, even though it does reproduce the rest of BU-18-02 Agreed Facts. And, it seems to be a defence draft rather than a prosecution proposal.
45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts is a Stokenchurch document Box number 45 Item 33 entitled List of Admissions. It runs to eight pages and has six more agreed facts than contained in the draft document, BU-18-02 Agreed Facts.
If you were involved in the defence of JB or knew of Rivlin’s outlook, perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm whether he did in fact believe JB to be innocent? His somewhat diffident approach to the trial and his failure to question witnesses in depth, plus helping out prosecution witnesses suggests to many that he was not fully engaged in JB’s defence? It was Rivlin after all who put words into Bews’ mouth – “a trick of the light”. Perhaps if Bews had not been helped out by Rivlin he might have told the truth?
Anyway, if you were there your observations would be interesting.
p.s. The Hardy did eventually emerge and was flushed away I am pleased to report.
As usual Bill talking Shit.
-
Dear NGB, you wrote rather tersely, “Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms” well, Yes and No. Please let me explain.
I could not easily find my source documents but yesterday, while engaged in some painful constipation and occupying the pan for a considerable time I did a search on an old laptop that I recovered from the loft while waiting for the Hardy to emerge (I call these turds Hardy's because they are thick and obnoxious).
Anyway, buried in a drive were two documents from Yvonne Hartley pertaining to the agreed facts. BU-18-02 Agreed Facts and 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts.
BU-18-02 includes the section that I referred to - Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. However, I now believe this to have been a draft document that was not agreed with the prosecution as document 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts does not include this agreement, even though it does reproduce the rest of BU-18-02 Agreed Facts. And, it seems to be a defence draft rather than a prosecution proposal.
45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts is a Stokenchurch document Box number 45 Item 33 entitled List of Admissions. It runs to eight pages and has six more agreed facts than contained in the draft document, BU-18-02 Agreed Facts.
If you were involved in the defence of JB or knew of Rivlin’s outlook, perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm whether he did in fact believe JB to be innocent? His somewhat diffident approach to the trial and his failure to question witnesses in depth, plus helping out prosecution witnesses suggests to many that he was not fully engaged in JB’s defence? It was Rivlin after all who put words into Bews’ mouth – “a trick of the light”. Perhaps if Bews had not been helped out by Rivlin he might have told the truth?
Anyway, if you were there your observations would be interesting.
p.s. The Hardy did eventually emerge and was flushed away I am pleased to report.
There is no way that the sentence I have highlighted could ever have been part of a draft prepared by or even considered by the defence. I have no idea where this comes from - I can only imagine it might be part of the prosection counsel's opening statement to the jury.
Rivlin never expressed a personal opinion on the case. Obviously since counsel are human they do form views but the mindset of a barrister in approaching a case is simply to look at the evidence and explore lines of cross examination that cast doubt on the prosecution case and support the defence case. Essentially, defence counsel assumes for the purposes of the case that the defendant is telling the truth.
I believe Rivlin believed that he had a good chance of securing an acquittal because the evidence was largely circumstantial and there were considerable weaknesses in it. He was also quite helpful to Jeremy Bamber following the conviction when approached by the defence requesting information.
-
Thank you for your reply. I find Rivlin an enigma and I am aware that JB's opinion of him is low and he didn't want Rivlin handling his appeal (I am informed). The trial transcripts may not do him justice, but he seemed quite timid. Many have said that if the roles had been reversed and Arlidge defending, Rivlin prosecuting, then JB would never have been convicted. Any views on that?
-
There is no way that the sentence I have highlighted could ever have been part of a draft prepared by or even considered by the defence. I have no idea where this comes from - I can only imagine it might be part of the prosection counsel's opening statement to the jury.
Rivlin never expressed a personal opinion on the case. Obviously since counsel are human they do form views but the mindset of a barrister in approaching a case is simply to look at the evidence and explore lines of cross examination that cast doubt on the prosecution case and support the defence case. Essentially, defence counsel assumes for the purposes of the case that the defendant is telling the truth.
I believe Rivlin believed that he had a good chance of securing an acquittal because the evidence was largely circumstantial and there were considerable weaknesses in it. He was also quite helpful to Jeremy Bamber following the conviction when approached by the defence requesting information.
NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?
-
Thank you for your reply. I find Rivlin an enigma and I am aware that JB's opinion of him is low and he didn't want Rivlin handling his appeal (I am informed). The trial transcripts may not do him justice, but he seemed quite timid. Many have said that if the roles had been reversed and Arlidge defending, Rivlin prosecuting, then JB would never have been convicted. Any views on that?
I think Rivlin was a very poor choice. He was a prosecutor and this was the first defence case he had handled. There are several leading defence barristers at that time who I knew well who would very probably have secured an acquittal on the evidence. Kingsley Napley were a bad choice of solicitor. They handled few criminal cases but made their name on the Jeremy Thorpe trial. They did not normally accept legal aid work but for some reason accepted this case. They were not familiar with the legal aid system so did not get approval for the right expert witnesses.
-
I think Rivlin was a very poor choice. He was a prosecutor and this was the first defence case he had handled. There are several leading defence barristers at that time who I knew well who would very probably have secured an acquittal on the evidence. Kingsley Napley were a bad choice of solicitor. They handled few criminal cases but made their name on the Jeremy Thorpe trial. They did not normally accept legal aid work but for some reason accepted this case. They were not familiar with the legal aid system so did not get approval for the right expert witnesses.
What would another defence lawyer have done differently to get an acquittal?
-
NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?
I was going by this NGB?
Client Representation:
Solicitors act on instructions from their client. They cannot make statements of fact on behalf of a victim if those facts are not known to the solicitor or have not been approved by the victim.
Honesty and Truth:
Solicitors must act with honesty and are forbidden from misleading others or the court.
In summary, a solicitor cannot simply provide a statement of fact for a victim without their consent, particularly if it purports to be the victim's account. Doing so would violate professional conduct rules and could constitute an attempt to mislead the court or the other parties involved.
So if Bill’s claim is true, Bamber must have admitted he killed his family and signed a document to say so?
-
NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?
If Jeremy Bamber had told Rivlin that he committed the murders Rivlin would have told him that he should plead guilty. There would not be any reason for an agreed statement of facts in that case, the plea itself would be sufficient. This whole suggestion that Rivlin drafted a statement of fact admitting guilt is pure nonsense and I do not know how it came to be suggested.
-
I was going by this NGB?
Client Representation:
Solicitors act on instructions from their client. They cannot make statements of fact on behalf of a victim if those facts are not known to the solicitor or have not been approved by the victim.
Honesty and Truth:
Solicitors must act with honesty and are forbidden from misleading others or the court.
In summary, a solicitor cannot simply provide a statement of fact for a victim without their consent, particularly if it purports to be the victim's account. Doing so would violate professional conduct rules and could constitute an attempt to mislead the court or the other parties involved.
So if Bill’s claim is true, Bamber must have admitted he killed his family and signed a document to say so?
If Jeremy Bamber had admitted to Rivlin that he killed his family Rivlin would have told him to plead guilty. If he refused Rivlin would have been obliged to withdraw from the case. The fact that he did not and he called Jeremy to give evidence shows that this suggestion is complete rubbish.
-
Wha would another defence lawyer have done differently to get an acquittal?
There are various aspects of the case which could have been handled in a more forceful way. In particular, cross examination of the relatives and of some police officers could have explored some issues in more detail. Rivlin in effect conceded that the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings and that blood from one or more victims was inside it. The jury denied the opportunity to consider some alternative scenarios.
-
If Jeremy Bamber had admitted to Rivlin that he killed his family Rivlin would have told him to plead guilty. If he refused Rivlin would have been obliged to withdraw from the case. The fact that he did not and he called Jeremy to give evidence shows that this suggestion is complete rubbish.
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this NGB.
-
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this NGB.
I know HB and this sort of thing harms JB's campaign. There has been some dreadful nonsense spouted in support of JB over the years and this gets in the way of the strong defence points which can be made. It really annoys me.
-
I know HB and this sort of thing harms JB's campaign. There has been some dreadful nonsense spouted in support of JB over the years and this gets in the way of the strong defence points which can be made. It really annoys me.
Ive always said the same NGB as you well know, yet when you call out such nonsense they don’t like it. I really do try to be impartial at times, but this was absolutely diabolical to think that Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family, it has to be challenged, for Jeremy sake if nothing else. They don’t realise the damage it does for Jeremy.
-
For me it was a difficult case to defend. It was literally Jeremy Bamber v Et al.
-
There are various aspects of the case which could have been handled in a more forceful way. In particular, cross examination of the relatives and of some police officers could have explored some issues in more detail. Rivlin in effect conceded that the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings and that blood from one or more victims was inside it. The jury denied the opportunity to consider some alternative scenarios.
I don't see what else they could have done vis-à-vis the relatives. As for questioning police, the defence I assume did not want to detract from the original decision of DCI Taff Jones, that it was four murders and a suicide.
-
Maybe they should have held the trial outside of Essex.
-
Read his cross again a few week ago, he didnt take a battering. He actually was composed and answered quite well.
It seemed pretty benign for a cross in all honesty.
-
Maybe they should have held the trial outside of Essex.
It was originally committed to the OLd Bailey if I recall correctly. It was then administratively transferred to Essex.
-
Read his cross again a few week ago, he didnt take a battering. He actually was composed and answered quite well.
It seemed pretty benign for a cross in all honesty.
I got that impression also. It made me wonder if Arlidge QC thought he wasn't guilty.
-
The judge kept asking Bamber to speak up at trial. He was not confident in his answers.
He went into 'police interview' mode. Just giving one word answers.
Regarding the rifle he said 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I. As well as saying 'that is what you have to establish'.
-
The judge kept asking Bamber to speak up at trial. He was not confident in his answers.
He went into 'police interview' mode. Just giving one word answers.
No he didnt go into one word answers at all. I have read the transcript on countless occassions as im sure others have.
Its not unusual for a judge to ask a witness to speak up.
-
I got that impression also. It made me wonder if Arlidge QC thought he wasn't guilty.
He did mention on the theroux documentary that he believed the judges summing up was " very much geared toward a conviction" and he did say he found Bamber " intelligent"
He may have well have done, he may have not done. He was just doing his job I suppose.
Believe JB did write to him post conviction.
-
He did mention on the theroux documentary that he believed the judges summing up was " very much geared toward a conviction" and he did say he found Bamber " intelligent"
He may have well have done, he may have not done. He was just doing his job I suppose.
Believe JB did write to him post conviction.
I think Aldridge knew he got his man once Jeremy said, “ that is what you have got to try and establish” having said to him earlier “ you’re not telling the truth about it are you”. Mike Ainsley said he would never forget that moment, he said he had just convicted himself as a low murmur went around the Court room?
-
He did mention on the theroux documentary that he believed the judges summing up was " very much geared toward a conviction" and he did say he found Bamber " intelligent"
He may have well have done, he may have not done. He was just doing his job I suppose.
Believe JB did write to him post conviction.
Anthony Arlidge KC did not believe in the concept of evil until he met Jeremy Bamber. Arlidge was prosecuting in the infamous trial in which Bamber was accused of murdering his parents at their home, White House Farm in Essex, along with his sister and her twin six-year-old boys. Arlidge’s son John recalls: ‘My father thought Bamber was the embodiment of evil, which is quite something when you think of all the defendants he had met in his career.’
Arlidge secured Bamber’s conviction in what was a tricky case in which the killer had sought to frame his dead sister. ‘Before I was instructed,’ he later recounted, ‘I watched him at the funeral of his parents on TV and I thought he was faking his grief
https://middletemplar.org.uk/master-anthony-arlidge-1937-2023/
-
No he didnt go into one word answers at all. I have read the transcript on countless occassions as im sure others have.
Its not unusual for a judge to ask a witness to speak up.
Going by Wilkes book he went into one word denial answers :- 'no'.
-
Going by his testimony we did learn -
He phoned Julie to 'hear a friendly voice'.
June's bike was stolen so Julie could cycle to a gym.
He said there was 'a lack of understanding between him & June'.
He robbed the caravan site to show security was poor. But admitted he should not have spent the money.
He had seen the wills & knew it tied him to the farm to inherit.
He liked the finer things in life.
He believed other people have testified against him because of what they saw in the media.
He did not say he did not know The Sea Wall route to/from WHF.
-
Going by Wilkes book he went into one word denial answers :- 'no'.
So if the actual transcripts states ABC while Wilkes book states XYZ. What are you going to go by?
-
Going by Wilkes book he went into one word denial answers :- 'no'.
Sometime short clipped answers are all that is required depending on the questioning.
There is little point him babbling on or going off tangent to a direct question put to him.
-
There is no way that the sentence I have highlighted could ever have been part of a draft prepared by or even considered by the defence. I have no idea where this comes from - I can only imagine it might be part of the prosection counsel's opening statement to the jury.
Rivlin never expressed a personal opinion on the case. Obviously since counsel are human they do form views but the mindset of a barrister in approaching a case is simply to look at the evidence and explore lines of cross examination that cast doubt on the prosecution case and support the defence case. Essentially, defence counsel assumes for the purposes of the case that the defendant is telling the truth.
I believe Rivlin believed that he had a good chance of securing an acquittal because the evidence was largely circumstantial and there were considerable weaknesses in it. He was also quite helpful to Jeremy Bamber following the conviction when approached by the defence requesting information.
Am I right in thinking Rivlin believed that Bamber was innocent or might have been, his interpretation of the silencer evidence being that it was on the gun and the blood inside was a mixture of Nevill's and June's - the expert witness allowing this as a possibility albeit a "remote" one.
-
The blood maybe being a mixture of June & Nevill's does him no favours.
There would need to be an explanation on why Sheila put the silencer on and then put it away.
-
Am I right in thinking Rivlin believed that Bamber was innocent or might have been, his interpretation of the silencer evidence being that it was on the gun and the blood inside was a mixture of Nevill's and June's - the expert witness allowing this as a possibility albeit a "remote" one.
Rivlin chose this defence narrative to present to the jury. It does not necessarily mean he believed it.
-
The defence narrative is Nevill rang Jeremy after he had been shot 4 times. The prosecution saying he was too badly injured to talk.
The defence could say Sheila put the silencer on while everyone was sleeping. Which would explain why June & Nevill were shot in bed.
However very unlikely Nevill would run downstairs and start phoning Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times.
-
The defence narrative is Nevill rang Jeremy after he had been shot 4 times. The prosecution saying he was too badly injured to talk.
The defence could say Sheila put the silencer on while everyone was sleeping. Which would explain why June & Nevill were shot in bed.
However very unlikely Nevill would run downstairs and start phoning Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times.
He didn't, he phoned before going upstairs to be shot, after lying against the Aga, Adam.
-
I think Rivlin was a very poor choice. He was a prosecutor and this was the first defence case he had handled. There are several leading defence barristers at that time who I knew well who would very probably have secured an acquittal on the evidence. Kingsley Napley were a bad choice of solicitor. They handled few criminal cases but made their name on the Jeremy Thorpe trial. They did not normally accept legal aid work but for some reason accepted this case. They were not familiar with the legal aid system so did not get approval for the right expert witnesses.
Does that also include yourself NGB? 8)
-
Does that also include yourself NGB? 8)
Why would someone experienced mainly as a prosecutor, not have the necessary skills for mounting a robust defence?
-
Ed lawson, his junior at the time represented a mate of mine years later.
Good counsel, died some years ago.
-
Why would someone experienced mainly as a prosecutor, not have the necessary skills for mounting a robust defence?
Would you get on a Boeing aircraft knowing the pilot was only experience and licensed to fly Airbus?
-
Does anyone in this group believe there was a fight between Sheila and June?
I have heard it be claimed that Sheila had defensive injuries, Vanezis lying saying that she didn't. and these were scratches from a fight with June.
Its rubbish Dan, to suggest everyone else missed these so called marks and Gouges, Bernard Knight the defence Pathologist who performed forensic autopsies would want to see every Photo so he could scrutinise and look for holes in the prosecution case. Besides a body is washed as a part of an autopsy to remove substances like makeup, blood, or dirt that might obscure injuries and to allow for a thorough examination of wounds, scars, and tattoos. To say Venezis missed these or chose not to include them is utter none sense, beside I know for a fact the Jury was shown washed and unwashed photo’s of Sheila to compare.
-
Does that also include yourself NGB? 8)
No, The case needed a leading QC. I was at the time of the trial reasonably experienced but not at that level.
-
Am I right in thinking Rivlin believed that Bamber was innocent or might have been, his interpretation of the silencer evidence being that it was on the gun and the blood inside was a mixture of Nevill's and June's - the expert witness allowing this as a possibility albeit a "remote" one.
I do not know what Rivlin's personal views were on the case. As far as I know he never expressed a view.
-
Why would someone experienced mainly as a prosecutor, not have the necessary skills for mounting a robust defence?
He certainly was skilled but he had the mindset of a prosecutor. I am suggesting that other counsel would have been more suited to the case and would more likely secured an acquittal.
-
He certainly was skilled but he had the mindset of a prosecutor. I am suggesting that other counsel would have been more suited to the case and would more likely secured an acquittal.
Did you know Alridge NGB?
-
He certainly was skilled but he had the mindset of a prosecutor. I am suggesting that other counsel would have been more suited to the case and would more likely secured an acquittal.
And despite of that (combined with an unfair summing up fresh in their minds) Rivlin almost split the jury. I think an acquittal would be more of a given.
-
Did you know Alridge NGB?
I did not know him personally HB, but I saw him regularly.
-
And despite of that (combined with an unfair summing up fresh in their minds) Rivlin almost split the jury. I think an acquittal would be more of a given.
Why was it unfair? Please post the summing up.
-
Why was it unfair? Please post the summing up.
This is dealt with in Chapter 38 of Blood Relations. It's quite clear that Mr Justice Drake considered Bamber guilty. It's suggested that he thought the soft-spoken Anthony Arlidge hadn't done a thorough job and Drake himself was making up for the discrepancy. He favours Julie on balance, he casts doubts on the purported telephone call from Nevill, he goes into detail on the silencer and the unlikely event of Sheila shooting herself and returning it to the gun cupboard, on her mental illness he quotes Dr. Ferguson as doubting she would have killed Nevill or the twins, he says the blood in the silencer was specific to Sheila, then adds John Hayward had said it could have been a mixture of Nevill and June's, but "the chances were remote."
There are other points too, which went against Bamber: the fight with Nevill in the kitchen and Sheila's apparent cleanliness, the Osea Road burglary he linked to a willingness to trust Julie, Jeremy's motive of inheritance, the sequence of telephone calls, whether or not he had telephoned Witham Police Station, the hacksaw blade found lying near the kitchen window.
-
This is dealt with in Chapter 38 of Blood Relations. It's quite clear that Mr Justice Drake considered Bamber guilty. It's suggested that he thought the soft-spoken Anthony Arlidge hadn't done a thorough job and Drake himself was making up for the discrepancy. He favours Julie on balance, he casts doubts on the purported telephone call from Nevill, he goes into detail on the silencer and the unlikely event of Sheila shooting herself and returning it to the gun cupboard, on her mental illness he quotes Dr. Ferguson as doubting she would have killed Nevill or the twins, he says the blood in the silencer was specific to Sheila, then adds John Hayward had said it could have been a mixture of Nevill and June's, but "the chances were remote."
There are other points too, which went against Bamber: the fight with Nevill in the kitchen and Sheila's apparent cleanliness, the Osea Road burglary he linked to a willingness to trust Julie, Jeremy's motive of inheritance, the sequence of telephone calls, whether or not he had telephoned Witham Police Station, the hacksaw blade found lying near the kitchen window.
Every single point you say - fully justified. It might seem biased towards the prosecution, but that's because the facts of the case really were stacked against him.
-
For me he didnt help himself with osea. He should have been forthcoming from thr start and said greed was the main factor.
The highlighting of security although he may have had a genuine grievance with it, was not the reason he took the money. We all know that.
However I do tend to believe he may have been motivated to do so because he felt he was being treated unfairly getting less than AE.
-
For me he didnt help himself with osea. He should have been forthcoming from thr start and said greed was the main factor.
The highlighting of security although he may have had a genuine grievance with it, was not the reason he took the money. We all know that.
However I do tend to believe he may have been motivated to do so because he felt he was being treated unfairly getting less than AE.
In one of the books it mentions Nevill was going to pay the £900 straight in to the bank, but Jeremy persuaded him to leave it in the office safe overnight. Apparently there were more takings than usual on that particular occasion. It suggests at that late stage in March 1985 son had the upper hand over father, just as the tables had been turned with the relationship with his mother.
Other inconsistencies (or downright lies) were Jeremy's assertions re: parents that there had been no problems in their relationship, that he had been target shooting with his sister, that he had telephoned Witham Police Station, whether or not he told PC Lay about a £28000 car he was going to buy before the siege had been concluded, that he told cousin Ann that Sheila "had been on the hard stuff", that she had punched one of the twins on a car journey.
It's always difficult to analyse Jeremy's statements, containing as they sometimes do grains of truth interwoven with a tissue of lies.
-
In one of the books it mentions Nevill was going to pay the £900 straight in to the bank, but Jeremy persuaded him to leave it in the office safe overnight. Apparently there were more takings than usual on that particular occasion. It suggests at that late stage in March 1985 son had the upper hand over father, just as the tables had been turned with the relationship with his mother.
Other inconsistencies (or downright lies) were Jeremy's assertions re: parents that there had been no problems in their relationship, that he had been target shooting with his sister, that he had telephoned Witham Police Station, whether or not he told PC Lay about a £28000 car he was going to buy before the siege had been concluded, that he told cousin Ann that Sheila "had been on the hard stuff", that she had punched one of the twins on a car journey.
It's always difficult to analyse Jeremy's statements, containing as they sometimes do grains of truth interwoven with a tissue of lies.
He realised he might not get a second chance at the money Steve, persuading his father to leave the money was part of his planning, just like he realised it had to be that night for the murders, Sheila and the boy’s attending was the perfect time.
It was always going to end bad for him one way or another, especially as his crimes escalated, Neville and June would have cut him off at sometime.
Each one of his crimes shows he put his trust in Julie, this shows to me she was more involved in the murder’s than she makes out, Julie was there to bounce his ideas off and to offer encouragement. Not many woman would stand guard while their partner steals £900 from the family safe and sell drugs for their partner. She had to have a criminal mind set to do this. Julie was as Greedy as Bamber and prepared to take these sort of risks, she showed this with the cheque book fraud.
-
He realised he might not get a second chance at the money Steve, persuading his father to leave the money was part of his planning, just like he realised it had to be that night for the murders, Sheila and the boy’s attending was the perfect time.
It was always going to end bad for him one way or another, especially as his crimes escalated, Neville and June would have cut him off at sometime.
Each one of his crimes shows he put his trust in Julie, this shows to me she was more involved in the murder’s than she makes out, Julie was there to bounce his ideas off and to offer encouragement. Not many woman would stand guard while their partner steals £900 from the family safe and sell drugs for their partner. She had to have a criminal mind set to do this. Julie was as Greedy as Bamber and prepared to take these sort of risks, she showed this with the cheque book fraud.
She was 100 percent on board from start to finish. She only went to the coppers because he jilted her.
To be honest even if they had stayed together eventually Jeremy would have left her and she would have gone down ghe same route.
For me I believe he was always going to come a cropper for the crimes. It was just a case of when.
-
She was 100 percent on board from start to finish. She only went to the coppers because he jilted her.
To be honest even if they had stayed together eventually Jeremy would have left her and she would have gone down ghe same route.
For me I believe he was always going to come a cropper for the crimes. It was just a case of when.
Glad to hear that you have come over to the guilty side.
-
Julie left Bamber on the 27th August. To return to the job and degree she had been abruptly taken away from on the 7th August.
She tried to leave him on the 17th August but he said he needed her.
Brett arriving on the scene on the 13th August speeded up things. Her WS says she didn't feel Bamber needed her anymore.
Wonder how much longer they would have stayed together if Brett had not arrived. The longer Julie left it, the harder it would have been to approach the police.
-
She was 100 percent on board from start to finish. She only went to the coppers because he jilted her.
To be honest even if they had stayed together eventually Jeremy would have left her and she would have gone down ghe same route.
For me I believe he was always going to come a cropper for the crimes. It was just a case of when.
I will say no more than once whatever had tied them together had been severed, whatever the reason, she'd no longer feel the need to support/protect him. It would have become "You're on your own now! You can paddle your own canoe"
-
Re: the above posts. Jeremy felt trapped in the farming way of life: long hours, not sufficient remuneration to support his lavish lifestyle, lack of appreciation and grumbles from Nevill he wouldn't do overtime. I don't think there was any definite plan growing up; surrounded by the children of the landed gentry at Gresham's he would be pretty low in the social pecking order, nor would he have felt comfortable academically in that stuffy male-dominated environment. He went through the motions, with no real plan or ulterior motive, sensing his father's disappointment at his academic prowess, attempting an escape of sorts with the Little Chef job at Rivenhall End, then working at Sloppy Joe's in Colchester and helping out odd times at the Frog and Beans.
It is difficult to say how the petty crime of drug dealing and stealing money from the caravan park escalated into mass murder. Maybe as he witnessed his mother's breakdown in 1982 and his sister's two breakdowns, followed by Nevill's bout of illness requiring him to relinquish the magistrate's job, it started out with him getting ideas beyond his station. To his mind he was the only one unaffected by malady, though maybe cognitive distortions came into play when claiming Nicholas and Daniel would grow up disturbed, the reality being that he may have been jealous that Sheila had provided issue where he himself had failed.
As for Julie, she was swept along in a maelstrom of emotion I doubt most males could comprehend, in love as she was and not wanting to confront the reality of what he was confiding in her. So sad that she was on teaching practice at a difficult time for the education profession (one recalls Margaret Thatcher being refused an honorary degree at Oxford in January 1985 for the alleged damage she had caused) as her mind struggled with competing demands for her attention, and she tragically made the wrong choice.
-
I will say no more than once whatever had tied them together had been severed, whatever the reason, she'd no longer feel the need to support/protect him. It would have become "You're on your own now! You can paddle your own canoe"
I think she started to pity him, when she sensed he no longer needed her, which was her rationale for staying with him for so long. Maybe had he obtained the services of a psychiatrist, just as Sheila had requested Colin to do whilst modelling in Japan, the outcome may have been different. But far from him expressing regret or remorse for the slayings as Julie might secretly have hoped, he was ready to continue his laddish lifestyle, and it was this in my opinion which finally tipped the balance and drove her reluctantly into the arms of police.
-
Glad to hear that you have come over to the guilty side.
Not at all, I have never had a side and been a fence sitter from the outset. Im just able to look at the case straight down the middle. Appreciate not every can do this.
-
I will say no more than once whatever had tied them together had been severed, whatever the reason, she'd no longer feel the need to support/protect him. It would have become "You're on your own now! You can paddle your own canoe"
Had Jeremy gotten away with it lets say in August of 85, the murder suicide verdict accepted for me it wouldn't have been the end of the road.
The relatives would have kept plugging away, allegiances would change i.e Julie like I said and I actually believe Jeremy himself would have dug his own hole eventually, drunken bragging etc. He may have enjoyed some years of freedom but eventually I believe a 2nd investigation would have started and he would have been brought to book.
-
The forensic evidence was being processed. SJ said he was going to contact Julie and interview her. The relatives were not giving up. Taff had been taken off heading the case. Bamber's lack of remorse and jolly ups had been noted.
So an arrest was coming soon. With Julie either approaching or being approached by the police.
-
The police approaching Julie, they could give her a mountain of information implicating Bamber. It wouldn't be long until she broke.
Doubt the police had to give her that information as she approached them. Just some gentle encouragement.
-
The forensic evidence was being processed. SJ said he was going to contact Julie and interview her. The relatives were not giving up. Taff had been taken off heading the case. Bamber's lack of remorse and jolly ups had been noted.
So an arrest was coming soon. With Julie either approaching or being approached by the police.
In terms of speaking as in the murder suicide verdict had been accepted and the case had been " put to bed " in August 85.
I believe some years later it would have been reinvestigated.
-
Taking the crime scene evidence or whatever out of the equation for a moment Jeremy effectively put a large noose round his neck by telling or involving Julie. There was no way that it would have ended on a happy note for him.
In private he has probably wished he had kept it all to himself.
-
In terms of speaking as in the murder suicide verdict had been accepted and the case had been " put to bed " in August 85.
I believe some years later it would have been reinvestigated.
Was building up to a September arrest.
Evidence, the relatives, Stan, Ainsley taking over, Bamber's actions.
Regarding Julie it was a case of who approached who in September.
-
Taking the crime scene evidence or whatever out of the equation for a moment Jeremy effectively put a large noose round his neck by telling or involving Julie. There was no way that it would have ended on a happy note for him.
In private he has probably wished he had kept it all to himself.
She was probably the only woman who ever listened to him, infatuated, expressing unconditional devotion. To an extent Suzette fulfilled that role, though she had baggage with a husband and children to weigh in the balance. Had Nevill and June accepted Suzette things might well have turned out differently.
-
Involving Julie literally scuppered everything from the get go in my opinion.
He was never going to get away with it.
-
For me I dont believe he particularly stenciled in August 7th 85 as his d day.
He had talked about getting rid of all the family in the house before by burning it down. Which to me means that shelias visit with the boys to WHF was probably a regular bi monthly occurance. Opportunity having presented itself many times.
For me he got pissed off beyond comprehension this day and geared himself up for it. Possibly an argument with Shelia in the field, he blew up and just said " fuck it im doing it tonight "
-
For me I dont believe he particularly stenciled in August 7th 85 as his d day.
He had talked about getting rid of all the family in the house before by burning it down. Which to me means that shelias visit with the boys to WHF was probably a regular bi monthly occurance. Opportunity having presented itself many times.
For me he got pissed off beyond comprehension this day and geared himself up for it. Possibly an argument with Shelia in the field, he blew up and just said " fuck it im doing it tonight "
I agree about the argument in the field (though we will never know for sure), but I doubt Sheila was a regular visitor to White House Farm, at least not with Nicholas and Daniel alongside. She only had custody of them at weekends for a start. The visit starting on the Sunday was an exception, as they were due to travel to Norway thereafter with Colin to see his sister, who resided in the country. Going from the books the only previous occasion the whole family was together under one roof was going to be Christmas 1984, prompting Jeremy's comment to Michael Deckers that if the farm burned down then everything would be his, but I think Sheila cancelled at the last minute.