Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on October 12, 2025, 02:02:PM
-
Why was the judge's summing up biased?
If you think it was biased, please provide examples and please post the full summing up.
-
Why was the judge's summing up biased?
If you think it was biased, please provide examples and please post the full summing up.
This has been answered already.
-
This has been answered already.
Fair enough, although I thought it deserved a new post, especially as a it was a separate topic to what was being discussed.
I don't think there was any bias.
-
Fair enough, although I thought it deserved a new post, especially as a it was a separate topic to what was being discussed.
I don't think there was any bias.
I don't think it was biased either. I don't know what you mean about it being a separate topic.
-
After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?
-
After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?
I don't think he said that, but before the verdict he said he would take a majority verdict. He was well prepared for the guilty verdict and gave a good speech if you do believe Bamber was guilty.
-
Will have to re read that bit in Wilkes's book.
-
Will have to re read that bit in Wilkes's book.
Apparently there was some ambiguity in blood expert John Hayward's evidence that there was nothing in the appearance of the silencer to suggest that the blood contained therein belonged to more than one person. Mr. Justice Drake took this to mean that the blood was unique to Sheila Caffell, and produced his own chart for the jurors to peruse with the five victims where Sheila's name was underlined. It's not specifically stated in Wilkes' book, but the implication is that since two jurors were already hanging out for not guilty it might well have persuaded a third so to do.
Of course, it would still have to mean that Sheila killed four, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard, then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself. I personally can't envisage such a scenario.
As far as Geoffrey Rivlin is concerned, it's stated in Blood Relations that though he couldn't be sure of Bamber's innocence he felt badly about the way the trial was handled, which included the summing up. It's the reason he spent many hours working pro bono on the case after Bamber's legal aid was withdrwan.
-
Apparently there was some ambiguity in blood expert John Hayward's evidence that there was nothing in the appearance of the silencer to suggest that the blood contained therein belonged to more than one person. Mr. Justice Drake took this to mean that the blood was unique to Sheila Caffell, and produced his own chart for the jurors to peruse with the five victims where Sheila's name was underlined. It's not specifically stated in Wilkes' book, but the implication is that since two jurors were already hanging out for not guilty it might well have persuaded a third so to do.
Of course, it would still have to mean that Sheila killed four, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard, then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself. I personally can't envisage such a scenario.
As far as Geoffrey Rivlin is concerned, it's stated in Blood Relations that though he couldn't be sure of Bamber's innocence he felt badly about the way the trial was handled, which included the summing up. It's the reason he spent many hours working pro bono on the case after Bamber's legal aid was withdrwan.
It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.
Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.
-
After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?
Justice Drake some years later said loosely " I kept an open mind throughout the trial but by the end I came to the conclusion Julie Mugford was telling the truth, ergo he believed Jeremy culpable.
-
Patrick O Connor on the theroux documentary ( barrister) said Justice Drakes summing up paid little attention to Jeremy's evidence.
-
It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.
Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.
But they were women, bedazzled by his appearance in the witness box. I still can't see Sheila putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard, or deciding to use it at all for that matter. I'm quite clear in my own mind that Bamber is guilty.
-
Drake did give a speech after the guilty verdict - 'evil almost beyond belief' etc. That is what they always do before giving the sentence.
Wilkes's book does not say Drake said he agreed with the jury.
-
Drake mentions the caravan break in during his summing up and sentancing speeches.
-
It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.
Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.
Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.
-
Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.
That was the view of Lord Lane in 1989, Mr. Justice Caulfield having dismissed his application to appeal the previous year. I do think there may have been unconscious bias, to quote the woke jargon of the 21st century. It would also have helped the prosecution that Mr. Justice Drake was a former RAF pilot, as was Nevill.
-
Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.
I was not referring to Drakes summing up, but his answer to the jury when they asked for clarification about the blood in the silencer during their deliberations. 20 minutes latter they convicted.
-
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
The application for leave to appeal 155. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on grounds drawn by those who represented him at trial. The grounds upon which leave was sought related to the judge's summing up, alleging (a) that he had inaccurately assessed significant aspects of the prosecution case and omitted to refer to crucial aspects of the defence case, and (b) that he had with persistence and strength expressed opinions adverse to the defence.
156. Following rejection of the grounds by the single judge, the matter was heard by the full court. The Court rejected the criticisms of the summing up and refused leave. Lord Lane, LCJ giving the judgment observed:
"What is sometimes overlooked is that a direction to the jury reflects the sort of case with which the Judge was dealing. A strong prosecution case will inevitably result in what may be strong comments. Exactly the same with a strong defence case, that may justify strong comments."
157. It seems clear from the judgment as a whole, that the Court were of the opinion that this was a strong prosecution case that merited the comments about which complaint was made. The court, therefore, rejected the proposed grounds and concluded that there was "nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction",
158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.
Events after refusal of permission to appeal 159. At the trial, with justification, Drake J. was critical of the thoroughness of the police investigation in its early stages, when on the jury's verdicts, the police had too readily accepted that this was murder by Sheila Caffell and her subsequent suicide, when the true picture was very different. The Essex Police held an internal police inquiry to look into these criticisms. This was conducted by an officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson, who subsequently reported to his Chief Constable on the matter. It is alleged that that report reveals evidence that was suppressed by the police, or which, at the very least, was not known to the defence at trial.
-
Julie Mugford gave evidence to the jury about the visit to the bank. She said that she had gone to the bank to explain what had happened and she said that this was not on the advice of the police.
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
-
Freemason Justice Drake, wasn’t without controversy he had to stand down once in a trial because of his Mason links, he was also blamed for his summing up in the Bridgewater trial, by misleading the jury…… The judge's summing-up in the original trial of the four men accused of killing newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater was unbalanced, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
The judge, Mr Justice Drake, also "wrongly" told the jury that he had naturally formed his own views as to where the truth lay in the case, Patrick O'Connor QC, counsel for James Robinson, one of the accused, said.
So yes, I do think he would have been biased in the summing up in the Bamber trial, the notion it was a strong prosecution case reflecting the comments he made doesn’t wash with me, it was a close call, this was shown by the Jury reaching the Majority verdict lowest threshold, Julie Mugford should have been charged for the cheque book fraud and charged for her involvement and knowledge of the murders and drug abuse supplying drugs for Bamber. She got off lightly in my view.
Rivlin should have really gone to Town on this woman in cross examination, if Bamber was guilty, she was as well in my view.
https://archive.org/stream/328735-mugford-charge-burglary-withdrawn/328735-mugford-charge-burglary-withdrawn_djvu.txt
-
Julie Mugford gave evidence to the jury about the visit to the bank. She said that she had gone to the bank to explain what had happened and she said that this was not on the advice of the police.
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
This is a problem for several reasons. A relatively minor point is that Mugford was not in fact even given a police caution which would have been on her record and an admission of guilt. She was given complete immunity on all charges on the authority of the DPP. The much more important point is that Drake based this part of the summing up upon the evidence he had heard, but it was false in material respects. The police instigated the approach to the bank and attended with Mugford. They persuaded the bank not to press charges, contrary to their standard policy. This gave the jury a much more favourable view of Mugford than was justified. In addition, Mugford lied about her News of the World deal and the jury therefore did not know that she have a massive financial incentive for Jeremy Bamber to be convicted.
-
This is a problem for several reasons. A relatively minor point is that Mugford was not in fact even given a police caution which would have been on her record and an admission of guilt. She was given complete immunity on all charges on the authority of the DPP. The much more important point is that Drake based this part of the summing up upon the evidence he had heard, but it was false in material respects. The police instigated the approach to the bank and attended with Mugford. They persuaded the bank not to press charges, contrary to their standard policy. This gave the jury a much more favourable view of Mugford than was justified. In addition, Mugford lied about her News of the World deal and the jury therefore did not know that she have a massive financial incentive for Jeremy Bamber to be convicted.
I can remember you saying about the Caution NGB, it’s a point I was going to raise for your opinion. I totally agree about the Bank as well, without this agreement from the Bank Mugford and Battersby would have had some sort of conviction.
-
I can remember you saying about the Caution NGB, it’s a point I was going to raise for your opinion. I totally agree about the Bank as well, without this agreement from the Bank Mugford and Battersby would have had some sort of conviction.
This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal.
-
It was a bloke from the legal profession who expressed it was biased. It's on the Theroux program.
-
This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal.
I know what was dealt with in the 2002 appeal Dan, I’ve read it enough times over the 15 years I’ve been with the forum. I still think Julie Mugford should have been charged, and today I think she would have been. She was as bad as Bamber, she knew what he planned to do, she also knew what he had done, but she chose to cover up for him. She helped him sell drugs and she helped him rob the caravan park, she also committed fraud with the cheque book saga, no one can tell me she was a little sweet innocent young manipulated girl, she was as evil as him.
-
I know what was dealt with in the 2002 appeal Dan, I’ve read it enough times over the 15 years I’ve been with the forum. I still think Julie Mugford should have been charged, and today I think she would have been. She was as bad as Bamber, she knew what he planned to do, she also knew what he had done, but she chose to cover up for him. She helped him sell drugs and she helped him rob the caravan park, she also committed fraud with the cheque book saga, no one can tell me she was a little sweet innocent young manipulated girl, she was as evil as him.
I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.
-
I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.
The cheque book fraud was discovered after she had completed her 8/9/85 WS. Of which she would have to testify on.
Don't believe her being charged would have effected the trial. Likely she would have got a caution.
SJ probably told the bank she was an inportant witness in a murder charge & would prefer it if she was not distracted by an unrelated crime.
The bank agreed not to press charges providing the money was paid back.
-
Doubt Julie knew anything about the caravan break in until Bamber drove her there and told her to be a look out.
Bamber didn't know it was going ahead until an unexpected opportunity arose a few hours earlier. After persuading Nevill to leave a larger than usual amount of money there.
He would have gone ahead with or without Julie.
-
Drake did give a speech after the guilty verdict - 'evil almost beyond belief' etc. That is what they always do before giving the sentence.
Wilkes's book does not say Drake said he agreed with the jury.
Its in CALs book.
-
I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.
Would have been interesting had Jeremy confessed.
-
I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.
I think I can make my own mind up. I believe 100 per cent the bank manager was leaned on by the Police, Mugford and Battersby did not set the meeting up, it was set up by the Police, purely and simply by Essex Police for Mugford to give evidence.
why would the Police not charge Mugford, it was a straight forward charge, easy prosecution, the witness admitted the offence’s, she admitted to Burglary, to cheque book fraud, she admitted to selling and dealing in drugs, she admitted she new Bamber wanted to kill his family, she admitted she knew he had been involved with the killing of his family, it was in return so Mugford could give evidence. they needed Mugford as a witness and without a conviction to help her credibility on the stand.
When did Mugford Smuggle drugs into the UK from Canada, anyone know? She must have admitted to doing this?
North Essex: Court to hear bank manager evidence
Lawyers arguing the case for Jeremy Bamber are hoping the appeal will hear fresh evidence from a bank manager today. Yesterday the hearing in London into Bamber's conviction heard the fifth of 15 grounds, which Bamber's team of lawyers say will prove his conviction should be overturned.
Michael Turner QC, said a bank manager at what was then the Midland Bank had made a statement this year concerning Julie Mugford's involvement with cheque book fraud before the murders at White House Farm in 1985. He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
The trial was told the pair had admitted the offences to police following the White House murders and gone of their own volition, on their own, to speak to managers at the bank, which had decided not to press charges. But Mr Turner said this year a manager at the bank, Mr Dovey had made a statement saying a policeman had come with the two girls to the bank to talk to them and help sort out the problem, suggesting they had sought to protect Miss Mugford's credit as a key witness.
He said an officer had rung beforehand to set up the appointment and to warn him they were coming but both women said in the statements at the time that they had gone to the bank on the off-chance and waited until the could see a manager. He also heard Det Sgt Jones and another officer involved in looking after Miss Mugford and Miss Battersby had denied going with them to the bank.
Mr Turner said the notes the manager had made at the time had been destroyed due to a policy change at the bank but had the evidence been available to the defence at the time of the trial it would have given them an opportunity to look at the reliability of Julie Mugford as a witness. "If we are right, the credit of Julie Mugford was all a trick and if Julie Mugford was lying in relation to this, and being supported in that lie by Det Sgt Jones, who was the officer who had had the most contact with her, could it really be said that that would not have had heavy implications on this trial," said Mr Turner.
The case continues
lawyers have discovered Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
-
Doubt Julie knew anything about the caravan break in until Bamber drove her there and told her to be a look out.
Bamber didn't know it was going ahead until an unexpected opportunity arose a few hours earlier. After persuading Nevill to leave a larger than usual amount of money there.
He would have gone ahead with or without Julie.
Seems madness that Bamber would persuade Nevill to leave a large amount of cash only for hours later end up nicking it. Not exactly a criminal mastermind.
-
Seems madness that Bamber would persuade Nevill to leave a large amount of cash only for hours later end up nicking it. Not exactly a criminal mastermind.
Nevill must have left it in the office safe. Which only Bamber knew how to get into.
-
Plenty of things Nevill could do to get his money back.
Deduction of wages or annual leave. Unpaid overtime. Allocating harder tasks around the farm.
There would also be the threat of disinheritance if he walked away or did anything similar.
-
Doubt Julie knew anything about the caravan break in until Bamber drove her there and told her to be a look out.
Bamber didn't know it was going ahead until an unexpected opportunity arose a few hours earlier. After persuading Nevill to leave a larger than usual amount of money there.
He would have gone ahead with or without Julie.
Doesn't matter how you gloss over it Adam, she was an accessory to a Robbery in which Bamber was put on bail for, being an accessory is a serious offence, why wasn’t she put on bail?
-
Doesn't matter how you gloss over it Adam, she was an accessory to a Robbery in which Bamber was put on bail for, being an accessory is a serious offence, why wasn’t she put on bail?
She told the police about it. Together with the massacre.
Doubt she was a look out for him. He probably told her to stay in the car. When he returned to the car he showed her a March 3.00am update - a wad of cash!
-
I think I can make my own mind up. I believe 100 per cent the bank manager was leaned on by the Police, Mugford and Battersby did not set the meeting up, it was set up by the Police, purely and simply by Essex Police for Mugford to give evidence.
why would the Police not charge Mugford, it was a straight forward charge, easy prosecution, the witness admitted the offence’s, she admitted to Burglary, to cheque book fraud, she admitted to selling and dealing in drugs, she admitted she new Bamber wanted to kill his family, she admitted she knew he had been involved with the killing of his family, it was in return so Mugford could give evidence. they needed Mugford as a witness and without a conviction to help her credibility on the stand.
When did Mugford Smuggle drugs into the UK from Canada, anyone know? She must have admitted to doing this?
North Essex: Court to hear bank manager evidence
Lawyers arguing the case for Jeremy Bamber are hoping the appeal will hear fresh evidence from a bank manager today. Yesterday the hearing in London into Bamber's conviction heard the fifth of 15 grounds, which Bamber's team of lawyers say will prove his conviction should be overturned.
Michael Turner QC, said a bank manager at what was then the Midland Bank had made a statement this year concerning Julie Mugford's involvement with cheque book fraud before the murders at White House Farm in 1985. He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
The trial was told the pair had admitted the offences to police following the White House murders and gone of their own volition, on their own, to speak to managers at the bank, which had decided not to press charges. But Mr Turner said this year a manager at the bank, Mr Dovey had made a statement saying a policeman had come with the two girls to the bank to talk to them and help sort out the problem, suggesting they had sought to protect Miss Mugford's credit as a key witness.
He said an officer had rung beforehand to set up the appointment and to warn him they were coming but both women said in the statements at the time that they had gone to the bank on the off-chance and waited until the could see a manager. He also heard Det Sgt Jones and another officer involved in looking after Miss Mugford and Miss Battersby had denied going with them to the bank.
Mr Turner said the notes the manager had made at the time had been destroyed due to a policy change at the bank but had the evidence been available to the defence at the time of the trial it would have given them an opportunity to look at the reliability of Julie Mugford as a witness. "If we are right, the credit of Julie Mugford was all a trick and if Julie Mugford was lying in relation to this, and being supported in that lie by Det Sgt Jones, who was the officer who had had the most contact with her, could it really be said that that would not have had heavy implications on this trial," said Mr Turner.
The case continues
lawyers have discovered Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
The bank manager said he wasn't leaned on by the police.
-
You can read the short hand transcript here of Dovey at the appeal hearing.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9316.msg436121.html#msg436121 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9316.msg436121.html#msg436121)
-
She told the police about it. Together with the massacre.
Doubt she was a look out for him. He probably told her to stay in the car. When he returned to the car he showed her a March 3.00am update - a wad of cash!
No, he never told her stay in the car, she went with him along the sea wall, she was an accomplice because she was with him and she knew he had done it, she was also an accomplice to the murders as well, she knew what he planned to do and she knew he had done it, both events she chose to keep quite. That awful massacre of his family and those two little boys she identified, she knew her boyfriend was involved with their deaths and chose to cover up for him, only until he jilted her.
-
No, he never told her stay in the car, she went with him along the sea wall, she was an accomplice because she was with him and she knew he had done it, she was also an accomplice to the murders as well, she knew what he planned to do and she knew he had done it, both events she chose to keep quite. That awful massacre of his family and those two little boys she identified, she knew her boyfriend was involved with their deaths and chose to cover up for him.
'Went with him along the Sea Wall'. Wow that is a trek of a few miles.
Why didn't he drive there?
Her stance has always been she didn't think he would commit the massacre. Which is understandable.
She omitted things in her short 8/8/85 WS which were added in her long 8/9/85 WS.
-
Is there a source that they walked to rob the caravan site?
The 2020 drama has them in a car.
-
As the crow flies it is 1.4 miles from 9, Head Street to the caravan site. Via The Sea Wall will add on another mile.
If he was determined enough to walk 2.4 miles there & back for £1,000, cycling 4.2 miles for over £500,000 would not be a problem.
Walking The Sea Wall for £1,000 confirms the vision was good. It would have been better in August.
-
'Went with him along the Sea Wall'. Wow that is a trek of a few miles.
Why didn't he drive there?
Her stance has always been she didn't think he would commit the massacre. Which is understandable.
She omitted things in her short 8/8/85 WS which were added in her long 8/9/85 WS.
You've never been to Osea caravan park, there’s a car park and a sea wall, they more than likely parked in the car park with the intention of robbing the office and walked along the sea wall to the office where Julie kept guard for him. He was asked by the Police, who was with him when he did the break in, he said Julie.
She told him she could understand him talking of killing his parents, but not the twins and Sheila. So in her words it was understandable he killed his parents.
he stated that he would like to kill his parents. He also said that he would have to kill Sheila and the twins as well. I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins. I asked him why kill Sheila and the twins as they had done nothing to him. He told me that he deserved everything and Sheila had done nothing on the farm so she didn’t deserve anything. He also said she was crazy and he would be putting her out of her misery and by killing the twins it would be doing them a favour as they would grow up disturbed because of the way they were being brought up.
-
'Went with him along the Sea Wall'. Wow that is a trek of a few miles.
Why didn't he drive there?
Her stance has always been she didn't think he would commit the massacre. Which is understandable.
She omitted things in her short 8/8/85 WS which were added in her long 8/9/85 WS.
Osea has a sea wall, who said they walked from Goldhanger, it was just said they walked along the sea wall.
-
Is there a source that they walked to rob the caravan site?
The 2020 drama has them in a car.
They walked along the sea wall of Osea Caravan park.
-
They walked along the sea wall of Osea Caravan park.
Osea map……. Notice it says Seawall walk.
https://osealeisure.com/2024/wp-content/uploads/osea-park-site-plan.pdf
-
Osea map……. Notice it says Seawall walk.
https://osealeisure.com/2024/wp-content/uploads/osea-park-site-plan.pdf
That is not a source they walked to the caravan office via The Sea Wall.
-
That is not a source they walked to the caravan office via The Sea Wall.
I didn’t say it was a source, I’m showing you there’s a sea wall walk. The source is in the statement, he’s asked who were you involved with (the burglary) he said Julie and I went down there and broke in as she said, then it’s put to him, Julie said you went for a walk along the sea wall and you asked her to wait.
Now if you want to surmise they walked 2.5 miles along the sea wall go for it, I say they went down there possibly by car with the intention to walk along the sea wall to the office, Julie kept guard while he broke in.
-
I didn’t say it was a source, I’m showing you there’s a sea wall walk. The source is in the statement, he’s asked who were you involved with (the burglary) he said Julie and I went down there and broke in as she said, then it’s put to him, Julie said you went for a walk along the sea wall and you asked her to wait.
Now if you want to surmise they walked 2.5 miles along the sea wall go for it, I say they went down there possibly by car with the intention to walk along the sea wall to the office, Julie kept guard while he broke in.
I know there is a Sea Wall route. It is on Google Maps.
So it is in his police interview.
Going by Google Maps there is no half drive, half walk route.
It is either walk The Sea Wall from Fish Street. Or drive up Maldon Road from Head Street.
Always thought he drove. But if he did a long late night/early morning walk to rob his family of £1,000, that highlights his lust for money.
-
I know there is a Sea Wall route. It is on Google Maps.
So it is in his police interview.
Going by Google Maps there is no half drive, half walk route.
It is either walk The Sea Wall from Fish Street. Or drive up Maldon Road from Head Street.
Always thought he drove. But if he did a long late night/early morning walk to rob his family of £1,000, that highlights his lust for money.
There is a sea wall walk around Osea, there is a car park in Osea there is also Osea road, he could drive down there park up and go for a walk with Julie along the sea wall, rob the office get back in the car and drive home. One thing is certain, he did it and she was with him, she knew what he had done and kept quite and probably enjoyed the spoils from it.
-
Is there a source that they walked to rob the caravan site?
The 2020 drama has them in a car.
In her WS, she says she had been out in the car with Jeremy, he parked up somewhere, robbed osea, then they had a few drinks and game of pool in a local pub.
-
There is a sea wall walk around Osea, there is a car park in Osea there is also Osea road, he could drive down there park up and go for a walk with Julie along the sea wall, rob the office get back in the car and drive home. One thing is certain, he did it and she was with him, she knew what he had done and kept quite and probably enjoyed the spoils from it.
She even tried to get the key for Bamber through the letter box, and was unsuccessful.
-
In her WS, she says she had been out in the car with Jeremy, he parked up somewhere, robbed osea, then they had a few drinks and game of pool in a local pub.
Thanks ILB, I knew I’d read it but couldn’t find it. She helped him spend what they robbed.
-
In her WS, she says she had been out in the car with Jeremy, he parked up somewhere, robbed osea, then they had a few drinks and game of pool in a local pub.
Please post the WS. There is nothing in her 8/9/85 WS.
-
She even tried to get the key for Bamber through the letter box, and was unsuccessful.
She wasn’t involved in the Burglary my backside, she tried to get the key for him to Rob the Office 😂😂😂
-
Please post the WS. There is nothing in her 8/9/85 WS.
Please do your research.
-
She wasn’t involved in the Burglary my backside, she tried to get the key for him to Rob the Office 😂😂😂
For me she is lucky he denied his guilt. Whatever the reason.
Had he confessed he would have brought her down with him.
-
For me she is lucky he denied his guilt. Whatever the reason.
Had he confessed he would have brought her down with him.
I agree ILB, had he confessed the Police wouldn’t have needed her.
-
She wasn’t involved in the Burglary my backside, she tried to get the key for him to Rob the Office 😂😂😂
As to the burglary, Julie Mugford's involvement, save for an-Iunsuccessful attempt to get the key hanging behind the door,, appears to have been that of a bystander.
Mugford was just simply a bystander according to DC Adam’s, Yet, she attempted to get the key for Bamber to Rob the Office, kept guard for him while he broke in and wrecked the place, and then went for drinks after with him, no doubt with the money she had just helped him steal.
-
For me she is lucky he denied his guilt. Whatever the reason.
Had he confessed he would have brought her down with him.
What could he say to bring her down?
She had approached the police and given her 23 page WS.
-
What could he say to bring her down?
She had approached the police and given her 23 page WS.
The point being, she told her own story first! Did he not say that if he went down she'd go down too? Who of us should wait around for that to happen, and do nothing to save ourselves?
-
The point being, she told her own story first! Did he not say that if he went down she'd go down too? Who of us should wait around for that to happen, and do nothing to save ourselves?
He could say Julie forced him to do it.
Going by the injuries to Nevill she would have to have been very persuasive.
-
If he confessed prior to Julie approaching the police, he could say it was all Julie's idea and she made him do it. That would not be very believable or lead to a lesser sentence.
Julie could give the same WS she gave on the 8/9/85. It would not be as convincing as she had not approached the police.
Or she could do what Bamber has done for the last 40 years - deny ever discussing it!
The police would charge Julie on option 1 - withholding evidence. They would need proof she was lying in order to charge her on option 2.
-
If he confessed years later, he could still say it was Julie's idea.
A confession & blaming Julie would not benefit him in any way.
-
As to the burglary, Julie Mugford's involvement, save for an-Iunsuccessful attempt to get the key hanging behind the door,, appears to have been that of a bystander.
Mugford was just simply a bystander according to DC Adam’s, Yet, she attempted to get the key for Bamber to Rob the Office, kept guard for him while he broke in and wrecked the place, and then went for drinks after with him, no doubt with the money she had just helped him steal.
Probably an attempt to rope her in as an accessory. Strange he was the first to put his hand through, claimed he couldn't reach the key, whereupon he asked for her help, then when she failed lo and behold he managed to retrieve it.
-
I know there is a Sea Wall route. It is on Google Maps.
So it is in his police interview.
Going by Google Maps there is no half drive, half walk route.
It is either walk The Sea Wall from Fish Street. Or drive up Maldon Road from Head Street.
Always thought he drove. But if he did a long late night/early morning walk to rob his family of £1,000, that highlights his lust for money.
I wouldn't know Adam, but in Chapter 15 of CAL it states they drove to the Mill Beach Hotel, parked the car then walked along the seafront to the shop.
-
I wouldn't know Adam, but in Chapter 15 of CAL it states they drove to the Mill Beach Hotel, parked the car then walked along the seafront to the shop.
Thanks.
Mill Beach Hotel will be a few yards from the office.
-
If he confessed prior to Julie approaching the police, he could say it was all Julie's idea and she made him do it. That would not be very believable or lead to a lesser sentence.
Julie could give the same WS she gave on the 8/9/85. It would not be as convincing as she had not approached the police.
Or she could do what Bamber has done for the last 40 years - deny ever discussing it!
The police would charge Julie on option 1 - withholding evidence. They would need proof she was lying in order to charge her on option 2.
For me it wouldnt be hard.
He would point out the medication she brought.
He would point out all the trips in the aftermath etc
He would say that she is only going to police over jilted love.
-
The readiness to identify the twins, ( how many times had she actually met them prior to 7.8.85?
Even Jeremy himself didnt see them that often.
-
For me it wouldnt be hard.
He would point out the medication she brought.
He would point out all the trips in the aftermath etc
He would say that she is only going to police over jilted love.
She wouldn't be going to the police over jilted love. He had already confessed & the police approached her!
The sleeping pills were prescribed by her doctor.
-
She wouldn't be going to the police over jilted love. He had already confessed & the police approached her!
The sleeping pills were prescribed by her doctor.
Yes she would imo.
Because of the ill conceived fact that she felt because she hadn't pulled the trigger she wouldnt be culpable for anything.
-
Obviously guilty or not Jeremy was always going to deny the charge.
It was x5 murder, he risked a life sentence, he was only 24, he felt confident with a jury acquitting him.
Stan thought he would get a confession. Couldn't break Jeremy.
Seems a Gresham education and self confidence held him in good stead.
-
For me it wouldnt be hard.
He would point out the medication she brought.
He would point out all the trips in the aftermath etc
He would say that she is only going to police over jilted love.
But his motivation always was money. In his own mind he would lose everything.
-
Obviously guilty or not Jeremy was always going to deny the charge.
It was x5 murder, he risked a life sentence, he was only 24, he felt confident with a jury acquitting him.
Stan thought he would get a confession. Couldn't break Jeremy.
Seems a Gresham education and self confidence held him in good stead.
As far as image was concerned yes, but with Jeremy it was all bluster. The only kudos he received at that establishment was shooting with the Army Cadets, which in subsequent years he put to good use.
-
Julie's 8/9/85 WS would be agreeing with Bamber.
If he had already confessed and started implicating Julie.
-
Probably an attempt to rope her in as an accessory. Strange he was the first to put his hand through, claimed he couldn't reach the key, whereupon he asked for her help, then when she failed lo and behold he managed to retrieve it.
JM didn’t need any roping in Steve, she was already selling drugs and into frauding banks out of money.
-
For me it wouldnt be hard.
He would point out the medication she brought.
He would point out all the trips in the aftermath etc
He would say that she is only going to police over jilted love.
Coincidence when Bamber had talked of Drugging his family and then killing them, little Miss sweet innocent all of a sudden couldn’t sleep and got given tranquillisers, she only took one and couldn’t get on with them, and the week after coincidentally took the drugs to show Jeremy, and happened to leave them on the microwave at his house.
-
JM didn’t need any roping in Steve, she was already selling drugs and into frauding banks out of money.
For the first point it's in Susan Battersby's statement that she felt Jeremy Bamber was a bad influence on Julie, way back in the halls of residence days. As to the second, it was a one-off incident, which they both regretted, and there was some mention that Jeremy thought Julie was a "goody two shoes," which might have played a part in their motivation.
-
Coincidence when Bamber had talked of Drugging his family and then killing them, little Miss sweet innocent all of a sudden couldn’t sleep and got given tranquillisers, she only took one and couldn’t get on with them, and the week after coincidentally took the drugs to show Jeremy, and happened to leave them on the microwave at his house.
She was a student on teaching practice. I have known similar individuals throughout my career. It's usually the females taking tranquillizers or sleeping pills and the males binge drinking at weekends. I also hear young people in general now are taking recreational drugs such as ketamine and ecstasy, one addiction I have fortunately avoided to acquire.
-
As far as image was concerned yes, but with Jeremy it was all bluster. The only kudos he received at that establishment was shooting with the Army Cadets, which in subsequent years he put to good use.
He references that his supreme self confidence comes from his time at Greshams.
-
He references that his supreme self confidence comes from his time at Greshams.
But it was all image and bluster. He achieved nothing of substance at that establishment.
-
But it was all image and bluster. He achieved nothing of substance at that establishment.
He wasnt an academic, although apparently had a talent for mathematics.
-
He wasnt an academic, although apparently had a talent for mathematics.
I think Maths and Geography I read. So he could calculate how much worth his dead parents and sister would be, and navigate his way to White House Farm in the dark.
Apparently he flourished in the less stuffy atmosphere of Colchester College, gaining 7 O Levels in the process, according to the Claire Powell book.
-
I think Maths and Geography I read. So he could calculate how much worth his dead parents and sister would be, and navigate his way to White House Farm in the dark.
The crime didnt happen overnight on a whim without prior problems without stating the obvious. For example if you had asked Jeremy in 1978 if he had any thought he would do something like this he would have probably guffawed the thought.
It was a slow process.
-
The crime didnt happen overnight on a whim without prior problems without stating the obvious. For example if you had asked Jeremy in 1978 if he had any thought he would do something like this he would have probably guffawed the thought.
It was a slow process.
No, but his talents in certain areas never left him. I'm well aware crimes such as these don't occur in a vacuum. You're going off Roger Wilkes' book Blood Relations I assume, where Jeremy states the relationship with his mother was fine until 1978. But he doesn't explain what the problems were; he just talks in clichés. In the interview given to Eric Allison he can't help but gild the lily, stating that he had an idyllic upbringing, when one knows that just wasn't the case.
-
No, but his talents in certain areas never left him. I'm well aware crimes such as these don't occur in a vacuum. You're going off Roger Wilkes' book Blood Relations I assume, where Jeremy states the relationship with his mother was fine until 1978. But he doesn't explain what the problems were; he just talks in clichés. In the interview given to Eric Allison he can't help but gild the lily, stating that he had an idyllic upbringing, when one knows that just wasn't the case.
I think he had a warm relationship with Nevill at times. Seems both children preferred their father to June.
In fact in Colins book I got the impression he had more venom for June than Jeremy.
-
Being not a religious person myself I can state I would have problems with someone attempting to throw religion down my throat. Whether it be a parent or not.
That's not a critiscm of June, each to their own. But trying to impose views on others who dont share them is not going ot go down well in any circumstance.
-
I think he had a warm relationship with Nevill at times. Seems both children preferred their father to June.
In fact in Colins book I got the impression he had more venom for June than Jeremy.
But this was a product of Jeremy's deceit, playing on the angle that he, Jeremy, was sympathetic to Colin's plight having been more or less forced into marriage.
-
If Nevill needed help in calming Sheila down by talking to her, he would use June. As she was inside WHF.
Saying Sheila & June did not get along does not work as they were in regular contact with each other.
Bamber said on the night Sheila was a looney, nutter, do lally, is having treatment; should be locked up & didn't like him. He later said he did not understand her illness. So would be of no use in helping Nevill calm her down via talking.
Bamber was also 3 miles away at 3.00am. Nevill ringing his AM will just agitate Sheila more.
-
If Nevill wanted to use physical force to calm Sheila down, he would do that himself.
June or Bamber would not be needed.
-
If Nevill needed help in calming Sheila down by talking to her, he would use June. As she was inside WHF.
Saying Sheila & June did not get along does not work as they were in regular contact with each other.
Bamber said on the night Sheila was a looney, nutter, do lally, is having treatment; should be locked up & didn't like him. He later said he did not understand her illness. So would be of no use in helping Nevill calm her down via talking.
Bamber was also 3 miles away at 3.00am. Nevill ringing his AM will just agitate Sheila more.
Thanks Adam for that assessment.
-
But this was a product of Jeremy's deceit, playing on the angle that he, Jeremy, was sympathetic to Colin's plight having been more or less forced into marriage.
Talking more in regards to Daniel and Nicholas.
I think he had some pity for Jeremy and essentially saw him as damaged goods.
-
If Nevill needed help in calming Sheila down by talking to her, he would use June. As she was inside WHF.
Saying Sheila & June did not get along does not work as they were in regular contact with each other.
Bamber said on the night Sheila was a looney, nutter, do lally, is having treatment; should be locked up & didn't like him. He later said he did not understand her illness. So would be of no use in helping Nevill calm her down via talking.
Bamber was also 3 miles away at 3.00am. Nevill ringing his AM will just agitate Sheila more.
Neither Jeremy or Shelia got along greatly with June.
Both preferring Nevill.
Years on of course Jeremy will spin his relationship with June as harmony, hes fighting his murder convictions.
-
Talking more in regards to Daniel and Nicholas.
I think he had some pity for Jeremy and essentially saw him as damaged goods.
I'm not sure Colin had much of an opinion on Jeremy. Maybe in one of the books he says he viewed him as a younger brother. I doubt he was envious or jealous, it just not being in his trusting nature.
-
Neither Jeremy or Shelia got along greatly with June.
Both preferring Nevill.
Years on of course Jeremy will spin his relationship with June as harmony, hes fighting his murder convictions.
The relationship between June & Sheila was not perfect. What mother/daughter one is?
But if Nevill needed extra help in calming Sheila down by talking, he would use June.
If he chose to physically restrain Sheila, he would do that himself.
-
June may have gone downstairs herself if she heard raised voices.
The evidence is she did not do that.
-
The defence scenario is Sheila collected the rifle and fired 9 shots into June & Nevill in/by there bed.
Nevill ran downstairs and started phoning Bamber's AM.
This matches the main bedroom crime scene & includes Nevill's call.
It does have a lot of flaws but saying a fully fit Nevill was downstairs & couldn't control Sheila is much worse.
-
The defence scenario is Sheila collected the rifle and fired 9 shots into June & Nevill in/by there bed.
Nevill ran downstairs and started phoning Bamber's AM.
This matches the main bedroom crime scene & includes Nevill's call.
It does have a lot of flaws but saying a fully fit Nevill was downstairs & couldn't control Sheila is much worse.
Sheila would have to reload too. It doesn't make any sense at all.
-
I'm not sure Colin had much of an opinion on Jeremy..
Im pretty sure he did and still does have. He believes he murdered his children.
-
The relationship between June & Sheila was not perfect. What mother/daughter one is?
But if Nevill needed extra help in calming Sheila down by talking, he would use June.
If he chose to physically restrain Sheila, he would do that himself.
Who is talking about restraining Shelia?
I am merely pointing out the fact both children were closer to their dad.
It happens.
-
Im pretty sure he did and still does have. He believes he murdered his children.
I was referring to the context of their relationship pre-murders. I'm well aware of what he thinks now. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-took-little-boys-647185
-
Who is talking about restraining Shelia?
I am merely pointing out the fact both children were closer to their dad.
It happens.
It's a matter of degree, though. Nevill, having been a magistrate, sensed his son's animosity, foretelling his own demise to farm secretary Barbara Wilson, and pouring his heart out to farmer John Seward. Sheila was away most of the time in London, but did rely on him for long telephone chats in the evening, though not buttressing her father in any practical way, albeit through no fault of her own.
-
The defence scenario is Sheila collected the rifle and fired 9 shots into June & Nevill in/by there bed.
Nevill ran downstairs and started phoning Bamber's AM.
This matches the main bedroom crime scene & includes Nevill's call.
It does have a lot of flaws but saying a fully fit Nevill was downstairs & couldn't control Sheila is much worse.
After well over a decade on a forum saying the same rhetoric you would be better off writing to Bamber himself and engaging with him on the subject.
Jeremy says though " he hasnt a clue what happened " Im sure people will draw their own conclusions from that.
-
David suggested Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM after Sheila started shooting the twins.
This does match the evidence of there being no blood on the phone. Nevill would also be able to speak.
However a fully fit Nevill allowing things to escalate to Sheila shooting the twins & then just ringing Bamber's AM in response is not credible.
-
After well over a decade on a forum saying the same rhetoric you would be better off writing to Bamber himself and engaging with him on the subject.
Jeremy says though " he hasnt a clue what happened " Im sure people will draw their own conclusions from that.
Colin Caffell made that mistake, and what a fruitless endeavour it was.
-
Bamber has been the first to admit he would have been of zero help in helping Nevill calm Sheila down by talking.
If Nevill and June couldn't, no one could.
Failing to attend WHF to help Nevill. Then calling her names & insinuating her to the police at WHF. Later saying he did not understand her illness.
-
Nevill did not need either June or Bamber to physically restrain Sheila.
Bamber would have been of no use here either. The first thing he did after claiming to have received Nevill's call was ring Julie!
So no reason to call Bamber. Either to help calm Sheila down by talking or physically restrain her.
He was also 3 miles away at 3.00am & had an AM.
-
Bamber has been the first to admit he would have been of zero help in helping Nevill calm Sheila down by talking.
If Nevill and June couldn't, no one could.
Failing to attend WHF to help Nevill. Then calling her names & insinuating her to the police at WHF. Later saying he did not understand her illness.
That's true, so what is the argument the Bamberettes advance for Nevill to call his son?
-
That's true, so what is the argument the Bamberettes advance for Nevill to call his son?
It is usually that is what Bamber said happened.
Although he was not needed to help Nevill physically restrain Sheila
Nevill could ask June for help in calming Sheila down by talk. Bamber would be of zero use.
-
If Nevill by himself could not calm Sheila down by talk, he may have quickly used his huge physical advantages to restrain her. Rather than ask June to also talk to her.
Bamber would be of no use in negating Sheila either by force or talk. He didn't arrive at WHF until 40 minutes later!
-
That's true, so what is the argument the Bamberettes advance for Nevill to call his son?
Sheila had bashed Nevill over the head and left him lying against the Aga, Steve.
When Nevill came to, he realized that he was badly injured and would need help from JB to deal with Sheila,
The time for talking was past!
-
It is usually that is what Bamber said happened.
Although he was not needed to help Nevill physically restrain Sheila
Nevill could ask June for help in calming Sheila down by talk. Bamber would be of zero use.
June was dead by the time Nevill regained conciousness beside the Aga, Adam, she couldn't talk to anyone!
-
Sheila had bashed Nevill over the head and left him lying against the Aga, Steve.
When Nevill came to, he realized that he was badly injured and would need help from JB to deal with Sheila,
The time for talking was past!
That's a good effort Snow66! but there's no blood on the telephone. It's also strange that if one advances the argument that Nevill wanted to keep the whole incident in-house, as Jeremy told police upon arrival, then why did Jeremy telephone police at all?
-
June was dead by the time Nevill regained conciousness beside the Aga, Adam, she couldn't talk to anyone!
Do you think Nevill managed to conceal his wristwatch under the carpet as a signal to law enforcement that intruders had broken into the farm? I always wondered whether it got there by accident or design.
-
That's a good effort Snow66! but there's no blood on the telephone. It's also strange that if one advances the argument that Nevill wanted to keep the whole incident in-house, as Jeremy told police upon arrival, then why did Jeremy telephone police at all?
There doesn't necessarily need to be blood if someone is bashed about the head and face, Steve.
I dont know why JB didn't drive to the farm after Nevill phoned, I think I would have done.
-
Do you think Nevill managed to conceal his wristwatch under the carpet as a signal to law enforcement that intruders had broken into the farm? I always wondered whether it got there by accident or design.
I think Nevills watch was hooked off his wrist by the sights of the rifle, Steve, at the same time that the palm of his hand was slashed.
-
I think Nevills watch was hooked off his wrist by the sights of the rifle, Steve, at the same time that the palm of his hand was slashed.
I think the sights had been removed, probably by Jeremy the previous evening as he primed the .22 Anschütz rifle for murder.
-
I think the sights had been removed, probably by Jeremy the previous evening as he primed the .22 Anschütz rifle for murder.
The front sights attached to the end of the barrel, Steve!
I believe they hooked the watch off when Sheila was prodding at his arm, and whacking Nevill on the head and shoulders.
-
Colin Caffell made that mistake, and what a fruitless endeavour it was.
I thought it was Jeremy who iniated contact.
-
I can see why the defence scenario was Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM after he had been shot 4 times in/by his bed.
It matches the bedroom bullet cartridge crime scene and explains how Sheila managed 2 face shots at Nevill from inches away.
It also explains why Nevill was found downstairs bare footed in his sleeping attire.
It is then simply a question of whether you believe Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM atfter receiving his 4 shots & was able to say his 11 words before the kitchen attack.
-
Nevill being downstairs bare footed trying to calm Sheila down by talk while June slept does not sound credible.
Nevill then letting things escalate to murder/suicide and not using his huge physical advantages to negate Sheila is even more unlikely.
Starting to phone Bamber's AM during either time is not credible. If Sheila's mother & father could not control, her, Bamber would be of no use. He has said this himself.
-
Guilters agree with the first part of the defence scenario - Nevill & June shot in bed. Nevill getting downstairs.
Once in the kitchen the two sides differ.
Guilters saying he was chased and instantly attacked in the kitchen.
The defence saying Nevill had time to start phoning Bamber's AM & got an answer.
Both sides agree Nevill received horrific injuries from the kitchen attack.
-
I thought it was Jeremy who iniated contact.
There was correspondence, but the initial contact came from Colin.
-
Guilters agree with the first part of the defence scenario - Nevill & June shot in bed. Nevill getting downstairs.
Once in the kitchen the two sides differ.
Guilters saying he was chased and instantly attacked in the kitchen.
The defence saying Nevill had time to start phoning Bamber's AM & got an answer.
Both sides agree Nevill received horrific injuries from the kitchen attack.
What defence scenario?
I know the CT put something across.
Bamber says " i haven't got a clue"
Rivlin never highlighted a defence scenario other than to say Shelia was the killer amongst other aspects.
I and others have put forward a defence scenario, which is forum fodder. The same with your scenario.
-
There was correspondence, but the initial contact came from Colin.
I know Jeremy wrote him an angry letter. Not profanity filled but accusing CC of " cashing in "
-
Guilters agree with the first part of the defence scenario - Nevill & June shot in bed. Nevill getting downstairs.
Once in the kitchen the two sides differ.
Guilters saying he was chased and instantly attacked in the kitchen.
The defence saying Nevill had time to start phoning Bamber's AM & got an answer.
Both sides agree Nevill received horrific injuries from the kitchen attack.
The Defence scenario at trial back in 86, was Shelia carried out the massacre after a mental break. Highlighting her condition.
Apart from the ritual cleaning aspect, I dont recall a SOC construction from Rivlin.
His job was to create reasonable doubt.
-
What defence scenario?
I know the CT put something across.
Bamber says " i haven't got a clue"
Rivlin never highlighted a defence scenario other than to say Shelia was the killer amongst other aspects.
I and others have put forward a defence scenario, which is forum fodder. The same with your scenario.
The defence had to keep to the crime scene evidence. Nevill and June being shot 9 times in the main bedroom.
Nevill being downstairs fully fit and bare footed while June slept then going upstairs to get shot 4 times is not credible.
The prosecution said of the defence scenario Nevill would have had difficulty speaking after his 4 bedroom shots.
-
Of course the starting point of the defence scenario was Jeremy recieved a call from Nevill. Its the case starter and cornerstone.
Nothing 40 odd years on can conclusively prove or disprove it.
-
I don't know enough about Nevill's 2 face shots to know if he could speak or not.
The adreleline would be running through Nevill and it was only 11 words he said. So agree with the prosecution - difficulty. But possible.
What I do not agree with is Nevill chose to start phoning Bamber's AM at 3.00am instead of reclaim his rifle & then ring 999 for an ambulance.
-
I don't know enough about Nevill's 2 face shots to know if he could speak or not.
The adreleline would be running through Nevill and it was only 11 words he said. So agree with the prosecution - difficulty. But possible.
What I do not agree with is Nevill chose to start phoning Bamber's AM at 3.00am instead of reclaim his rifle & then ring 999 for an ambulance.
If it was proved that there was no way that Nevill phoned Jeremy that night then it would be case game set and match.
In the same breathe, had a call been proven from WHF to GH, then GH to Chelmsford,the police wouldnt have had a case and Jeremy would still be a free man today.
The calls couldnt be traced ( Jeremy Bamber enquired about it though in his interviews)
Reference the speaking aspect, its said he couldnt make purposeful talk on the account of his injuries but Jeremy can counter that aspect by simply saying " he recieved them after he rang and spoke to me
Appreciate you believe he would " just take the rifle "
-
If it was proved that there was no way that Nevill phoned Jeremy that night then it would be case game set and match.
In the same breathe, had a call been proven from WHF to GH, then GH to Chelmsford,the police wouldnt have had a case and Jeremy would still be a free man today.
The calls couldnt be traced ( Jeremy Bamber enquired about it though in his interviews)
Reference the speaking aspect, its said he couldnt make purposeful talk on the account of his injuries but Jeremy can counter that aspect by simply saying " he recieved them after he rang and spoke to me
Appreciate you believe he would " just take the rifle "
I am looking at the defence scenario.
I do agree that Nevill being downstairs, fully fit & bare footed is a non starter. He would not let things escalate.
I don't believe 11 words after his 4 shots in/by his bed is purposeful talk. Nevill believed he could say them as he started ringing Bamber according to the defence.
However I do not believe Nevill would choose the ringing Bamber option after his 4 upstairs shots.
-
The defence could not say Nevill called Bamber while fully fit.
Bamber's own words on the night & afterwards shows he would be of no use in helping Nevill calm Sheila down by talk.
Nevill would not need Bamber's help in physically restraining Sheila.
The defence also knew June was an available fully functioning adult inside WHF. Who Nevill would go to first.
-
What's this "fully fit'thing you always say?
He had a weight and height greater than Shelia.
I am 6 foot 4, my Mrs is 5 5 tops, if she has a firearm she can shoot me. I am not use to love or ornament.
-
I am looking at the defence scenario.
I do agree that Nevill being downstairs, fully fit & bare footed is a non starter. He would not let things escalate.
I don't believe 11 words after his 4 shots in/by his bed is purposeful talk. Nevill believed he could say them as he started ringing Bamber according to the defence.
However I do not believe Nevill would choose the ringing Bamber option after his 4 upstairs shots.
Bambers counter is that he phoned him before he was shot.
Whether you disbelieve that or I do is neither here or there.
There isnt evidence to say it didnt happen.
-
Bambers counter is that he phoned him before he was shot.
Whether you disbelieve that or I do is neither here or there.
There isnt evidence to say it didnt happen.
He said he didn't like to think about it.
Forums are for scenarios with a fully fit bare footed Nevill. Or Sheila phoning 999 at 6.09am & saying nothing.
The defence at trial & the CCRC have to be realistic.
-
What's this "fully fit'thing you always say?
He had a weight and height greater than Shelia.
I am 6 foot 4, my Mrs is 5 5 tops, if she has a firearm she can shoot me. I am not use to love or ornament.
Do you agree if Nevill could not calm Sheila down by talking, he would seek help from June or physically restrain Sheila.
Bamber said himself he would be of no use & acted accordingly.
-
Do you agree if Nevill could not calm Sheila down by talking, he would seek help from June or physically restrain Sheila.
Bamber said himself he would be of no use & acted accordingly.
Honest answer I am not sure, I dont know the family dynamics.
I dont know what I would do in such a scenario. If Shelia is gulity, I dont know for certain how it played out. I can just create scenarios for forum fodder.
When did Bamber say that?
Although it was clear that Shelias problems were liked to be kept quiet and insular.
-
He said he didn't like to think about it.
Forums are for scenarios with a fully fit bare footed Nevill. Or Sheila phoning 999 at 6.09am & saying nothing.
The defence at trial & the CCRC have to be realistic.
Nevill phoning Bamber before is realistic strictly speaking.
Nothing can prove it didnt happen.
-
He said he didn't like to think about it.
Forums are for scenarios with a fully fit bare footed Nevill. Or Sheila phoning 999 at 6.09am & saying nothing.
The defence at trial & the CCRC have to be realistic.
The trial was almost 40 years ago.
Little point in him going over " what ifs"
-
Honest answer I am not sure, I dont know the family dynamics.
I dont know what I would do in such a scenario. If Shelia is gulity, I dont know for certain how it played out. I can just create scenarios for forum fodder.
When did Bamber say that?
Although it was clear that Shelias problems were liked to be kept quiet and insular.
People interested in the case do know the family dynamics.
Bamber said on the night Sheila was a looney, nutter, do lally, should be locked up & didn't like him. He later said he did not understand her illness.
So would have been of no use in helping Nevill calm her down through talk. If he had turned up quickly. Which he didn't.
Although Nevill's call is saying physical intervention was now required. Which Nevill can do himself or use June.
-
Nevill phoning Bamber before is realistic strictly speaking.
Nothing can prove it didnt happen.
Nevill's words do support the defence scenario of him ringing Bamber after being shot 4 times.
Being shot 4 times does relate to 'gone crazy' and 'got the gun'.
These 4 shots & June's 5 shots were while they were in/by the bed.
It is then a question of whether people believe Nevill would start ringing Bamber's AM after his 4 shots & what Sheila was doing during this.
-
People interested in the case do know the family dynamics.
Bamber said on the night Sheila was a looney, nutter, do lally, should be locked up & didn't like him. He later said he did not understand her illness.
So would have been of no use in helping Nevill calm her down through talk. If he had turned up quickly. Which he didn't.
Although Nevill's call is saying physical intervention was now required. Which Nevill can do himself or use June.
Bamber may not have expressed that sentiment about Shelia in front of Nevill.
-
People interested in the case do know the family dynamics.
We know what the relatives say, and a few people close to them but that doesnt always represent a true picture.
You say " simply take the rifle " That's fair enough that's your view.
The prosecutions view was Shelia couldnt overpower Nevill.
I must admit, the overkill on Nevill damages Bamber
-
Assume Bamber did support the defence scenario at trial.
It matches the bedroom crime scene, explains Nevill's close range face shots and him being found bare footed downstairs. It also matches what Nevill said on the phone.
The no blood on the phone and purposeful talk prosecution counter arguments are not conclusive.
For me the biggest problem with the defence scenario is that Nevill would not make the choice to start ringing Bamber after being shot 4 times.
-
Assume Bamber did support the defence scenario at trial.
It matches the bedroom crime scene, explains Nevill's close range face shots and him being found bare footed downstairs. It also matches what Nevill said on the phone.
The no blood on the phone and purposeful talk prosecution counter arguments are not conclusive.
For me the biggest problem with the defence scenario is that Nevill would not make the choice to start ringing Bamber after being shot 4 times.
What is the defence scenario at trial?
Bamber says " I dont know what happened guv"
Cant see what Rivlin says anywhere in terms of SOC.
-
Appreciate you are on a goad but the defence scenario is Jeremy Bamber didnt committ five counts of murder.
-
What is the defence scenario at trial?
Bamber says " I dont know what happened guv"
Cant see what Rivlin says anywhere in terms of SOC.
The prosecution say there was no blood on the phone & Nevill was too injured to talk.
Both sides agreed Nevill and June were shot in /by there bed 9 times. As the evidence shows.
Nevill being downstairs, fully fit & bare footed, letting things escalate while everyone slept could not be submitted by the defence as it was too weak.
-
Another problem with the defence scenario is Sheila opened fire totally unprovoked. While everyone slept.
We just have Bamber's WS of a fostering conversation hours earlier.
Then again everyone sleeping gave Sheila the chance to collect the rifle.
-
I have said before a fully fit Nevill would instantly negate any aggressive moves by Sheila.
However even he couldn't stop Sheila collecting the rifle while he slept!
-
Must remember Adams advice.
If I am ever confronted by a knife welding group of teenagers, I will use my height and weight advantage to " just take the knife"
Leaving my children fatherless in the process.
-
Seems the defence scenario is -
Sheila collected the rifle while everyone slept.
Fired 9 shots at June & Nevill in the main bedroom.
Nevill got downstairs and started ringing Bamber.
Bamber answered and Nevill said 11 words before the phone went dead. Which suggests Sheila had arrived in the kitchen.
There was then the kitchen attack. The injuries and kitchen crime scene well documentated.
-
There is no defence scenario at trial in 1986.
Jeremy doesnt to this day put across what he thinks happened. He says he hasnt a clue.
Rivlins sole job was to raise doubt to the crowns case.
Scenarios are good forum fodder for the likes of myself and you.
-
In fairness Rivlin did bring up ritualistic cleansing to combat the absence of evidence on Shelia.
-
Must remember Adams advice.
If I am ever confronted by a knife welding group of teenagers, I will use my height and weight advantage to " just take the knife"
Leaving my children fatherless in the process.
I would not recommend taking on one teenager holding a knife. Let alone a group.
-
There is no defence scenario at trial in 1986.
Jeremy doesnt to this day put across what he thinks happened. He says he hasnt a clue.
Rivlins sole job was to raise doubt to the crowns case.
Scenarios are good forum fodder for the likes of myself and you.
The defence had to have a scenario for trial. It had to match the crime scene.
The only way to explain the 9 bedroom shots, 2 of which were inches from Nevill's face, is Sheila opened fire on a sleeping June & Nevill.
-
The prosecution agree with the defence scenario of Sheila opening fire on a sleeping June & Nevill.
They have Bamber doing the same thing!
However they say Nevill would be too injured to speak to Bamber and there was no blood on the phone.
-
Nevil was shot as he came up the stairs. The shell casings deflected off the bedroom door and the shooter stood in the doorway.