Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 24, 2025, 04:34:AM
-
At trial this was that Nevill rang Jeremy after his 4 bedroom shots.
Pros:
It is the most straight forward Sheila scenario.
It gives Sheila the chance to collect the rifle without being stopped. Everyone was sleeping.
It matches the bedroom bullet case crime scene.
It gives Sheila the chance to shoot Nevill 2 times in the face without being physically restrained. From June's side of the bed. The rifle inches from Nevill's face.
It gives Sheila the chance to shoot June 5 times in bed. Which matches the crime scene evidence.
It matches the evidence of the twins not waking. June unable to make any noise after being shot 5 times. Nevill running straight downstairs.
It supports Nevill having to abruptly go downstairs. Bare footed in his sleeping attire.
It matches what Nevill said to Bamber on the phone & the shortness of the call.
Even if injured in the mouth, Nevill may be able to say 11 words to Bamber.
It matches where Nevill was found after speaking to Bamber & abruptly ending the call prior to Sheila's kitchen attack.
It does not suggest a fully fit bare footed Nevill was out of bed & allowed things to escalate. While June and the twins slept. The defence could not suggest this.
-
Cons:
Sheila would have opened fire unprovoked. Everyone was sleeping.
There was no blood on the phone.
Nevill would have difficulty speaking after his 2 face shots.
Nevill did not have the time to start ringing Bamber's AM at 3.00am. Sheila may fire more shots at him or someone else.
Even if Bamber did answer & go straight to WHF, he would be too late and of no use. Nine shots had already been fired.
Asking Bamber to 'please come over' was putting him at risk.
If Nevill was going to ring someone, it would be 999 for an ambulance. Himself and June had been shot 9 times.
Nevill would reclaim his rifle upstairs after seeing it was Sheila.
Nevill being injured but still fit enough to ring Bamber would be able to overpower Sheila in the kitchen. The evidence is his attacker hit him multiple times & Nevill inflicted no counter injuries.
-
So a lot of pros and cons. I can see why supporters do not support the defence narrative.
But a fully fit bare footed Nevill downstairs & sleeping June upstairs allowing things to escalate to a violent murder/suicide, with the only resistance being ringing Bamber's AM, could not be submitted by the defence.
-
Cons:
Sheila would have opened fire unprovoked. Everyone was sleeping.
Why would she need provocation?
-
Why would she need provocation?
All supporter scenarios have Nevill in the kitchen with Sheila.
He couldn't calm her down & just made her more agitated. Resulting in her picking up the rifle.
-
All supporter scenarios have Nevill in the kitchen with Sheila.
He couldn't calm her down & just made her more agitated. Resulting in her picking up the rifle.
Why would she need provocation?
-
Why would she need provocation?
To kill 5 people and hit Nevill multiple times.
The defence stance is the fostering conversation Bamber witnessed hours earlier was her motivation. Although the judge disagreed.
-
Must admit I do agree with the judge.
A big leap of faith to firstly believe Bamber that such a conversation took place.
Then another big leap of faith to believe a non responsive Sheila at supper started shooting her sleeping family 6 hours later.
-
To kill 5 people and hit Nevill multiple times.
The defence stance is the fostering conversation Bamber witnessed hours earlier was her motivation. Although the judge disagreed.
Believe come Monday, it is 39 years since he was convicted.
-
Need to see a 1986 version of the defence scenario.
Or the thread is null and void.
-
Need to see a 1986 version of the defence scenario.
Or the thread is null and void.
The prosecution counter to the defence case is there was no blood on the phone and Nevill would have trouble speaking after his 4 shots.
The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation pre shooting.
-
One thing Bamber could have done as part of the stage is put footwear on Sheila. Slippers would go with her nightdress.
This would support her walking around WHF. Pre, during and post massacre.
-
Putting footwear on Nevill was a double edged sword.
It would not support the defence case or match the crime scene evidence that Nevill had to abruptly get out of bed while being shot 4 times.
However it would support supporters theories that Nevill went downstairs and was speaking to Sheila.
-
No footwear or dressing gown on Nevill or Sheila supports the prosecution case.
-
The prosecution counter to the defence case is there was no blood on the phone and Nevill would have trouble speaking after his 4 shots.
The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation pre shooting.
The prosecution bring the case against the defendant.
The defence present their case, they're case was the crown hadn't proven the case against Jeremy beyond reasonable doubt.
Need to see evidence of Rivlins shelia scenario you are purporting. Accept that it was an agreed fact between pro and def that it was either Jeremy or Shelia.
-
The prosecution bring the case against the defendant.
The defence present their case, they're case was the crown hadn't proven the case against Jeremy beyond reasonable doubt.
Need to see evidence of Rivlins shelia scenario you are purporting. Accept that it was an agreed fact between pro and def that it was either Jeremy or Shelia.
The defence are not going to suggest a kitchen conversation with 20 'maybe's'. That is for supporters on forums. The evidence does not support this.
Both sides at court start from the opening evidence -
The rifle was picked up.
June and Nevill were shot from close range in/by there bed.
Nevill got downstairs.
----------
Once in the kitchen both sides differ.
The prosecution saying Bamber instantly attacked Nevill.
The defence saying Nevill started ringing Bamber's AM & managed to speak to him.
-
The defence are not going to suggest a kitchen conversation with 20 'maybe's'. That is for supporters on forums. The evidence does not support this.
Both sides at court start from the opening evidence -
The rifle was picked up.
June and Nevill were shot from close range in/by there bed.
Nevill got downstairs.
----------
Once in the kitchen both sides differ.
The prosecution saying Bamber instantly attacked Nevill.
The defence saying Nevill started ringing Bamber's AM & managed to speak to him.
The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?
I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.
-
Believe CAL's Bamber scenario was also EP's. Agree with some of it.
The prosecution had several transport options & routes for Bamber. They had to choose & stick on one - cycling The Sea Wall.
Similar for the defence & a Sheila scenario. They had to choose and stick on one.
It had to match the crime scene evidence of Sheila being able to pick up a rifle and then shoot June/Nevill 9 times in/by the bed from close range. Without being disarmed.
-
The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?
I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.
My thread post has the defence Sheila scenario. Together with the pros and cons.
The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation with a fully fit 6.4 man & fully fit sleeping woman. It would put too much doubt in the jury as it does not match the crime scene evidence.
-
The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?
I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.
From the Blood Relations book (Chapter 11) Rivlin quoted Bernard Knight, that the bible lying by Sheila's side was typical of a suicide scenario. He also felt that he would have expected the two shots to the chin to be different if inflicted by a third party, commenting also that it would have been difficult for someone to inflict the shots without Sheila objecting.
-
If the defence did not submit a Sheila scenario, that gave the prosecution the iniative.
They could create a Sheila scenario matching the crime scene evidence. Then oppose it - no blood on phone, Nevill unable to speak.
The jury are not going to believe Nevill would start ringing Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times in/by the bed.
-
The defence at trial together with the CT & Bamber not supplying a Sheila scenario is very incriminating.
Supporters on forums have supplied a Sheila scenario, but it always has a fully fit bare footed Nevill in the kitchen & 20-30 'maybe's'. So is instantly dismissed.
Forty years on and still much work to do.
-
The defence at trial together with the CT & Bamber not supplying a Sheila scenario is very incriminating.
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"
( source David James Smith interview of Jeremy Bamber HMP Full Sutton 2010)
Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.
-
Seems the defence though rode heavily on Shelias mental health problems.
Back in the 80s attitudes were very different. And of course to all extent and purposes the defendant was a well spoken, reasonably handsome guy. Privately educated etc
They probably thought common sense would win the day. They painted a picture of this unfortunate man suffering two double whammys
-
From the Blood Relations book (Chapter 11) Rivlin quoted Bernard Knight, that the bible lying by Sheila's side was typical of a suicide scenario. He also felt that he would have expected the two shots to the chin to be different if inflicted by a third party, commenting also that it would have been difficult for someone to inflict the shots without Sheila objecting.
That's a view I share.
Apart from that though he didn't to my knowledge submit a scenario of what Adam suggests, starting point to end.
-
I think people forget how different the time era is.
Only two years earlier a cheif constable was videoed saying it was perfectly acceptable to use racial language.
Mental health was heavily stigmatised. Rivlin used this to his advantage ( and of course if you believe the main man in the case is gulity, so did he)
-
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"
Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.
No wonder you were banned from FB. Being rude again.
You said yourself the defence did not say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. This together with Bamber & the CT refusing to give a scenario after 40 years & supporters scenarios being dismissed is very incriminating.
Seems it was up to the prosecution to say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. Then dismiss it! - no blood on phone, unable to speak. My thread post also has several other cons.
Smart move by them.
-
Either the defence said Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM after he had been shot 4 times in/by his bed. Or the prosecution did.
Either way, the prosecution opposed it.
The defence couldn't then give an alternative scenario as none match the crime scene evidence.
A big problem for the defence at trial. The jury were never going to believe Nevill would start phoning Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times.
-
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"
( source David James Smith interview of Jeremy Bamber HMP Full Sutton 2010)
Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.
I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago, and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?
Reader, I have no idea.
He's contradicting himself several times in this extract, though it makes good copy. https://davidjamessmith.net/pdf_articles/DJS_bamber.pdf
-
No wonder you were banned from FB. Being rude again.
You said yourself the defence did not say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. This together with Bamber & the CT refusing to give a scenario after 40 years & supporters scenarios being dismissed is very incriminating.
Seems it was up to the prosecution to say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. Then dismiss it! - no blood on phone, unable to speak. My thread post also has several other cons.
Smart move by them.
It is not rudeness, I asked you numerous times to source Rivlins scenario.
You are as per usual attempting to goad.
-
My thread post has the defence Sheila scenario. Together with the pros and cons.
The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation with a fully fit 6.4 man & fully fit sleeping woman. It would put too much doubt in the jury as it does not match the crime scene evidence.
Kingsley Napley, Rivlin, Ed lawson QC, and of course Jeremy were the bulk of the defence in 1986.
To my knowledge none of the quartet offered ' a shelia scenario '
Makes good forum fodder though.
-
Maybe the prosecution submitted the Sheila scenario which matched the crime scene. Then opposed it - no blood on phone etc.
Thought the defence would say why and when Nevill called Bamber for the jury.
-
It is quite possible the prosecution introduced the Sheila scenario up to where Nevill calls Bamber. Which matched the crime scene.
They would then dismantle it as part of there prosecution case.
Reply 1 on this thread does show problems with this scenario. So a good idea for the prosecution to introduce and then dismantle it.
-
The defence may not have wanted to focus on Nevill calling Bamber after his 4 bedroom shots. Even though it matches the crime scene.
If they thought it would make there case weaker due to the doubt that Nevill would call Bamber after he had been shot 4 times.
-
Once the prosecution introduced the Sheila scenario up to where Nevill calls Bamber, the defence had to accept it.
They couldn't introduce an alternative scenario which matched the crime scene as none existed.
-
Prosecution would never even attempt to construct a shelia scenario.
Would never happen and if anything could be counterproductive.
In their Jeremy scenario they emphasised the background, the transport and the phone.
-
Prosecution would never even attempt to construct a shelia scenario.
Would never happen and if anything could be counterproductive.
In their Jeremy scenario they emphasised the background, the transport and the phone.
The proscution said Nevill would have difficulty speaking after being shot 4 times. Together with there being no blood on the phone.
This was either in response to the defence scenario of when Nevill called Bamber's AM. Or the same scenario the prosecution introduced. Which matched the crime scene.
-
The defence may not have wanted to focus on Nevill calling Bamber after his 4 bedroom shots. Even though it matches the crime scene.
If they thought it would make there case weaker due to the doubt that Nevill would call Bamber after he had been shot 4 times.
Nothing can disprove or prove the possibility that he was shot 4 times before speaking to Bamber hypothetically speaking
The phone call from Nevill is the cornerstone of Bambers defence case.
-
Maybe the defence could have introduced Bubo Bubo's Sheila scenario. Where a shot 5 times June -
Fights Sheila in the kitchen.
Reads the bible to Nevill in the kitchen.
Shoots Sheila with a shot gun.
Gets shot by EP.
-
The proscution said Nevill would have difficulty speaking after being shot 4 times. Together with there being no blood on the phone.
This was either in response to the defence scenario of when Nevill called Bamber's AM. Or the same scenario the prosecution introduced. Which matched the crime scene.
I know. The only valid suggestion to counter that is that he was shot after to speaking to Bamber.
Bamber says " I dont know what happened "
Without a day to day vertrabim of the 86 trial, I cant say for certain what Rivlin did or didnt suggest.
-
I know. The only valid suggestion to counter that is that he was shot after to speaking to Bamber.
Bamber says " I dont know what happened "
Without a day to day vertrabim of the 86 trial, I cant say for certain what Rivlin did or didnt suggest.
Both sides would have looked at the possibility of Nevill calling Bamber's AM while fully fit.
But the crime scene evidence and common sense shows it was not possible.
-
Would like to read a transcript of Rivlins closing speech ( if it exists of course)
-
Both sides would have looked at the possibility of Nevill calling Bamber's AM while fully fit.
But the crime scene evidence and common sense shows it was not possible.
Well theoretically it is possible because from a neutral prospective if Shelia Caffell committed this crime we have no idea how it manifested.
Jeremy Bamber said he recieved a call saying " your sister has the gun "
-
Do you believe Rivlin ever told Bamber " you haven't got a prayer here"
-
Do you believe Rivlin ever told Bamber " you haven't got a prayer here"
No. He needed a motivated Bamber before, during & after his testimony.
-
No. He needed a motivated Bamber before, during & after his testimony.
Dont believe Bamber needed any motivation, he was going not gulity whatever, he had a potential life sentence hanging over him.
Talking more from Rivlins perspective.
-
Dont believe Bamber needed any motivation, he was going not gulity whatever, he had a potential life sentence hanging over him.
Talking more from Rivlins perspective.
Still no. Would not be very professional of Rivlin.
-
Still no. Would not be very professional of Rivlin.
As chiefly a prosecutor, Rivlin would have known and did in fact comment " that it would be a difficult case to win "
Must have been many a heated discussion between him and Bamber.
-
Maybe the prosecution submitted the Sheila scenario which matched the crime scene. Then opposed it - no blood on phone etc.
Thought the defence would say why and when Nevill called Bamber for the jury.
The defence had one major drawback at the time, Adam, the Aga evidence had not been discovered!
If the possibility of Nevill lying beside the Aga for several hours had been presented in court that would have blown the straight forward police scenario out of the water!
-
The defence would have worked out a Sheila scenario pre trial.
Whether they wanted to promote it at trial is another matter.
The difference with the defence Sheila scenario to forum scenarios is that they could not invent a long winded kitchen conversation where Nevill & June do not negate an escalating situation.
The defence would also have to include the silencer. As they did not dispute it was Sheila's blood in it.
-
The defence would have worked out a Sheila scenario pre trial.
Whether they wanted to promote it at trial is another matter.
This is more than likely true, Although it was more likely just table talk. Theres no way Rivlin and Lawson would have put it across.
-
The defence would have worked out a Sheila scenario pre trial.
Whether they wanted to promote it at trial is another matter.
The difference with the defence Sheila scenario to forum scenarios is that they could not invent a long winded kitchen conversation where Nevill & June do not negate an escalating situation.
The defence would also have to include the silencer. As they did not dispute it was Sheila's blood in it.
Privately I believe Rivlin knew from the outset the case was lost.
The silencer was compelling evidence ( on paper at least) once Justice Drake said the famous line " on the silencer evidence alone you convict" they must have known they were fucked.
-
I was always shocked Mike Fielder from The Sun wasnt called as a witness.
Although nothing compelling evidence wise, it certainly paints Jeremy in a negative light.
Years later Jeremy offered a different account on their meeting.
-
I was always shocked Mike Fielder from The Sun wasnt called as a witness.
Although nothing compelling evidence wise, it certainly paints Jeremy in a negative light.
Years later Jeremy offered a different account on their meeting.
Bad character evidence is usually not permitted. Plus according to Brett Collins the meeting never took place.
-
Bad character evidence is usually not permitted. Plus according to Brett Collins the meeting never took place.
Essentially though to me that's all James Richards evidence was, " I hate my fucking parents". Not even bad charchter evidence as its something uttered by teens and twenty somethings all over. But that's how they dressed it.
I have not seen Brett's take on it.
-
Bad character evidence is usually not permitted. Plus according to Brett Collins the meeting never took place.
When did he say that?
-
There is a Sheila scenario which matches the crime scene evidence. The problems of the early part of it are in reply 1.
Problems later on would be Sheila being able to shoot herself once with the silencer on. Then go downstairs and put it away.
Nevill still being fit enough to get downstairs & phone Jeremy but then get totally obliterated by Sheila is not plausible.
Sheila being strong enough to lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle is not possible.
-
Sheila would have put the silencer on the rifle when she went downstairs.
She could have also loaded a seperate magazine with 8 bullets.
Then gone upstairs with the rifle/silencer and magazine.
Once she had emptied the rifle on June & Nevill - 9 bullets, she went into the twins room to load the magazine and shoot them 8 times.
Sheila being in the twins room gave Nevill the chance to go downstairs and start phoning Jeremy.
-
A shelia scenario is more complex in the sense you have to include the reasons she may have gone berserk.
-
A shelia scenario is more complex in the sense you have to include the reasons she may have gone berserk.
It is extremely horrific that she would shoot her mother & father while they slept. They were supporting her financially & emotionally and she was staying at there house.
Then equally horrific that she shot her sons while they slept.
Bamber's suggestion was the fostering conversation earlier.
-
As explained from the neutral perspective and even from a common sense perspective but to discuss the former attitudes were certainly different in the 1980s.
The alternative suspect in this case had schizophrenia and a long history of mental health problems. She had documented hospital stays and she had behavioural patterns that at the time in question were alarming and bizarre and totally misunderstood.
The man on trial, was well presented, handsome, well spoken and confident.
For a defence counsel on a whole that's a dream. What scuppered it however was Julie and the blood evidence in the moderator.
-
It is extremely horrific that she would shoot her mother & father while they slept. They were supporting her financially & emotionally and she was staying at there house.
This is what the gulity Jeremy thought. He would have not carried out the crime otherwise. He felt he had a perfect scapegoat
-
It is extremely horrific that she would shoot her mother & father while they slept. They were supporting her financially & emotionally and she was staying at there house.
Then equally horrific that she shot her sons while they slept.
Bamber's suggestion was the fostering conversation earlier.
I doubt June was supporting her daughter emotionally.
-
I doubt June was supporting her daughter emotionally.
She was her mother who visited her weekly & had her staying at WHF.
The relationship between Bamber & June had totally broken down years ago.
-
She was her mother who visited her weekly & had her staying at WHF.
The relationship between Bamber & June had totally broken down years ago.
I doubt it completley had although was cold. He probably spoke to her every day when working at WHF.
Nevill would have probably also made sure he gave her time of day.
-
Neither of the children had a close relationship with their mother.
Shelia probably would have loved to be independent but unfortunately for her June held the purse strings.
-
She was her mother who visited her weekly & had her staying at WHF.
The relationship between Bamber & June had totally broken down years ago.
Yes, but one might argue many of the daughter's insecurities stemmed from the relationship with her mother. From the fornication in the fields leading to the "Devil's child" remark, through to the poignant letter Sheila wrote Ann Eaton during her second breakdown stating that despite what others said God loved her, there were several occasions throughout her life where June imposed her will to the detriment of any meaningful rapport. This manifested itself in the "I hate this place" remark inscribed into the mahogany wardrobe, the demonstrative pronoun suggesting the personal effect the environs and the personalities had on her mental wellbeing. As Freddi Emani noticed, she was always more fragile and morose whenever she returned from a visit to White House Farm.