Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on June 13, 2016, 10:59:PM
-
On the balance of probability what is the most likely scenario ?
It is very unlikely that WPC Jeaves (a trained firearms instructor) made a mistake in her witness statement.
Therefore it is very probable that she did see a rifle in the window.
A rifle that was not there when Police entered the farmhouse.
Therefore it is very probable that someone was inside the house moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy did not commit the crime himself.
It is also very probable that the person moving about inside was not an accomplice of Jeremy.
He is very unlikely to have phoned the Police whilst any such accomplice was inside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy is entirely innocent.
It is highly unlikely that anyone (other than Sheila) would have killed all the family for a non financial motive - the only realistic motive must have been the money.
Therefore in all probability Sheila was guilty or one or more of the relatives were responsible.
If Sheila was guilty then she must have hidden the silencer where the relatives found it - in between killing the family and shooting herself. This is unlikely - why would she do this ?
Therefore it is probable that one or more of the relatives were responsible for the murders.
If they were responsible for the murders then it is more likely than not that they persuaded Julie to give a false confession blaming Jeremy.
There were a number of relatives that could have been responsible so i am not pointing the finger at anyone of them in particular. The evidence however would suggest that Anthony was more likely to be involved than some of the others.
You may not like what i have posted above but i have analysed this case with an open mind.
The above is the most likely scenario based on probabilty.
WPC Jeaves knew a rifle when she saw one - she would not say she saw one in the window unless she had.
It was a (different) Police Officer and not Jeremy who said he thought he saw movement in a window.
At a press conference after the murders the Police told journalists that they were desperate to trace a "hunched up man" that the Police had seen leaving the area ...
In all probability someone was in the farmhouse moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside whether you like it or not ...
Suspect everybody and use logic ....
-
On the balance of probability what is the most likely scenario ?
It is very unlikely that WPC Jeaves (a trained firearms instructor) made a mistake in her witness statement.
Therefore it is very probable that she did see a rifle in the window.
A rifle that was not there when Police entered the farmhouse.
Therefore it is very probable that someone was inside the house moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy did not commit the crime himself.
It is also very probable that the person moving about inside was not an accomplice of Jeremy.
He is very unlikely to have phoned the Police whilst any such accomplice was inside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy is entirely innocent.
It is highly unlikely that anyone (other than Sheila) would have killed all the family for a non financial motive - the only realistic motive must have been the money.
Therefore in all probability Sheila was guilty or one or more of the relatives were responsible.
If Sheila was guilty then she must have hidden the silencer where the relatives found it - in between killing the family and shooting herself. This is unlikely - why would she do this ?
Therefore it is probable that one or more of the relatives were responsible for the murders.
If they were responsible for the murders then it is more likely than not that they persuaded Julie to give a false confession blaming Jeremy.
There were a number of relatives that could have been responsible so i am not pointing the finger at anyone of them in particular. The evidence however would suggest that Anthony was more likely to be involved than some of the others.
You may not like what i have posted above but i have analysed this case with an open mind.
The above is the most likely scenario based on probabilty.
WPC Jeaves knew a rifle when she saw one - she would not say she saw one in the window unless she had.
It was a (different) Police Officer and not Jeremy who said he thought he saw movement in a window.
At a press conference after the murders the Police told journalists that they were desperate to trace a "hunched up man" that the Police had seen leaving the area ...
In all probability someone was in the farmhouse moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside whether you like it or not ...
Suspect everybody and use logic ....
if only the jury could have read the above jb may not be where he is now,but maybe they were just not smart enough :)
-
If his lawyers had done nothing but presented Wpc Jeaves statement and focused on that alone he would have been found not guilty - it in itself would have raised reasonable doubt.
The same tactic would be enough should he ever be granted a retrial ...
-
On the balance of probability what is the most likely scenario ?
It is very unlikely that WPC Jeaves (a trained firearms instructor) made a mistake in her witness statement.
Therefore it is very probable that she did see a rifle in the window.
A rifle that was not there when Police entered the farmhouse.
Therefore it is very probable that someone was inside the house moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy did not commit the crime himself.
It is also very probable that the person moving about inside was not an accomplice of Jeremy.
He is very unlikely to have phoned the Police whilst any such accomplice was inside.
Therefore it is very probable that Jeremy is entirely innocent.
It is highly unlikely that anyone (other than Sheila) would have killed all the family for a non financial motive - the only realistic motive must have been the money.
Therefore in all probability Sheila was guilty or one or more of the relatives were responsible.
If Sheila was guilty then she must have hidden the silencer where the relatives found it - in between killing the family and shooting herself. This is unlikely - why would she do this ?
Therefore it is probable that one or more of the relatives were responsible for the murders.
If they were responsible for the murders then it is more likely than not that they persuaded Julie to give a false confession blaming Jeremy.
There were a number of relatives that could have been responsible so i am not pointing the finger at anyone of them in particular. The evidence however would suggest that Anthony was more likely to be involved than some of the others.
You may not like what i have posted above but i have analysed this case with an open mind.
The above is the most likely scenario based on probabilty.
WPC Jeaves knew a rifle when she saw one - she would not say she saw one in the window unless she had.
It was a (different) Police Officer and not Jeremy who said he thought he saw movement in a window.
At a press conference after the murders the Police told journalists that they were desperate to trace a "hunched up man" that the Police had seen leaving the area ...
In all probability someone was in the farmhouse moving about when Jeremy and the Police were outside whether you like it or not ...
Suspect everybody and use logic ....
On the balance of probability what is the most likely scenario ?
Jeremy leaves rifle in the scullery without the silencer attached (as he has always maintained)
Sheila then Kills the family then turns the gun on herself.
Silencer is left in the back of the gun cupboard all night where it was usually kept with other gun accessories.
-
On the balance of probability what is the most likely scenario ?
Jeremy leaves rifle in the scullery without the silencer attached (as he has always maintained)
Sheila then Kills the family then turns the gun on herself.
Silencer is left in the back of the gun cupboard all night where it was usually kept with other gun accessories.
So how did the red paint get on the silencer then ?
-
If his lawyers had done nothing but presented Wpc Jeaves statement and focused on that alone he would have been found not guilty - it in itself would have raised reasonable doubt.
The same tactic would be enough should he ever be granted a retrial ...
i beg to differ, that one thing alone would be enough to aquit jb,and very much doubt he will get another appeal.if any thing they are more determined to keep him locked up hence the whole life tariff :)
-
So how did the red paint get on the silencer then ?
Conspirators scrape the silencer along the mantle
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s (https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s)
-
Conspirators scrape the silencer along the mantle
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s (https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s)
if its not the police its the family and at times its both ;)
-
i beg to differ, that one thing alone would be enough to aquit jb,and very much doubt he will get another appeal.if any thing they are more determined to keep him locked up hence the whole life tariff :)
why do you beg to differ ?
it appears we both agree that WPC Jeaves statement should have been enough to acquit jeremy Bamber ...
-
why do you beg to differ ?
it appears we both agree that WPC Jeaves statement should have been enough to acquit jeremy Bamber ...
i dont think it would be enough,thats why i beg to differ, :)
-
Conspirators scrape the silencer along the mantle
https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s (https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s)
I have also analysed this using logic and probability ...
Ask yourself which is more likely ...
His sister shoots all his family ...
Separately his relatives plant a silencer to frame him ...
Separately his girlfriend decides to frame him ...
or
one person (or group of people) were responsible for all three things
ie the shootings, planting the silencer and persuadig his girlfriend to frame him ...
It is clearly more likely that one person (or group of people) were responsible for all 3 pieces of Jeremy's bad luck ...
Your opinion of the character of the relatives may have clouded your logic up until now ...
What do you (or anyone else)really know about Anthony's character for example ?
-
I have also analysed this using logic and probability ...
Ask yourself which is more likely ...
His sister shoots all his family ...
Separately his relatives plant a silencer to frame him ...
Separately his girlfriend decides to frame him ...
or
one person (or group of people) were responsible for all three things
ie the shootings, planting the silencer and persuadig his girlfriend to frame him ...
It is clearly more likely that one person (or group of people) were responsible for all 3 pieces of Jeremy's bad luck ...
Your opinion of the character of the relatives may have clouded your logic up until now ...
What do you (or anyone else)really know about Anthony's character for example ?
yes i agree with the last sentence :)
-
i dont think it would be enough,thats why i beg to differ, :)
Maybe if Robert Boutflour had told the Jury the truth (that his family would inherit the money) when the Jury asked if he would personally inherit the money if Jeremy was convicted - and all he said was that he would not - then that would have been enough ?
His answer was the truth but very far from the whole truth i hope you agree ...
And i hope you will agree he badly deceived the Jury ...
They had heard all the evidence when they asked the Judge to ask Robert this one last question - so it was obviously important to them ...
If he had told the whole truth i think they would have found Jeremy not guilty ...
As they would have done had they known that Julie was to get enough money from the News of the World to buy a flat in central london - only if Jeremy was found guilty ...
She had agreed the deal with them pretrial - whether she signed the deal pre or post trial is irrelevant - it was a done deal ...
-
I have also analysed this using logic and probability ...
Ask yourself which is more likely ...
His sister shoots all his family ...
Separately his relatives plant a silencer to frame him ...
Separately his girlfriend decides to frame him ...
or
one person (or group of people) were responsible for all three things
ie the shootings, planting the silencer and persuadig his girlfriend to frame him ...
It is clearly more likely that one person (or group of people) were responsible for all 3 pieces of Jeremy's bad luck ...
Your opinion of the character of the relatives may have clouded your logic up until now ...
What do you (or anyone else)really know about Anthony's character for example ?
The evidence shows the silencer and scratch marks have been manufactured. So who and their character is not relevant to the equation
-
Maybe if Robert Boutflour had told the Jury the truth (that his family would inherit the money) when the Jury asked if he would personally inherit the money if Jeremy was convicted - and all he said was that he would not - then that would have been enough ?
His answer was the truth but very far from the whole truth i hope you agree ...
And i hope you will agree he badly deceived the Jury ...
They had heard all the evidence when they asked the Judge to ask Robert this one last question - so it was obviously important to them ...
If he had told the whole truth i think they would have found Jeremy not guilty ...
As they would have done had they known that Julie was to get enough money from the News of the World to buy a flat in central london - only if Jeremy was found guilty ...
She had agreed the deal with them pretrial - whether she signed the deal pre or post trial is irrelevant - it was a done deal ...
Here is some very interesting stuff. the text below is taken directly from the 2001 Appeal hearings. This may assist you in putting together the puzzle
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
-
The evidence shows the silencer and scratch marks have been manufactured. So who and their character is not relevant to the equation
I agree the silencer was planted ...
Who did it and why is relevant when considering if Sheila committed the murders or not ...
My post showed why it is more likely on the balance of probability that Sheila did not commit the murders ...
It is more likely on the balance of probability that whoever planted the silencer also committed the murders and persuaded Julie to lie - this was the point of my last post ...
-
The only possible scenario is Bamber committed the murder and tried to frame Sheila.
There are hundreds of pieces of forensic evidence showing Sheila was not the killer. Therefore it was Bamber.
Supporters can't even say how Sheila committed the massacre. Which is sick.
Leo Mckinstry was right.
-
The only possible scenario is Bamber committed the murder and tried to frame Sheila.
There are hundreds of pieces of forensic evidence showing Sheila was not the killer. Therefore it was Bamber.
Supporters can't even say how Sheila committed the massacre. Which is sick.
Leo Mckinstry was right.
Your ramblings are meaningless
-
Leo Mckinstry was right. People do believe in lurid conspiracy throries.
"Here we go again. Like a macabre version of Groundhog Day, mass murderer Jeremy Bamber is making yet another bid for freedom. This nasty legal saga has been dragging on for almost 26 years, ever since Bamber was first found guilty of the savage massacre at his family’s farmhouse in rural Essex. By a majority verdict, the jury at Chelmsford Crown Court decided that in the early hours of 7 August 1985, Bamber had shot dead his adoptive parents, Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffel, and her young twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas. No fewer than 25 rounds from an Anschutz .22 semi-automatic rifle had been fired at the victims, almost all from point-black range.
After hearing the jury’s verdict, the judge described Bamber as ‘warped and evil beyond belief’ as he sentenced him to life imprisonment, and despite all his protestations of innocence, Bamber has consistently failed to sway the justice system. On two occasions, in 1989 and 2002, the Court of Appeal considered his case in the light of supposed new evidence and both times it upheld the original verdict. Indeed, after the second appeal, the judges wrote, ‘The deeper we have looked into this case, the more likely it seems to us that the jury was right.’ Those words have not deterred Bamber. He’s kept up his campaign through the media, through his website and now on Twitter, aided by a group of diehard supporters who revel in lurid conspiracy theories about the actions of Essex police, the courts, and the wider Bamber family.
Cheered on by these creepy fans and a new legal team, Bamber is now seeking to go to the Court of Appeal a third time. His claims of new evidence revolve around the weapon used and some of the witness testimony, and they’re currently being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will announce shortly if he will be granted leave to appeal yet again. It would be astonishing if he were, and deeply depressing, for the case against him remains overwhelming. There truly has been no dramatic breakthrough by his lawyers, just a rehash of past material. Last week, in the run-up to CCRC’s decision, ITV ran a high-profile documentary on the Bamber case, claiming that the so-called new evidence could render his conviction unsafe. But the programme turned out to be almost anaemic in its lack of proper substance just a few firearms professionals speculating and a few partisan journalists.
[Alt-Text]
The whole pro-Bamber case has always rested on the theory that his sister Sheila Caffel, who had a long history of mental illness, was the real killer. According to this story, she assassinated her parents and her two children during a schizophrenic episode, before turning the gun on herself. In fact, this is what police initially believed had happened, but a number of developments soon turned the spotlight of suspicion on Bamber. One was his weird lack of any obvious grief in the wake of the massacre. He partied with friends and even went abroad for two holidays. Another was the crucial discovery, in a downstairs cupboard on the farm, of the rifle’s silencer, smeared with blood. This appeared to indicate that Sheila, whose body was found upstairs with two bullet wounds in the neck, could not be a suicidal murderer: the attachment of the silencer would have made the gun too long for her to hold under her chin while pulling the trigger. As the police renewed their enquiries, other factors emerged that ruled Sheila out. There was no firearms residue or oil on her hands, and little blood staining her nightdress. She was a small, thin young woman with no history of violence or experience of firearms. Moreover, the crime scene demonstrated that her father Nevill, found slumped in the kitchen, had put up a ferocious struggle against his assailant despite his bullet wounds. Nevill was a fit 61-year-old farmer who stood 6ft 4in tall. So violent was the fight that part of the rifle’s wooden butt had broken off. It was absurd to believe that Sheila, a recovering anorexic, would have been capable of such a struggle.
But Jeremy certainly would. The reason the evidence at first pointed to Sheila was because he had staged it that way to frame her, and his motive for the murder was to inherit the family estate, worth £435,000. A suave playboy used to handling guns, Jeremy loathed his adoptive parents so much that Nevill had confided to the farm secretary that he worried Jeremy was plotting to kill him. ‘I must never turn my back on him,’ he said. Bamber’s behaviour on the night of murders was deeply incriminating. He claimed to be asleep in his family-owned cottage near the farm when he received a distraught call from his father, saying that Sheila had ‘gone beserk’ with a gun. But Jeremy did not phone 999. Instead, as he admitted, he wasted time looking through the phone book for the number of the local police station. Then, though he had been known for fast, reckless driving, he pottered over to the farm in his car at 25 mph. He was overtaken by the police on the way. After he arrived at the farm, he kept up a running commentary to the police outside the farmhouse, insinuating that Sheila was guilty.
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
Bamber’s defence has always been inherently implausible. Even Bob Woffinden, a veteran journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice and who spent 20 years arguing for Bamber’s release, bravely wrote last year that he has changed his mind and is now sure of Bamber’s guilt. In running his campaign from his maximum security prison cell, said Woffinden, ‘Bamber still has all the cunning and ingenuity that he displayed in planning the crime.’ The calls to overturn his conviction are a disgrace, based on nothing more than lies, distractions and hollow theorising. The real affront to our justice system would be another pointless appeal for this monstrous killer."
-
I agree the silencer was planted ...
Who did it and why is relevant when considering if Sheila committed the murders or not ...
My post showed why it is more likely on the balance of probability that Sheila did not commit the murders ...
It is more likely on the balance of probability that whoever planted the silencer also committed the murders and persuaded Julie to lie - this was the point of my last post ...
How does this third party kill Sheila? She has no look of fear in her expression. no ripped clothes. She was sitting up when the first shot was fired how does someone keep her sitting up while they hold the rifle? The idea that she would just sit there and let it happen don't seem credible IMO
-
Here is some very interesting stuff. the text below is taken directly from the 2001 Appeal hearings. This may assist you in putting together the puzzle
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Here is some very interesting stuff. the text below is taken directly from the 2001 Appeal hearings. This may assist you in putting together the puzzle
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Jeremy believed that Robert Boutflour was responsible for planting the silencer ,,,
Anthony Pargeter was at the farm days before checking out the 2 Anschulz rifles ...
I know that Davids conscience is troubling him over his involvement in planting the silencer ...
Your post would suggests Anne was involved in lying ...
Obviously Julie was lying if we are correct in our assumptions ...
I did not know that it has been alleged that Susan Battersby was also involved in the lies - very interesting ...
-
How does this third party kill Sheila? She has no look of fear in her expression. no ripped clothes. She was sitting up when the first shot was fired how does someone keep her sitting up while they hold the rifle? The idea that she would just sit there and let it happen don't seem credible IMO
If Sheila realised that June had just been shot dead ...
And the killer/s were telling her to cooperate in her own "suicide" or they would shoot her 2 chldren ...
What choice would she have but to co operate with the killer/s ?
If she did co operate then it all makes sense - would you agree ?
-
Leo Mckinstry was right. People do believe in lurid conspiracy throries.
"Here we go again. Like a macabre version of Groundhog Day, mass murderer Jeremy Bamber is making yet another bid for freedom. This nasty legal saga has been dragging on for almost 26 years, ever since Bamber was first found guilty of the savage massacre at his family’s farmhouse in rural Essex. By a majority verdict, the jury at Chelmsford Crown Court decided that in the early hours of 7 August 1985, Bamber had shot dead his adoptive parents, Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffel, and her young twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas. No fewer than 25 rounds from an Anschutz .22 semi-automatic rifle had been fired at the victims, almost all from point-black range.
After hearing the jury’s verdict, the judge described Bamber as ‘warped and evil beyond belief’ as he sentenced him to life imprisonment, and despite all his protestations of innocence, Bamber has consistently failed to sway the justice system. On two occasions, in 1989 and 2002, the Court of Appeal considered his case in the light of supposed new evidence and both times it upheld the original verdict. Indeed, after the second appeal, the judges wrote, ‘The deeper we have looked into this case, the more likely it seems to us that the jury was right.’ Those words have not deterred Bamber. He’s kept up his campaign through the media, through his website and now on Twitter, aided by a group of diehard supporters who revel in lurid conspiracy theories about the actions of Essex police, the courts, and the wider Bamber family.
Cheered on by these creepy fans and a new legal team, Bamber is now seeking to go to the Court of Appeal a third time. His claims of new evidence revolve around the weapon used and some of the witness testimony, and they’re currently being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will announce shortly if he will be granted leave to appeal yet again. It would be astonishing if he were, and deeply depressing, for the case against him remains overwhelming. There truly has been no dramatic breakthrough by his lawyers, just a rehash of past material. Last week, in the run-up to CCRC’s decision, ITV ran a high-profile documentary on the Bamber case, claiming that the so-called new evidence could render his conviction unsafe. But the programme turned out to be almost anaemic in its lack of proper substance just a few firearms professionals speculating and a few partisan journalists.
[Alt-Text]
The whole pro-Bamber case has always rested on the theory that his sister Sheila Caffel, who had a long history of mental illness, was the real killer. According to this story, she assassinated her parents and her two children during a schizophrenic episode, before turning the gun on herself. In fact, this is what police initially believed had happened, but a number of developments soon turned the spotlight of suspicion on Bamber. One was his weird lack of any obvious grief in the wake of the massacre. He partied with friends and even went abroad for two holidays. Another was the crucial discovery, in a downstairs cupboard on the farm, of the rifle’s silencer, smeared with blood. This appeared to indicate that Sheila, whose body was found upstairs with two bullet wounds in the neck, could not be a suicidal murderer: the attachment of the silencer would have made the gun too long for her to hold under her chin while pulling the trigger. As the police renewed their enquiries, other factors emerged that ruled Sheila out. There was no firearms residue or oil on her hands, and little blood staining her nightdress. She was a small, thin young woman with no history of violence or experience of firearms. Moreover, the crime scene demonstrated that her father Nevill, found slumped in the kitchen, had put up a ferocious struggle against his assailant despite his bullet wounds. Nevill was a fit 61-year-old farmer who stood 6ft 4in tall. So violent was the fight that part of the rifle’s wooden butt had broken off. It was absurd to believe that Sheila, a recovering anorexic, would have been capable of such a struggle.
But Jeremy certainly would. The reason the evidence at first pointed to Sheila was because he had staged it that way to frame her, and his motive for the murder was to inherit the family estate, worth £435,000. A suave playboy used to handling guns, Jeremy loathed his adoptive parents so much that Nevill had confided to the farm secretary that he worried Jeremy was plotting to kill him. ‘I must never turn my back on him,’ he said. Bamber’s behaviour on the night of murders was deeply incriminating. He claimed to be asleep in his family-owned cottage near the farm when he received a distraught call from his father, saying that Sheila had ‘gone beserk’ with a gun. But Jeremy did not phone 999. Instead, as he admitted, he wasted time looking through the phone book for the number of the local police station. Then, though he had been known for fast, reckless driving, he pottered over to the farm in his car at 25 mph. He was overtaken by the police on the way. After he arrived at the farm, he kept up a running commentary to the police outside the farmhouse, insinuating that Sheila was guilty.
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
Bamber’s defence has always been inherently implausible. Even Bob Woffinden, a veteran journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice and who spent 20 years arguing for Bamber’s release, bravely wrote last year that he has changed his mind and is now sure of Bamber’s guilt. In running his campaign from his maximum security prison cell, said Woffinden, ‘Bamber still has all the cunning and ingenuity that he displayed in planning the crime.’ The calls to overturn his conviction are a disgrace, based on nothing more than lies, distractions and hollow theorising. The real affront to our justice system would be another pointless appeal for this monstrous killer."
I prefer to believe the evidence of WPC Jeaves than the changing theories of Bob Wolfinden and co ...
How do you explain WPC Jeaves statement about the rifle in the window Adam ?
She was a trained firearms instructor - she knows what a rifle looks like ...
She would not say she saw a rifle unless she saw a rifle ...
Explain that one Adam ...
I am waiting for your explanation mate ...
-
How does this third party kill Sheila? She has no look of fear in her expression. no ripped clothes. She was sitting up when the first shot was fired how does someone keep her sitting up while they hold the rifle? The idea that she would just sit there and let it happen don't seem credible IMO
How does she shoot herself at a 45 degree angle? Why would she choose to shoot herself at such and angle and wasn't it just lucky that there was one bullet left to finish the job? Coincidence? You don't believe in those!
-
How does she shoot herself at a 45 degree angle? Why would she choose to shoot herself at such and angle and wasn't it just lucky that there was one bullet left to finish the job? Coincidence? You don't believe in those!
exactly caroline.the angles are one thing jb never thought of.police also got him in a pickle when asking him to explain the amount of bullets that were found on the worktop near the phone,he could not explain it ;)
-
How does she shoot herself at a 45 degree angle? Why would she choose to shoot herself at such and angle and wasn't it just lucky that there was one bullet left to finish the job? Coincidence? You don't believe in those!
You are right Caroline i do not believe in coincidences ...
They make me very suspicious - i prefer scenarios without them - much more likely ...
I think it probable there were 2 gunman ...
Anthony and Robert Boutflour perhaps ?
Unless Anthony was telling the truth about removing his rifle from the farm days before then there were 2
identical rifles and silencers at the farm ...
Anthony had checked both rifles were in working order days before at the farm - why ?
The coincidence of Sheila having 1 bullet left makes it more likely she did not commit the crime ...
I don't think Sheila shot herself - i think it is more likely she was forced to cooperate whilst the killer/s shot her ...
Would that not explain the 45 degree angle better ?
If they had a bullet or two or three left in the rifle they then went back to the kitchen to reload - they loaded the rifle so it had a full 10 bullets ...
They then shot the twins 10 times before leaving the empty rifle on Sheilas body ...
The second rifle (if there was 2 gunman) left the farm with one of the gunman ...
-
You are right Caroline i do not believe in coincidences ...
They make me very suspicious - i prefer scenarios without them - much more likely ...
I think it probable there were 2 gunman ...
Anthony and Robert Boutflour perhaps ?
Unless Anthony was telling the truth about removing his rifle from the farm days before then there were 2
identical rifles and silencers at the farm ...
Anthony had checked both rifles were in working order days before at the farm - why ?
The coincidence of Sheila having 1 bullet left makes it more likely she did not commit the crime ...
I don't think Sheila shot herself - i think it is more likely she was forced to cooperate whilst the killer/s shot her ...
Would that not explain the 45 degree angle better ?
If they had a bullet or two or three left in the rifle they then went back to the kitchen to reload - they loaded the rifle so it had a full 10 bullets ...
They then shot the twins 10 times before leaving the empty rifle on Sheilas body ...
The second rifle (if there was 2 gunman) left the farm with one of the gunman ...
how did the two leave whf :)
-
how did the two leave whf :)
no one can say for sure how the killer/s left the farm - or what transport they used ...
i think if there were two gunman then 1 left before Jeremy arrived with the Police ...
the second gunman waited behind to finish Jeremy off when he arrived ...
that is why he left the rifle by the window ...
that is the rifle WPC Jeaves saw ...
he intended to shoot Jeremy from that window as he approached the farm ...
an easy job for an expert marksman like Anthony ...
when Jeremy unexpectedly arrived with the Police the gunman moved the rifle from the window ...
it was this person that caused another Police officer to see "movement in another window" ...
it was this person that the Police saw leaving the area and later described to journalists as the "hunched up man" that they were by then desperate to trace ...
maybe this "hunched up man" was a tramp sleeping in the hedges - but he was more probably the gunman leaving the farm on foot ...
-
no one can say for sure how the killer/s left the farm - or what transport they used ...
i think if there were two gunman then 1 left before Jeremy arrived with the Police ...
the second gunman waited behind to finish Jeremy off when he arrived ...
that is why he left the rifle by the window ...
that is the rifle WPC Jeaves saw ...
he intended to shoot Jeremy from that window as he approached the farm ...
an easy job for an expert marksman like Anthony ...
when Jeremy unexpectedly arrived with the Police the gunman moved the rifle from the window ...
it was this person that caused another Police officer to see "movement in another window" ...
it was this person that the Police saw leaving the area and later described to journalists as the "hunched up man" that they were by then desperate to trace ...
maybe this "hunched up man" was a tramp sleeping in the hedges - but he was more probably the gunman leaving the farm on foot ...
what was they motive :)
-
what was they motive :)
Unless it was Sheila then it had to be money ...
what other possible motive could it have been to kill a whole family including 2 children ?
and if the motive was money then this only leaves Jeremy or the relatives ...
unless WPC Jeaves was very much mistaken then it was not Jeremy ...
the relatives were according to some accounts heading for financial poverty at the time ...
and who actually ended up with all the money ?
the relatives divided it between themselves ...
-
no one can say for sure how the killer/s left the farm - or what transport they used ...
i think if there were two gunman then 1 left before Jeremy arrived with the Police ...
the second gunman waited behind to finish Jeremy off when he arrived ...
that is why he left the rifle by the window ...
that is the rifle WPC Jeaves saw ...
he intended to shoot Jeremy from that window as he approached the farm ...
an easy job for an expert marksman like Anthony ...
when Jeremy unexpectedly arrived with the Police the gunman moved the rifle from the window ...
it was this person that caused another Police officer to see "movement in another window" ...
it was this person that the Police saw leaving the area and later described to journalists as the "hunched up man" that they were by then desperate to trace ...
maybe this "hunched up man" was a tramp sleeping in the hedges - but he was more probably the gunman leaving the farm on foot ...
is there a statement from the officers that were with jb ,saying they saw a hunched man leaving whf,signed i might add
-
is there a statement from the officers that were with jb ,saying they saw a hunched man leaving whf,signed i might add
The Police stated they had seen the hunched up man leaving the area at a major press conference in September 1986.
They also stated they were now desperate to trace this hunched up man ...
-
There is written information somewhere on the forum about the hunched up figure. It's in the form of a report which is written by an officer of EP,so it's there in writing.
-
How does she shoot herself at a 45 degree angle? Why would she choose to shoot herself at such and angle and wasn't it just lucky that there was one bullet left to finish the job? Coincidence? You don't believe in those!
How does she shoot herself in the neck? She holds the Barrel towards her neck and pulls the trigger.
Coincidence it is not. Having two bullets left in the magazine is not incriminating. Had one bullet have been in the chamber it would still have killed her. It just would have taken a while longer
-
Did we ever find out whose prints were on the cases,or is that a silly question ? Or the shape of the spent bullets in conjunction with the firing ? Another daft question.
-
How does she shoot herself in the neck? She holds the Barrel towards her neck and pulls the trigger.
Coincidence it is not. Having two bullets left in the magazine is not incriminating. Had one bullet have been in the chamber it would still have killed her. It just would have taken a while longer
The only way Shiela could have shot herself in the neck she would have had to be upright leaning over the rifle. The only way imo is some else fired the neck shot. It would not have been possible to hold the rifle at right angles and shoot herself.
-
You are right Caroline i do not believe in coincidences ...
They make me very suspicious - i prefer scenarios without them - much more likely ...
I think it probable there were 2 gunman ...
Anthony and Robert Boutflour perhaps ?
Unless Anthony was telling the truth about removing his rifle from the farm days before then there were 2
identical rifles and silencers at the farm ...
Anthony had checked both rifles were in working order days before at the farm - why ?
The coincidence of Sheila having 1 bullet left makes it more likely she did not commit the crime ...
I don't think Sheila shot herself - i think it is more likely she was forced to cooperate whilst the killer/s shot her ...
Would that not explain the 45 degree angle better ?
If they had a bullet or two or three left in the rifle they then went back to the kitchen to reload - they loaded the rifle so it had a full 10 bullets ...
They then shot the twins 10 times before leaving the empty rifle on Sheilas body ...
The second rifle (if there was 2 gunman) left the farm with one of the gunman ...
There was not two identical rifles. The bamber rifle was semi automatic, the Pargenter was a bolt action, I forget the the name but it was different from the Bamber rifle.
-
The silencers had different number of baffles.
-
I think I read that AP did not use hollow point ammo, and I have suggested before that not all bullets were fragmented.
-
She'd have shot herself laying down flat with the rifle to her neck as that way the bullet travelled where it did------upwards to the brain.
-
She'd have shot herself laying down flat with the rifle to her neck as that way the bullet travelled where it did------upwards to the brain.
I'm not talking about the brain shot Lookout. I am talking the neck shot.
-
Just remembered the AP rifle was a BRNO.
-
She'd have shot herself laying down flat with the rifle to her neck as that way the bullet travelled where it did------upwards to the brain.
She'd have been shooting blind plus having to push the trigger rather than pull it.
-
How does she shoot herself in the neck? She holds the Barrel towards her neck and pulls the trigger.
Coincidence it is not. Having two bullets left in the magazine is not incriminating. Had one bullet have been in the chamber it would still have killed her. It just would have taken a while longer
impossible she could hold the rifle at a 45 degree and push the trigger,also why would she hold the rifle to the right,the rifle has weight its not a length of bamboo
-
She'd have shot herself laying down flat with the rifle to her neck as that way the bullet travelled where it did------upwards to the brain.
then how did the blood run down the right of her nightie,if she was laying flat the blood would have flowed sideways down her neck not to the front of her nightie,she would also not have blood from the nose travelling to the eye if she were laying flat
-
The only way Shiela could have shot herself in the neck she would have had to be upright leaning over the rifle. The only way imo is some else fired the neck shot. It would not have been possible to hold the rifle at right angles and shoot herself.
Yes it would be very possible. Look at the crime scene photos below, Her arm is not even straight and her elbow is on floor and still her fingers are not far from the trigger. Straighten her arms, hands and fingers + finger nails she could easily reach the trigger. Only way she could not do it would be with moderator attached
-
Yes it would be very possible. Look at the crime scene photos below, Her arm is not even straight and her elbow is on floor and still her fingers are not far from the trigger. Straighten her arms, hands and fingers + finger nails she could easily reach the trigger. Only way she could not do it would be with moderator attached
had she fired a shot her thumb or finger would still be on the trigger and if it did slip out her fingers.than her hand would be on the floor ,NOT ON TOP OF THE RIFLE common sense :)
-
Yes it would be very possible. Look at the crime scene photos below, Her arm is not even straight and her elbow is on floor and still her fingers are not far from the trigger. Straighten her arms, hands and fingers + finger nails she could easily reach the trigger. Only way she could not do it would be with moderator attached
Given that anything is possible in theory, it might be, but kin practice, she have had to be pushing the gun away from her so she may have needed both hands to steady it which would have been difficult if she was laying flat and it wasn't just an exercise to see if it was possible.
-
Yes it would be very possible. Look at the crime scene photos below, Her arm is not even straight and her elbow is on floor and still her fingers are not far from the trigger. Straighten her arms, hands and fingers + finger nails she could easily reach the trigger. Only way she could not do it would be with moderator attached
why were her prints not found on the magazine she would have had to hold it to load the bullets
-
had she fired a shot her thumb or finger would still be on the trigger and if it did slip out her fingers.than her hand would be on the floor ,NOT ON TOP OF THE RIFLE common sense :)
I agree.
I think it is very unlikely that her hand would end up on top of the rifle ...
Not impossible - but very unlikely ...
Unless WPC Jeaves was very much mistaken (also very unlikely) then Jeremy is also innocent ...
The only motive for killing an entire family that is even remotely likely is money ...
Therefore we have to consider the relatives as suspects ...
Many on here consider it likely they planted the silencer ...
They could easily have persuaded Julie to lie ...
They are definitely prime potential suspects according to probability and logic ...
-
had she fired a shot her thumb or finger would still be on the trigger and if it did slip out her fingers.than her hand would be on the floor ,NOT ON TOP OF THE RIFLE common sense :)
Once dead her elbow and upper arm would fall to the floor via gravity. leaving the arm in the position it was found pulling her hand slightly away from the trigger.
-
Once dead her elbow and upper arm would fall to the floor via gravity. leaving the arm in the position it was found pulling her hand slightly away from the trigger.
Do you think she was holding the gun with only her right hand ?
Or do you think she used both hands ?
-
I prefer to believe the evidence of WPC Jeaves than the changing theories of Bob Wolfinden and co ...
How do you explain WPC Jeaves statement about the rifle in the window Adam ?
She was a trained firearms instructor - she knows what a rifle looks like ...
She would not say she saw a rifle unless she saw a rifle ...
Explain that one Adam ...
I am waiting for your explanation mate ...
There is a photograph of a rifle by the window. There is a thread on it.
And ?
-
Once dead her elbow and upper arm would fall to the floor via gravity. leaving the arm in the position it was found pulling her hand slightly away from the trigger.
impossible david,imo,the only option left is to say the photo was taken after the police replaced the rifle on sheila,hence they replaced it in the wrong position
-
I agree.
I think it is very unlikely that her hand would end up on top of the rifle ...
Not impossible - but very unlikely ...
Unless WPC Jeaves was very much mistaken (also very unlikely) then Jeremy is also innocent ...
The only motive for killing an entire family that is even remotely likely is money ...
Therefore we have to consider the relatives as suspects ...
Many on here consider it likely they planted the silencer ...
They could easily have persuaded Julie to lie ...
They are definitely prime potential suspects according to probability and logic ...
from where she was standing and looking up she would not be able to see the rifle fully, she could only see the top 12ins of the barrel,it could look like a broom stick or iron rod,did she not correct her statement afterwards
-
impossible david,imo,the only option left is to say the photo was taken after the police replaced the rifle on sheila,hence they replaced it in the wrong position
Absolute logic, Sami. I can go with that.
-
Absolute logic, Sami. I can go with that.
thank you jane :) also i forgot to add is wpc jeaves said she saw what APPEARED to be a rifle
-
impossible david,imo,the only option left is to say the photo was taken after the police replaced the rifle on sheila,hence they replaced it in the wrong position
Its not impossible at all. your just saying it is because you don't like the sound of it. ;)
-
David you must stop revealing in lurid conspiracy theories. You're just proving Leo Mckinsty right.
"Here we go again. Like a macabre version of Groundhog Day, mass murderer Jeremy Bamber is making yet another bid for freedom. This nasty legal saga has been dragging on for almost 26 years, ever since Bamber was first found guilty of the savage massacre at his family’s farmhouse in rural Essex. By a majority verdict, the jury at Chelmsford Crown Court decided that in the early hours of 7 August 1985, Bamber had shot dead his adoptive parents, Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffel, and her young twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas. No fewer than 25 rounds from an Anschutz .22 semi-automatic rifle had been fired at the victims, almost all from point-black range.
After hearing the jury’s verdict, the judge described Bamber as ‘warped and evil beyond belief’ as he sentenced him to life imprisonment, and despite all his protestations of innocence, Bamber has consistently failed to sway the justice system. On two occasions, in 1989 and 2002, the Court of Appeal considered his case in the light of supposed new evidence and both times it upheld the original verdict. Indeed, after the second appeal, the judges wrote, ‘The deeper we have looked into this case, the more likely it seems to us that the jury was right.’ Those words have not deterred Bamber. He’s kept up his campaign through the media, through his website and now on Twitter, aided by a group of diehard supporters who revel in lurid conspiracy theories about the actions of Essex police, the courts, and the wider Bamber family.
Cheered on by these creepy fans and a new legal team, Bamber is now seeking to go to the Court of Appeal a third time. His claims of new evidence revolve around the weapon used and some of the witness testimony, and they’re currently being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will announce shortly if he will be granted leave to appeal yet again. It would be astonishing if he were, and deeply depressing, for the case against him remains overwhelming. There truly has been no dramatic breakthrough by his lawyers, just a rehash of past material. Last week, in the run-up to CCRC’s decision, ITV ran a high-profile documentary on the Bamber case, claiming that the so-called new evidence could render his conviction unsafe. But the programme turned out to be almost anaemic in its lack of proper substance just a few firearms professionals speculating and a few partisan journalists.
[Alt-Text]
The whole pro-Bamber case has always rested on the theory that his sister Sheila Caffel, who had a long history of mental illness, was the real killer. According to this story, she assassinated her parents and her two children during a schizophrenic episode, before turning the gun on herself. In fact, this is what police initially believed had happened, but a number of developments soon turned the spotlight of suspicion on Bamber. One was his weird lack of any obvious grief in the wake of the massacre. He partied with friends and even went abroad for two holidays. Another was the crucial discovery, in a downstairs cupboard on the farm, of the rifle’s silencer, smeared with blood. This appeared to indicate that Sheila, whose body was found upstairs with two bullet wounds in the neck, could not be a suicidal murderer: the attachment of the silencer would have made the gun too long for her to hold under her chin while pulling the trigger. As the police renewed their enquiries, other factors emerged that ruled Sheila out. There was no firearms residue or oil on her hands, and little blood staining her nightdress. She was a small, thin young woman with no history of violence or experience of firearms. Moreover, the crime scene demonstrated that her father Nevill, found slumped in the kitchen, had put up a ferocious struggle against his assailant despite his bullet wounds. Nevill was a fit 61-year-old farmer who stood 6ft 4in tall. So violent was the fight that part of the rifle’s wooden butt had broken off. It was absurd to believe that Sheila, a recovering anorexic, would have been capable of such a struggle.
But Jeremy certainly would. The reason the evidence at first pointed to Sheila was because he had staged it that way to frame her, and his motive for the murder was to inherit the family estate, worth £435,000. A suave playboy used to handling guns, Jeremy loathed his adoptive parents so much that Nevill had confided to the farm secretary that he worried Jeremy was plotting to kill him. ‘I must never turn my back on him,’ he said. Bamber’s behaviour on the night of murders was deeply incriminating. He claimed to be asleep in his family-owned cottage near the farm when he received a distraught call from his father, saying that Sheila had ‘gone beserk’ with a gun. But Jeremy did not phone 999. Instead, as he admitted, he wasted time looking through the phone book for the number of the local police station. Then, though he had been known for fast, reckless driving, he pottered over to the farm in his car at 25 mph. He was overtaken by the police on the way. After he arrived at the farm, he kept up a running commentary to the police outside the farmhouse, insinuating that Sheila was guilty.
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
Bamber’s defence has always been inherently implausible. Even Bob Woffinden, a veteran journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice and who spent 20 years arguing for Bamber’s release, bravely wrote last year that he has changed his mind and is now sure of Bamber’s guilt. In running his campaign from his maximum security prison cell, said Woffinden, ‘Bamber still has all the cunning and ingenuity that he displayed in planning the crime.’ The calls to overturn his conviction are a disgrace, based on nothing more than lies, distractions and hollow theorising. The real affront to our justice system would be another pointless appeal for this monstrous killer".
-
thank you jane :) also i forgot to add is wpc jeaves said she saw what APPEARED to be a rifle
Police invariably use the phrase " appeared to be " when, what they mean to say is that it WAS what they saw or thought. As in " there " appeared " to be 5 dead bodies found.
-
Police invariably use the phrase " appeared to be " when, what they mean to say is that it WAS what they saw or thought. As in " there " appeared " to be 5 dead bodies found.
what did she say in court about it
-
David you must stop revealing in lurid conspiracy theories. You're just proving Leo Mckinsty right.
"Here we go again. Like a macabre version of Groundhog Day, mass murderer Jeremy Bamber is making yet another bid for freedom. This nasty legal saga has been dragging on for almost 26 years, ever since Bamber was first found guilty of the savage massacre at his family’s farmhouse in rural Essex. By a majority verdict, the jury at Chelmsford Crown Court decided that in the early hours of 7 August 1985, Bamber had shot dead his adoptive parents, Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffel, and her young twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas. No fewer than 25 rounds from an Anschutz .22 semi-automatic rifle had been fired at the victims, almost all from point-black range.
After hearing the jury’s verdict, the judge described Bamber as ‘warped and evil beyond belief’ as he sentenced him to life imprisonment, and despite all his protestations of innocence, Bamber has consistently failed to sway the justice system. On two occasions, in 1989 and 2002, the Court of Appeal considered his case in the light of supposed new evidence and both times it upheld the original verdict. Indeed, after the second appeal, the judges wrote, ‘The deeper we have looked into this case, the more likely it seems to us that the jury was right.’ Those words have not deterred Bamber. He’s kept up his campaign through the media, through his website and now on Twitter, aided by a group of diehard supporters who revel in lurid conspiracy theories about the actions of Essex police, the courts, and the wider Bamber family.
Cheered on by these creepy fans and a new legal team, Bamber is now seeking to go to the Court of Appeal a third time. His claims of new evidence revolve around the weapon used and some of the witness testimony, and they’re currently being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will announce shortly if he will be granted leave to appeal yet again. It would be astonishing if he were, and deeply depressing, for the case against him remains overwhelming. There truly has been no dramatic breakthrough by his lawyers, just a rehash of past material. Last week, in the run-up to CCRC’s decision, ITV ran a high-profile documentary on the Bamber case, claiming that the so-called new evidence could render his conviction unsafe. But the programme turned out to be almost anaemic in its lack of proper substance just a few firearms professionals speculating and a few partisan journalists.
[Alt-Text]
The whole pro-Bamber case has always rested on the theory that his sister Sheila Caffel, who had a long history of mental illness, was the real killer. According to this story, she assassinated her parents and her two children during a schizophrenic episode, before turning the gun on herself. In fact, this is what police initially believed had happened, but a number of developments soon turned the spotlight of suspicion on Bamber. One was his weird lack of any obvious grief in the wake of the massacre. He partied with friends and even went abroad for two holidays. Another was the crucial discovery, in a downstairs cupboard on the farm, of the rifle’s silencer, smeared with blood. This appeared to indicate that Sheila, whose body was found upstairs with two bullet wounds in the neck, could not be a suicidal murderer: the attachment of the silencer would have made the gun too long for her to hold under her chin while pulling the trigger. As the police renewed their enquiries, other factors emerged that ruled Sheila out. There was no firearms residue or oil on her hands, and little blood staining her nightdress. She was a small, thin young woman with no history of violence or experience of firearms. Moreover, the crime scene demonstrated that her father Nevill, found slumped in the kitchen, had put up a ferocious struggle against his assailant despite his bullet wounds. Nevill was a fit 61-year-old farmer who stood 6ft 4in tall. So violent was the fight that part of the rifle’s wooden butt had broken off. It was absurd to believe that Sheila, a recovering anorexic, would have been capable of such a struggle.
But Jeremy certainly would. The reason the evidence at first pointed to Sheila was because he had staged it that way to frame her, and his motive for the murder was to inherit the family estate, worth £435,000. A suave playboy used to handling guns, Jeremy loathed his adoptive parents so much that Nevill had confided to the farm secretary that he worried Jeremy was plotting to kill him. ‘I must never turn my back on him,’ he said. Bamber’s behaviour on the night of murders was deeply incriminating. He claimed to be asleep in his family-owned cottage near the farm when he received a distraught call from his father, saying that Sheila had ‘gone beserk’ with a gun. But Jeremy did not phone 999. Instead, as he admitted, he wasted time looking through the phone book for the number of the local police station. Then, though he had been known for fast, reckless driving, he pottered over to the farm in his car at 25 mph. He was overtaken by the police on the way. After he arrived at the farm, he kept up a running commentary to the police outside the farmhouse, insinuating that Sheila was guilty.
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
Bamber’s defence has always been inherently implausible. Even Bob Woffinden, a veteran journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice and who spent 20 years arguing for Bamber’s release, bravely wrote last year that he has changed his mind and is now sure of Bamber’s guilt. In running his campaign from his maximum security prison cell, said Woffinden, ‘Bamber still has all the cunning and ingenuity that he displayed in planning the crime.’ The calls to overturn his conviction are a disgrace, based on nothing more than lies, distractions and hollow theorising. The real affront to our justice system would be another pointless appeal for this monstrous killer".
excellently put adam ,especially the first sentence ;) :)
-
That was Leo Mckinsty from The Spectator.
-
what did she say in court about it
I'm not sure that her statement is available.PPI ?
-
Its not impossible at all. your just saying it is because you don't like the sound of it. ;)
And vice versa
-
Yes it would be very possible. Look at the crime scene photos below, Her arm is not even straight and her elbow is on floor and still her fingers are not far from the trigger. Straighten her arms, hands and fingers + finger nails she could easily reach the trigger. Only way she could not do it would be with moderator attached
So she would pick the most difficult was to shoot herself? It's only possible in a world where people dream of incense.
-
I'm not talking about the brain shot Lookout. I am talking the neck shot.
45 degrees - who would choose to shoot themselves like that?
-
Is David saying Sheila shot herself with the silencer on ?
How did she manage to put it back downstairs in a box, at the back of a cupboard. And why. And why is there no vertical blood lines on her ?
-
45 degrees - who would choose to shoot themselves like that?
Someone with a rifle
-
Sorry, just read his post. He is saying she could shoot herself without the moderator. Which everyone knows.
However he has not explained how Sheila's blood, the aga paint and a white hair all from the massacre ended up on the silencer.
-
Someone with a rifle
Would choose to shoot themselves at a 45 degree angle? ;D ;D ;D Not even YOU believes that!
-
Would choose to shoot themselves at a 45 degree angle? ;D ;D ;D Not even YOU believes that!
plenty have caroline.
-
So she would pick the most difficult was to shoot herself? It's only possible in a world where people dream of incense.
She has a rifle and nothing else. There are no handguns around to inflict headshots to herself in such scenario. Plus women tend not to shoot themselves in a way that will effect their facial features
Women who commit suicide are more likely than men to avoid facial disfiguration, but not necessarily in the name of vanity.
Valerie Callanan from the University of Akron and Mark Davis from the Criminal Justice Research Center at the Ohio State University, USA, show that there are marked gender differences in the use of suicide methods that disfigure the face or head.
While firearms are the preferred method for both men and women, women are less likely to shoot themselves in the head.
This would explain why she would not resort to this
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1239079246/418/2321418.jpg)
-
plenty have caroline.
plenty have ,'with a rifle' like who
-
Would choose to shoot themselves at a 45 degree angle? ;D ;D ;D Not even YOU believes that!
he's talking nonsense caroline,its a tactic he uses when stuck ;)
-
She has a rifle and nothing else. There are no handguns around to inflict headshots to herself in such scenario. Plus women tend not to shoot themselves in a way that will effect their facial features
Women who commit suicide are more likely than men to avoid facial disfiguration, but not necessarily in the name of vanity.
Valerie Callanan from the University of Akron and Mark Davis from the Criminal Justice Research Center at the Ohio State University, USA, show that there are marked gender differences in the use of suicide methods that disfigure the face or head.
While firearms are the preferred method for both men and women, women are less likely to shoot themselves in the head.
This would explain why she would not resort to this
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1239079246/418/2321418.jpg)
So I will ask again, why pick a 46 degree angle? The above explains nothing.
-
How do any of us know that there wasn't a fierce argument after JB had left that night ? We DON'T do we ?
With Sheila's vulnerability brought about by the horrendous life she had, it would have culminated in a heightened and impulsive anger and being surrounded by guns made her " job " in ridding that which caused her situation,easier. Without any planning,her reaction would have been instant and carried out on impulse,as suicides are.
Just the split from her husband would have been enough on its own to tip her over the edge,but being ill,helpless in looking after her sons,unfit to work and at loggerheads with her mother,it would take a strong person to overcome what Sheila endured as well as the thought that she was losing control of her sons.
It reads the same as a list of warning signs leading to suicide.FACT.
-
How do any of us know that there wasn't a fierce argument after JB had left that night ? We DON'T do we ?
With Sheila's vulnerability brought about by the horrendous life she had, it would have culminated in a heightened and impulsive anger and being surrounded by guns made her " job " in ridding that which caused her situation,easier. Without any planning,her reaction would have been instant and carried out on impulse,as suicides are.
Just the split from her husband would have been enough on its own to tip her over the edge,but being ill,helpless in looking after her sons,unfit to work and at loggerheads with her mother,it would take a strong person to overcome what Sheila endured as well as the thought that she was losing control of her sons.
It reads the same as a list of warning signs leading to suicide.FACT.
we do know all was calm after jb left and junes sister phoned,if it was impulse she would have opened her mouth put the barrel in it and push the trigger,leading to suicide yes but murder and suicide ,NO
-
So I will ask again, why pick a 46 degree angle? The above explains nothing.
Oh Dear.......
Well if one has a rifle (those are straight BTW) and is sitting up with the stock between the legs and wants to avoid facial disfiguration then the natural alternative option of firing to the neck is exactly around 45 degrees give or take.
(https://s32.postimg.org/babi3ttsl/anglefordummies.jpg)
I put a red box and green arrow to help you ;D
-
Oh Dear.......
Well if one has a rifle (those are straight BTW) and is sitting up with the stock between the legs and wants to avoid facial disfiguration then the natural alternative option of firing to the neck is exactly around 45 degrees give or take.
(https://s32.postimg.org/babi3ttsl/anglefordummies.jpg)
I put a red box and green arrow to help you ;D
have you been smoking pot,its nonsense to say she wanted to avoid disfiguration. she could have just placed it in her mouth.well after worrying about her looks she then places it under the chin,why did she not aim at the neck again,all on an impulse as lookout said,yet she had time to worry about her looks.i think you should pay more attention to adams first sentence in a previous post :)) :)) :))
-
Oh Dear.......
Well if one has a rifle (those are straight BTW) and is sitting up with the stock between the legs and wants to avoid facial disfiguration then the natural alternative option of firing to the neck is exactly around 45 degrees give or take.
(https://s32.postimg.org/babi3ttsl/anglefordummies.jpg)
I put a red box and green arrow to help you ;D
You can stick your red box where the sun doesn't shine and try being honest for a change. Sheila wasn't sitting up or she would have had blood all down her night dress!! You change the facts to suit yourself but you're fooling no one!
-
You can stick your red box where the sun doesn't shine and try being honest for a change. Sheila wasn't sitting up or she would have had blood all down her night dress!! You change the facts to suit yourself but you're fooling no one!
well said caroline.diagram of complete nonsense :)) :)) :))
-
You can stick your red box where the sun doesn't shine and try being honest for a change. Sheila wasn't sitting up or she would have had blood all down her night dress!! You change the facts to suit yourself but you're fooling no one!
Really? Try reading the 2002 appeal statement point 45
The lower of the two injuries must have been
the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have
occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal,
had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the
nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries.
After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back.
(http://i.giphy.com/Iw6aBmYGRwFX2.gif)
-
Really? Try reading the 2002 appeal statement point 45
The lower of the two injuries must have been
the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have
occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal,
had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the
nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries.
After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back.
(http://i.giphy.com/Iw6aBmYGRwFX2.gif)
vanezis is not a blood pattern expert,impossible she was sat up right simply because no blood from the wounds ran down vertically,even a six year old can see that :)
-
She may have been sitting up slightly and fell down instantly. Meaning there was no time for blood to fall vertically.
Are you aware that Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot ? It's in the 2002 appeal. The judges suggesting it is massive incriminating forensic evidence against Bamber.
-
She may have been sitting up slightly and fell down instantly. Meaning there was no time for blood to fall vertically.
Are you aware that Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot ? It's in the 2002 appeal. The judges suggesting it is massive incriminating forensic evidence against Bamber.
thats interesting adam,i didnt know that :)
-
Really? Try reading the 2002 appeal statement point 45
The lower of the two injuries must have been
the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have
occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal,
had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the
nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries.
After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back.
Try reading what Venezis ACTUALLY said not how he was misquoted - but that suits you better! Venezis said "in my view both injuries were produced while she was slightly on her right side and PARTIALLY sitting up".
-
thats interesting adam,i didnt know that :)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6908.msg322096.html#msg322096
To be fair documentaries and articles focus on the silencer. It's the most dramatic piece of evidence as a third party found it. There isn't enough time to focus on all the other forensic evidence.
This in turn means the CT focus on the silencer and uninformed supporters start believing it's the only forensic evidence. Or dishonest supporters try to pretend it's the only forensic evidence. Hence my creation of the forensic evidence library to assist and correct posters.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6908.msg322096.html#msg322096
To be fair documentaries and articles focus on the silencer. It's the most dramatic piece of evidence as a third party found it. There isn't enough time to focus on all the other forensic evidence.
This in turn means the CT focus on the silencer and uninformed supporters start believing it's the only forensic evidence. Or dishonest supporters try to pretend it's the only forensic evidence. Hence my creation of the forensic evidence library to assist and correct posters.
excellent library adam,good work :)
-
Try reading what Venezis ACTUALLY said not how he was misquoted - but that suits you better! Venezis said "in my view both injuries were produced while she was slightly on her right side and PARTIALLY sitting up".
yes that can also account for the blood found on the right side of her nightie ;)
-
Try reading what Venezis ACTUALLY said not how he was misquoted - but that suits you better! Venezis said "in my view both injuries were produced while she was slightly on her right side and PARTIALLY sitting up".
I'm not misquoting anything. Its you that is finding what ever suits you. We know she was sitting up because of the direction of the blood flow changes. Vanezis clearly had no objection to what the COA said in 2002
-
I'm not misquoting anything. Its you that is finding what ever suits you. We know she was sitting up because of the direction of the blood flow changes. Vanezis clearly had no objection to what the COA said in 2002
You're twisting it to suit - he said 'partially' sitting up. The COA didn't try and twist his words by using an example of someone sitting BOLT upright and then suggesting that's how she managed a 45 degree angle shot. Nice try but Ricky has something for you!