Balance of Probability

[sherlock]

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 ....

[sami]

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

[sherlock]

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 ...

[David1819]

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.

[sherlock]

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 ?

[sami]

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

[David1819]

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

[sami]

Conspirators scrape the silencer along the mantle

https://youtu.be/-EDp_tqUysI?t=9m54s

if its not the police its the family and at times its both

[sherlock]

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 ...

[sami]

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,

[sherlock]

Conspirators scrape the silencer along the mantle

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 ?

[sami]

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

[sherlock]

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 ...

[David1819]

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

[David1819]

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: