Jeremy Bamber - Is this the worst MoJ in British criminal history?

[HoGo1]

I watched a prog on C5 a few weeks ago re the above. I've also spent a fair bit of time researching the case (there's a mountain of docs on the 'Jeremy Bamber Forum') I have a feeling we will be hearing much more about this in the not too distant future Does anyone else think he might be innocent?

Whatever next? Ian Brady innocent?

OP - what is your relationship to Jeremy Bamber? You seem to have a vested interest in trying to prove his innocence......

I guess she got a lawyer who arranged a deal

Or possibly, the charges against her were dropped because there was nothing in them, or not enough to stand up in court.

Possibly, although I gather she did confess to the joint taking of cash with regard to the Osea caravan park.
In any case I still think she told the truth as I saw it at that time.

As I said....being an immature and arrogant young man does not make JB a killer. But having said a he is alleged to have said.....and then the family turn up dead....well frankly I would believe he was responsible in those circumstances.

Have joined both the JB forum and the MOJ forum. I am still to be persuaded totally either way but am leaning towards him being guilty as charged. I could be persuaded the other way with substantive evidence though.

Still reading all the statements which are interesting.

My feeling is that Bamber's case will become a global news story of epic proportion later this year

This sounds very much like the way Bamber's supporters try to hype up his chances every time they come up with yet another ludicrously complex theory that might prove his innocence but doesn't.

OP, you really need to stop reading solely what you get from the Bamber discussion group, or at least read it much more critically, and also start reading the actual evidence with an open mind. You really can't get round the DNA evidence of the blood spatters in the silencer, and I note that you make no attempt to deal with the fact that Sheila Caffell had no gunshot residue on her arms and hands and her fingerprints aren't on the rifle. If she was going to kill herself she obviously wouldn't have stopped to wipe it, and she certainly wouldn't have bothered to take the silencer off the gun.

Interesting point from the 2011 article:

"At the original trial, there was a great deal of evidence, for example from Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, which could not be given because it was hearsay.

Today, that evidence would be admissible. Her testimony about what Nevill told her — that he believed Jeremy intended to kill him and had said: ‘I must never turn my back on that young man’ — would be disastrous for him."

In 2002 the Court of Appeal said:

'The final ground of appeal is a generalised allegation that as a result of "the activities of Detective Superintendent Ainsley, DS Jones and DCI Wright as detailed in grounds 1 to 13, the prosecution case is tainted and the convictions therefore unsafe. We have already recorded our conclusions on the individual grounds and have made clear that we find none of the allegations of serious misconduct made out. Before reaching final conclusions about the individual allegations, we have deliberately reconsidered the matter to see whether looking at the wider picture gives rise to any concern that in looking at matters of detail, we might have missed evidence of the kind that only is capable of being perceived by having regard to a number of smaller matters. We can see no reason to revise our view on any of the matters and we have found no evidence at all to support the allegations of serious wrongdoing by the police that is suggested.

'As Mr Temple observed in his closing address to us, one of the striking features of this case was the difference between Mr Turner's opening address and the speech that he felt able to make once the evidence had been examined. In the former, suggestions of a widespread conspiracy to present a false case and to deprive the defence of material that would assist them in answering the case were made. By the close of the case, many of those allegations had been abandoned because they were patently obviously unjustified once the evidence was scrutinised.

'This case has been scrutinised since conviction with as much care as probably any comparable case. In our judgment nothing has emerged to cause us to believe that there was any improper conduct by the investigating officers that threatened the integrity of the trial process, such as is alleged in this ground.

'Conclusion
'Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed. Each member of the court has reached the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the matters raised before us that throws doubt upon the safety of these convictions.

'It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury's conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury's verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.'

Thank you for posting that Angela, the last sentence is especially telling-

"We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount."

It's not possible for anyone to commit 5 murders and not leave one microscopic piece of forensic evidence at the scene. I have discussed the case with Jeremy for many hours, asked him many questions and I know he's 100% innocent. New unseen evidence will soon prove this. I wonder how many of you judge him by books or by hearsay. There's NO evidence against Jeremy FACT.

JB supporters have been saying this for years, lastcowboy, how odd that successive reviewers at CCRC and in the Court of Appeal can't see it.

I don't really care what you say Angela. You appear to know nothing about the case. Keep listening to the hearsay...I deal in facts. It's pointless having a discussion with you when you so obviously are ignorant of any facts so will leave you to read the books and follow other peoples opinions. Have a nice day.

No need to get ratty, lastcowboy.

The Court of Appeal judgment quoted above is hardly hearsay, that's my point. That is the most authoritative statement on the case, and it is, to say the least, not helpful to JB.

I think most will agree that Jeremy's conviction was based on the silencer ie that the silencer was found to contain blood deep within it. Upon analysis the blood sample within the silencer was found to match Sheila Caffell's blood type/group. It is confusing as many people think that blood type/group belong exclusively to an individual much the same as DNA. This is not true it is what it says a 'type' and 'group' shared by many. Jeremy's QC at trial, Geoffrey Rivlin, did not present the jury with the realistic possibility that the silencer was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. Jeremy's adoptive uncle, Robert Boutflour, shared the same blood type/group as that 'found' in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's. Robert Boutflour had a hand in 'finding' the silencer. The jury were unable to reject the silencer 'evidence' as they were not presented with the realistic possibility of contamination. Once a jury has returned a verdict it is notoriously difficult for those representing Jeremy now to go back and claim contamination when the jury should have been presented with this possibility at Jeremy's trial.

I am sure if any of you were convicted on 'evidence' that a member of an extended adoptive family found who a) disliked you simply because you were 'different' and b) benefitted financially by your conviction you might be a little peeved assuming you were innocent.

Authorities do get it wrong. The idea that a large section of the judiciary can't call it wrong is silly. We only have to look at the financial crisis and how the banks nearly went bust despite supposedly being overseen and managed by the great and the good to know how very wrong those in charge get it at times.

You don't know he's a 100 % innocent!

I have discussed the case with Jeremy for many hours, asked him many questions and I know he's 100% innocent.

That's hardly conclusive. Many people, when accused of a crime, state they are not guilty. A bit self-serving. He can say what he wants, that's not proof.

Authorities do get it wrong. The idea that a large section of the judiciary can't call it wrong is silly

Well, I agree with that, but if you want to challenge a detailed, reasoned judgment and be credible, you have to do it in a detailed, reasoned way, no?

Myra Hindley claimed for many many years that she was innocent, and her supporters 100% believed her too.

Then a few years before she died she finally admitted her participation in the torture and murder of Lesley Anne Downey and the other children.

Her supporters were horrified that they had been so duped by her for so long.

Psychopaths are excellent liars and are adept at manipulating weaker personalities.

Well, I agree with that, but if you want to challenge a detailed, reasoned judgment and be credible, you have to do it in a detailed, reasoned way, no?

Errrr I thought the rest of my post was detailed and reasoned, no?

As a cat A prisoner JB is assessed psychologically on an annual basis. To date he has undertaken some 26/27 assessments by different psychologists using different methods. None have found any trace of psychopthy nor any mental illness or personality disorder. In fact he scores low on psychopathy ie you or I might score higher!

I don't see myself as being easily "duped" or falling into the category of "weaker personalities".

Correction - Hindley was never diagnosed as psychopathic, (unlike Brady) yet she still did those terrible things and fooled her own supporters for years.

None of her supporters would decribe themselves as easily duped or weak personalities either (at least not until after the real truth was revealed).

So, JB may not be a psychopath but could very well be lying through his teeth. He may even have come to believe it himself.

I believe he is as guilty as sin, based on the evidence presented.

Errrr I thought the rest of my post was detailed and reasoned, no?

Sorry dear, was talking to lostcowboy not having a pop at you.

BMW6 I appreciate that you don't share my views on JB, fine, but please refrain from suggesting that for me hold my views I am easily duped and a weak personality. I can assure you I might be many things but I am certainly not easily duped or a weak personality.

The Moors Murders were a bit before my time. I think the only real supporter Myra Hindley had was Lord Longford who was ostracised for doing so? Conversely JB has an army of supporters including a former right wing tory mp, established writer of true crime, past and present members of the judiciary, respected journalists and a growing number of the public to name but a few.

Are you able and willing to share what evidence was presented which causes you to believe that JB is as guilty as sin.

JB might be lying through his teeth. On the other hand he might just be telling the truth as evidenced by the results of his lie detector tests.

OP, you really need to stop reading solely what you get from the Bamber discussion group, or at least read it much more critically, and also start reading the actual evidence with an open mind. You really can't get round the DNA evidence of the blood spatters in the silencer, and I note that you make no attempt to deal with the fact that Sheila Caffell had no gunshot residue on her arms and hands and her fingerprints aren't on the rifle. If she was going to kill herself she obviously wouldn't have stopped to wipe it, and she certainly wouldn't have bothered to take the silencer off the gun.

Nennypops I appreciate you don't share my views but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of critical thinking and keeping an open mind!

The three appeal court judges and scientists involved at the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing found the DNA evidence "utterly meaningless". See CoA doc:

www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

If Sheila Caffell was responsible then I suggest she showered/washed before she committed suicide. One of her fingerprints was on the rifle along with one of Jeremy's. I don't believe the silencer ever left the gun cupboard on that fateful night.

OP - what is your relationship to Jeremy Bamber? You seem to have a vested interest in trying to prove his innocence......

BMW6 I have no relationship whatsoever with JB. I feel passionately about him suffering a MoJ. It is not for me to prove his innocence and I have no interest in trying to convince others. Happy just to debate the case. I have not accused any member here of anything. On the other hand I have been accused of being duped, incapable of critical thinking, having a weak personality and closed mind.

My interest in the case stems from the fact that like Sheila and Jeremy I was adopted as a baby. Unlike myself I think Sheila and Jeremy were adopted into a completely unsuitable family. I also studied psychology at degree level in the 80's and recall studying 'attachment theory'. Imo the case hinges on the following which were not presented at trial or in any appeal hearing etc since:

-Attachment (SC) due to June Bamber's depression caused by adopting SC in 1959

-Maternal depression (June Bamber) Effect on SC brain circuitry

-Adoption psychology

-Adoption reunions

Now lets see who has been duped, has a weak personality, is incapable of critical thinking and has an open mind!

I have read extensively from the available documents. I believe this man to be guilty.....primarily because his story of events as they unfolded just does not add up.

You don't have to be a psychopath or have a personality disorder to commit this type of crime. You just need the desire, will and the ability to do it.

The fact that he hated his family as reported by more than one person....not just his girlfriend.....leaves me feeling a tad when he now refers to them as "my dear Mum and Dad". The odd behaviour after the murders, and the fact he told his girlfriend he wanted them dead.

I personally don't buy the "woman scorned" stuff....it would have to be a pretty bloody messed up woman to frame someone for murder. No evidence that Julie is messed up....she has gone on and lived her life.
Money? She could have sold her story many times over if money was a motivation...she hasn't.

And as for looking Jeremy in the eye, questioning him and "knowing he is innocent". Am pretty sure that Adrian Prout's girlfriend did the same.....up until the point he finally came clean and confessed.

From what I have read he comes across as a manipulative and controlling individual who does not fancy being behind bars for the rest of his life. Ever since he was imprisoned he has thrown up issues from the case files ....he has picked them apart for every single discrepancy and yet.....none of this has made a court of appeal rule in his favour.

The more I read, the more convinced of his guilt I am.

For him to be innocent a whole load of people would have had to lie.....and to have maintained those lies over the years.

He continues to try and lay the blame on his sister despite her being dozy on Haliperidol, having immaculate nails and no signs of a struggle with her father. No sign that she had fired a gun that day....and her blood was in the silencer....the expert who has looked at this since says it still matched Sheila's blood more than anyone else's. And the silencer was in a cupboard....what a neat murderess she was.....putting the silencer carefully away before killing herself.

Finally the oft quoted "police were talking to someone in the house while Jeremy was outside". Strange he didn't bring that up at trial isn't it?

There is not a scintilla of evidence to support JB's conviction. Just much rumour, myth, hearsay and gossip.

It has never been proven that SC's blood was in the silencer. Not by way of the blood type/grouping analysis carried out in '85 or the DNA analysis carried out in '02. I don't believe the silencer ever left the gun cupboard that fateful night.

There was no need for anyone to struggle with Nevill Bamber as he was too badly injured having been shot initially 3 or 4 times. Sheila Caffell is likely to have showered/washed before committing suicide. Women engage in all manner of things with long nails without necessarily causing any damage. Firing a gun is no more difficult than thousands of manual tasks any typical woman carries out domestically or in caring for children.

I don't know whether Julie Mugford was "messed up" but from what I have read she claims to have suffered:

• physical abuse at the hands of her step-father
• an anonymous brutal rape while on holiday in France
• her boyfriend of some 2 years murdered his entire immediate family

That's a lot of violence for a young woman born and bred in UK from a middle class background who attended grammar school and university. If its true she was very, very unlucky and I am pleased she has been able to move on with her life.

By agreeing to act as a prosecution witness she had other charges against her dropped for a crime she carried out with a friend that JB had no involvement in whatsoever. Had she have been charged it would have been bye, bye teaching career for Julie Mugford.

I don't believe many people have told lies (some but not all) The police readily admit that it was a badly handled investigation. It was not Geoffrey Rivlin's finest (QC's do cock up) and the trial judge misled the jury. Sadly miscarriages of justice do happen and imo JB's case is one of them.