Thursday, February 24, 2011

Farm an drugs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329018/Pictured-Britains-biggest-cannabis-farm--2m-worth-weed.html
Who is Sarah Hanover ? Ask Mike Tesko, and if you need a babysitter for youre children, ask Mike


Hello David,

Thank you for your email.

I'm not entirely sure what you would like to contribute, so I will respond to some of the points you made and maybe we could take it from there?
But I would ask you to keep the Mugford/Eaton matter private. This information has not been revealed and Jeremy does not wish it to be made public.

Do you want your identity to remain confidential from everyone including Jeremy and his lawyers and talk to me alone for the time being? You say you dont want to hide your identity but I would like to clairfy this just to be cautious. . . . Talking to Jeremy on the phone involves the prison authorities listening in.

If you can tell us something about the connection between Mugford and the Eatons that would be interesting but there would be a limit on how much it could help Jeremy's case. Jeremy has fully discussed his case with us but we keep key information confidential this is why it is not mentioned on our web sites. 

I am quite sure that the Eatons and Boutflour's know that 'the game is up' and the discovery by the Defence of what actually happened with the sound moderator has frightened them and that would be a good reason to move I am sure.

The Home Secretary set Jeremy's whole life tariff after the original sentencing and this is in breach of ECHR regulations they would not allow the case in their court if this was incorrect as it is NOT illegal to set whole life tariff when sentencing.

Just to note, we are not 'friends' of anyone involved in the campaign, including Jeremy and we work for him in a professional capacity he is our client and we provide consulting services for him pro bono in the pursuit of justice.

We have no involvement with Mike Tesko - I would term him as a 'crank'. I can also assure you that Jeremy feels exactly the same and has no contact with this man. We would ask you to never reveal the details we have discussed as this is information we do not want revealed.

If you think we have been misled you may be right, I dont know I was not around in Essex and did not associate with Jeremy Bamber. Nevertheless what we are interested in is  evidence or witness testimony or anything that can lead us to those.

Thanks for taking the time to write to us about the case and it is much appreciated and if you think you can provide any information which might help I would be more than willing to listen if you want to email or call me either is fine.

Kindest regards,

Sarah Hanover.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Turning nasty on Bamber forum Horseydave accusing MikeTesco of being a paedophile...Mike denies accusation but he claims to have been on same wing as Bamber so a little more than car theft I would imagine...IF true it seems BAMBER himself has turned against Mike...Mike has mentioned that his team no longer wish to be associated with him as they believe he is out of control....

Mike, tell people the TRUTH TELL them about youre love of children - tell them the truth mike or see facebook
We are coming for you, when you visit mummy next week, someone will meet you, tell the truth you low life scum - or tell them why youre wife left you, tell decent people why youre children hate you ??

YOU ARE A WORTHLESS PEICE OF SHIT - YOU HAVE CONNED DECENT PEOPLE -JEREMY PHONED US AT 4.35 PM TODAY - HE SAYS YOU WERE ON HIS WING AS YOU WERE A RULE 43 SEX CASE

I say Mike Tesko was convicted by a jury of sexual offences. Jeremy Bamber says he was on D wing  as that was a lifers or rule 43 wing - all i say is Mike Tesko, tell us all youre not a pedophile, but so far you say you were on the wing as a convicted prisoner ??

The home office site sdays NO prisoners serving less than 4 years get in the prison - the courts say you were on remand -

Jeremy Bamber, the man you say you were banged up next door too, says you were a rule 43 sex case - so whats the truth because i effin hate liars

RIP Mike TESKO - tell the truth or get into youre hole, leave decent people to debate, as you as it stands are SCUM
Members, I am sorry, but it is true, i am standing down, I have been convicted of having sex with a 14yo, i have burgled decent people homes, and i have defrauded the banks.  I wa son Jeremys wing but as a rule 43 prisoner whilst on remand for burlgary

Then ask mike this - Why does the prison website say NO prisoner serving less than 4 yrs, and not a A or B+ cat admitted to Full Sutton, why does he say he was on the wing next to JB's cell ?

And why according to the prison service website does it state that the only exseptions are rule 43 prisoners ?

And why does it state (do a googly search) say Mike Tesko is a pedophile ???

If you are a family man, ask yourself

BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WANKERS SAY _ YOURE IPA HAS BEEN TAKEN< OUR SOLICITORS WILL BE IN TOUCH>
YOU ARE DEFENDING A MUDRERESS<VILE< PIESCE OF SHIT< A MAN WHO MURDERED "2 INOOCENT CHILDRENM AS THEY SLEPT - OUR SOLICITORS WILL BE IN TOUCH, OR IO WILL ??? MUGS MUGS MUGS I HAVE CAUGHT YOU ALL IE MR TESKO - WHY NOT TELL PEOPLE THE TRUTH - YOU ARE A CONVICTED PEDOPHILE, AND YOU ARE A RCONVICTED HOUSE ROBBER - STICKING UP FOR A CONVICTED MURDERER ???
MR TESKO
iF YOU WERE A MAN - PROVE TO PEOPLE YOU ARE NOT A CONVICTED PEDOPHILE ???????????? WE KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU YOU KIDDY FUCKER, WE KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU ON RULE 43, WE KNOW ALL ALL ABOUT YOU PEDO PEDO


http://www.onlineswinging.co.uk/view-profile.asp?vp=15368

Horseydave it appears is a swinger, just had a thought I wonder if he knows the tapas 9 ?

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Home/


Saturday, February 19, 2011

Silencers collected from Oakey ???

http://www.freejeremybamber.com/files/B27.pdf


So there are actually 6 silencers?

4 silencers found on 07/08/85 - SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4
SBJ1 lab tested 13th 15th 23rd 08/85
Results of SBJ 2, 3 + 4 are?

1 silencer found 10/08/85
Given to police 12/08/85
Does this become DB1 lab tested DB1 on 30/08/85?

1 silencer found 11/09/85
This becomes DRB1 lab tested 26/09/85

Seems to be long gaps between possession of evidence and submission to lab...

Silencer dismantled 29/08/05 by Cook
Only silencer not in lab on 29/08/05 is DB1.
May I clarify - is this the ONLY silencer that tested positive for human DNA?
---------------------------------------------------------

No, not six silencers...

DS Jones took possession of four exhibits from the scene on the 7th August 1985, two from the downstairs toilet and two others from the kitchen, these were given, DRB/2 - item from downstairs toilet, DRB/3 and DRB/4, other items from the kitchen and of course, if he took possession of those three items from the scene on 7th August 1985, he must also have taken possession of item SBJ/1 from the scene that same morning - SBJ/1 being the identifying mark of the silencer which was sent to the Lab' on 13th August 1985...

Items marked, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, are listed in the original Property Register, in connection with the initial investigation that was being carried out under SC/688/85, or in other words, four murders and a suicide. However, once the nature of the investigation changed into five murders under SC/786/85, these exhibits and their corresponding exhibits reference's numbers, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, were not carried over into the new property registers, which were created so that Jeremy could be prosecuted as the killer...

It was known, that a silencer and .22 bolt action rifle belonging to another relative (Anthony Pargeter) was normally kept in the downstairs toilet, and indeed, Jeremy even listed this weapon on a list he was asked to draught up, of firearms inside the farmhouse that the police should know about before they went in, and so to all intents and purposes, this other .22 rifle and its silencer should have been there in the toilet. Since, exhibit DRB/2 was found in the same downstairs toilet, on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones, and the identifying mark of the first silencer that was sent to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, was SBJ/1, which was a silencer, it must follow that DS Jones took possession of a silencer from the downstairs toilet on 7th August 1985, and that this was covered up by the police and relatives, so that the Bamber silencer which was normally kept in the gun cupboard, and which was not found there until 11th September 1985, could be introduced in its place, to make out that there was only one silencer in police possession in connection with this investigation, not two or three different ones...

When DS Jones was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he told them that he and DCI Jones had gone to see Jeremy at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, to speak to him about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the gun on the evening prior to the shootings? What this demonstrates is that the police knew about a silencer, the day before David Boutflour allegedly found one in the gun cupboard at whf on Saturday, 10th August 1985, which was not actually or supposedly handed over to the police until the evening of 12th August 1985...

How did the police, know about the silencer on 9th August 1985, to enable DS Jones and DCI jones to question Jeremy about it, on 9th August 1985, unless the police already had a silencer in their possession by that stage?

SBJ/1, was therefore the silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and this was the silencer which was actually sent to the Lab' to be checked by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985...

--------------------------------------------

It may well be that peter Eaton handed over a silencer to the police on 12th August 1985, but this could not have been the Bamber silencer, since it was not found in the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985. Therefore, if Peter Eaton handed over a silencer to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985, that silencer must have belonged to one of the other relatives, namely one of the Boutflours, whic eventually was dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on 29th August 1985, and subsequently screwed onto the barrel of the bloodstained Bamber rifle, before being submitted to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, under the identifying mark DB/1...

Paint from the aga in the kitchen at whf was found upon this (DB/1) silencer, and the flake of blood which was supposedly found inside a silencer once it had been submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, must have been found inside this silencer (DB/1) because the Bamber silencer had not yet been discovered and would not be discovered inside the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the flake was found inside silencer DB/1, it was examined with a view to producing blood group results, which were obtained between 12th and 19th September 1985...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bamber silencer (DRB/1) which was not found in the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985, was not actually submitted to the Lab' until 26th September 1985, much too late for the blood group activity which was obtained from the examination of the flake found in the other silencer (DB/1), to be remotely associated with it, or to it...

You stated that two police officers visited Jeremy and questioned him about the sound moderator prior to its alleged discovery. Can you post documentary evidence that this occurred? As the location of the sound moderator when Jeremy left the farmhouse prior to the killings wouldn't determine where it was when the killings occurred, why do you think the police asked him about the sound moderator? What significant difference could Jeremy's answers have made to the investigation? As Jeremy would have known about this questioning, why didn't the defence ask at Jeremy's trial why it had occurred when it did?

The 2002 appeal document states "Using a radio link PC West contacted Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room." Did PC West make any statement to this effect? If he provided any statement or evidence (other than his contemporary log), can you post it here?
------------------------------------------

Yes, DS "Stan" Jones, and DCI "Taff" Jones, went to visit Jeremy at his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger, on 9th August 1985. I believe it was the afternoon of Friday the 9th when they went to see him, before the keys to whf were handed back over to Ann Eaton. The reason why the police went to see Jeremy on that occasion, is understood to have been part of an exercise introduced by DCI Jones, to try and alleviate DS "Stan" Jones, concern, that he did not think Sheila had killed herself. By this stage, on 9th August 1985, DS Jones, had already seized four exhibits from the scene, bearing the identifying marks, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1...

SBJ/1 being the silencer that was subsequently sent to the Lab' on 13th August 1985...

The fact that DS Jones had seized exhibits, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1, from the scene on 7th August 1985, was recorded in the original Property Book, which formed part of the original file, SC/688/85, but which is absent in the re-written property book, that is associated with the new file, SC/786/85...

I think the police had some idea that the silencer could have been used on one of the guns in the shootings, i.e. on the other .22 n]bolt action rifle that was normally kept in the downstairs toilet at the scene, or upon the .22 air rifle that was normally kept on the spiral stairs that led from the kitchen to the upstairs landing. I am convinced that the silencer in question was not the Bamber silencer, at all, but that rather it was the other silencer, which belonged to the Pargeter rifle that was normally kept in a gun cabinet in the downstairs toilet. I think DS Jones took possession of the silencer from the region of the toilet, and that some blood may have been noticeable upon it, or within the small aperture on its end cap...

When they visited Jeremy on that say, they asked him if a silencer was fitted to the gun which he loaded with additional bullets on the evening prior to the shootings, and Jeremy told them "No"...

I suspect that the police were trying to find out id the silencer (SBJ/1) which DS Jones took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, had been transferred from the Bamber rifle, to this other weapon, in the interim period, or removed and taken off the Bamber rifle altogether?

By the end of their meeting with Jeremy, DCI Jones turned to DS Jones, and asked him if he was satisfied now that they had spoken to Jeremy about the silencer? DCI Jones may not actually have asked DS Jones if he was satisfied, rather than he told him that that should settle any suspicions he had about Jeremy being the killer and the use of the silencer in the shootings...

I don't actually think DS Jones curiosity was quenched, as a result of that meeting, because he later became embroiled in the silencer conspiracy involving members of the relatives, and other police officers, with a view to introducing the Bamber silencer having been found in the gun cupboard much earlier or sooner than it actually was (found on 11th September 1985, but listed as having been found on 10th August 1985)...

Some of the blood found inside the aperture of the (SBJ/1) silencer, later turned out to be animals blood (AK1)...

I believe that Jeremy did not think to raise these matters at the time of his trial, because he must have thought that the silencer DCI Jones, and DS Jones, had been referring to on 9th August 1985, was Pargeters silencer, that was present in the downstairs toilet, Jeremy had told the police on 9th August 1985, that there was no silencer fitted to the gun, and had obviously learned by the time of his trial that David Boutflour and the relatives were claiming that the Bamber silencer had not been discovered in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, until 10th August 1985, and so Jeremy must have reasoned in his own mind that the silencer that DCI Jones, and DS Jones, talked to him about on 9th August 1985, was the other silencer, which seemed not to play any role in his case, or prosecution...

He must not have suspected that one or other silencer, had been merged into one and the same silencer, by the time his case came to trial, nor did he suspect or realize the significance of the visit which was paid to him, by DCI Jones, and DS Jones, on 9th August 1985. If he had done, it would have opened up a can of worms that much sooner...

Since, how could the police be questioning Jeremy about a silencer being on the guns barrel on the evening of 6th August 1985, on 9th August 1985, if the police had not seen or had possession of a silencer at the scene, by that stage (9th August 1985)?

The discrepancies relating to thee silencers did not actually come to light until after 1990, when I started to look into features of Jeremy's case, and after a very long process of obtaining more and more information, it was possible to reconstruct what had taken place involving all these different silencers, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...

If Jeremy and his legal team had been aware of what we now know, he would never have got convicted of these murders, because as it turns out, the Bamber silencer was not found inside the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985, and not sent to the lab' until 26th September 1985 - much too late for it to have been the same silencer inside which was found the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

Blood with the same blood groups as Sheila, and paint from the aga, was found inside and upon the wrong silencer (DB/1), at a time when the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) had not even been submitted to the lab' to be examined, and would not be submitted to the lab' until 26th September 1985...

Date silencer was handed in

You remind me of the relatives, who have told blatant lies about when the silencer was found - it was found on 11th September 1985, not 10th August 1985.

 If the silencer was found in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, it could not very well have been handed to DS Jones, on 12th August 1985, and it could not very well have been examined at the lab' on 13th August 1985, and it could not have been fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th august 1985, and it could not have been fingerprinted by super glue technique on 23rd August 1985m, and it could not have been dismantled and rebuilt and screwed onto the bloodstained guns barrel on the 29th August 1985, and it could not have been sent to the Lab (again) on 30th August 1985, oh - and Shela's blood could not have been found inside it at the Lab' on th at occasion, because my friend the Bamber silencer was not found by that stage...

Silencer Dates?
7th August 1985 - SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 found at scene by DS "Stan" Jones

(Item SBJ/1, must have been found at the scene, on same date by DS Jones)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th August 1985 - DS Jones and DCI Jones speak to Jeremy about whether silencer was on gun?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th August 1985 - Relatives find silencer in gun cupboard

12th August 1985 - Peter Eaton hands silencer over to DS Jones

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13th August 1985 - silencer (SBJ/1 Lab' item number 22) taken to Lab' to be examined by Glynis Howard

(No paint noticed on silencer at this time)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15th August 1985 - silencer is fingerprinted by oblique light test

23rd August 1985 - silencer is fingerprinted by super-glue treatment

(silencer coated in super-glue residue after exposure to cynoacrylate fumes)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29th August 1985 - Cook dismantles silencer, rebuilds it and screws it to guns barrel

(no blood seen or found in silencer which Cook (SOC) dismantled and rebuilt)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30th August 1985 - silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) submitted to Lab'

(Blood group activity obtained from small flake found inside silencer, producing, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)...

(First reference to paint on end of silencers end cap, introduced onto General Examination record at this time)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11th September 1985 -  Relatives find silencer in gun cupboard at whf

(David Boutfloyur contacts Essex police to inform them that he has found a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf)

(Ann Eaton hands silencer to Essex police)

13th September 1985 - DS Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprint silencer

Friday, February 18, 2011

A posters opinion who claims to know the family...

I do not think i run the site, but since joining it I have been amazed at how facts are being twisted so as to support a wrong statement.

1. Shelia DID not shoot herself. Either JB shot them all, or another unknown person, there are NO other possibilities, and it makes me cross that intelligent sensible people are concocting just rubbish so as to support there crazy ideas.

2. For Kaldin and others lets set out the house and pantry/cubboard/scullery for once and for all - WHF was originally built on a 'T' classic design.  Front rooms, Front bedrooms across the front, and on the end of the "T" piece stands the kitchen, with a chimney stack on its gable end. At some point a extension was added on to that gable end, it had its own door into the yard, its own chimney stack, and its own staircase. It was originally the cowmans cottage. At some later date a door between the main house kitchen (right of the Aga) was knocked through. If you go through that door today you will enter the farm office, to the right of that room is a slim wooden staircase leading to a bathroom and 2 bedrooms.
Upstairs on the landing, a gap has been knocked through to provide access to all rooms, ie the twins room, and shelias. JB's parents room was at the front of the house, top right. Top left was a guest room, JB's room (?), opposite his was the bathroom.
The gun cabinet was in a small room (pantry) that is attached to the kitchen,

3. The theroy of Shelia shooting herself after murdering everyone else does not stand up. In any situation she would of had to disable her father first, so.......... if she did it, she would of had to go downstairs get the gun, affix silencer (screwdriver needed to turn grub screws), return upstairs shoot Mr Bamber, and then having not killed him, find herself in the kitchen where she fights him before finally killing him, then she goes upstairs, shoots her mum, her boys dead in there sleep, and now shelia gets clever - she returns downstairs, unscrews the silencer, buts it into the cabinet, goes back upstairs, props herself up, sticks her toe in around the trigger and shoots herself, then lays down, gets the bible,opens it at page Psalms 51 - ?, lays down and pops herself ?????

It did not happen, and if anyone ever asked a jury or a judge to believe that should be found guilty just for there disrespect..

Believe me people, either JB did it, or someone else, there are no other possibilities to any sane minded human being.

I actually liked the guy, and if he stopped writing to me in block capitols and using court references to every point, id write more, he knows my views, but he insists its either him or shelia, and thats why i have my doubts, as the shelia idea does not stand up

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Sheila rigor mortis

http://jeremybamber.com/forum/index.php?topic=48.0

The Diary

Page 5.

Robert started to talk about a man called Brett Collins. Brett apparently met Jeremy in New Zealand in 1983 or 1984 and later came to the UK.

Roberts noted that the funeral of the twins occurred on 19th August.

On Tuesday 20th August Robert said he got the impression that the Drugs Squad had been to Jeremy's house on 16th August (the day of the funeral) to investigate a supply of drugs. He noted that the Drug Squad had been at the funeral too. Robert seems to have got this information from someone called Barlow at Witham police station.

On 25th August Robert said he'd heard Neville had been reduced to tears by Jeremy but that seems to be hearsay.

He also wrote to Neville's cousin, Chris Nevill, and asked if Brett Collins could be investigated. What's with his obsession with Brett?

On Monday 26th August Robert went to the farm again and inspected the windows.

More stuff about Brett Collins and his "riches". Who is "Jim"?

More stuff about "gay" friends in Hong Kong or Singapore - they were BOAC stewards.
Robert claimed that Jeremy demanded more and more money from June when he was in New Zealand.

On 27th August Robert went to Witham police station again and asked about Brett Collins. Turned out Brett had been in the UK for a while and had no criminal record.

Robert noted that he was told the silencer had blood on it, and that Jeremy was selling cars and removing treasures from the farm.

Offline 

Some very interesting stuff on page 6.

38th August - Jeremy told a shopkeeper he was going on holiday to Spain on 6th September. Robert phoned Barlow and told him that, and also told him about his wet suit theory.

On 29th August Robert rang Witham police station again and and told them about his theory that a tampon had been used to clean the silencer. Barlow wasn't there.

Robert said Jeremy was loading stuff up from the farm to take it to Sotherby's. That does seem a little premature.

Some more gossip about whether Jeremy had done it.

on 30th August Jeremy and Brett had been to London to Sotherby's and called at "Vaulty"? at 8.15 am.

Robert checked that Jeremy had been in NZ between July 1983 and October 1983.

Robert went to the farm and Brett was there - he seemed very interested in Brett and got his life history out of him.

Some stuff about buying a fork.

At 4.30 Robert went to Witham police station and told them his theory about the bicycle. He found out that there was no evidence of drug-induced psychosis, and he mentioned the phone calls. This is interesting because Robert claims that Jeremy said he called the police before he called Julie at 3.15.

Some interesting stuff about the call to the police. Robert thought that Jeremy had called Witham first and got no reply. That wasn't mentioned before. Robert said Witham was usually closed from 2 till 6 but there was an officer there between 3 and 4 the night of the murders. He claimed that Chelmsford contacted this officer at Witham at around 3.55 (that doesn't tally with the police log - it was earlier than that). 
He also said that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford was at least half an hour after 3.15 and that police records show that. That's not true is it?

Freddie apparently said that Sheila had no co-ordination.

Robert remarked that all the detectives at Witham now think that Jeremy is guilty - on 30th August.
On 31st August Robert agrees with "Jim" to hire an PI in NZ to investigate Brett Collins. He then went to see Jeremy at Goldhanger and saw Brett again but Jeremy was out.

He said that At 5 pm Brett and Jeremy called at "Vaulty" for petrol on their way to London. 


Offline 

For some reason he though that building a case against Jeremy would be strengthened by saying/speculating that his friends were gay, as if he was keeping bad company. Says a lot about the author

Yes - he does seem rather interested in whether Jeremy had gay friends or not.

Offline 

Re: Diary Entries of a Conspirator...
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2011, 07:25:PM »
Page 7.

On 7th September Robert says "Jacky" told Ann that Neville had loaned Jeremy £2,000 to go to New Zealand and that Jeremy didn't pay it back, and that Jeremy had loaned the friend the money. Could this be the mysterious £2,000 which Julie claimed Jeremy paid to Matthew MacDonald?
On 8th September Robert said he was unable to contact anyone at Witham police station. He mentioned a spate of burglaries.

Robert examined the telescopic sights at Ann's house. I presume that's the telescopic sights that David Boutflour got from the farm on 11th August. He wondered why they had been taken off the gun.
Robert spoke to Barlow at 9.45 who told him that they were on the brink of a report to do with forensics.

On 4th September Robert had a footpath map copied. He met Jeremy loading treasures into the farm Sherpa van at the farm and spoke to him about the ashes and disposal of clothes and June's rings, which Pamela had.

Robert found out Brett was living in London and was carpet cleaning, and that Jeremy was living with friends in Colchester.

Robert said that Julie was going on holiday in a few days' time and that she would be back at university in three weeks.

Robert asked "Jim" to look out for the Sherpa van near Sheila's flat.

At 2.10 pm Robert and Ann meet Jones at Witham, who apparently didn't want to tell them much. Robert was dejected by that.

"Jim" advised Robert to write to the Chief Constable.

Robert claimed that Jeremy had got Barbara to accidently set off the alarm at the farm to see how quick "they" would react.
"Jim" reported that Jeremy was at Sheila's flat loading stuff from his car to a yellow car by Jeremy and another man with fair hair. They delivered the stuff to an antique shop. Robert gave that information to Jones, and told Jones he was going to write to the Chief Constable to get more priority for the case.

On 5th September Robert made an appointment to see the Assistant Chief Constable, Peter Simpson, and talked to him for three quarters of an hour. Peter Simpson said he would get someone to investigate the case from the start.

Robert said that "Jackie" had rung Ann to say that Brett was at Sheila's flat on Tuesday 3rd September. Didn't know where Jeremy was, but he was apparently in Colchester.

Bamber: I f you do not believe you are a plant...

But how can you find that evidence when there is so much still being witheld. You know it could be just one piece of evidence that could make the difference. What about the photos and the recordings from when the police entered the house they could be invaluable.  The idea of frame ups come from julie mugford giving evidence in a murder she was implicated in if she was telling the truth and walking away Scott free with a pay off from the newspapers (who said crime doesn't pay) and of the rumours I don't know if it's true that one of the police who was on the case then going to work for the family who inherited the money. As I understand it the judge said in the summing up you believe BAMBER or mugford.  From what I read here Julie mugford put on the same Oscar winning performance in the witness box as she did at the funeral breaking down everytime the defence tried to cross examine her. 
Thank god for people like mike and people believe in innocent until proven guilty and no one so far has proved Jeremy guilty

Jackie, a jury did find him guilty. That's what he's fighting. He has to overturn evidence or find new evidence.

In almost all of these or similiar cases, police mis-management plays a part. It's not 'frame-up'. The evidence starts pointing one way, so off they go chasing it's direction. In this case it was worse than most. But the 'mis-management/mis-directed' argument has been put before the courts three times and has not been sufficient to overcome the other evidence.

And yes, thank God for people like Mike, who say hold on, there has to be something, who keep on going. They are unsung heroes. But that something has to be REAL, not theory, not ifs but or maybes.

Can Mike find a case where the 'not-used file' was  released in its entirety, because I don't know of one. It's unhelpful to speculate about what may or may not be in the file. The defence teams job is to ask the right questions 'of the file' and disclosure will be made - that HAS happened in this case. 

I came to this forum because I know things go wrong, but I genuinely began to think there's more evidence for his guilt than his innocence. The only reason I'm still following the forum is the silencer. It bugs the hell out of me.
         i) If the silencer wasn't used, why didn't the boys wake up?
         ii) Sheila can't have killed herself using it.
         iii) But why would the killer put it back in the cupboard?
         iv) Why didn't the police find it - yet were discussing silencers on 09/08?

That's why I've queried the possibility of a third party, of other things happening in the area. If a third party, then the above 'problems' make JB's innocence more likely for me, although they may not disappear in terms of his case.

But Mike and JB appear insistent that Sheila did it. Do you see my problem?

If I was certain he was guilty - or become certain - I would say so and leave the forum permanently as it wouldn't be helpful or fair for me to be here. And I do have a life!

So here I am, talking about a silencer - a slightly strange sentence!


Offline Jackiepreece

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Relatives
« Reply #61 on: Today at 01:28 AM »
That does explain certain things and I don't really understand the technical information about the silencer but I really don't understand why the silencer would be put back in the cupboard maybe I prefer to think someone is innocent and a family is dead because of someones very serious illness but as I have sat in that very court at Chelmsford at a murder trial and didn't like the way the case was handled I feel so strongly about the way this was dealt with by the police I will be behind the campaign hoping there is a retrial. It makes a joke of British justice and there are so many questions not answered.  Things like this frighten the life out of you if you have sat in a jury deliberating room with another bunch of people who don't seem to realise the gravity of the decision they are about to make.  If the case doesn't get referred to the appeal court this time what do you do tell Jeremy we think you could be innocent but we are not going to do anything anymore because we don't want to get your hopes up. I think your saying theonly hope Jeremy has is new evidence and if the defence don't know what to ask for out of restricted evidence I think your saying there isn't much hope

Offline Hartley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +8/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Relatives
« Reply #62 on: Today at 01:51 AM »

Whenever Mike Tesko gets a good forum going there always seems to be some avid, highly motivated anti- Bamber member who joins in. Are they plants by the family who inherited everything?

You are so way off base here.

If you bothered to read any of my posts in this forum you would see that I simply don't accept the spoon fed non-evidence based speculation churned out by Mike and others.

I do think JB is guilty based on the evidence available. I concede that files and evidence has not been released and it's contents may well dictate otherwise, but it's just as likely, if not more so that it would either reinforce his guilt or simply contain no more evidence which points one way or the other. Nobody can really comment on the contents of the withheld files and they certainly shouldn't automatically come to the conclusion that it points to his innocence.

The police investigation was a complete mess, do you really think that the same people could then put together evidence to frame an innocent man? Think of the number of people involved, I don't believe it is possible.

I'm not anti-bamber, heck I'm not even highly motivated, or a plant, that's an absurd accusation. I am however anti-multiple murderer, which in my opinion is what the evidence available seems to indicate.

Take a walk out of that box for a second and consider the relatives, they have lost five members of their family, they can't grieve or move on as perhaps other people who lose loved ones do due to the manner in which they were lost. Every appeal, every anniversary of the conviction and any occurrence of a gun crime brings an invasion of reporters and site seeing trespassers to their home invading their privacy. Their home has been broken into, not by burglars, but by sick people wanting to see where the murders took place.

You might say big deal, what about Jeremy, he's lost his family and 26 years. I agree, a raw deal if he's innocent. But what if he's guilty? What if he's guilt?

I came to this forum looking for information and simply found a whole bunch of people crying for JB's release, certain that they have witnessed a travesty, an appalling miscarriage of justice, and it appears that they base their opinion on a YouTube video and an article in the daily mirror.

Now there are a few people participating in this forum who have a more informed and mature interest approach to the discussions, and that's what interests me. I respect Mikes opinion and amount of research and involvement he's had even if I do disagree with a lot of what he says.

Anyway to end, I will simply reiterate that I have seen no evidence to suggest the innocence of JB, yes there's lots of decrepancies in the case, which may well warrant a retrial, but none of it indicates his innocence.

Over and out.

Offline Jackiepreece

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Relatives
« Reply #63 on: Today at 03:12 AM »
You are clearly either one of the relatives or a family friend I clearly have my own opinion and I so far have not seen anything proving jb s guilty. Two major factors for me looking at the case 1 Julie mugford I personally do not believe anything she has said and I don't believe the police would not have charged her in relation to the murders as she could have quite clearly have stopped the murders she knew they were taking place. The other problem I have I don't believe the killer would have put the silencer back in the cupboard. Then we are back to the relatives who unbelievably manage to find the silencer by chance and then apparently at some time after the case offered one of the policeman a job of securityon the caravan park the family Had inherited. A further rumour please correct me if I am wrong some of the police involved in the case were disciplined for taking gifts.  Following on from all that everyone these days know the lengths the police go to if they want to solve a crime.  Just jog your memory the Honeytrap the police used to try and pin a murder on Colin stagg.  While the police were trying to fit Colin stagg up (they was no evidence against him) the real murderer went on to murder another women and child.  So yes I am suspicious of the police and the relatives for the reasons I have given.  If you read all these threads the people who want jb to have a retrial outnumber the people who think he is guilty. The majority of people on here are desperate for answers and hope campaigning for a retrial will find definitive answers to what really happened that night at whf

Online Pete0001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Relatives
« Reply #64 on: Today at 08:06 AM »
You are clearly either one of the relatives or a family friend ..

Explain Jackiepreece... how do you come to this conclusion? or is it purely an idea someone else has said and you thought it was clever to jump on board too?
Are you saying that anyone that doesn't just accept the evidence without question must be anti JB? I find that shocking from a person that was on a jury.

Just answer the question.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

WHF Murders

Jeremy Bamber - Guilty As Charged?

For the purposes of a prosection, the decision concerning what account of events to accept is one to be decided, once and for all, by a magistrate or jury.

If the case later winds up in a higher court, it will generally be so that a point of law can be decided. Only in certain circumstances can a dispute over the facts form the basis for an appeal.

But the imagination of anyone with an interest in criminal law is easily captured by infamous past cases, particular those where someone has been convicted of serious offences against the person, but doubts have emerged as to their guilt.

Jeremy Bamber is one of 39 prisoners in British jails serving sentences that will keep them behind bars for the whole of their natural lives. He is the only one who protests his innocence.

Might Bamber really have served half his life in jail for a crime he did not commit?

_______________
Tuesday 6 August 1985, and the south Essex coast was cool for the time of year. Temperatures overnight dipped to 11 degrees and there were brief rain showers.

At approximately 03:30 the next morning, an officer at Chelmsford police station answered the phone to a young man identifying himself as Jeremy Bamber of Head Street, Goldhanger. The caller had dialled the station directly, instead of being patched through after ringing 999.

Bamber told PC Michael West that a few minutes earlier he’d been woken by the sound of his phone ringing. It was his father, calling from the family farm in Tolleshunt D’Arcy. “Please come over, Jeremy” Nevill Bamber had urged his adopted son, “you sister’s gone crazy and she’s got the gun”.

Sheila was Jeremy’s 28-year-old sister and the divorced mother of twin boys, custody of whom was principally in the hands of their father. She had been adopted by the Bambers a few a years before Jeremy (himself adopted) was born, and the two were not related by blood. A former model, she had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and spent time at St Andrew’s Hospital, Northampton.

Bamber wanted police to collect him on their way to White House Farm, but West urged him to make his own way there and rendezvous with officers who would be in attendance outside.

The constable then contacted Witham station, which was seven miles closer to Tolleshunt. At 03.35, patrol car CA7 was despatched from Witham. Although he lived just a few minutes drive from his parents’ property, Bamber was overtaken by the white Ford Sierra as it sped towards the village of Tolleshunt D’Arcy.

At 03.48 the three occupants – Sergeant Bews and PCs Myall and Saxby – reached Pages Lane, the private road leading to White House Farm. A few minutes later, Bamber arrived at the scene. The three officers were parked a short distance into the lane; Bamber pulled up behind them and left his silver Astra to speak with them. After identifying himself, he was asked to clarify what his father had managed to tell him before being abruptly cut off. The young man reiterated that Nevill, sounding very distressed, had asked him to come over at once because his sister Sheila had gone crazy and got hold of a gun. Sheila (whose married name of Caffell he couldn’t recall), was “a nutter” and recent psychiatric in-patient. As was to be expected, there were a number of guns on the farm, and Sheila was capable of handling them. Bamber told the officers that his mother June also lived at the house, and Sheila’s children, six year old Daniel and Nicholas, were staying on the farm.

Two adults and two children were therefore at the mercy of a mental patient wielding a firearm which she may or may not have discharged. The officers’ first step would be to approach with caution and make a visual assessment. Ideally, Nevill would now have control of the situation and would emerge from the farm house to greet them. The police could then decide whether Sheila needed medical assistance or should be taken into custody.

With Saxby remaining in the vehicle to monitor the radio, Bamber and the remaining officers walked down the lane together in the direction of the property. They stealthily approached the front door, at one point crouching behind a hedge in an effort to remain inconspicuous. It was nearing 04:00, but dawn would not break for another 90 minutes. At the right side of the house on the first floor was Jeremy’s parents’ bedroom. Lights were blazing here and in several other rooms.

Suddenly, there seemed to be movement upstairs. The trio retreated and a decision was made to summon the Tactical Firearms Group. As the group waited next to the patrol car, armed support was an hour away and several decisions had yet to be weighed up.

Accounts of what happened in the hours that followed have been revisited many times in the intervening quarter century. At his trial Bamber didn’t challenge the police timeline or account of events, but when he later gained access to additional material recounting the officers’ experiences that morning, he identified several statements and pieces of information that he claims help exonerate him from responsibility for the murders.

It is common ground that the firearms team entered the farm house shortly after half past seven and reported that everybody was dead.

More than three hours prior to this, Jeremy Bamber and the officers were at an impasse, and faced seeing out what was left of the night in a frustrating wait.

An additional patrol car arrived from Chelmsford, and British Telecom were asked to perform a check against phone number 0621 860209 (there were multiple handsets at the farm but only one line). The operator reported that the phone was off the hook. Sending a signal to clear the engaged tone, she was able to listen in to sounds inside the property, and told the police that the only thing audible was the sound of a barking dog (the Bambers’ Shih Tzu Crispy was later found cowering under their bed). The line could be monitored continuously from this point.

A radio operator was recording details of transmissions made by the officers using their CBs, and this later served to provide a running accounts of events.

The Tactical Firearms Group arrived close to 05:00, and, giving the farm house itself a wide berth, everyone repositioned themselves inside a barn at the rear, which allowed them to scan the back of the property and prepare their next move. With the sun due to rise in barely half an hour, the logical thing for the armed response team to do was to bide their time.

Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response”

Additional firearms officers arrived at 06.45 and were greeted by Sergeant Bews. Fresh on the scene, PC Woodcock from the Firearms Training Department was told by his colleagues that a siege was underway and a young woman with mental health issues was presumed either to have killed everyone or to be holding them hostage. Whatever had taken place, there had been no response from anyone in the farm at any time, and because of this the group were preparing to force entry into the property.

Inspector Montgomery and Police Sergeant Adams put together the raid team, consisting of PCs Collins, Delgado, Woodcock, Hall, Alexander-Smart and acting Sergeant Manners. The team, working from a plan of the building sketched by Jeremy, divided the property into “White”, “Green” and “Black” zones. Woodcock was nominated to break down the rear door using a sledgehammer. Collins and Delgado lined up on one side of the door. To their right was the kitchen window. Collins peered inside and reported seeing the body of a woman.

The door gave way when Woodcock pounded it several times with the sledgehammer. As the armed officer led the others into the property, he turned into the kitchen and saw the same person witnessed by Collins, obviously dead. In fact it was not a woman but 61-year old Nevill Bamber. A chair was on its side to the left of an Aga oven, and Nevill’s corpse was sat awkwardly on one edge of the backrest. He was slumped forward with arms at his side and his head fully inside a silver-topped bucket – in fact a coal scuttle. Blood had run thickly down the sides of this hod. The body was facing the window Collins had looked through, and all that was visible of Nevill’s head was a dishevelled shock of grey hair. This was why Collins had mistaken farmer Bamber for an old woman.

With Collins having stated over his police radio that he’d seen a woman in the kitchen, and Woodcock now reporting the body of a man, the wireless operator made the following entry at 07.37:

“one dead male and one dead female in kitchen”.

The error was insignificant in itself, but when Bamber obtained a copy of the log in 2005, he quickly sought out anything that could be represented as an inconsistency and manipulated to support his claim that he’d been framed for the crime.

At this stage Hall was covering a set of steps that led upstairs from the kitchen, Manners covered the hallway and Alexander-Smart was also occupied in a monitoring capacity. An additional officer entered the premises, and Woodcock, Collins and Delgado made a brief excursion up yet another set of stairs leading from the kitchen, then descended again and flanked the main stairwell in readiness to move up to the first floor landing. Using an extending mirror, Collins could see a female body sprawled in the door of the front-facing main bedroom: this was Jeremy’s adoptive mother June.

The team mounted the stairs and entered the bedroom. The door in which June was lying opened to the right and there was a window over the front of the farm house to the left. Lying on the other side of the room with her feet protruding beyond the foot of the bed, Collins found the body of Sheila Caffell. There was a rifle on her chest and two bullet wounds to her neck.

Her six year old twin sons were found last – shot dead in their separate beds in what had once been Sheila’s bedroom. An officer later told the boys’ father Colin that when he entered the room he had thought the children were sleeping, and decided not to wake them until the terrible scenes beyond their room had been partly covered up.

Colin was never able to bring himself to view the bodies of his children, which left him to imagine their condition and the terrible scene. When he later sought reassurance from the police that the boys hadn’t suffered for any length of time, the officer may have stretched the truth in order to make the bereaved father feel better. However, it seems true to say that the boys were unaware of their fate until it had overcome them. One died sucking his thumb after being shot repeatedly in the back of the head.

Throughout this time the wireless operator was recording updates, with an entry roughly every five minutes. At 08.10 another anomaly appears in the log. Hearing that everybody was now accounted for – and deceased – and not yet aware that one person, rather than two, was dead in the kitchen, the operator totted up “three further bodies found upstairs”. Bamber has taken this discrepancy at face value and woven it into his own narrative of what may have taken place once police entered the building.

Reports of Bamber’s conduct after being informed of the deaths of his family indicate a mixture of apparent grief and curious indifference. He was outwardly devastated and uncomprehending. Later he appeared to vomit in a field off Pages Lane. But he would switch into callous indifference, and within two hours cooked and ate a substantial breakfast at his flat in the presence of Detective Sergeant Stan Jones. Colin Caffell later observed that Jeremy seemed to ape his own behaviour, copying his refusal to re-enter the farm house, as if he needed to take his cue from others as to what was expected of a grieving relative.

But however hard it is to understand, it isn’t Bamber’s behaviour following the tragedy for which he is in jail. Nor can anyone mandate how a person should respond to grief and shock.

To begin with, police were not looking for anyone in connection with the deaths. Sheila, everyone concluded, had experienced a psychotic episode, murdered her family and taken her own life.

The case against Bamber

But within weeks Jeremy Bamber would appear at Cheltenham Crown Court charged with five murders.

The case against Bamber hinged on three things:

- Bamber’s girlfriend Julie Mugford remained Jeremy’s confident for a month after the event, but later became the key prosecution witness and testified that she had known all along that he was guilty.

- Bamber had backed himself into a corner by claiming to have received the call from his father. It wasn’t possible in the mid-1980s for BT to tell what calls had been placed when, so there was no evidence to support or disprove his claim. But if Nevill hadn’t telephoned, there was no way Jeremy could have known about the murders unless he’d been somehow involved. If the call had happened, Bamber had no reason to lie about its contents, and Nevill’s statement that Sheila had gone crazy with a gun. Therefore the only possible culprits were Sheila or himself – and forensic evidence suggested Sheila didn’t do it.

- A silencer designed for the Anschutz was recovered from a gun cupboard in the days following the massacre. Just visible inside was dried blood matching Sheila’s blood type. The silencer, which was also contaminated with red paint that matched scratches on the mantle shelf above the Aga, was discovered by Bamber’s relatives when they visited White House Farm with the specific intent of gathering evidence to substantiate their suspicions of Jeremy. As it was not on the gun found on top of Sheila, it was plainly not used by her to commit suicide, in which case, how did her blood get in there?


Bamber had spent years telling anyone who would listen exactly what he thought of his family. His father was ready to be put out to pasture. His mother was insane, having spent time in a psychiatric hospital herself for illnesses expressed as religious mania. Sheila, of course, was barking mad. And the children were bound to have been screwed up by their troubled upbringing.

Despite this, if Bamber’s antics after the deaths hadn’t been so impossible for those around him to understand, he might never have come under real suspicion for the murders.

The ease with which Bamber accepted his loss and began selling off the farm house’s contents alienated his cousins David Boutflour and Ann Eaton, and their parents. Detective Sergeant Stan Jones, who spent a great deal of time in Bamber’s company, suspected him of involvement in the massacre after just one day day, when he and Julie disappeared upstairs in his cottage at Goldhanger. Jones thought he could hear Jeremy laughing, and Julie later confirmed that Bamber had been in self-satisfied form that morning, telling her, “I should have been an actor”. By any account, Bamber lived it up after the deaths of his family, and spent a great deal of time partying with friends and preparing to disperse his parents’ property. Meanwhile, he attempted to sell the press topless photos of Sheila uncovered at her Maida Vale flat, and didn’t even attend the memorial service for his family held on the Sunday following the killings.

The funeral of the Bambers and Sheila (the boys were buried in London) was a different matter – here Jeremy got to play the bereaved son in full view of the world’s media. With his apparent inability to judge appropriate behaviour in the circumstances, he laid on an excessively theatrical display, complete with a well-timed collapse as the cortège left the church and came into view of press photographers.

Doubts emerge amongst the Bambers’ relatives

As facts about the events at White House Farm began to leak out, Bamber’s relatives arrived at the conclusion that Sheila couldn’t have been responsible for the massacre. The 28-year-old mother of two may have grown up on a farm but was not used to handling firearms. At a stretch, the Boutflours could imagine her loosing off .22 bullets from a single shot rifle, but the Anschutz used to kill everyone was semi automatic. Her ex-husband would add that the effects of anti-psychotic drug haloperidol had made her uncoordinated and clumsy. Loading and reloading the 10 bullet-magazine and still managing to hit the target 25 times out of 26 shots was not a feat they could realistically attribute to her, even in the grip of a presumed psychotic frenzy. Certainly, they reasoned, she would not have been found with her manicured fingernails intact and almost no traces of residue on her nightdress and hands.

Living in close proximity to weaponry doesn’t make a person into a firearms expert. June had lived at White House Farm for decades, but her brother recalls her referring to magazine cartridges as “the thingy” that slots in the gun. Interestingly, this was during a conversation in which June asked Robert Boutflour his opinion of an incident she witnessed in the weeks leading up to the murders, in which Jeremy had tried to get Sheila to load bullets into “the thingy”.

Robert recalls that his first thought, at a time when no-one could have imagined what would transpire, was “he’s obviously trying to get her fingerprints all over the magazine”. He hadn’t shared this thought with June at the time, instead merely asking her “She didn’t do it, did she?” (the answer was “No”).

This sort of hearsay evidence could scarcely form the basis of a successful prosecution. But past events of this kind helped bring Bamber’s relatives, and in turn the police, to a tipping point at which Jeremy’s involvement in the deaths began to cross over from ominous possibility to seeming likelihood.

Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).

The picture acquired from detailed accounts of Bamber’s lifestyle and behaviour combines with a great deal of circumstantial evidence to create an inference of guilt greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, that is not a satisfactory standard of proof for the purposes of a criminal conviction.


The confession of Julie Mugford

But the most powerful evidence pointing to Bamber’s culpability is the confession of Julie Mugford. Contemporary commentators and the crown court judge made the point that Mugford’s sum testimony had “the ring of truth about it”. Her story of life in the month after the murders is a convincing tale of a person’s conscience unravelling due to the burden of carrying a great and terrible secret.

Why did Bamber confide in Julie? By every account, Jeremy was prone to verbal incontinence regarding the ins and outs of his personal life, and was particularly fond of hard luck stories about the raw deal meted out to him by his parents. He had no compunction sharing with all and sundry thoughts about the awfulness of his family, and the obstacle they presented to his overwhelming desire for money and status. He had been telling Julie Mugford for so long how he intended to put them all out of their misery (at one time he considered drugging the family and then setting fire to the farm house), that she had long since dismissed it as idle talk. She thought little of what he told her on the phone on the evening of 6 August: “it’s now or never”. She even dismissed Bamber’s 3AM phone call to tell her that everything was going well. It therefore came as a catastrophic shock to her when Bamber called again at around 8am, this time from a phone box in Tolleshunt, to tell her that everyone at White House Farm was dead. Later, wishing to put some distance in Julie’s mind between the man she knew and loved and the savage who had meted out such brutality in the farm house, Bamber invented a proxy in the form of a hit man, and told his girlfriend that this person had carried out the killings for £2,000 (the man he named was proven to be alibi). Throughout this period, Bamber remained confident that Mugford was sufficiently under his spell as to represent no threat to him, regardless of what she knew.

As the weeks passed, Julie moved from disbelief to fear, partly perhaps for herself and the responsibility she bore for failing to turn Bamber in on day one. But when Jeremy took her into the bedroom at Bourtree cottage and laughed that his façade was fooling the police so effectively, he little knew that at that very moment seeds of doubt were being sown in the mind of DS Stan Jones, waiting quietly downstairs.

Julie’s already fractious relationship with Bamber was torn apart by the insanity of August 1985. With his family cremated and Jeremy the beneficiary of almost the entire estate, grandiose plans were made and promises broken, played out to a soundtrack of drink and drug induced oblivion.

Just as Mugford broke, confessing to close friends and readying herself to approach the police, Sergeant Jones had nearly finished pulling together his own case against Bamber. Had Julie not visited the police station in September, the detective would in any case have pulled her in for questioning.


Bamber convicted … just

At Bamber’s trial, the jury were divided, and found the defendant guilty by a 10-2 majority. As sentence was passed, two female jurors wept.

Before reaching a verdict, the jury had asked for clarification concerning the blood in the silencer. They needed to be sure that it was Sheila’s – forensic evidence was plainly needed to put the matter of Bamber’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in their minds.

In fact, the silencer is problematic as a piece of evidence. It was discovered not by the police, but by relatives with a financial interest in preventing him from securing his inheritance. Evidence provided by DNA testing would be used to catch a criminal in Britain for the first time only 12 months later. But at the time of the White House Farm murder, biological profiling techniques were little different from those employed during the war: distinguishing between blood groups was the summit of the forensic evidence that could be obtained. Procedures at Huntingdon lab were in any case starkly criticised in later years, and some authorities came to the view that no results produced around that time can be considered reliable.

In February 1996, Essex police took the bizarre decision, in contravention of their own guidelines, to destroy the outstanding forensic evidence relating to the case: therefore all we will ever know about the blood found in the silencer is that it could have been Sheila’s, and could not have been either Nevill’s or June’s alone, although there was a remote possibility it was a mixture from that of both. This was important as the latter possibility would not have excluded Sheila being responsible for the deaths and then returning the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life, albeit that this would seem hard to fathom.

Bamber’s own views regarding the silencer stretch into the realms of conspiracy. He claims it was not necessarily used in any of the shootings. The scenario he prefers is one which weaves every anomaly in the police record into a (barely) coherent narrative in which Sheila, responsible for the deaths of the other four people in the house, doesn’t take her own life until the police are actually inside the farmhouse. Subsequent to this, Bamber’s cousins pounce upon the opportunity provided by his crass conduct to put him in the frame for murder, and go about fabricating evidence to support this assertion.

From the point of view of the defence, any inconsistency or error in the thousands of documents that make up the case file can potentially be exploited to undermine the prosecuting authorities and sow doubt in the minds of people unfamiliar with the facts.


A call from Nevill Bamber?

Approaching the evidence chronologically, Bamber first takes issue with police reports of his telephone call to Cheltenham station.

After speaking to Bamber, PC West contacted his colleagues at Witham police station, which is halfway between Chelmsford and Tolleshunt. The officer who took this call wrote up a memo headed “daughter gone bezerk”, in which he paraphrases what Nevill is supposed to have told Jeremy about Sheila having “got hold of one of my guns”, and adds “Information passed to CD [control at Chelmsford] by Mr Bamber’s son”, confirming that Chelmsford’s source was Jeremy Bamber.

West times Bamber’s own call from Goldhanger to Chelmsford at 03.36, whereas the other memo times West’s call to Witham at 03.26, so at least once timing is inaccurate. But Bamber concludes that the timing is bang on: his suggestion is that the other officer didn’t get his information from Chelmsford, but from no less a person than Nevill Bamber. The officer, Jeremy maintains, must have taken an emergency call from the 61-year-old farmer and noted Nevill’s words as he’d spoken them.

Aware that a problem existed reconciling the order in which calls between the parties were placed and the time at which they were said to have happened, the Crown liaised with the officer in question. He confirmed that he’d received a call from Chelmsford at 03.26, passing on the information received from Jeremy Bamber moments beforehand. Later he filled out an official Document Record to this effect.

At no time had he heard from Nevill Bamber or anyone else in connection with the incident at White House Farm. Presumably then, West had misread the clock when he filled out his call log, or just mistakenly wrote 03.36 instead of 03.26.

At 03.35, Witham despatched patrol car CA7 to attend the scene, and Chelmsford directed CA5 to attend at 03.36. Overlooking the fact that the police were co-ordinating their response across relevant parts of the county, Bamber’s supporters also ask why the Essex constabulary should send a car from each station unless the police were responding separately to different reports?

There is something darkly comic about the image of Nevill Bamber, under a hale of bullets, leafing through the phone book to get hold of the number for Witham station instead of dialling 999.

Plainly, there is little for Bamber’s defence team to get their teeth into here, but that hasn’t stopped them promoting the risible scenario of a call from Nevill to Witham police station. Earlier this summer the mainstream press picked up on the story: the Mail and Mirror were among papers reporting it on 5 August as a dramatic new find that had the potential to clear the supposed killer.

These papers uncritically reported that all along, documented proof seems to have existed that police had heard about Sheila’s rampage not only via Jeremy but directly from Nevill. If this information was correct, Jeremy’s account was vindicated and he could not possibly be guilty of the murders.

It’s worth considering the implications of the defence’s claim. If it were true, several members of the Essex constabulary would have been aware of the existence of a call from Nevill on the morning of the murders. When officers began to suspect the son of involvement and started poking around for discrepancies in Jeremy’s story, they would quickly have turned up accounts of Nevill’s call, snuffing out any doubts they had about Sheila’s culpability.

In these circumstances, police would only have continued to pursue Bamber for the murders if they were intentionally attempting to frame him.

In fact, Bamber maintains that this is exactly what happened, although he casts the net much wider to take in his relatives as well as the Essex constabulary.

Bamber’s legal team must be aware that claims about Nevill telephoning police withstand no scrutiny. Perhaps their strategy is to keep throwing anything at all to the papers, the better to build a groundswell of feeling that their client is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The long retired Stan Jones recently told the Essex Chronicle that Bamber "consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings”, manipulating its supposed meaning to support his claim to be wrongly convicted.

Discrepancies in the wireless log

But other evidence adduced by Bamber is, at least, more substantive than the call report.

He has claimed that officers were in conversation at 05.25 with a person inside the farm, which is what a strict reading of the wireless log would appear to suggest. The implication from Bamber is that officers were trying to reason with a very much alive Sheila. If this was really the case, Jeremy was plainly alibi when Sheila met her death.

What’s curious is that although Jeremy was present at the time, he never suggested that officers were speaking to his sister until years later when he obtained the wireless log. It’s inconceivable that officers at the scene would not have updated him to this effect at any time that morning, particularly since they may have sought his involvement in any attempt to “talk Sheila down”. When Bamber was finally charged with the murders, why didn’t he tell the police incredulously that officers must know of his innocence, as some of them had spoken to Sheila while she was alive and when Jeremy’s whereabouts were well accounted for? The defence team never raised any such objection, then or in the years which followed, until one sentence in a log written up by an operator miles away seemed to throw up an inconsistency which could be exploited.

Bamber also maintains that at 07.30 PC Collins did see a female in the kitchen: a dazed Sheila, having self-inflicted the first of two wounds (and one which pathologists accept would not have killed her outright), who is roused by the sound of Woodcock smashing down the main door and flees upstairs to her parents’ bedroom.

By this account, she delivered the second, fatal wound as the police prepared to move upstairs. The officers heard no rapport from a rifle. But Bamber has no difficulty concluding that they covered up the truth or were leaned upon to do so.

In support of this theory, Bamber’s supporters adduce that photographs taken circa 09.00 show fresh blood running from Sheila’s wounds, and note that the gun on her body changes position between post-mortem photographs.

But there are prosaic explanations for this. The officers did interfere slightly with Sheila’s corpse: by their own account, the rifle was removed from her body and then returned when photographs were taken in order to represent the condition in which she was found. A bible belonging to June, which was discovered at Sheila’s waist, appears at the level of her shoulder in the photographs.

At the farm that morning, police had no difficulty accepting that Sheila had carried out the murders and taken her own life. This is what they had been primed to believe by Jeremy Bamber. They didn’t think there was any need to preserve the scene beyond what was necessary for the purposes of an open and shut coroner’s investigation. Nor were scene of crime procedures anything like as fastidious in 1985 as they are today.

There have been claims that rigor mortis is visible in photographs of Nevill, June and the twins, and that those of Sheila Caffell show no rigor or lividity. This claim does not seem ever to have been adduced by a medical professional rather than a layperson.

A consistent feature of objections to the Crown case is that they rest upon arguments from personal incredulity. Surely the blood on Sheila’s neck couldn’t look as “fresh” as it does in the photographs if she’d been dead for at least six hours?

Well, yes, it could. Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.

Sheila could certainly not have shot herself once in the kitchen and once upstairs: the photographs show no blood down the front of her pale blue nightdress. The blood that has run from the two wounds flows at an angle down the mother of two’s neck and along her right arm, with a patch spreading onto her right bosom. If she was on her feet for anything more than a moment after receiving the initial shot, blood would have run vertically down her sternum.

Bamber passes a polygraph with flying colours

In 2007, Jeremy Bamber convincingly passed a lie detector test conducted by Terry Mullins, an expert in the field. Asked a series of twelve questions including “Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985?”, “Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family?” and “Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting?”, Bamber gave answers that indicated his innocence and affirmed the sighting, and no indices of deception were apparent in the results recorded by the polygraph.

But despite its notoriety as a ruthless instrument of detection, the polygraph test has almost no credibility within the scientific community. The ability of such a device to accurately assess the truthfulness of answers is in reality little better than chance, relegating the science of polygraphy to the level of astrology and tarot cards. What’s more, the technique is particularly ineffective when applied to individuals with antisocial/psychopathic personality disorders, tendencies which are often displayed by people who kill deliberately. Gary Ridgway, the man convicted on the basis of DNA evidence (and later his own confession) as Utah’s Green River killer, passed a polygraph with flying colours at an early stage of the investigation. Conversely, Bill Wegerle, an innocent man, failed two separate tests after coming under suspicion of the murders.

Mystery of the missing scratches

Probably the most potent post-trial evidence the defence can summon is found in the conclusions of forensic image analyst Peter Sutherst, who was asked to examine photographs of surfaces above the Aga in the farm kitchen, where Nevill lost his life after what seems to have been a fierce struggle with the killer.

The silencer found by David Boutflour, which provided a key element of the case against Bamber, was not contaminated only with blood. The knurled end from which the bullets emerge was embedded with red paint made up of nine coats, exactly matching that on the surface above the Aga where scratches were found and photographed. The jury, or at least ten of them, believed the Crown’s contention that these marks were made when the gun, with sound moderator fitted, was flung about during a tussle between Nevill and his adopted son.

Arranging photographs of the scene chronologically in his cell, Bamber realised that he couldn’t make out the scratches in the first photographs which show most of the room: they were visible only in the close up pictures taken more than a month later, after police were alerted to their existence. The defence team also suggest that flakes of the bright red paint which were scratched out of the wall ought to be visible on the carpet in the first photograph.

It’s perfectly true that no such flakes are visible to the naked eye, and also that scratches to the paintwork cannot be made out in photographs showing greater portions of the kitchen.

To my mind, the marks ought not to be apparent in these photographs since they were made to the underside of the mantelshelf, which is simply not visible in the broader shots. However, I wouldn’t presume to argue with an expert on the topic.

This claim certainly has implications for the safety of Bamber’s conviction. Unlike disputes over what was scribbled in a wireless message log, the photographs have the potential to falsify evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that if the marks were made at a later date, this does not exonerate Bamber. What it would suggest is that one or other party was determined to shore up the evidence against him.

However, since the jury were asked to rely upon the scratches as proof that the red paint on the silencer had got there on the night of the murders, the Court of Appeal would have no choice but to quash Bamber’s conviction if they now found reason to think that the evidence was planted. Whether they will have the opportunity to make that decision depends upon the outcome of the CCRC’s latest review of the evidence. The Commission is due to report its findings at any time. If Bamber gets a third appeal, he will be the first convicted murderer to do so.

Bamber waits for yet another day in court

The defence make various other claims concerning the reliability of police evidence, almost none of which bear any scrutiny. Sometimes, competing possibilities are floated that wildly contradict each other (Bamber himself has recently raised the possibility of an unidentified killer, a person who, if he is innocent, he must know cannot exist, since his father is supposed to have told him alone that the person going crazy with a gun was Sheila). On the evidence of the post-trial objections raised by Bamber’s various defence teams over the years, he and his representatives have tended to value quantity over quality when it comes to protesting Jeremy’s innocence.

The prosecution case, however, was supported by reams of additional evidence as to how Jeremy carried out his crime.

It remains true that there is no “smoking gun” in the Bamber case. But I for one was drawn to the story of White House Farm by fears a miscarriage of justice had taken place, and instead found myself resolutely convinced of the defendant’s guilt.

Some people have suggested it’s a coincidence too far that a sometimes deranged young woman who believed her relatives possessed by demons was visiting the farm when the murders were carried out. It isn’t a coincidence at all – it is the very reason Bamber choose that evening to carry out his plan, and why he thought he’d get away with it. Things went broadly in line with the young man’s expectations that night, but there was more than one hiccup. Nevill refused to give up without a fight, and Bamber must have blanched at realising a second shot was needed to finish off Sheila. Suicide victims don’t often shoot themselves twice through the head.

Bamber gave little of his feelings away when 10 of 12 jurors found the 25-year-old guilty following a potent summation by Judge Drake. At times, the cracks have shown. When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed his concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “Free Bamber he is innocent” in excrement on the walls.

For the most part though, Bamber patiently waits. As his own correspondence illustrates, he exists in a state of limbo in which he continually believes freedom to be a matter of weeks away.

Elated after receiving the results of his 2007 polygraph test, Bamber told the Daily Mirror “I didn’t do it, I couldn’t have done it, I wouldn’t have done it.”

But he could have done it, seemingly would have done it and very probably did do it. Nevertheless, if the CCRC accepts that his latest submissions cast any doubt on the safety of his 1986 conviction, this fact may not be enough to keep him behind bars.



Bibliography

R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912

Caffell C, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End', Hodder and Stouton Ltd (1994)

Lomax S, 'Jeremy Bamber: Evil, Almost Beyond Belief?', The History Press (2008)

Wilkes R, 'Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders', Robinson (1994)

Perfect J, 'Detective Rejects New Evidence "Bambi" went Bezerk as "Farcical"' Essex Chronicle (12 August 2010)