Jeremy Bamber and the Whitehouse farm murders

[OB1]

I think it’s Emilia Fox’s brother (Silent Witness) but I get confused with all the Fox family members

The actor in latest version is Freddie Fox but version I’m referring to was made in 1993 I think.

 

[TueartsOHK]

The actor in latest version is Freddie Fox but version I’m referring to was made in 1993 I think.

not sure Ive seen that OB1 - will have a look on You Tube for it

 

[Fame Monster]

They’re all points made by the prosecution but not conclusive.

The silencer was found several days after the murders by the relatives not by police and the chain of evidence lost - I don’t think it would be admissible today. They had No dna in 1985 and the blood found inside could have been Shelia's or the parents. Later in an appeal when dna was available it couldn’t even be established that it was blood nor who it belonged to. There was also a suggestion that the silencer was found under the bed next to her and put in the gun cupboard by the police cleaning up the crime scene (silencer being removed to enable her to kill herself)

Firearms experts have several examples of suicides firing twice where the first shot was non fatal.

I think the lack of blood on her night dress and her feet is suspicious. The defence claimed suicide victims often cleanse themselves as a ritual before death. Unlikely but not Impossible.

Her Dad had already been shot in the bedroom before the fight downstairs according to the reconstruction

I agree that these are a stretch but they don’t directly incriminate Jeremy Bamber - they make it more unlikely that Shelia did it. What’s interesting about this case is that in claiming he received the call from his Dad and calling the police, he reduced the case to either him (or someone he paid) or Shelia being the guilty party. But the Fact remains that there us nothing forensically tying him in to the murder - if he hadn’t have chucked his girlfriend he might be free today.

As far as I understand it, there was blood in the silencer that matched Sheila's blood group but the DNA that was found later on (and matched to June, a male, and another person/persons) couldn't be proven to have been DNA from blood. Although it was found deep in the silencer suggesting that it was from blood and that the DNA found couldn't be ruled out as being Sheila's.

So if I was on the jury and heard that evidence, I'd be convinced that the silencer was used in the murders, and in the absence of any evidence (bar a suggestion) about the silencer being moved from next to Sheila's body, I'd also be convinced - supported by other evidence - that she wasn't the killer. Like you say, the logical outcome of that means that Bamber must be even if there is little physical evidence proving that directly (although I believe his fingerprint was on the murder weapon).

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As far as I understand it, there was blood in the silencer that matched Sheila's blood group but the DNA that was found later on (and matched to June, a male, and another person/persons) couldn't be proven to have been DNA from blood. Although it was found deep in the silencer suggesting that it was from blood and that the DNA found couldn't be ruled out as being Sheila's.

So if I was on the jury and heard that evidence, I'd be convinced that the silencer was used in the murders, and in the absence of any evidence (bar a suggestion) about the silencer being moved from next to Sheila's body, I'd also be convinced - supported by other evidence - that she wasn't the killer. Like you say, the logical outcome of that means that Bamber must be even if there is little physical evidence proving that directly (although I believe his fingerprint was on the murder weapon).

I think he probably did it, but I don’t think (based in what I know about the evidence) I could be sure of his guilt.

Obviously if it was being tried today, numerous key factors would be hugely different. Speed at which armed intervention occurred; investigation of the crime scene; disclosure.

These could quite easily conspire to produce a different outcome in the trial. We simply do not know. Don’t forget it was a majority verdict (10-2). One more the other way, and he’d have been looking at a retrial. So many holes in this case. An absolute fucking shambles from an Essex Police point of view. So much so, I can’t see how any conviction could be objectively seen as safe.

Not that I’m crying any tears. Like I said, I think he probably did it.

 

[Fame Monster]

I think he probably did it, but I don’t think (based in what I know about the evidence) I could be sure of his guilt.

Obviously if it was being tried today, numerous key factors would be hugely different. Speed at which armed intervention occurred; investigation of the crime scene; disclosure.

These could quite easily conspire to produce a different outcome in the trial. We simply do not know. Don’t forget it was a majority verdict (10-2). One more the other way, and he’d have been looking at a retrial. So many holes in this case. An absolute fucking shambles from an Essex Police point of view. So much so, I can’t see how any conviction could be objectively seen as safe.

Not that I’m crying any tears. Like I said, I think he probably did it.

Out of interest, what do you think the holes in the prosecution case are?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Out of interest, what do you think the holes in the prosecution case are?

The way the crime scene was investigated and how evidence in the case was so open to contamination. Given the state of this investigation, can anyone totally exclude the possibility of evidence tampering in relation to the silencer, for example? Even by the standards of 1985, the investigation of the crime was a fucking shambles.

 

[mike1923]

Did he have a terrible Welsh accent?

Of course he did, he was Welsh, they’re all terrible accents

 

[Fame Monster]

The way the crime scene was investigated and how evidence in the case was so open to contamination. Given the state of this investigation, can anyone totally exclude the possibility of evidence tampering in relation to the silencer, for example? Even by the standards of 1985, the investigation of the crime was a fucking shambles.

I agree, the initial investigation was a mess.

Assuming the evidence wasn't tampered with though, I just find it difficult to come up with a theory of how Sheila could have killed anyone.

Interesting quote from the CofA in 2002:

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.

If Bamber's been wrongfully convicted, he must be the unluckiest man in the world. Having his close family murdered and then convicted on the evidence from his surviving family. I hope he did do it otherwise the gods have well and truly shafted him.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I agree, the initial investigation was a mess.

Assuming the evidence wasn't tampered with though, I just find it difficult to come up with a theory of how Sheila could have killed anyone.

Interesting quote from the CofA in 2002:



If Bamber's been wrongfully convicted, he must be the unluckiest man in the world. Having his close family murdered and then convicted on the evidence from his surviving family. I hope he did do it otherwise the gods have well and truly shafted him.

I’m aware of the CoA’s findings and that excerpt in particular, however I’m also consciously aware of that court’s primary function when exercising its powers in criminal law, namely to endorse the decision of the court below. I accept Sheila killing anyone is highly unlikely, and no Investigation is going to be conducted perfectly, but this was handled so poorly as to raise questions about the reliability of the forensic evidence and to what extent it could be relied upon by the prosecution, and whether the conviction was therefore safe. The circumstances around the silencer in particular are wholly unsatisfactory, without which he’d almost certainly have walked. The majority verdict troubles me slightly too. In a case like this, with a strong emotional pull, you’d expect a unanimous verdict from a jury.

Your bit at the end did occur to me too. In the highly unlikely event that he’s innocent, life really has dealt him a terrible hand.

 

[M18CTID]

I think he probably did it, but I don’t think (based in what I know about the evidence) I could be sure of his guilt.

Obviously if it was being tried today, numerous key factors would be hugely different. Speed at which armed intervention occurred; investigation of the crime scene; disclosure.

These could quite easily conspire to produce a different outcome in the trial. We simply do not know. Don’t forget it was a majority verdict (10-2). One more the other way, and he’d have been looking at a retrial. So many holes in this case. An absolute fucking shambles from an Essex Police point of view. So much so, I can’t see how any conviction could be objectively seen as safe.

Not that I’m crying any tears. Like I said, I think he probably did it.

As someone else said earlier in the thread, that phone call of Bamber's to the police effectively narrowed down the suspect list to just two - himself and Sheila. Given how he behaved in the weeks following what happened, I don't think he did himself many favours in terms of convincing people he was innocent. And that's before we get onto him having the family dog put down - something I wasn't aware of previously. I'm pretty convinced he did it, and I've stated previously on this thread that it isn't one of those cases that has ever jumped out at me as a possible miscarriage of justice. That said, I agree that the police investigation was a shambles and they're probably lucky that the suspect list was so short from the off because otherwise there would've been a greater chance of getting the wrong person for it.