Jeremy Bamber: Evil, Almost Beyond Belief?

shootings.

Introduction

I was wrongly convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of my family. . . I have protested my innocence through all the usual channels and tried hard to find a successful path to the appeal courts.

(Jeremy Bamber writing in 2002)

During Wednesday 7 August 1985 the media began to report a horrific incident in a small Essex village, approximately thirty-five miles north-east of London. Few people outside the county would have previously heard of Tolleshunt D’Arcy, but the violent deaths of five people, a couple in their sixties, their daughter and her two children, attracted the attention of people all over Britain.

It was a terrible tragedy and the public were deeply saddened when they heard that the police believed that the mother of the two children, Sheila Caffell, a mentally ill woman recently released from a psychiatric hospital, had killed her own offspring as they slept in their beds, then shot her parents before turning the gun on herself.

One month after the deaths, however, Jeremy Nevill Bamber, Sheila’s adoptive brother, was viewed to be the person who killed his family before staging the scene so that the police would believe his sister was responsible. He was arrested twice before being charged with the murders and stood trial at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986, when he was just twenty-five years old.

Following a high-profile nineteen-day trial the jury were sent out to begin their deliberations over what was a complex case of forensic science and witness testimony. Unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, informed them that a majority verdict would be acceptable. Bamber was returned to jail overnight, convinced that he would soon walk free. However, the following day, on 28 October 1986, the members of the jury returned to the court and announced a decision Bamber had never anticipated. The foreman of the jury told the court that a guilty verdict, by a majority of ten to two, had been reached for each of the five counts of murder he stood accused of. Bamber collapsed in the dock as he heard the verdict.

When sentencing the condemned man to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least twenty-five years, Mr Justice Drake told Bamber:

Your conduct in planning and carrying out the killing of five members of your family was evil, almost beyond belief. It shows that you, young man that you are, have a warped and callous and evil mind behind an outwardly presentable and civilised appearance and manner.

Recently Bamber has written about his feelings of shock and disbelief when he was convicted for murdering his family:

Although it’s hard to recall exactly what it felt like, what I do remember is that I never heard a word he [Mr Justice Drake] said – I recall the jury giving their verdicts by 10 – 2 majority and then being stunned as if hit by a 10 ton truck. It was as if I’d been knocked unconscious yet still being awake, I just couldn’t believe it to be honest and in such circumstances you go into shock, exactly the same reaction to being told I’d lost my whole family a year earlier – I didn’t believe that either when told by the police, and then the jury saying I was responsible was equally as unbelievable – so listening to what the judge had to say never featured.

Bamber was not the only person who could not understand the situation; a number of those in the courtroom had expected an acquittal and even two members of the jury were seen to be crying as the verdicts were announced.

As the disbelieving convict left the dock to begin a life behind bars, plans for an appeal were begun and since then Bamber’s intention to clear his name has never wavered. However, his continued efforts to persuade the public that what he believes to be a miscarriage of justice has taken place have caused great anger among those who testified against him at trial. Due to the perceived risk he poses, because he was convicted of killing two children as they slept and because he is said to have attempted to point the finger of blame for the violent massacre at one of his other victims, Bamber was told in 1994 that he will never be released from prison. He remains, however, strong in the face of adversity and utterly convinced he will experience freedom once again. He has vowed always to argue against the conclusion that he is a wicked, callous killer and is evil, almost beyond belief, having written in December 2002, ‘Let no one doubt that, in years to come, justice will be achieved and my conviction will be quashed.’ Bamber is either one of the most wicked villains in a British jail or, due to the length of time he has spent confined to a cell, the victim of one of the greatest errors made by the justice system.

Bamber’s trial generated a huge amount of publicity, which gave him a status as one of Britain’s most hated men. The ongoing media interest in his case has allowed his perceived notoriety to develop further.

Bamber has launched two unsuccessful appeals against his conviction. In 1989 the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction stating that there is ‘nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction.’

Undeterred he continued to study his case and, in October 2002, he once again entered the Court of Appeal, relying largely upon DNA evidence derived from scientific techniques unavailable at the time of his trial. However, when the judges upheld his conviction, in December 2002, they concluded that:

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.

The facts regarding the evidence presented at the last appeal, in addition to the evidence uncovered more recently, will be discussed in full detail to expose the fact that the prosecution’s argument at trial is being continually eroded, so much so that Bamber’s supporters believe it can no longer be acceptable to say that the conviction is justified. New evidence has recently been uncovered and this will be discussed in this book. The evidence is considered to be significant, particularly that presented in the penultimate chapter, and will form part of the defence case at Bamber’s next appeal hearing. However, does the fresh evidence prove Bamber’s innocence? This is the question I ask you to consider whilst reading what follows.

The weaknesses in the case against Bamber are, he claims, being recognised by an increasingly large number of people across the world, and Bamber now has the support of Members of Parliament in addition to thousands of ordinary members of the public, both male and female, who have expressed concern about the conviction. Many of those who have served in prisons with Bamber including Michael O’Brien, one of the Cardiff Newsagents Three, whose murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after he had spent eleven years in prison for a crime he did not commit, believe Bamber to be innocent, as do a number of prison officers, former prison officers, officers from Essex Police and former detectives from Essex Police.

Bamber was convicted only by a majority of ten to two, the minimum majority possible to allow a verdict. This shows that there was no overriding proof of Bamber’s guilt, with the jury not being able to agree over whether he was guilty. Had the jury heard all the evidence that was available to the police and prosecution, and should (but was not as will be shown in this book) made available to the defence, then the outcome of the trial could have been very different.

In 2002, when rejecting Bamber’s latest appeal, the judges said:

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.

Members of the jury are ordinary people who are rarely educated in law and forensic science. It is therefore a cause for concern that the present jury system is used in this country. The case of Jeremy Bamber is very complex and it is even more complex now with the most recent evidence having been uncovered. In complex cases it is appreciably difficult for juries, which are composed of ordinary members of society randomly selected, to fully understand all the facts. A number of miscarriages of justice take place because juries do not fully understand the evidence. At present even those with limited intelligence can decide a person’s fate. The system would be less prone to error if an intelligent jury were selected.

In many trials heard in courts across the globe, particularly those where a defendant or defendants are accused of serious crimes such as rape or murder, forensic evidence forms a significant part of the discussions. Forensic scientists were required to argue about their views regarding forensic evidence believed to be relevant to the crimes for which Bamber stood trial. Whenever forensic evidence is presented in court the prosecution and defence commission experts to attempt to argue whether the evidence proves the guilt of the defendant or defendants. If experts in forensic science cannot agree over the significance of forensic evidence then how can a lay jury, comprised of twelve individuals, understand the evidence they have to listen to in order to reach the correct verdict?

The truth is that a trial is little more than a stage show whereby prosecution and defence counsels perform, with a jury voting at the end as to whom they believe provided the most plausible performance. A verdict is an opinion expressed by twelve individuals who decide whether or not they believe the prosecution’s theory. If a jury does not understand all the information provided at trial, and it must be remembered that jurors are not provided with an opportunity to ask questions whilst evidence is being heard, or if it does not hear all the relevant information, then their verdict will not always reflect the truth.

The following chapters will demonstrate that the jury at Bamber’s trial did not hear all of the facts they required to make a fully informed decision as to the defendant’s guilt. This of course, does not necessarily mean the jury reached the wrong verdict. Did the ten members of the jury, who thought Bamber to be guilty, believe the truth or were the two dissenters correct in their assertion that Bamber’s guilt could not be proven?

This book will show that contrary to popular belief there was no evidence proving Jeremy Bamber’s guilt in this strange case, which he maintains is a ‘mystery filled with many conundrums.’ Instead, a chain of circumstantial evidence was constructed to paint a picture that Bamber was capable of killing his own relatives, but was that picture an accurate reflection of the truth? The following words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should always be remembered when one decides whether a chain of circumstantial evidence can be used to prove guilt:

. . . it must be confessed that circumstantial evidence can never be absolutely convincing, and that it is only the critical student of such cases who realises how often a damning chain of evidence may, by some slight change, be made to bear an entirely different interpretation.

When reading what follows, keep the above words in mind. The prosecution claimed that all the evidence they presented pointed to absolute proof of Bamber’s guilt. However, could there be a more innocent explanation that suggests a miscarriage of justice could have taken place? Or were the police and prosecution correct in their assertion that Bamber is an evil murderer?

In writing this book I have had access to the vast majority of the documentation relevant to this case, including transcripts from the trial and appeal hearings, the reports commissioned from experts and the statements provided by witnesses. Documentary and photographic evidence, which substantiates what Bamber has always claimed to be the truth, has been presented to me. This evidence will be discussed in this book, some of it being aired for the very first time, and will bring the case right up to date. The book also includes many exclusive statements from Jeremy Bamber himself, taken from extensive private interviews and my correspondence with him over the past six years.

I would like to make it clear from the outset that whilst Jeremy Bamber is aware of this book, he has not influenced the writing of any part of it. The views expressed in the following chapters are my own and reflect the independent beliefs I have regarding this case, beliefs acquired only through my own research of the evidence, in addition to my own observations, and not the words of Jeremy Bamber or any of his supporters. Indeed, Bamber disagrees with certain opinions I have about the case. Essex Police were contacted in the hope that they would be able to offer their explanations for the new evidence and cooperate in the writing of this book. However, the police declined to comment on any issue involved in the case, in light of the fact that the Criminal Cases Review Commission is undertaking a review of the evidence. Nonetheless, this book will present the cases for both the defence and prosecution, with reference to the views of the police being made where I know their views. It will provide sufficient information to allow readers to reach their own conclusion as to whether or not Jeremy Bamber did murder five members of his own family and whether the words ‘Evil, almost beyond belief’ can indeed be applied to him.

CHAPTER 1

The White House Farm Tragedy

Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun.

(The words allegedly spoken to Jeremy Bamber alerting him to the situation at White House Farm)

When Police Constable Michael West picked up the telephone at Chelmsford Police Station, just before 03:20 on the morning of 7 August 1985, little could he have known that he would be involved in one of the most controversial cases in British criminal history.

The caller identified himself as Jeremy Bamber, of 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, and, in a concerned, worried manner, immediately told the officer the reason for his call:

You’ve got to help me. My father has rang me and said ‘Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun.’ Then the line went dead.

Bamber told West that his sister, Sheila Caffell, had psychiatric problems and that there were a number of firearms within the family home, named White House Farm, which is located in the village of Tolleshunt D’Arcy, three miles from Goldhanger. West contacted a colleague, Malcolm Bonnet, who worked as a civilian member of staff in the Information Room at Essex Police Headquarters, by radio, to request a vehicle attend the scene. When he resumed his conversation with Bamber, West could sense the increasing concern in the caller’s voice, with Bamber asking why it was taking the police so long to address his worries. At the end of the conversation Bamber was asked to meet the police at White House Farm, because there was already a police car in the general area of Tolleshunt D’Arcy and so it was easier to meet at the farm rather than for Bamber to be picked up.

It should be pointed out from the outset that at trial it was claimed Jeremy Bamber lied about receiving a telephone call in the early hours of 7 August. In 1985 there were no records available to show when calls were made. However, for now it is important to read what Bamber claims occurred before discussing the tragedy.

It is a fact that Sheila Caffell had ‘gone crazy’ numerous times over the years before August 1985. However, on these occasions Social Services and the family had always been able to resolve the issue without having to involve the police. It is indisputable that Bamber had been contacted in the past to help deal with Sheila, and that the police had never been needed. As the alleged call had been abrupt, and a gun referred to, however, Bamber was concerned and so he tried to call his father back twice, but both of his attempts were met with the engaged tone. Unable to make contact with White House Farm, Bamber phoned Chelmsford Police Station as a precaution. He claims the reason he did not dial 999 was that he feared the possible consequences of the arrival of police cars with their lights flashing and sirens in use. Bamber was unsure if the situation necessitated a police presence and did not wish to make what was perhaps a manageable situation into a dangerous one. He realised though that the presence of one or two police officers could possibly be of use in calming Sheila. However, he admits, ‘Of course in hindsight this tactic seems daft but I was not to know how things were to develop.’

After telephoning the police Bamber contacted his girlfriend, Julie Mugford. He claims he did so because he was unsure as to whether or not he had taken the correct action by involving the police in what he believed was simply a domestic incident without violence. He was concerned that he might cause embarrassment if the police arrived at the house only to find that no threat had been posed. Although his girlfriend had tried to reassure him by telling that there was nothing to worry about, Bamber was still concerned and, after grabbing a jumper, he drove from his cottage to White House Farm.

Whilst driving towards his parents’ home a police car (Charlie Alpha 7) travelling to the same destination overtook Bamber. It was claimed at trial, by one of Bamber’s cousins, that Bamber was a ‘very, very fast driver.’ It was therefore asked why he was driving so slowly that he could be overtaken, particularly if he feared for the lives of his family. However, Bamber has responded to this by saying he was driving at the maximum speed limit and that it was the police who were exceeding that limit, which sounds a plausible explanation. After all, do not the police normally travel beyond the limit when responding to calls where it has been said firearms might be used? It would have been rather embarrassing for Bamber to drive above the speed limit, to be seen to do so by the police who he knew would be on the same road, and arrive at the farm only to find that such haste was unnecessary. Bamber could not know that his family were in danger and he had only called the police as a precaution.

It is easy to use hindsight and say that he should have driven faster. However, if innocent, how could he have known his family would be killed? It is all too easy to say what people should have done but, without being in that particular situation, how can we possibly judge whether or not a person reacted in a natural manner? The same argument can be presented to those who criticise Bamber for not having dialled 999. Bamber says that if the emergency services had been required, Ralph would have contacted them himself and the fact he did not suggests at that point in time the situation had not developed to be so serious that outside help was required. It should be considered that Police Constable West at first seemed reluctant to help Bamber and even afterwards was slow to respond. Therefore even the police originally did not consider the situation to be an emergency during the early stages of the call.

Jeremy Bamber arrived at the junction of Pages Lane, which is the lane leading up to White House Farm, and Tollesbury Road soon before 03:45, shortly after the first police officers to attend the scene had arrived. The police believed Bamber arrived between three and four minutes after their own arrival, which may or may not be an accurate reflection of the time. Unless the officers looked at their watches, there is no way they could appreciate the amount of time that had elapsed and they were not even asked about the time until a number of weeks had passed. Studies have shown that people naturally overestimate periods of time.

The police had parked ten yards in from the road and were waiting for Bamber to turn up. Bamber parked his Vauxhall Astra nearby and walked over to meet the officers, Sergeant Christopher Bews, Police Constable Stephen Myall and Police Constable Robin Saxby. During a brief conversation with Bews it was agreed they should drive near to the farm cottages, approximately two hundred metres from White House Farm, and park their vehicles at that location. After doing this, Bamber accompanied Bews and Myall on a walk up to the farmhouse, whilst Saxby remained in the vehicle to man the radio.

The lights upstairs and in the kitchen of the farmhouse were switched on, but the rest of the house appeared, from the outside, to be in darkness. British Telecom would later, at 03:56, carry out a check on the telephone line within the farm. The check confirmed there was a telephone off its hook and therefore the telephone line was open and could be used to monitor what was happening within the building. At that moment in time nothing could be heard other than the distressed barking of the family pet, a shih-tzu dog named Crispy. However, soon after approaching White House Farm Bamber, Bews and Myall saw a figure moving within the building, inside the upstairs main bedroom. At this point in time, fearing that a siege situation was unfolding, they all ducked behind a hedge, and then ran two hundred metres up Pages Lane, to where the vehicles were parked, in order to assess the situation.

Bamber was asked again about his father’s call, to which he gave the same response as he had when speaking with Police Constable West. He also provided details about his sister’s mental health issues. Sheila’s state of mind will be discussed in the following chapter but it is important to say here that Bamber told the police that his sister suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that she had not been taking her medication. On both counts, as will be shown, he was telling the truth. Sheila had, at the end of March that year, he explained, been discharged from St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton, where she had been undergoing treatment.

He added that there had been an argument the previous evening, which he thought might have upset Sheila and caused her to react in such a way that she might pick up a gun. Even so, Bamber did not believe his sister would commit a crime. Instead he thought that she would only use it as a scare tactic, whilst upset.

Bamber gave details about the guns within the house; as on most farms there were a number of firearms inside, including rifles and shotguns. Bamber recalled having loaded an Anschutz .22 calibre rifle on the previous evening whilst working at the farm. He told how he had seen some rabbits, earlier in the evening, beside the Dutch barn so he took the gun to shoot at them if they were still there. However, upon returning to the barn he could not see any rabbits and so he did not fire the rifle. Instead he claimed he placed it on the settle in the kitchen, leaving the box of cartridges beside the telephone. It was common, habitual behaviour, he claimed, for guns to be kept around the house because normally Sheila Caffell and her children were not staying.

Bamber was asked to draw a map of the interior of the building, indicating the positions of doors and windows and labelling where each individual slept.

The head of the family, Ralph Nevill Bamber, was sixty-one years old when he met his death. He is frequently referred to by his middle name, Nevill. I shall, however, refer to him as Ralph because this is how he is referred to by all of those I have corresponded with. A farmer and local magistrate, Ralph had amassed a considerable wealth for himself and his family. A number of businesses had been established and acquired, although the Bamber family did not, in some cases, own the whole company, instead owning a significant share. The Bamber estate was worth, in 1985, approximately £438,000 (at today’s value it would be a multi-million pound mini business empire). As Ralph was a local magistrate he did not want his daughter’s illness and erratic behaviour to be publicised for fear of the family name, and his reputation, suffering as a consequence. This is one reason why the police