Structure of the Trial

[Erik Narramore]

I believe Anthony Arlidge, Q.C., in his closing speech, may have specifically referred to the alternate possibilities in the case, though I don't have a a transcript.  The examination and cross-examination of Dr. Hugh Ferguson at trial specifically and explicitly addresses the possibility of Sheila as the killer, as I believe does John Bradley's evidence.  The cross-examination of David Boutflour considers the question of whether Sheila ever fired a gun, at all, anywhere.  The evidence of Colin Caffell also addressed it.  The evidence of Malcolm Fletcher was preoccupied at length with the question of the supposed difficulty of loading the magazine.  One of the points on which Judge Drake ridiculed the defence was the theory that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard.  I don't have the full transcript, but if memory serves, I think Drake does refer the jury to the possibility of Sheila as the culprit.

My point is that the theory of Sheila as the killer was a central theme of the trial.  She was on trial - and rightly so, just not officially so.  I think this was a unique criminal trial in that respect.  That said, it wasn't for the jury to pronounce Sheila guilty (or innocent), their job was purely to decide whether the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was sufficient to convict him.  If they had acquitted him (which I think they should have done), it does not necessarily follow from this that the jury would have been saying that Sheila did it, even if that would be considered the necessary unspoken implication in some quarters.

[Erik Narramore]

The point the pro-Jeremy camp are disputing is the fairness of the trial's structure.  Normally it's a case of the Crown having to prove that the defendant committed the murder.  In this case, supporters say, the Crown only sought to establish that Sheila did not commit a murder-suicide, not specifically that Jeremy committed five murders.  Since the judge allowed this case to proceed, the trial was unfair - so the argument goes.

I must say that I disagree with this argument.

First, what the evidence tells us is that if Sheila could not have commit murder-suicide, then the culprit is very probably Jeremy (whether we can say it is certainly Jeremy to a degree that can convict him depends on your view of the evidence).

Second, and following from the first point, it was not necessary for the Crown to prove that Jeremy was ever at the scene.  You can be guilty of murder without having personally committed the deed or even been at the scene.

Like it or not, that is the position.

As well as objections from the pro-Jeremy camp, there are also some in the pro-guilt camp who tacitly object to this because they say that 'Sheila was never on trial', but the reality is that Sheila was on trial.  It was Jeremy or Sheila.  Even the judge mentioned to the jury in his summing-up that if at any point they decide that Jeremy's account of events could be true (note use of the word 'could', not must) then they must acquit Jeremy Bamber.  Since Jeremy's version of events has Nevill telling him that Sheila was going mad with a gun, and Sheila was found with the rifle, Jeremy's defence at least implies, if not alleges outright, that Sheila was the killer of herself and the others found later.  Who else could it be?  Those, on either side of the fence, who dispute this just don't understand the case.

I accept that there is a small possibility that the killer could have been a third party and Nevill made that call to Jeremy with a gun pointed at his head.  The scenario would be that Nevill says what he says as a coded way of tipping Jeremy off, and the call is then terminated and Nevill is beaten in revenge and killed.  That theory should not be laughed at because it is possible, but the possibility is very small indeed.  It's a possibility at the margins of plausibility, with nothing to support it in the evidence, and all sorts of points against it, such as why a disinterested third party would kill the twins, etc.

Where I agree with supporters of Jeremy is that, while he may have committed the crime, the case against him did not reach the bar of proof necessary to convict him in law.  I think the trial jury erred in law and convicted without sufficient evidence.