The character of Jeremy Bamber

[Erik Narramore]

It cannot be said that Jeremy was a man of good character as he had admitted to the police that he stole from the caravan park.  That's a dead end. 

What we can say is that Jeremy's prior behaviour gave no serious indication that he had murderous intent towards his parents, Sheila and the children.  The theft shows dishonesty and it was staged in the sense that it was made to look like a break-in, but that's nowhere near in the order of seriousness to mass murder, including killing two small boys.  What could change my mind about that is if it can be shown that Jeremy was about to be confronted about the theft by his parents.

His remarks to Robert Boutflour and Julie Mugford, even if those conversations happened, can be dismissed as flippancy or jocularity that was taken out of context, and/or exaggerations of what Jeremy said.  In support of this, we can note that the remarks were reported to third parties after the fact by only two witnesses, both of whom had a motive to incriminate Jeremy.

There is the alleged incident where Jeremy was trying to show Sheila how to use the rifle and a claim of a conversation about this between Robert Boutflour and Jean Bamber, but again this rests on one vested person reporting the incident after the fact.  That's not to say Robert Boutflour was lying, but it is to say that he may have been inclined to put a slant on things.  Sheila is supposed to have fired a shotgun on a shooting trip to Scotland.  And why shouldn't Jeremy show his sister how to use the rifle?  Put your own slant on it and decide.

The Bloke In The Pub, who reported a remark Jeremy made to him about hating his parents, can't be taken seriously.  I'm surprised the court even bothered with that witness, but I can also see why Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., may have decided not to object for the defence under the "he doth protest too much" principle.  Even if Jeremy did say he hated his parents and meant it at that time, lots of young people hate their parents, and may tell a friend as much, and may or may not mean it when they say it.  It doesn't imply anything sinister or criminal.

Pro-guilters say that these incidents point to a pattern of behaviour.  The remarks to Boutflour and The Bloke In The Pub can't be seen as part of a pattern.  Possibly the behaviour with Julie could be seen as a pattern.  In a sense, I regard Julie Mugford's evidence as bad character evidence rather than directly probative.  None of it proves Jeremy actually killed anybody or conspired to do so, and her account of what occurred turned out to be wrong as the person she incriminated had an alibi.  If the entire Crown case had rested on believing Julie, then Jeremy would have walked free. Even if you believe Jeremy literally said these things, it also rests on believing that her interpretation of what she heard is fair and accurate.  Yet there is some value in her evidence, in what it says of Jeremy's character and mindset.  I think Jeremy did have those conversations with Julie, but it is possible Julie has decontextualised the conversations and/or exaggerated them, leaving Jeremy and his legal team with no option but to refute them.

[Erik Narramore]

Different types of bad character evidence were used against Jeremy.  Some went to his credibility as a witness of truth, some of it was more about highlighting patterns of behaviour or prior offending that could imply that he was more likely to be guilty.

In regard to the theft at the caravan park, this seems to fall into both categories.  It shows recent criminal dishonesty, and it shows sufficient criminal acumen to stage an inside theft as a burglary.  Indeed, he was cross-examined about it at trial.

From the 2002 appeal judgment:

The Appellant's Evidence at Trial

137. No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.

138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.

139. Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.

140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.

It may be worth emphasising that from a strict textbook point-of-view, just having a prior criminal record does not necessarily lead to an inference of bad character.  There is in criminal law the concept of 'effective good character', where the defence argues for exclusion of adverse character evidence or a favourable direction from the bench on the basis that the prior criminal record is not relevant, either because the nature of the offending is different or because the offending is not recent.

In Jeremy's case, he admitted the caravan break-in, it was recent, and he could not overcome this by arguing that he had long-ago confessed to his parents, paid the money back (or was on his way to doing so), and had made other conspicuous efforts at rehabilitation.  Thus, the only line of argument the defence had would have been to say that the caravan break-in should either be excluded altogether or subject to a careful direction to the jury from the judge on the basis that it involved radically different offending to murder.  To be frank, I can understand why an experienced trial counsel like Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., would take the view: 'least said the better'.  You are never going to polish that problem away.  It is what it is.

The other problem Jeremy has is that if he has admitted to the break-in, this means that on at least one point, Julie was telling the truth - by Jeremy's own admission.  Not only that, she was telling the truth to her own detriment, since she was involved as his accomplice.  Yet Jeremy refutes (note: refutes, not just denies) everything else she says about him that is incriminating.  Maybe, as I have speculated above, Jeremy and his legal team had no choice but to pursue a blunt, unsophisticated strategy of refutation, but why is she telling the truth about one thing and not the rest?

The flip side of that of course is that if Jeremy is guilty, why would he admit to the break-in?  Why not just continue to deny it?  Ironically, you could argue that his admission implies innocence of the later more serious incident, since he had nothing to gain by admitting it and did so greatly to his own detriment.

Two possibilities to consider (I don't pretend these are exhaustive):

(i). Julie was telling the truth in a literal sense, and Jeremy did say most or all of these things or things very much like it.  But Jeremy was teasing/joking and she has exaggerated and taken what he said out of context.  This means she has either made a very grave mistake under the influence of pressures from the family and police, or she has lied by omission.  Jeremy continues to protest his innocence, and may or may not be innocent, since Julie's truthfulness can be considered separate and independent of the fact of what actually occurred at the farmhouse that night.
OR
(ii). She was in on it all along - what I call a 'constructive accomplice'.  She saw the tide turning, and under the influence of the family and police, switched sides and gave evidence against Jeremy.  Her earlier collusion with Jeremy has been concealed - hence the non-disclosure controversy.  Jeremy continues to protest his innocence because he knows that, although he is guilty, Julie cannot confirm this without also confirming her deeper involvement.  Instead, Julie has presented a story in which she is only semi-involved as Jeremy's confidant after-the-fact and also able to contextualise as incriminating conversations that took place with Jeremy before-the-fact.

[Erik Narramore]

The point is that, as far as I can see, there was no realistic basis for Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., to ask the judge to make an 'effective good character' direction to the jury.

Maybe the defence could have argued for excluding mention of the theft altogether, as it wasn't strictly relevant to establishing whether Jeremy actually committed the murders, but I think Rivlin, Q.C., would have been on stony ground with that sort of argument.

[Erik Narramore]

I'm not sure it really was 'good character' evidence in the proper sense.  I can't recall exactly, but it was more like his former employer in Colchester and somebody else who knew him telling the court he was alright as far as they were concerned.

To my mind, that's not good character evidence.  I would consider good character evidence as something along the lines of a pillar of the community who had no direct knowledge of the offences assuring the court that the accused's character is not consistent with guilt.

In this case, had Jeremy followed your suggestion and attended church with June, presumably the vicar/rector would have given good character evidence to inform the court of how Jeremy is a man of God who could not possibly have done such an evil thing, blah, blah, etc., etc.

I don't believe anybody who has even the most scant knowledge of the case could credibly argue that Jeremy Bamber was a man of good character.  He plainly wasn't, and the witnesses you refer to did not, in my opinion, adduce good character.

None of this makes Jeremy guilty of course.  Conversely, even the best good character evidence can only be considered persuasive; it is not proof of innocence.

As for Julie Mugford, as I say, it's just rumours. 

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy is supposed to have hated his parents.  I have to say that, if my parents had been gunned down in their own home and I had been wrongly convicted for it, I would probably have some pictures of them on my cell wall - especially if I had no family of my own.

I appreciate that, if he is innocent, he will have had, and will still have, mixed feelings about Sheila - for perfectly obvious and understandable reasons - and he probably wouldn't be overly-emotional about his nephews, but Nevill and June were his parents and had looked after him since before he could remember anything.

One can't draw definitive conclusions but it sounds like Jeremy may not have been emotionally close to his adoptive parents.  It's an easy conclusion to come to, but perhaps not surprising, for all sorts of reasons we need not labour here.

That doesn't mean he hated them, though, and it certainly doesn't mean he hated them enough to kill them.  But I do not believe he could have killed them without hating them.