Robin Cox

The Case for Innocence by Robin Cox, Researcher

I have known Jeremy for some years now and I have seen a lot of evidence in his case. Of course on reading compelling evidence what ran through my mind was “Just because evidence was fabricated it doesn’t mean he is innocent.” Indeed some would suggest that the police and witnesses really believed he was guilty and just helped justice along with a bit of “Noble cause corruption”.

Here I am going to talk about some points which I believe are valid when arguing the case for Jeremy’s innocence.  These things convinced me along with the number of call logs which show that Sheila was in conversation with police.

Sheila Caffell’s blood was still well at 10:20am when the photographs were taken

If Jeremy had killed Sheila he had to have done it between midnight and 3am. Why then does this picture (and others) show her blood wet at this time? When we die, ‘livor mortis’ sets in within a few hours, the blood coagulates. Do Essex Police expect us to believe that Sheila had been bleeding for almost seven and a half hours?

If Jeremy is innocent – why did Essex Police become involved in fabricating evidence?

Firstly the police failed to notice that Sheila Caffell was alive in the kitchen when they broke down the door, they didn’t check her properly before going upstairs. They could have saved her life. I believe this is why they drafted in officers to train them on how they could have carried out the operation much better thus saving her life and saving Jeremy his life in prison.

Secondly, Robert Boutflour and his children Ann Eaton and David Boutflour kept hounding Inspector Jones who threw them out of his office three times. Unknowingly Jeremy Bamber stood to inherit half of their farms – their homes and livelihoods. Documents uncovered recently show that Nevill secretly owned 50% of Ann & Peter Eaton’s farm and not even June Bamber knew. Unaware of how much he would now inherit, (as were the jury) Jeremy was the now the sole beneficiary of his mother’s share of inheritance from her own mother’s estate and she was very elderly (dying before Bamber was convicted). Jeremy also owned 750 shares of the Caravan park equally with Ann Eaton. His mother June and her sister Pamela owned the rest. Jeremy would have inherited from his mother and been the major shareholder of the caravan park (which brought in a healthy income). So now my point is, the relatives would not ‘give this up’ maybe they didn’t know the police had mucked it up, or perhaps they were already aware of the dire situation where the police carried out training exercises as they were on friendly terms with some police officers. Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side. Which was not the prosecution’s case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here.

When Robert Boutflour (now deceased) was unsatisfied with Inspector Jones and went to see Assistant Chief Constable Simpson, the case was turned into a murder investigation. I believe Simpson knew that Boutflour was NOT giving this one up and that the truth about the bungled raid and training exercises would come out. There is a catalogue of edited police statements, action reports, crime scene pictures with the gun in different places on the body of Sheila Caffell.

Coroner’s verdict

Why did the coroner not question the facts at the time? Seems very odd to me, if the police broke into the house and Sheila had the gun lying on her like (vertically) that then it would have been obvious to anyone that it was rigged up. It is fact that Sheila was either standing or sitting when both shots went into her the blood ran down her right side to her leg. The gun would have dropped to the floor and not been resting on her vertically in my opinion.

Public Interest Immunity Documents

Essex Police have placed a large amount of documents under PII from two police enquiries into the handling of the case, more on that if you are interested. But this is the ‘slippery’ point from 7th August to 7th Sept the case was treated as a Murder-suicide and these documents (apart from about 5%) have NEVER been released. On 7th Sept Police assigned a new case number and it is this case number that HAS been fully disclosed to the defence. There are whole pages missing/edited from the police logs there were 3 logs recorded at the time. Police officers arrived and didn’t leave and there are too many discrepancies. Why don’t Essex Police disclose ALL the documents from the original investigation showing they were not talking to anyone in the house? They would save themselves from a lot of continued embarrassment and aggravation if they showed the whole original log. I put it that they were talking to someone in the house and this was Sheila Caffell, she was alive there is no question in my mind.

“Siege situation”

A number of police statements report a siege situation, this strongly suggests that Sheila was alive in the house and they had it surrounded that is what a siege is! The firearms team arrived at 5am and broke into the house at 7.34– so why did they spend two and a half hours sitting in darkness with nothing happening and no signs of life. This strongly suggests to me that Sheila was alive and they were trying to talk her out. Jeremy was kept away from the house he didn’t know what was going on he was right back in a police car with uniformed officers.

Sound Moderator & Silencer

The family were all shot at close range, within three feet. Sheila couldn’t have missed! Nevertheless, a silencer is what it says but they are illegal in this country because they silence gun fire to the human ear. A sound moderator (which is called mistakenly, a silencer) is usually used for shooting rabbits it doesn’t make much difference to the sound of the human ear and but rabbits hear the ‘sonic boom’ or something which frightens them and they run before the bullet gets to them. So suggesting that Jeremy used one to make a difference to the sound of the gun in the house is unrealistic. Jeremy left the gun without the moderator on it that night before he left the farm to go home after working. An Anshultz rifle is about as loud as a hand clap, anyhow so this is another reason why Sheila got round the house without too much disturbance.

Two shots to Sheila

The coroner of course thought there was no problem with there being two bullet wounds to Sheila. The first one went into her neck and broke apart in the tissue. She would have been able to stand up and walk about for a while, no question. The second shot went into her brain it killed her instantly. Why would Gresham’s educated Bamber think he was going pass it off as a suicide when she had two bullet wounds? If he had mucked it up as the prosecution stated, then why did he not sit and wait for her to die, or hope that she might? Why make up this convoluted story about the phone call?

Sheila was no match for Nevill

There was some kind of scuffle in the kitchen.  Sheila was slight about 9 stone I think and 5ft 10, but there was no reason why she couldn’t have handled the gun to bash Nevill in the head with the butt. He had been shot at least 4 times, if not 7 or 8 by the time these wounds were inflicted. A woman could easily have done this especially one in a psychotic episode.

Bicycle – times

I haven’t studied a lot on this but I was reading a statement the other day about the tests carried out to see how Bamber shot the family and got back in time to his house.  Every part of the road was accounted for, no witnesses saw Jeremy or anyone like him and his car remained outside his house. So how did he do it? It is a 10 minute drive I believe. They said he walked across fields, got there, shot the family, somehow locking the house from the inside as it was totally secure. And then he got on his mothers bicycle IN THE DARK and cycled across bumpy fields and along the sea wall back to his cottage. What a load of rubbish! This would have taken 35 minutes I believe. So how did he make the call at WHF pretending to be his father (I understand the police exchange records the number in those days) or forcing his father to make the call? Get on his mothers bicycle and get back to Goldhanger and call the police? The call from Nevill was made at 3:26 and they despatched a car to the scene on receiving this call at 3:35, the call from Jeremy was recorded at 3:36.  If these calls were one in the same which has been argued (simply copies of each other – but they weren’t, they were rolling documents with big differences) How did they despatch a car a minute before Jeremy’s call?

The figure in the window

When Jeremy first arrived from his house in Goldhanger he met the two police officers, (then another arrived). They walked around the house outside. Jeremy says there was a light on in the main bedroom and he Myall and Bews saw a figure move in the window. The police fobbed this off at trial as a trick of the light, saying the light in the window wasn’t on. So Sgt Bews, who has told different stories to different newspapers which conflict with the story he told in court, (and there are a number of transcripts) called out the firearms team because he saw a reflection of the moon? (which was rising on the other side of the house) and so far he has said, it was a fault in the glass – at trial, and a trick of the light, he said things like ‘we checked and it was nothing’.’ How did he check? In a recent interview his story shifted once again. According to their statements (obviously altered, Jeremy and the two officers came running back to the control car and then Bews called for the firearms team. Why did they run? And who was the ‘unident’ male that PC Myall reported?

It seems to me that Sgt Bews would say anything to a newspaper for a quick buck. It is interesting that people who often appear in newspapers attacking Jeremy are paid for their story and yet those who work and fight for Jeremy’s freedom do so free of cost with no financial gain to themselves.

No forensic evidence linking Jeremy to the crime

They tested the bicycle for blood – nothing. They found no evidence of the crime when they went to his house.  The rusty blade that was supposed to have been used to force the window was found by the relatives, (who inherited the fortune on Jeremy’s conviction) as was the bicycle, and the moderator.

No finger prints on the gun

There was only one print from Sheila, and one print from Jeremy. He had been out to shoot rabbits unsuccessfully and he left the gun on the settle in the scullery. Farmers used to (and still do) leave guns all round the house. Nevill was NOT (contrary to popular belief) careful, there was a gun in almost every room ready to grab to take out and shoot rabbits and the such like. The crime scene photos show there were guns all over the house.

Anshultz Rifle

This is my own opinion that if Jeremy was a clever, cold, calculating murderer who premeditated the crime as the prosecution state I don’t think he would have done it this way. For arguments sake if it was me and I was going to blow my family away, I would use a shotgun and be sure they were dead.  I don’t know if you know ANYTHING about guns but I didn’t before I got involved in this. (Apologies if my explanation is a bit rudimentary). An Annshultz has a little single pellet about the size of my little fingernail. Why would Jeremy use a gun like that and not one of the shotguns with great big two inch bullets that are full of lead to blast them quickly and easily?

Sheila grew up on a farm, she knew how to use guns, but she was irrational and very, very sick there is absolutely no question of that – I believe that she grabbed the nearest gun to hand and used it. Rubbish about her long finger nails making it difficult just doesn’t cut the mustard. Why didn’t Jeremy (supposedly a crack shot) shoot Nevill first – If I had planned a murder like that I would have had to gun down the man first he was the greatest threat.  They don’t know really which order they died, but one thing is for sure June and the twins were shot quickly but Nevill must have ran, why not kill him first and quickly?

Blood in the Moderator

The two moderators are a complex issue and I won’t go into that here, either way the moderator that was examined at trial had two types of animal blood in it and one human (but the jury weren’t told about the animal blood). They couldn’t get enough blood to group it (no DNA then) but they found that it had the AK1 enzyme in it. Many animals, including rabbits have the AK1 enzyme in their blood. AK1 is also present in SOME humans, not all. But it was present in Sheila’s blood group. (And incidentally the Boutfours too!)

At the 2002 appeal, Bamber’s own forensic scientist testified that they couldn’t get any of Sheila’s DNA from the inside of the moderator during the swabs. (Her natural mother gave samples to make a profile as Essex Police threw away all the DNA evidence in ‘96)  He testified that there was NO DNA from Sheila and the prosecution didn’t refute this, which is why Jeremy’s camp ‘thought it was in the bag’ but then the Forensic scientist admitted in court that just because there was no DNA in the inside baffle plates now, it doesn’t mean that there NEVER was any. It could just be that the scientists previously had ‘swabbed’ it all away. And that’s one of the reasons why the appeal was lost.

Julie Mugford

Julie testified that Jeremy hired a hit man with a cast iron alibi, she never said he killed his family himself. Why did he cheat on her if she knew what he had done? How did she go to bed at night with him knowing what he had done? Why did she have 32 interviews with police before she rustled up the story of the hit man? Julie’s story doesn’t convince me and I wonder how it managed to convince anyone. What I have seen of her she appears monotone, dull but from what we know of her I doubt she was afraid of Jeremy and if she had the opportunity to be free of him why did she take such a long time?  Julie was a working class girl. She must have thought all her Christmases had come at one when she met with Jeremy, rich, intelligent, good looking, well educated the envy of every man. He could have had any woman he wanted and she knew that. She must have felt lucky to have been the chosen one.

Julie she was doing an MA at university to be a teacher.  She had committed cheque book fraud with her friend by reporting it stolen and going on a spree with her friend. There are statements showing that she would have immunity from prosecution over this matter if she testified against Jeremy and if she didn’t she would have a criminal record and never be the teacher she wanted to be. She is now head teacher at a school in Canada. Jeremy cheated on Julie with her friend, he admits it’s true. Julie also claimed Jeremy was bisexual and this was used in evidence against him. Why on earth would anyone tell their girlfriend they were going to do those killings and not make her his alibi? Why did he cheat on her with her own best mate? Surely it would have been his priority to keep her sweet? Julie also said in other statements that she had hired a solicitor to handle the press offering her money for her story, she raked in a cool 25k on Jeremy’s conviction (worth a lot more in 1985 than by today’s standards) from the News of the World. Julie Mugford, I am convinced personally that she was a liar who was driven by money to carry out her testimony against Jeremy.

Lie Detector

I have heard that these are now used to check people don’t break parole so they are about 95% reliable. Why would Bamber make requests for a number of years to take one if he was a liar. The risk would be too great. It is argued that Psychopaths can pass these tests as they have no conscience. Jeremy has been tested for psychopathy 27 times since being charged with murder and not one psychologist has found him to be a psychopath or have any mental illness either. And remember Jeremy can support every word with evidence.

Why protest your innocence for so long?

Conditions in prison are much better if you admit your crime and go on rehabilitation programmes. Eventually you are downgraded from Category A through the system and released. Why not just ‘be one’ with the other prisoners be <span style=”font-style:italic;”>‘a hard murdering criminal like them’</span> I am sure Jeremy has not had a great time in prison because he claims innocence. The other prisoners must hate that. There is no chance of parole for Jeremy even if the European Court put the tariff back down, it is unlikely that he would get parole because he has not admitted the crime and carried out the workshops which are designed to stop people re-offending. Why does he work so hard on his case, tedious painstaking work, when he could just put his feet up? He churns out a lot of evidence, so do other people who work for him.

On a personal note

Jeremy has kept friends from before prison and is able to build friendships at all levels. He is a smart resilient man. I have spoken to him on the phone and at length for many, hours about his case over a number of years, I have met him and chatted to him and so have many other people. He never trips up – never, because he is telling the truth. Have you ever tried to lie to someone, and then you forget and you mess up? I don’t believe it’s possible to lie to the extent that he would have to if he was guilty, he would have to be super human. And he is not that, he is an ordinary man in an extraordinary situation that’s all. I wouldn’t have wasted my professional time on a man I couldn’t be sure was innocent, nor would I continue to be his friend.  I don’t work for Jeremy any longer but I know people that do and they feel the same way as I did when I worked for him.

My conclusion is that he is simply just telling the truth. Whether it’s enough to convince you or not I don’t know, but I wonder why it is that the most simple explanation is the hardest to believe?

Family wipe-out murders are usually done to silence people who know too much, or to stop a court case or some such.  By killing all of them no one can tell any tales, and it’s made to look not like a business killing.  A surviving relative can easily be made the patsy.  If it concerns drugs the police could easily become involved in fixing evidence.