Essay
Essay Answer Crime Scene to Courtroom - WJEC Applied Criminology Year Two
These are the answers I used in the controlled assessment and got myself an A! You can take these into the exam
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
Content preview
AC3.1Jeremy Bamber
Examine information for validity Jeremy Bamber Jeremy Bamber was convicted of murdering his parents, sister and
her twin sons in 1986 and was given a life sentence. There is much evidence that has been unearthed since the
original trial to suggest that his guilty verdict is not valid and that Bamber is innocent. There is very little evidence
that points to Bambers verdict being valid. Firstly the prosecution tried to fight the idea that Sheila was the killer
after a silencer was found in the gun cupboard that fit the murder weapon that also contained either red paint or
blood. This brought many problems for Bamber as if the gun had the silencer o, the gun would have been too big for
Sheila to kill herself, suggesting there must have been another shooter. This was supported by the fact that the
blood found in the silencer contained the AK1 enzyme that was found in Sheila’s blood. Therefore she couldn't have
killed herself and then put the silencer back into the cupboard. This evidence all points towards a different killer. This
theory was pushed further when Bambers ex-girlfriend case forward and told the police that amber said he was
going to murder his family by hiring a hitman. From this the police found a motive for Bamber to commit the crime;
if his whole family was dead he would be the sole inheritor of all money and the house. The police then put the
theory together that Bamber could have biked to the crime scene and back before making the police phone call to
avoid detection. This evidence points to the theory that the conviction against Bamber is valid and that he is in fact
guilty On the other hand, there is much evidence that points to Bamber being innocent. Initially, the police believed
that Sheila had committed the murders due to her having schizophrenia and recently being released from a hospital.
Sheila believe that her sons were the spawn of the devil but her schizophrenia episode was often triggered by the
idea of her sons being taken away from her. The day before the murders, Bambers parents told Sheila that they
thought she should give custody to them so she didn't have to worry about looking after them, which caused a huge
argument according to Bamber. Furthermore, Sheila’s psychiatrist said that this argument was likely to have caused
a psychotic episode and it is likely that she did commit the murders. This would mean that Bambers guilty verdict
was invalid and that Sheila was the true murderer This is furthered by the fact that Sheila had been raised on the
farm and consequently knew how to use a gun. But the key issues with the case arose when police reports were
reviewed. The police confirmed that when they arrived at the house there was movement inside, which could not
have been Bamber as he arrived just after police and was with them from 3:45am until the police entered. This
means Bamber could not have been inside the house and is unlikely to be the murderer, meaning his conviction is
not valid. Additionally, the police were talking to somebody within the house at 5:20am, when Bamber was still
inside so it is likely that the person they were talking to was the murderer. When the police finally entered at
7:37am, they initially found two bodies in the kitchen, one being male and female, and three bodies upstairs. This
was picked up and reported by two sources. However at trial it was stated that there was only one body in the
kitchen and four upstairs which would be impossible if all the people inside were dead. This suggests that one of the
family was still alive, most probably the killer. It was suggested that Sheila initially shot herself in the kitchen but was
not dead, and managed to get upstairs via one of the many staircases inside the house without the police seeing her.
Once upstairs, she died. This is very probable as forensic photographs taken at 10am show that Sheila’s blood was
still running, unlike the other bodies meaning she was the last to die and died much later than the others. Her body
also did not have rigor mortis like the other bodies did suggesting she only recently died .This would explain the
differences in initial police reports and evidence given in court, and demonstrates how Bamber couldn't have killed
his family as he was outside with the police all night and did not enter the house, yet Sheila had only recently died.
This suggests that Bamber did not kill his family and therefore his guilty verdict is not valid. There is also further
evidence to suggest that Sheila was in fact the killer and that Bamber is innocent. Since the first trial phone records
have been released showing that the father did in fact call the police, telling them that Sheila had a gun and she “was
going berserk”. This shows that it's very likely that Sheila was the murderer and therefore Bambers guilty verdict is
not valid and that he is innocent. Also, the prosecution argued that if a silencer was on the gun Sheila wouldn't have
been able to shoot herself as her arms were not long enough. However new evidence has demonstrated that the
gun wouldn't have been too long as there were multiple positions in which Sheila could have shot herself, and that
she would have been able to do it making the probability that Sheila was the killer much higher The police initially
began to suspect Bamber of the murders after his ex-girlfriend came forward declaring that Bamber hired a hitman
to kill his family. However it was later revealed that Bambers girlfriend only come forward after Bamber broke up
with her and it is probable that she did this out of spite. Furthermore, the apparent hitman that Bamber hired had a
solid alibi for the night of the murders and had no idea what was going on. Later it was discovered that his ex-
, girlfriend had tried to smother Jeremy with a pillow after their break-up demonstrating that she wants to hurt
Bamber and therefore her testimony is not reliable. Due to this being a key part of the trial it can be said that the
verdict is not valid as this will have influenced the jury despite many flaws with the testimony. Additionally there
were many issues with evidence in the trial. After the murders the police removed and destroyed crucial evidence
from the farm house such as carpets and furniture that were stained with blood and DNA. This means that evidence
that could have been used to prove Bamber was innocent was destroyed. However, a jury has to believe that a
suspect is innocent until proven guilty and therefore this police incompetence should be believed to clear Bamber.
Additionally, many documents such as evidence and statements have been placed under the public interest
immunity and some have been destroyed since the first trial meaning that the truth about what happened in the
first trial can never be known. The lack of documents and evidence makes it unlikely that a retrial will happen. Also,
the destroying of the documents suggest that there is evidence that Bamber is innocent but the police don’t want to
admit to another miscarriage of justice which would make Bambers verdict invalid. A key part of the trial was a
silencer that was found by the family. However upon later inspection of police records it was discovered that the
family found another silencer a month earlier, meaning that two silencers were found. Despite one being used in
court, the one that would have been too big for Sheila to kill herself with, nobody was aware which was used or
when it was found. It was said to be convenient that the prosecution only used the silencer that suggests there
would have been another killer. There was also the issue of how the family found the silencer as the police officers
had looked in the gun cupboard after the crime and no silencers were found. Upon ballistic testing it was also found
that there would have been no need to use a silencer as the murder weapon was a .22 pistol which naturally makes
much less noise than other guns. This would also be consistent with the idea that Sheila could have shot herself after
moving upstairs without the police hearing the gun go off. In addition to this, there was red paint or blood found on
the silencer that was said to come from a scratch on the mantle. However in the original scene of crime photos , the
photographer didn't notice the scratch on the mantelpiece and there was also no debris on the floor. This suggests
that the scratch was put there after the crime occurred. Therefore this evidence still points to the conclusion that
Sheila was the killer and Bamber is innocent, demonstrating how his guilty verdict is not valid.
Sion Jenkins
Sion Jenkins was convicted of the brutal murder of his 13 year old foster daughter Billie-Jo Jenkins, spending 6 years
in prison before being acquitted in 2006 after two trials. There is evidence to support the validity of his acquittal, but
also much evidence that says the verdict is not valid and that he is in fact guilty Many people believe that the verdict
given at the retrial is not valid and Jenkins is in fact guilty due to many inaccuracies in his story. One of the largest
indicators of Jenkins guilt is that microscopic specs of Billie-Jo's blood were found on his clothing. This demonstrated
his guilt as this blood wouldn't be here unless he killed her or was involved in the killing and therefore this would
mean that the acquittal is not valid. The police also found many discrepancies with his story and events of the day:
Jenkins told police that he took his other two daughters to the shop to buy more paint however it was later
discovered that Jenkins did not take any money to the shop, suggesting he never intended to buy paint but instead
this was to give him an alibi for the murder. This was later pointed out to be unnecessary as they already had the
paint in the house and didn't need to buy more, meaning he only left again to give himself an alibi. He also took an
indirect and longer route to the shop than what was needed, with the police believing this extended time period was
used to try to give himself an alibi-if this was the case then the verdict again would be invalid, suggesting he did kill
Billie-Jo, even with these things however the police concluded that if somebody else killed her, they would have had
to break in and commit the crime as well as flee all in ten minutes before the family returned which many believed
to be very unlikely, suggesting Jenkins’ guilt. After calling the ambulance, Jenkins also demonstrated strange
behaviour as he went to sit outside in his car and upon being questioned by the police he repeatedly changed his
account of what happened, changing the times of arrival, where he went in the house, why he went out and other
details. Police believed he did this because he realised that his children would be giving different accounts of what
happened and so changed his story so it was similar to his children's accounts. This suggest that Jenkins was trying to
hide something and from this we can infer his guilt, meaning the acquittal would not be valid Another key piece of
evidence used against Jenkins is that his wife and children accused him of being violent, describing his behaviour as
bipolar. In the first trial, the wife testified that Jenkins physically abused her and the children with sticks and slippers,
perforating her ear drums on one occasion. His daughters also confirmed this, describing how he used corporal
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hannahwood2005. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £13.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now