Was Jeremy Bamber innocent?(143 Posts)
Have been interested in this case for years and am uneasy about his 10-2 majority conviction of murdering his parents, sister and 2 nephews. ITV 6 part drama-doc starting 6th Jan. Lots of stuff doesn't add up. He and a cop supposedly saw someone moving about inside hours after everyone was supposedly dead. Was that the sister and did she go crazy and kill them all? Not saying he's innocent but just saying I don't think he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There's said to be proof now of the second phone call, from his home at 3.37am. First had been allegedly by his father to him at 3.26 saying the sister had a gun and was going mad. He couldn't have got home, 3.5 miles away, after killing them all in 11 minutes.
Lots of top lawyers and experts think he may be innocent. Not a very likeable man no,but sad if he's spent 33 years in jail for something he didn't do.
For anyone not British, this is an infamous case here in the UK. Bamber and his sister were both adopted by fairly wealthy parents. Bamber was a bit of a playboy and is supposed to have told ex-girlfriend Julie Mugford that he planned to kill his family to get their money earlier. The sister was a schizophrenic. So did he break in and kill them all or did the sister do it? He's still serving a whole life term and been inside 33 years but still protests his innocence. He took a lie-detector in 2007 and passed and the expert who did it says he is innocent based on that.
I've followed this one quite closely over the years. I do think there are some unanswered questions and some rather dubious evidence that makes me feel that legally the conviction should be reviewed, possibly retried. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to convict him of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
I make no personal comment as to whether I think he is innocent or guilty, merely on the legal grounds.
I read about this the other day and a lot doesnt seem to add up. But the police force who arrested him said theres no new evidence and no secret evidence his lawyers are alluding to. So i dont know one way or the other but i do think a retrial is in order.
Yeah same here. No idea if he did it or not. Too many little anomalies which separately don't make him innocent but all put together makes me and many legal experts uneasy.
Also the sister's blood wasn't congealed like the rest, suggesting that she died hours after the others.
Had the judge refused to accept a majority conviction Bamber would have walked away an innocent man.
My cousin used to babysit the twins and has always believed in Bamber's innocence 🤷♀️
The whole life term means he'll die in jail with no chance of parole but the European court said this was unlawful and that the UK government should review his case. Here if you don't admit your guilt you will never be released so it would be in his best interests to admit it but he still vehemently protests his innocence.
I read a post on Websleuths last night from someone who claimed their sister worked as a babysitter for a friend and things about her that they noticed made them think she was guilty.
Whenever this case comes up in the news I think it's going to be about a retrial. There's a lot of questions about this awful crime.
We knew someone connected to the family (no longer alive who thought he was not guilty of the murders).
No knowledge of the case whatsoever but if he did want the parents dead could he have put his sister up to it if she was mentally unwell and in a period where she could have been coerced? Like Manson who didn’t physically harm anyone himself but pretty much set the whole thing up.
@Yappy12 My cousin always said the sister's mental health was very bad. She said the twins were adorable 😰
No, I don't think he's innocent. Whenever these supposedly conclusive points come out suggesting he's innocent, it inevitably turns out that he and his supporters are massaging the facts.
He took a lie-detector in 2007
Which means the square root of fuck all, thankfully.
I believe he's guilty. There are definitely points that weren't dealt with well but he's had two retrials and failed to overturn his conviction twice now.
I know it's easy to try and pin this on a 7 stone mother in a psychotic rage which apparently made her powerful enough to beat and overcome her 6 foot 4 inch father and also kill her two boys but I'm not buying that. Mothers do kill their children but it's rare and she was by all accounts a loving mother - albeit flawed.
She was a schizophrenic though, as acknowledged by her psychiatrist, and on drugs. She could have snapped.
I have no idea whether or not he’s guilty, but it’s certainly a very intriguing case. I hope he is guilty... the thought of someone innocent spending 33 years (so far) in prison is terrible.
Thanks for the heads up about the documentary, OP, I’ll be watching.
Lie detectors mean fuck all, because they are nowhere near accurate.
If she did it, how did she shoot herself twice? They also determined she wasnt strong enough to have won the violent battle with her father, or tall enough to have shot herself.
Well yes, she could have snapped and slain her entire family. However JB was found guilty in court and then guilty again on his 1st retrial and then guilty for a third time on his 2nd retrial.
So I'm more inclined to go with the verdict of the judge and jury rather than try and shape it to fit this woman.
She could have snapped but I don't see how she could have overpowered her much bigger, much stronger father, without getting any injuries herself, and kill several people with a shotgun she wasn't experienced with using without getting any gun residue on herself or her clothes, and walk around a room full of blood and broken glass while barefoot without getting any dirt or cuts or anything on her feet. It looks a lot more to me like she was set up.
Bamber and his lawyers have been doing that "shocking new evidence which will prove his innocence" thing for years now.
It's not a documentary. It's a drama based on the Bamber case. It is extremely unusual for a killer to be given a whole-life tariff and having one puts him in the same category as the likes of Rose West and the Yorkshire Ripper. He's not innocent.
And I've made this point elsewhere on this case, but it's very strange that it's generally middle aged women trying to excuse him and pin it on a woman. His campaign team is lead by a middle aged woman and his main supporters are the same.
I'm sure that's nothing to do with the fact he was a very good looking and charismatic man 😀
However JB was found guilty in court and then guilty again on his 1st retrial and then guilty for a third time on his 2nd retrial
That doesn’t actually mean he is factually guilty. In the US, they estimate that 10% of people on death row are innocent. They’ve been through trials and appeals as well.
And I've made this point elsewhere on this case, but it's very strange that it's generally middle aged women trying to excuse him and pin it on a woman. His campaign team is lead by a middle aged woman and his main supporters are the same
I'm sure that's nothing to do with the fact he was a very good looking and charismatic man
It’s ridiculous that you’ve made this “point” once, let alone multiple times...not to mention misogynistic.
The evidence is what matters, and there are definitely strange aspects of this case.
Sheila’s blood was apparently still wet when she was found...many hours after she was supposedly shot.
It’s certainly worth asking questions, imo.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.