To think Jeremy Bamber might be innocent

I’ve just listened to the first two episodes of that podcast.
It’s very well made, very skilful storytelling. It’s also obvious how it’s going to go because when Ann Eaton was introduced she was described as wearing clouds of perfume and having dyed hair, and everyone knows that in fiction these things are code for ‘not a good woman! Can’t trust her!’
And of course the conviction was also about storytelling and making people fit existing negative stereotypes. It would be good if a conviction was more about solid scientific evidence rather than how much people fit stereotypical detective fiction tropes and whether their behaviour fits with how you would expect someone in their situation to behave (shock horror Bamber went on holiday! Omg Ann Eaton moved into the farmhouse and didn’t change the carpets!) but of course the police fucked that one up by allowing the crime scene to be messed with and later destroying evidence.

I don’t think there has ever been any suggestion that the whole crime scene was staged to frame him, has there?
His argument is that Sheila carried out the murders as the police originally thought and the framing came later, so the police would have already found the gun by Sheila’s body without the silencer.

My question on that would be, if they wanted him to look guilty, why not leave the silencer on the gun? Why put it in a cupboard?

It would make sense that Jeremy quickly hid it in a cupboard so that the police didn’t know it was on the gun, but anyone wanting to frame him would leave it on the gun if they had any wits about them.

I guess that boils down to the timeframes on when the silencer was found. The quality of the initial search the police did etc.

I’ve always thought he was guilty.

I’ve read and watched various materials on the case over the years, and I’m yet to see/read anything that convinces me otherwise.

I don't think it's that surprising that more is going on social media - his Mum is on a proper fundraising campaign atm and is pushing hard to have his name mentioned in as many places as possible as often as possible.

It's more interesting, imo, that the charges against her were dropped despite her obvious lying to defend him (her other son basically admitted that she 'confused' him about events of the day of the murder).

I get the focus on the main case, but it must be horrendous for Jodi Jones' parents to see the woman who thought it normal and acceptable to buy her son - who was under suspicion of murdering his girlfriend at the time - a hunting knife for Christmas just months after their daughters murder bleating on about justice.

I’m on the fence about Jeremy’s guilt after listening to the podcast mentioned above, but in any case the conviction feels unsafe, the police bungled the crime scene and the evidence.

I highly doubt anything will be overturned though, the body dealing with the appeals of such prisoners with bogus questions over their sentences has enough backlog to last them fifty years. I believe they won’t touch Jeremy’s case as the quashing would be very high profile, he’s charismatic and articulate and there’d be interviews and books galore. And how utterly shameful for Essex police, it might be forty years ago but their handling of the evidence and crime scene was nothing short of an embarrassment and will point to all sorts of accusations of corruption (which was most likely rife at the time)

There's no need to be so snarky, whether you believe me or not. I've been on here for years and got literally no reason to make anything up, especially about a murderer I've never met. If you search my posts you'll probably find mention of my past work in Scottish prisons.

We don’t know you’re making this up, do we? So your post is worthless.

Do you have a link to the podcast please OP?

I'd say they'd have a good insight into his character though haven't met him and engaged with him, wouldn't you? And also observed his behaviours, some of which were quite the eye opener.

Their beliefs are no more valid than your or mine.

I know people who have worked with him in prison and don't doubt his guilt.

I'm also intrigued by this case, and even if he is guilty, I wonder how much " nefarious" effort went into getting the guilty verdict on the behalf of police and prosecuters, as corruption in these institutions appears to have been common (and no doubt still is) in the 70s and 80s.

I'm thinking particularly of the chain of custody around the silencer. And alleged botching of some of the crime scene.

On a side note, I'm interested in the Jodie Jones/Luke Mitchell case. There are more and more YouTube and Tik Tok videos coming out claiming his innocence. It's intriguing.

I've never understood why it is always assumed there was one killer in that house.

It has been said that the entire family was a little unusual in polite terms and barking in less polite terms.

That’s correct. The alleged hitman was arrested and provided his alibi, which then undermined Julie Mugford’s evidence. Also odd was that she claimed he told her about the murders but she did t immediately go to the police, she carried on seeing him. Wouldn’t you at least make your excuses?

She wouldn’t be the first person to perjure herself.

Mentioned just a few posts up is that she changed her story to the police. She also stood to receive £25k and not be charged for cheque frauds and smuggling and selling cannabis if Bamber was found to be guilty. Additionally, the police knew, because she confess to them, that she and Bamber stole money from the family business.

Overall, she is a textbook example of an unreliable witness.

The podcast also talked about how the girlfriend said Jeremy had confessed to hiring a hitman and named a specific person. Who turned out to have an alibi.

Which casts doubt on the story. But then I guess Jeremy might have been telling half truths to her and didn’t dare admit he’d killed them by his own hand

ah, I started listening to another podcast about it yesterday and it said he was in a chair. Obviously not a well researched podcast. Think I’ll skip the rest of it.

Yeah and I do think she only told because she got dumped but that's why you don't dump your girlfriend who knows you did.murders.

nevill wasn’t found sat in a chair, he was found fallen face down across a piece of furniture exactly suggestive of a struggle

Her evidence was thoroughly tested under cross examination In court and was not undermined.

Bamber was and is a very arrogant man who despises women. I suspect that has a lot to do with his decision to dump his girlfriend, and indeed to try to frame his sister. He just didn't believe that Julie Mugford would give evidence against him, or that she would be believed in preference to him if she did.

Unsafe!

Ahh, I must have forgotten he’d been beaten. It’s a long time since I read the book on this.