Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Was Jeremy Bamber innocent?

152 replies

Yappy12 · 03/12/2019 08:04

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.

OP posts:
Beveren · 03/12/2019 10:26

It should be about the evidence and nothing else

Precisely. The evidence that three separate juries heard and saw and which convinced them of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Beveren · 03/12/2019 10:26

No, it doesn’t.

Not a convincing argument, to be honest.

ChestnutSmoothie · 03/12/2019 10:30

There's a suggestion that it looks wet in one of the photos, which is due to the amounts involved and the use of flash photography

How do you know that, exactly?

It looks wet. One of the explanations for that is that it was wet. Another one might be trick of the light/use of flash photography.

It’s so odd to me that people who weren’t actually there seem to be able to explain everything away.

ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 10:34

Precisely. The evidence that three separate juries heard and saw and which convinced them of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem with that view, is that it assumes the trial process is scrupulous. As we should know if we've been paying attention, it most certainly isn't. The prosecution have the upper hand and if they so chose can "curate" what evidence the jury sees. Ask the Guildford four or Birmingham six about that.

I have no idea whether this may have happened here. But I have lots of ideas where courts have got it wrong. Either by misfortune, or more worryingly, by design.

ChestnutSmoothie · 03/12/2019 10:35

To be honest, Beveren a position of “he must be guilty because three juries said so” is hardly worth the bother of arguing with.

There have been multiple, multiple instances of people being found guilty repeatedly AND having their convictions upheld by appeals courts who then turned out to be innocent.

Juries get things wrong. Fact.

I am more interested in the evidence. Most of it points to guilt in my opinion, but not all of it. But I am not really interested in people’s pet theories presented as facts.

Original poster
Yappy12 · 03/12/2019 10:36

@DuckWillow

Sorry didn't know he'd failed other lie detector tests.

OP posts:
DuckWillow · 03/12/2019 10:36

Lots of crime scene photos exist . Sheila was moved at one point which would have led to more blood flow by means of gravity.

Also she had a post mortem which gave a probable time of death earlier than Jeremy saw someone moving around.

AnchorDownDeepBreath · 03/12/2019 10:37

I can't get passed the silencer.

It was used for all the shootings - if it hadn't been, after the first shot, everyone in the house would have come running. 25 shots were fired...

Sheila cannot have shot herself with the silencer on, it makes the gun too long for her arms. She was shot with the silencer on, her blood is on it. So if Jeremy didn't shoot her, then someone else in the house survived, shot her, hid the silencer in a cupboard and then died...

The great problem is that not only was the silencer missed, but that the police allowed the house to be cleared on Jeremy's instructions, right down to the carpets being burned. If the silencer had been found immediately, and the house had been left forensically sound, I don't think half as many people would be presuming him innocent...

Unless I've missed something? I didn't see his initial trial, I wasn't born yet.

ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 10:38

There's a suggestion that it looks wet in one of the photos, which is due to the amounts involved and the use of flash photography

I would hope that even 33 years ago, the forensic evidence was a little bit more thorough than that. If there had been a scintilla of doubt at the original trial, a tenth-rate hack defence barrister would have pointed it out to the jury - and it would have been immediately explained/rebutted by the forensics team that examined the scene.

Of course, they could have lied, or the defence may have missed it. But as ever, Occam calls ....

ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 10:39

Sorry didn't know he'd failed other lie detector tests.

So fucking what ?

SpiderCharlotte · 03/12/2019 10:43

No, it doesn’t.

This is compelling. Best let him out then.

Figgygal · 03/12/2019 10:47

I'm not really versed in this case but I will definitely review it based on the discussions here

BovaryX · 03/12/2019 10:47

Wasn’t there something about a policeman seeing someone walk in front of a window while standing outside with Jeremy Bamber? And wasn’t there something about a telephone call he made to the police? I saw a documentary about this case and the most damning evidence seemed to come from an ex girlfriend but was there any actual physical evidence against him? Wasn’t it mostly circumstantial?

Beveren · 03/12/2019 10:47

A position that the jury is probably wrong isn't by any stretch of the imagination a good argument unless you were present in court and saw and heard all the evidence they did. The suggestion that all of this supposedly splendid evidence in Bamber's favour wasn't considered thoroughly at the time of any one of those trials seriously lacks credibility.

If there had been a scintilla of doubt at the original trial, a tenth-rate hack defence barrister would have pointed it out to the jury - and it would have been immediately explained/rebutted by the forensics team that examined the scene.

Exactly.

MulticolourMophead · 03/12/2019 10:49

Three juries who heard all the evidence, not just the stuff bandied about the web.

I'm old enough to remember it all, and I'm convinced he's guilty.

AlternativePerspective · 03/12/2019 10:57

It’s so odd to me that people who weren’t actually there seem to be able to explain everything away. It’s odd to me that people who weren’t actually there and have never met the man jump on to some cause to prove his innocence by means of evidence acquired from the internet and the conspiracy theorists.

As for proclaiming that found guilty by a jury three times is meaningless, I presume that people are against jury trials on the whole then?

Guilty as sin as far as I see it. And he’s guilty in the eyes of the law, not once, but three times. So no, I don’t think that he’s innocent and neither do I think that his conviction should be quashed. In fact the idea of such a psychopath being released into society because of some campaign by conspiracy theorists is terrifying.

ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 11:00

Three juries who heard all the evidence

Did they Hmm ?

AlexaAmbidextra · 03/12/2019 11:01

There are definitely points that weren't dealt with well but he's had two retrials and failed to overturn his conviction twice now.

BellaBraithwaite. He has never had a retrial. There have been two appeals.

BellaBraithwaite · 03/12/2019 11:02

@ChestnutSmoothie I understand that you're a Bamber apologist. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Much Grin

Original poster
Yappy12 · 03/12/2019 11:06

@ProfessorSlocombe

Why so fucking rude? Just stating a fact that I thought he'd only taken the one.

OP posts:
Missillusioned · 03/12/2019 11:07

There is no way Shelia could have overpowered her father, even in a psychotic rage. Although people do gain unexpected strength under extreme stress, the same would have applied to the father, who was fighting for his life. And a gun shot even with a silencer would have alerted all the people in the house.

The person who committed the crime must have been a fit man.

Original poster
Yappy12 · 03/12/2019 11:09

The blood on the silencer was only very similar to Sheila's so "thought" to be hers. This was before DNA remember. Some people think it was rabbits blood as Bamber sed to go rabbit hunting. A US gun expert who has seen all the crime photos said it's perfectly possible that no silencer was even used.

OP posts:
ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 11:09

As for proclaiming that found guilty by a jury three times is meaningless, I presume that people are against jury trials on the whole then?

Juries are only as good as the evidence they are allowed to see. And in England and Wales, that is generally in the gift of the prosecution who can easily suppress "inconvenient" evidence, should they so wish. In theory there is an obligation to disclose all evidence to the defence, but in practice it's a bit hit and miss. As previously mentioned cases show.

Just for a bit of balance, it's worth remembering one James Hanratty and his family who insisted for decades he was innocent (he couldn't join them having seen the end of a rope) and who managed to generate books and articles and programmes repeatedly questioning the evidence, the trial and insisting he was innocent.

Right up until they finally got a DNA sample and it matched that found on one of his victims ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty#DNA_evidence_and_appeal_in_2002

AlexaAmbidextra · 03/12/2019 11:09

Three juries who heard all the evidence

There were never three jury trials. There was one trial by jury and two appeals.

ProfessorSlocombe · 03/12/2019 11:12

Why so fucking rude? Just stating a fact that I thought he'd only taken the one.

You can either have a sensible discussion about properly conducted forensic tests, or you can talk about lie detectors, astrology, biorhythms and feelings in the water. You can't have both in the same thread and be taken seriously.