To think Jeremy Bamber might be innocent

[KimberleyClark]

Or that at the very least his conviction wasn’t safe and there needs to be a retrial? Ihe was convicted in 1985 of murdering his adoptive parents, sister and her twin sons at his parents’ farmhouse. It was at first deemed to be murder-suicide by the sister, Sheila Caffell, who was a diagnosed schizophrenic. Bamber had been on full life tarriff ever since and still protesting his innocence. I always assumed he was guilty until I listened to a podcast called Blood Family. There was a lot of evidence the jury didn’t hear, it seems the police mucked up the crime scene, his cousins had a financial motive for framing him and a police officer in the control room apparently took a 999 nonspeaking call from the farmhouse while Bamber was outside with the police, which would indicate someone was still alive at that point.

I think his conviction is unsafe too

I did because I watched something that said he could be, but then I listened or watched a rebuttal of that thing and I saw that he does really seem to be guilty.

No hes a classic sociopath who was up to his eyeballs in debt and lies. He couldn't keep up the lies or bully anymore money from his family so tried to get away with murdering his family and blaming his sister to get all the inheritance.
Just because it initially looked like a murder suicide doesn't mean it was, they investigated and found that Jeremy Bamber is a family anhilater.
May I suggest that you look up family anhilaters and then look into the character of JB as you'll see he fits tge profile completely

No I think he is guilty.

I have always felt that and have heard nothing that has changed my opinion

I do have doubts about the conviction of Luke Mitchell though..

He was apparently assessed by many different psychiatrists many of whom didn’t agree that he had any kind of psychopathic personality disorder.

What/where was that rebuttal? I’d like to listen to it.

I think it was the Louis Theroux one. If I remember rightly, my mind was set by the fact that he lied about the phone call.

How was it proven that he lied about the phone call?

No record of the call and there would have been.

That podcast was very convincing I agree but then I was convinced by Serial too 🤷‍♀️

Not necessarily. This was 1985, pre mobile phones.

There's a difference between being a sociopath and having a psychopathic personality disorder. The fact that different psychiatrists have different opinions about him could mean some were better than others however it generally points to him being deceptive and manipulative in these assessments.
More to point we dont put sociopaths in mental institutions as they are not considered mentally ill we jail them or work for them (most high powered CEOs etc are sociopaths). Jeremy Bamber is a monster who belongs in jail and thankfully he will stay in jail for the rest of his life

I have watched a couple of TV doccos about the case and am convinced he is guilty

Well I don’t think it was Sheila Caffel. She would not have been strong enough to fight with her father.

I dont remeber the exact details, but I remember being certain the dad didn't call him from what was said.

I’ve always been on the edge with this one. I can’t make my mind up either way. If I had to call it I would say he’s innocent.

In 1985 you were billed for each landline call and BT kept a record of every call they connected to charge you for it. The police call handlers also kept a written log of all incoming calls, not the number or address linked to it as they didn't have that information, but time of call, duration and what it was for or if it was a silent call.
There's no record of the call you're talking about

How about the silencer with blood on it? If he really was a cunning master criminal as he was portrayed, surely he would have got rid of it somehow rather than leave it in a shoebox in a cupboard under the stairs?

He probably didnt know there was blood on it. This was (hopefully!) his first mass murder. He'd have been nervous and made mistakes.

BTK got caught because he asked the police if they'd be able to trace him if he sent them a floppy disk and they said no. So he sent it.... he had eluded them for 30 years at this point.

Didn't he say his father phoned him about his sister going mad but JB said he rang the Police. If I remember rightly that if the phone hadn't been hung up on the dialler's side then the person receiving the call couldn't dial another phone number. Also I'm sure the father would have rung the Police himself considering he had a poor relationship with JB.

The New Yorker podcast has thrown up some interesting questions indeed!

I wouldn't trust Louis Theroux. He couldn't see through Saville at all. He has no ability to read people, he fell for his charms completely.

It was more about the evidence presented than anything else. I am not even sure that was the rebuttal, I just remember watching/listening to two different programmes. One made me question his innocence but then the other counteracted the evidence the first had presented.

I always feel it’s very dangerous to have these profile templates we then try and fit someone into. It’s such a back to front way to approach crimes. Similar to the Lucy Letby case where they only looked at excess deaths on her shifts . Forcing someone to fit doesn’t make it correct.