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.

He said he called the locals as compromise as his dad didn’t want police involved I believe

This is an interesting theory. But how do you know the boys didn’t wake up?

I think it’s the way they were found

I’m sure it’s possible to shoot five people quickly and with no interruption without a silencer.

He believes there was a second silencer:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/17/the-murders-at-white-house-farm-should-jeremy-bamber-still-be-in-prison

The photo of the transcript of the phone call from - apparently - Nevill to 999 is in the Guardian article I linked to. Yes that call could have been from Jeremy.

It never actually occurred to me that he might be innocent.
I steadfastly believed he did it.

This is the interesting thing about psychopaths - although they are very clever at exploiting others through a highly tuned awareness of others' weaknesses, they tend to make silly mistakes. Because they see others as stupid and as prey, but they are not so good at understanding that other people are clever too, and that other people really really care about the victims and will leave no stone unturned. They almost think they can get away with anything, a bit like a child. They tend to get caught in the end.

Up until her death, she was taking one drug and had been for months. She could have built up a tolerance to it for all we know.

She was also charged with separate crimes, which were dropped when she agreed to testify against Bamber.

People can and do get enormous strength at times.

I was at uni with a fire fighter, he said if there is a mother outside a house who believes her children are in the house that is on fire that it takes at least two of the biggest firefighters to hold her back.

I'm not saying I know who did the murders, just that things are not always as vut and dried as we think.

When I saw this thread a few days ago, I went off and found the podcast and listened to all of it over the next few days. I was really looking forward to hearing a different take on the murderers, but I must say I did not find it compelling at all. If anything, it further convinced me of JB’s guilt.
I have no doubt that the case was handled badly, although I would be far more interested in comparisons with other police investigations of the time, rather than a comparison with the very slick and well resourced murder investigations of now.
It was also clear that the family was very complex, and made up of mainly dislikable and damaged. I thought the podcast journalist let her dislike of them get under her skin too much, and colour her judgement.

Ultimately, I thought the police investigation was poor, the family weren’t nice, but that Jeremy Bamber was very clearly guilty. If the podcast had intended in any way to show an alternative viewpoint, it very much failed on that for me.

I wonder why everyone was so convinced that a silencer was used at all? The murders could have quite easily have been carried out without one.

I read the Guardian article above. Bamber is playing his supporters like a fiddle:“I just want to clear my parents names, I remember Mothers Day it was so fun”.

He even says he only carried out the caravan park burglary to convince his aunt to install CCTV!

If he didn’t kill the family and Sheila was not capable of it, then who else would have wanted them dead - the cousins? I’m surprised he hasn’t accused them.

The same thing happened to me when I listened to West Cork about the murder of Sophie Tucson du Plantier. The podcasters were trying to convince us that the prime suspect was innocent but it just had the opposite effect on me.

He has been assessed for psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder more than once, and with no positive diagnosis.

What did you think about the very specific suggestions of police corruption such as the theory that Bumbling Ron had manufactured the wall scratch/paint on silencer evidence?
It would fit with the interpretation that Bamber is guilty but keeps on protesting his innocence because he knows the police have made stuff up.

And got a huge payout for the time from the News of the world.

There was no suspicion on Jeremy, if you remember his crying fit at the funeral.

When Julie finally talked Sheila had already been cremated.

As it had been assumed shed gone mental with a gun and no other suspect, perhaps testing wasnt as thorough as these days?

So there was no chance to exhume a body and look at it all again. Yes Julie could have saved this whole debacle by speaking up sooner, questions could have been put to bed.

But the father took a beating - that wouldn’t be silent

But they say she was heavily medicated

just don’t see what her motive would be

Definitely people can find huge strength when under pressure.

But I find it hard to believe that she would have had a full on fight with someone even if he was already shot and not have a mark on her or her nightdress, and again, perfect nails

Edited:- I probably should have quoted the post you were answering, im agreeing with you

Unfortunately any motive may not conform to our perception of rationality if her mind was seriously unbalanced. If she was fearful of losing her children and harboured any "irrational" beliefs maybe fueled by a religious upbringing, then her possible choices would seem ridiculous to us, but make perfect sense to her.

I think I am most on the fence about this case because of the impossible choices we have about accepting the dark side of human nature. I don't want to believe that JB could cold bloodedly slaughter his family and stage aspects of the scene, purely for money, but it happens. Nor do I want to think that his sister did it because of mental illness, because most people suffering mentally are a bigger danger to themselves than anyone else, yet we wouldn't have a verdict of "not guilty by readon of insanity" or "diminished responsibility" enshrined in law if it didn't have precedence.

I also don't want to believe that law enforcement would do things that actively interferes with establishing the objective truth about a tragic case like this, yet there is substantial precedence for that in other cases. I'm not denying how hard a job it is, or how frustrating for those working in it who see clearly guilty people get off on technicalities.

Our system is adversarial and once a case is in the courts domain unfortunately it's framed as a fight to win. I haven't been involved in criminal oroceedibgs, but I had a taste of the "family courts" where the "balance of probabilities" is the frighteningly nebulous standard applied and my solicitor told me then that hoping for the truth was impossibly naive. In the Lucy Letby case it does seem this latter standard was somehow elevated over "beyond reasonable doubt" . In either sort of court proceedings, given the severity of the consequences, standards of evidence and procedure needvto be scrupulously upheld, otherwise we have situations like this more and more, with possibly innocent people being convicted then having to keep tying up the system with appeal after appeal etc.

As I say, I'm on the fence with JB mainly because of all the factors mentioned above and because I wasn't there and I have a lack of faith in the system, which is on me.

For me his guilty - just the fake crying at the funeral alone before all the other stuff

i do know the depths of human nature

those nails and her build rule her out for me - and it was o my between her and him because of what he said about dad rang him said she was going mad - if that isn’t true that on my leaves him

don’t forget the dad would ah e found enormous strength too to protect his wife and grandchildren - who would have run off and hid if they had been there witnessing

Yea and the dad would have found that strength too to protect his wife and grandchildren wouldn’t he

I’m just listening to the podcast. Some of it seems reaching - especially when the presenter talks about menstrual blood and contaminating the silencer with it.

The thing that sticks out for me:
Shelia wouldn’t be able to overcome and fight a physically fit farmer. She was drugged and I imagine not in the best physical health.
Jeremy’s call saying Shelia was going mad with a gun, must be a lie. So therefore he’s lying.

I bet he is able to convince himself he is innocent if he thinks they deserved it. They all seem slightly mad though.

Yes exactly - has to be her or him because of him saying about dad phoning him

See this is it, he thought he was being so clever ringing the police to say she was going mad.

They believed him for weeks, BUT when the other evidence started to come out it left him painted into a corner as it was either him or her.

I wonder if hed kept silent and someone else had discovered the murders next morning would they have suspected him sooner?

The reason I vascillated originally was his determination over the years that he was innocent, and the efforts by him and his followers for more appeals.

He may have made it a life's purpose in there now.

I feel so sorry for Colin Caffell, losing his twin 6 year olds in such a way. He has made many sculptures of them over the years.