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.

If the silencer was not used, how was the blood inside the silencer explained?

How did the original sentence turn into a life sentence ?

It might not be Sheila’s blood, as one of the cousins (and millions of other people) had the same blood group.
I don’t think his official defence team are seeing it as their job to give explanations for the silencer but rather to argue why it is irrelevant. Depending on how deep their conspiracy theorising goes, internet randoms are suggesting everything from a cousin accidentally cutting himself to the police putting it in there.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced whole life tariffs.

The fact this documentary is on Channel 5 doesn’t convince me it’s good quality. But I’m intrigued about Sheila’s note (has this been discussed before - it’s a long thread and I’ve had a busy few months).

I don’t remember the note being discussed. I also don’t remember the ballistics experts and their experiments which suggest the silencer wasn’t used.
All the stuff about the 999 call and the call handler newly coming forward after 40 years and then dying was in the podcast last year.

No - he's guilty.

No. I don’t think he’s innocent. I ask the same question that I asked after the OJ Simpson trial: if he didn’t do it, who did? And why?

No. I don’t think he’s innocent. I ask the same question that I asked after the OJ Simpson trial: if he didn’t do it, who did? And why?

Guilty as sin.

Ive engaged heavily on this thread and think hes guilty primarily due to the crime scene and Shielas practically pristine body and nails, but will watch this with interest to see if it changes my mind

Her nails weren’t pristine. I saw a crime scene photo recently (which I hadn’t gone looking for) and the varnish is very chipped round the edges.
The nails were an important point for me too but it turned out everyone was just repeating that they were perfect without it being actually true.

We’ve discussed on this thread who else could have committed the murders other than Bamber. Also, that’s a specious comparison between Bamber and Simpson since there was a lot of evidence Simpson did it.

Yea, ill watch it with an open mind.

Ive read a few books from different perspectives, and it's not just the nails that convinced me, but ive followed the case since it happened and am interested in another view!

I haven’t seen or heard anything that makes me think he’s innocent . As unwell as she was I cannot fathom that Sheila slaughtered her whole family .

Did you see the programme on C5?

At the very least there is reasonable doubt.

In my mind there’s no question….. Jeremy is innocent.

The silencer wasn’t used - the 4 experts have all come to that conclusion! The blood in the silencer was the same group as Sheila yes, but it was also the same group as the uncle who testified against Jeremy as well as the cousin who conveniently found the silencer after the police had already searched the cupboard under the stairs. Not to mention the fact that they stood to inherit everything if Jeremy was convicted (along with the fact they didn’t like each other at all).

Jeremy has passed has passed lie detectors. I wonder if his uncle and cousin would?

Let’s not forget Jeremy was only 23 years old at the time… to be able to commit the murders the way they’re saying he would have to be VERY clever. His insomniac neighbour said his car never moved that night…. The police suggested he must have rode his mother’s bike across ploughed fields in the dark to do this and they even suggested he wore a wet suit so as to not be covered in blood! It’s laughable.

2 members of the jury came back with an innocent verdict, one more and it would be thrown out of court!

I can’t fathom people saying it was more likely Jeremy (with a money motive) than Sheila, the undermedicated paranoid schizophrenic who had called her own children the spawn of satan and believed they wanted to have sex with her. A witness has said Neville and June were trying to have them fostered out (which Sheila knew) because they were so worried for their safety.

He took one lie detector test in 2007. One. And they are not remotely admissible in court because of the ability of people to cheat them. Not 'multiple'. It was funded by the Mirror as I remember. Nothing like a sensational redtop headline to sell papers...

Im a geek with this case and a few others, so I look forward to seeing if it changes my mind.

I posted on here months ago before it revived that in some ways it would be so much more understandable it being Sheila as I could get my head round psychosis but not cold blooded murder, and that being the case hes been in prison a very long time.

I'll reserve comment till ive watched but if hes innocent Julie Mugford has a lot of guilt, I mean it took her a long tome to come forward with her story...

All very complicated

I can't get my head around Sheila beating someone twice her size to the extent that he had two black eyes, a broken nose and eight gunshot wounds.

Theres definitely that.

Even so, he still passed. I’d love to see the others (Julie and the Boutflours) take a lie detector.

Someone suffering severe psychosis can have bursts of strength that surpass their usual power

Its a long time since I looked at the details so I dont want to commit too much to discussion on evidence. There were many other clues as to my guilty opinion at the time, im going to watch this tonight and I don't have skin in the game so we'll see.

I do agree that there's reasonable doubt and that the police fucked it up at the beginning, so reasonable doubt means he should have been found not guilty

But.....it niggles

I don't want to see anyone take one as they've been proved to be a lot of rot, hence why the other people who use them now are talk shows. I mean you clearly believe in him and that's fine - but this is total non-evidence.