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.

So can really angry men. Without needing any type of mental health excuse.

I get that they can’t be used as evidence (even though I do believe they are hard to deceive) but on the other hand there’s no evidence whatsoever that he is guilty.

So you say, he wasn't convicted on fresh air. Gary Ridgway passed a lie detector test and he is a serial killer last time I looked.

Gunshot wounds aren’t caused by being beaten, they’re caused by being shot. If one person has a gun and the other hasn’t the size of the two becomes much less relevant, and once one of the people has 8 gunshot wounds it’s not hard to imagine they might be less able to defend themselves despite being bigger and stronger.

I don’t know how hard you would have to hit someone to give them the injuries Nevill had but it’s not like no women ever gave anyone a black eye.

No he was convicted because they said there was some blood on a silencer - that has now been proven by 4 different experts wasn’t used. Not to mention the fact that when asked by the jury, the judge told them it was Sheila’s blood - even though he didn’t know that… it was just the same blood group. And also the same blood group as the cousin who conveniently found it AND the uncle who testified against Jeremy (who are also the ones who inherited the estate - which in today’s money is worth 1.4 million pounds) If Jeremy is guilty why would he have planned everything so well and then taken the silencer and popped it in a cupboard under the stairs?

Hope you don’t think I’m arguing - I just annoy the debate lol

This is no evidence but one thing of many that makes me doubt he was guilty is how could he seriously think he could get away with the murders when he knew he would have been the most obvious suspect?

Two black eyes and a broken nose = beaten up.

I mentioned the gun shots so that no one said I had omitted them - I never said that constituted beaten up.

Stand up for Jeremy all you like - but the likelihood of Sheila causing all of that is greatly diminished by her size and ability to overcome someone twice her size.

He wasn't convicted on purely the blood on the silencer. That is untrue and a deliberate misreading of the trial transcripts.

I mean every single murderer ever thinks they can get away with it and are cleverer than the police.

Because he had set it up so well to look like Sheila. If he was guilty.

Agree with Nicki about the silencer. How could anyone be devious enough to plan the whole thing so perfectly but stupid enough to leave a blood spattered silencer in the cupboard? When there was a muddy estuary just a few minutes away where it would have been easy to dispose of it.

I do think, though, that even if the silencer was planted it doesn’t mean he’s not guilty. The police could have panicked when they realised they had destroyed all the actual evidence that would have convicted him and decided to create some new evidence so he would be safely convicted and they would avoid scrutiny of their incompetence.

I’m not standing up for Jeremy, I just think your argument was ridiculous.
When you’re considering the likelihood of someone beating someone else in a fight, the fact that one of them has a gun and the other hasn’t is pretty darn relevant.

Even when they’d be the first prime suspect would go to? I don’t think so.

I definitely think the police handled the scene poorly. This is what has caused these issues over time. However...

He's never explained why he went on holiday to St Tropez on the proceedings of his family's estate (very Mendez Brothers - spend the wealth before you get caught) and then tried to sell 20 naked photos of his dead sister to The Sun.

What a great chap! I know being a shallow, callous, shithead doesn't make you a murderer, but if my parents were murdered the last thing I would be doing would be any of that. People forget the context of his behaviour which is also circumstantial evidence - not all of his guilt has to be consigned to the scene of the crime in the farmhouse. Context matters.

A gun can't make up for being half the size and strength of your opponent in a physical fight.

Chris Watts thought that. Brazened it out. As long as he could. He was the only person who could have done it - there was CCTV on their property and across the street: she went in alive and never came out (apart from wrapped up and put in the back of a truck). Of course they do.

No but that was the Key evidence. As I said, there was the fact the judge mislead the jury that it was Sheila’s blood. Also the ex girlfriend’s statement (who I believe was paid £25k by the newspapers for an interview - with controversy over whether that was before or after the trial). Who also never said a thing until he dumped her and who also claimed he got someone else to do it - which was a lie as the person she named had a cast iron alibi - which is when she changed her story to it being Jeremy himself. I’m not saying this was everything - but from what I can see there was no solid evidence.

Find it ridiculous all you like. While we're being ridiculous, why did he try and sell naked photos of his sister to The Sun for £25,000? That seems fairly ridiculous to me. His dead sister. Naked. Why is that then? Please do enlighten me give that I am ridiculous.

£25,000 is an interesting figure. It's what he asked for to sell naked photos of his dead sister. Sounds innocent to me! Maybe to pay for the St Tropez trip in case the life insurance didn't come through in time?

Normal thing to do after a family annihilation?

Oh, he’s definitely an awful human being. No question about that. Also a liar, as his burglary of the caravan site showed early on.
But I think the fact he went on holiday is neither here nor there. Going on holiday when bereaved is not actually that unusual, and if he WAS innocent he had just lost his entire family in one go which would be enough to make anyone act oddly.

I don’t believe that to be true…. There’s no proof he tried to sell the pictures or indeed that he was in possession of any such pictures.

i believe he was asked by the papers for her modelling pictures but they never got them.

Going on holiday after the murders does not prove guilt.

Ok, I don't agree. If my family had been massacred I would NOT go on holiday. Would you? No you wouldn't. No one would. But the photos... that doesn't really come under 'bad person', that's beyond.. she was a dead woman accused of murder/suicide. That goes beyond just being awful doesn't it? That's capitalising on murder - a whole different thing. I didn't even mention the caravan burglary as that pales into insignificance frankly!

The Sun published the truth of his approach to them - you can't be this daft. They then decided instead to publish the fact that he had asked them. It's all a matter of written record. They called him out for his disgusting behaviour. He's also never denied it!

Yes I would choose to go on holiday after my family have been annihilated. Twice actually - Amsterdam and then St Tropez - definitely what I would do.

You think having 8 gunshot wounds would have no bearing on someone’s ability to defend himself?

Well if The Sun said that it must be true!