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.

Do they know how the black eye broken nose injuries were caused? Using the gun or first or another weapon? Were they inflicted before or after the gunshot wounds. That would make a huge difference.

Police think he was shot 4 times upstairs then went downstairs where the struggle took place.
So to be fair, he only has 4 gunshot wounds at the start of the struggle, not 8, and the last 2 come right at the end of the struggle as they cause unconsciousness. I think the injuries are consistent with the gun being used but nobody can say for sure.
But nobody is suggesting that the killer beat him up through brute force and only then picked up the gun.

Thanks @TheCountessofFitzdotterel so it could be that an incapacitated giant could be physically beaten by a slight woman using a weapon.

I'm not sure why I asked really, I don't want to think about it, the whole thing is horrific. I have always generally accepted Bamber is guilty, but locally that was the general feeling when it happened. That said, just because people come across as being capable of doing that, doesn't mean that they did.

It's possible either way. Was the gun tested for evidence on the stock(?) To see if it had his blood orvanything on it? It could have been used as an attempt to subdue before the shooting, or as some sort of personal / rage attack afterwards. Could the facial injuries have been the result of a fall or impact with some surface during the struggle? From personal experience black eyes can result from relatively minor impact if it's in the right spot.

I've watched a couple of recent videos, one with contributions from a BT / call operator which throw up some interesting questions around the alleged phone calls from inside the house while Bamber was outside with the police. I think it tests the beyond reasonable doubt threshold and should be investigated further.

As to questions of character and behaviour as a bereaved person, again from personal experience, people can just be downright weird in left field situations, but that doesn't necessarily prove murder or much other than - well - people are weird.

Once again it comes back to evidence and quality of investigation. The crime scene photos apparently reflect that some items such as the Bible were moved and replaced in different positions, according to technicians on the scene. I think at the very least there should be a further investigation into all of it.

@KimberleyClark , you said the podcast was called Blood Family but I can't find it. Was it called something else or do you know where to find it? I want to listen to it first before the rebuttal one! Thanks

It was called Blood Relatives, not Blood Family sorry. Here’s a link

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/in-the-dark/id1148175292?i=1000733850028

I haven't seen the new bit, but it seems the sister was shot twice in the throat which is difficult for a suicide, the father was strong and fit and the daughter was slightly built, but he was bludgeoned in the kitchen, and the girlfriend said he had been plotting to kill his family for the money. Each of the first two could be possible and the girlfriend could be lying but all three is a stretch. Must watch the new documentary.

But it was a long gun. If you were to want to kill yourself with that gun it would seem to be the easiest was to do it - put it under your chin and pull the trigger. The initial bullet came out her cheek she could have then pulled the trigger again more accurately or after the shot, she kept her finger on the trigger while moving the barrel slightly which the gun had the automatic facility to do.

Julie (Jeremy’s ex girlfriend ) only went to the police after he dumped her AND she changed her story - at first she said he had got someone else to do it. Then when the person she accused had an alibi, she said it was actually Jeremy.

Its such a hard case to prove either way but I believe the initial police conclusion was correct - murder suicide. But that’s just my opinion.

It was about 40 years ago. It certainly seemed like he was guilty. His girlfriend and other relatives bolstered the case.

I've never been persuaded only one person was culpable.

The Sun was the newspaper that reported it because HE WENT TO THE SUN TO SELL THE PHOTOGRAPHS! I don't read red tops either - so please don't patronise me - but for once they clearly made a conscionable decision - him, not so much! This is all stuff you can google and I would have thought you would have known this already given how much support you are showing him. A fact missing from your repertoire? Your response is fairly thin in comparison to what his actions in attempting to sell the photos to the best-selling tabloid newspaper in the UK actually means. Anyway, carry on being glib if you wish.

I think about this case an awful lot. It horrifies me that we live in a country where a man has been in prison for 41 years when the jury sent a question back - was the blood in silencer definitely SC’s? - and were told yes. They then I believe issued their verdict less than half an hour later. The blood was not definitely hers. Her DNA was not even present as it turned out on further testing

I summarise but As Louis Theroux said, whichever scenario you believe means you have to accept surprising and anomalous information.

i struggle with believing if JB were guilty that he would plan to use the weapon that was involved.

I struggle with SC’s blood still being wet when police went in.

I struggle with the scenario of another person being involved being ruled out. Why ruled out? Is it not perfectly possible JB let someone else in to the farmhouse ??

It’s a desperately sad story and I feel very much for everyone closely involved and also those around the edges whose lives were impacted by this horror.

At the moment I feel Occam’s razor applies here and I really think it was as police originally believed. But very interested to discuss

We clearly have very different opinions of the case. His behaviour after the killings is not that unusual regarding the holidays. I personally know of bereaved people going away very soon after loosing someone. Also,
I am not saying he was a saint but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
I don’t believe he tried to sell the photos to The Sun. Of course I know that’s what they claimed but as I said, I don’t believe it to be true. If he really wanted to sell photos and they didn’t want them, would he have not tried to sell them elsewhere….

I think the main point is that the jury were given false information and seemed to make their judgement based on this, exactly as you said. Even with this false information two members still came back with a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
He has lost everything including 40 years of his life because of a verdict given based on misinformation. It’s terrible isn’t it!
Occam’s razor definitely should apply here…

I've seen and heard a lot on this case and always agreed he was guilty, have downloaded the recommended podcast now, blood relatives, in the dark, planning to listen tomorrow and I'll report back if I've changed my mind.
Just a couple of points that convince me of his guilt until I hear the podcast: the missing silencer, the window that Jeremy could have used to escape leaving the door locked. Sheila's immaculate manicure, the open phone line at the farm when Jeremy supposedly received a call, Sheila's inability to use a gun. I'll return once I've listened, I'll keep an open mind

Let us know if you change your mind!

On episode 3 of 6, haven't changed my mind yet. Will report back

Its a great podcast though!

On episode 5 of 6 now and the silencer argument is pretty convincing. The cousins may have hid it there and it had never been used, the blood found on it could have been the male cousins or his father's, they could have knicked themselves when examining it and accidentally left their blood on it, which was the same type as Sheila's. Or the female cousin could have planted Sheila's blood in it, she admits she had Sheila's blood stained pants (bizarre). When it was re examined (albeit 40 years later) no dna or blood was found.
The female cousin seemed to inherited a lot and seems quite ruthless and savvy, doesn't speak to press. The male cousin keeps having to be reigned in by his wife to stop incriminating himself. He loves to talk and seems quite easily led.....
The shadow at the window that Jeffrey and police saw before entry could have been Sheila, which makes her the murderer. But if she was alive still and used gun without a silencer on herself wouldn't they have heard it. They say its a quiet gun but it wouldn't have been noisy at the time, and they would been alert and listening for such a noise. I don't think they'd have missed it. Hmm, overall I still think he's guilty but it's less cut and dried.
The jury convicted him based on the silencer evidence, I'm not so sure that is concrete evidence now

He did, to the Express as I recall.

I have not heard that.

OK, finished all the podcasts and I think there is reasonable doubt. It struck me when they raked about the Agatha Christie effect. When we look for the implausible explanation when the truth is usually the most straightforward.

I dont 100% believe his innocence, but i think there's enough reasonable doubt. The jury queried with the judge whilst deliberating if the blood on the silencer could have been anyone else's and the judge incorrectly said no, it could only be Sheila's. I think if the judge had acknowledged then the blood could also belong to 2 other family members the jury would not gave convicted him.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. It is hard to get away from the fact that there was a clumsy attempt to frame Shela Caffell when she obviously did not do it, not least because she could not have succeeded in any fight with her father. There's really only one person who would have wanted to do that.

l would never base any conclusions on a podcast. By its nature, it's just an opinion which has not been fully tested and argued through. There also tends to be journalistic bias in these things - something that merely retells the original story is never going to be as tempting to a podcaster as trying to put a different twist on the facts even if it means misrepresenting them in the process. By contrast, the case against Bamber has been extremely thoroughly tested more than once and has not been found to be defective.

is it not conceivable that Sheila and her dad were in kitchen with him trying to talk her down from a serious episode. She picked up the gun and started ranting and locked herself in loo with it. Neville rings Jeremy then goes upstairs where he is shot, stumbles back down to kitchen where he is beaten with rifle by a poor Sheila in psychosis who believes in that moment he is the devil for example.

one thing I would really really like to see is a video of a girl with varnished long nails loading and reloading the same model of anschutz rifle three times. I’d like to understand myself if it is reasonable to believe Sheila did this.

Well it can if you shoot first then beat them up when they are defenceless then finish them off with the gun. The order matters and why are so many people assuming the beating up happened before any shooting.