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.

There’s a police officer’s statement that he listened in to a 999 call made from inside the house.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15336129/The-999-call-White-House-Farm-Jeremy-Bambers-supporters-say-prove-sister-carried-slaughter-hes-serving-life-for.html

That’s behind a paywall - I don’t subscribe to the Daily Mail so I can’t read it. I mentioned it in my post if you read back. It’s a massively controversial point that PC Nick Milbank went back and forth on and before he died denied ever talking about it to The New Yorker. Very unreliable source; no evidence to back it up.

I think you’d be surprised. Most murders age convicted on circumstantial evidence, partly because one doesn’t have to intend to kill (or even have to hurt the person) to be convicted of murder in the UK. Intent to cause GBH is enough to be guilty if a person dies, joint enterprise means multiple people can be guilty even if only one person causes harm.

You not being aware of things isn’t - as far as I know? - the barometer for whether others have a legittimate interest in them.

Of course not. Although why you have to be so snide and unpleasant I don't know.

I wasn't aware of further developments in this case.
But I was aware of the way Bamber tried to capitalise on the publicity generated by The Farmhouse murder series being shown on TV.
And I was therefore wondering if OP had some interest in whipping up sympathy for this murderer.
You have answered my question. And I apologise for my ignorance.

Ah - I’m not a subscriber either, I wrongly assumed that would be an accessible source that would explain the detail.

Yes, he allegedly changed his mind in an unsigned statement which he then denied making too, but the recording of him saying it is witness evidence. Plenty of police evidence is accepted even nothing tangible to back it up. In a retrial all that evidence would be admissible. A jury could decide whether that was enough to create doubt or not.

Yes, I know this. I was referring to the paucity of evidence in this case, there’s hardly any. And what little there is is circumstantial.

I was mirroring your supercilious tone.

I don’t think you need to apologise for anything, but you were rather rude in assuming OP had an ulterior motive simply because you have different current interests.

Agree - I’m just pointing out that circumstantial evidence is the norm in murder cases.

Joint enterprise is something of a travesty. https://howardleague.org/briefing-for-house-of-commons-second-reading-debate-on-the-joint-enterprise-significant-contribution-private-members-bill/

Sadly I know. I know someone who is wrongly convicted in these circumstances, and the fact that all evidence is circumstantial means it is impossible to find the ‘fresh evidence’ required to go to the Court of Appeal.

I am the first to admit that a lot of things pass me by. Nobody can keep up with everything that is going on and the Bamber case certainly hasn't been on my radar since the TV series was aired.

I don't think my tone was supercilious.

I was quite affected by the murders when they happened. The way that poor dead woman had her character blackened was abhorrent. And I found the way Bamber tried to use the publicity from the TV series quite nauseating.

So I admit I was suspicious of the motives of this thread being started. But you have corrected me in my misapprehension of the OP 's motives .

Of course - me too! That’s why I said you don’t have anything to apologise for.

You seemed supercilious to me as you accused OP of having an axe to grind. If that was unintentional, fair enough.

It’s a horrible case. If he’s guilty, he’s in the right place. If he’s not, who can blame him for using every opportunity to keep the case in the news.

Lucy Letby’s defence team IMO ran a very strange defence of ‘go on, prove it’.

Now her appeal case with a new team is ‘here’s the defence she could have had’.

I despair of the system, I really do.

To my knowledge he changed his mind three times. And people on here are using TNY as a significant factor in them wanting the case reopened… and he denied talking to them too! It’s kind of funny that he ‘allegedly changed his mind’ - it’s on record that he did. And why now is it now - decades later - ‘a rock solid alibi’ it’s not even remotely that.

I am all for reopening cases with adequate new evidence. I really am. I supported Helen’s Law and Julie’s Law - I think new things come out over time, they absolutely do. That’s what cold case appeals are so important, as well as hot cases for that matter. But there is nothing new in this case that points away from Bamber’s guilt. It also seems to have turned into one of those cases where people focus on one single piece of evidence… ignoring so many others. Would you go on holiday after all of your family had been murdered? Doubt I would. Would you buy a sports car and sell off all their valuables? Doubt I would.

DNA is also circumstantial evidence. Most evidence is. That doesn't mean it's not valid.

Maybe you should also listen to a podcast that is coming from a "guilty" perspective? You will have a bias based on what you have heard, and let's be real, everything you're hearing is 40 years old with the benefit of therefore 40 years of opinions being floated around.

I mean, the fact that they apparently didn't voice that any call made would have been logged with BT surely tells you that there are things here that you don't know?

Private Eye I think for the Letby case, but that won't stop the street of shame claiming they knew all along.

I’ve listened to TNY and he’s on record talking to them, so it’s provably false that didn’t talk to them. He did talk to them, he then said (via Essex police) that he didn’t but he knew he was recorded so it’s an odd thing to deny. I haven’t said it’s a rock solid alibi - it’s not. But it is evidence that, if put before a jury, might make them less than sure.

Helen’s Law isn’t to do with cold cases, did you mean something else?

I agree his behaviour in the aftermath was odd. I don’t agree that points to guilt. I honestly don’t know how I’d react if my entire family were murdered. I hope I never find out. But I hope whatever mad shit I might do isn’t used to make me guilty of it.

He might be guilty - but I think the evidence should be tested in open court. I certainly have no faith in the police, the court of appeal or the CCRC.

Yes it is an odd thing to deny - so unreliable in that sense at the very least.

I know Helen’s Law is nothing to do with cold cases and neither is Julie’s - are you maybe misunderstanding? The comment about cold cases and hot cases was separate from that about laws that have been brought in post-conviction, which was my whole point. I think laws can and should change post-conviction. Law shouldn’t stand still.

Look you have a different view about the crime and that’s fine. I agree that we can’t tell how people will behave in abject grief. But I also think we can definitely reasonably predict how people WON’T behave in abject grief - how can that stuff be less circumstantial than other evidence? And the evidence HAS been tested in open court - disingenuous to suggest it hasn’t. 10-2 majority - wasn’t close.

@Arlanymor i’m always uncomfortable with those sorts of assertions, tbh.

’I wouldn’t do this; the accused did, therefore he is guilty’ - no.

I mean, I don’t think I’d go on holiday after my family were murdered, but who knows, maybe I would. Maybe I’d want to get away for a while, think life is too bloody short. Or maybe I wouldn’t but then my family weren’t JB’s family.

Peoples reactions aren’t on trial, or shouldn’t be. If your family are murdered and you don’t grieve in the ‘right’ way, that’s not an offence you should be locked up for.

So am I am have said so in my post above. But there are also reasonable conclusions that people can make. Splurging your inheritance on holidays and a sports car… ok , alright we all go a bit mad (do we really though, to that extent?)

Selling off their valuables - no. There is sentiment there and I don’t think it’s wrong to point out how that is highly bizarre. People get killed for insurance payouts all the time and half the time they are picked up because of their splurging. It’s part of the evidential gathering. Plus he was in massive debt.

So we just ignore it then do we? Or would that be a massive dereliction. Particularly as it’s a huge part of the motive. It’s very relevant. Very. It’s always part of police investigations, but we’re not allowed to speculate on it? I doesn’t make a person guilty, but it can help to form a picture. It’s one of the main reasons people murder after all.

Yes but plenty of other unreliable witnesses too - Julie Mugford, for example.

No I’m not sure what you meant by bringing in Julie/Helen’s Laws.

Agree, the evidence after the fact is circumstantial just as other forms. Our system allows it to be considered and relies heavily on it in flimsy cases.

Nothing disingenuous about it - the Milbank evidence, police evidence that the gun, bible and possibly Sheila’s body were moved and the lack of Sheila’s DNA on the silencer weren’t tested in court. 10-2 is the only allowable majority so it’s as ‘close’ as it’s going to get. I personally would disallow majority verdicts in murder cases, but that’s by the by.

I'm amazed to read in this excellent article that the blood found on the rifle also matched Bamber's uncle. Also that Bamber's ex-girlfriend changed her story and that it's possible she only testified to get herself out of charges related to something else:

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

We can go into everyone’s evidence if you like, but this ‘new stuff’ is Milbank which is what this post is based on, hence we are all taking about it.

Here’s what I mean by mentioning Julie and Helen - quoting my original post: “I am all for reopening cases with adequate new evidence. I really am. I supported Helen’s Law and Julie’s Law.” So, reopening cases with new and adequate evidence, I mean that was clear? And if the law has changed post-conviction then those laws should be applied. I honestly don’t know how I can make that more evident. It’s about being open to new application of evidence and equally new evidence being applied. Surely clear?

DNA is also circumstantial evidence and always has been. I don’t know why people think circumstantial = flimsy. Everything is flimsy unless you recorded someone doing something!

You would disallow majority verdicts? In favour of what - minority verdicts?

I’ve never thought he was guilty. Can’t explain why….gut feeling ? Doesn’t often let me down.