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.

I think he’s guilty. How did his sister kill herself with a rifle that had a silencer on it (they know she was killed whilst it was on as it had her blood inside it) the silencer would have made the gun too long for her to hold and shoot herself. The silencer was in a cupboard ?

She also could not have shot herself because if I remember correctly the shotgun was too long to have been held by her with the fateful shot entering her body at the angle it did.

I don't think that's true. This is not a case where there was a multitude of suspects. Basically it had to be him or Sheila Caffell, and there are good reasons for saying that it would be physically impossible for it to be her. In particular, there was strong evidence that he told his girlfriend all about what he was planning to do and how. There was plenty of evidence which the jury plainly and correctly accepted.

Yes, and there are other pieces of evidence that were rejected by the CCRC, wrongly in my view, hence I mentioned them as never having been before a jury.

I understand that you think you’re being clear re Helen/Julie’s law but Helen’s law is nothing to do with new evidence, it’s about no body cases and parole decision making. Unless there’s another Helen’s Law?

Circumstantial isn’t always flimsy, and DNA isn’t always indirect. I think we’re agreed on that.

In preference for unanimous verdicts, obviously.

When the family found the silencer they took it back to Ann Eaton’s (one of the cousins) house and proceeded to dismantle it on the kitchen table. They supposedly saw blood on the baffle plates, reassembled it and informed the police. There is no way that the silencer should have been admitted into evidence as it had been interfered with and possibly contaminated. The family members were very persistent in their efforts to influence the police action and it is quite bizarre that they were allowed to interfere to the extent they did.

There are other people it could have been - a hitman or another family member.

Theresa’s no strong evidence that he told her that - just that she testified this was the case. This was after changing her story (she originally told police Bamber told her he’d hired a hitman). She was dumped by Bamber after the murders and as Simon Hattenstone asks in the Guardian article, why would he dump Julie after confessing to her, therefore making himself vulnerable?

It’s also worth pointing out that Julie Mugford stood to receive £25,000 from the News of the World for her story should Bamber be found guilty. It was claimed in court nobody would benefit financially from the case. Evidence from a ‘woman scorned’ should never be relied upon especially one who was in line for a hefty payout which 25K was in 1987.

Haven't read whole thread so sorry if already covered. I've read two books on this including the one by Sheila's ex husband - he is sure Bamber is guilty. I think Bamber has convinced himself he is innocent, maybe to cope with the terrible things he did. The way it is framed in the other book is that either he did it or Sheila did because of the call he said he'd received from his father.

I think it stands to reason that Colin Caffell is convinced of Bamber’s guilt. After all, his two children were murdered.

I think this is what it boils down to isn’t it, whether the silencer was used or not?

I think JB’s case is that it wasn’t used. That Sheila went on a rampage with the gun without the silencer. That the silencer being in the cupboard points to it not being used. That the wider family (who stood to gain not only the farm but I think a wider caravan business) contaminated the silencer on purpose to make him look guilty. How likely that scenario is I have no idea.

I think one of the most interesting things about Bamber are his biological parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-bambers-biological-dad-brands-21280125.amp

Men who commit crimes like this don’t that there will be a thorough investigation. They assume that everyone will believe what they say.
‘Oh no, my sister Sheila has murdered everyone’.

‘That’s terrible Jeremy, what a bad egg she was. Here’s some tea. Then we will be off’

They don’t think that people won’t believe them. Like Chris Watts. He thought the police would just think his wife had left because he said so so he loaded up her body in to his car right in front of a camera because he didn’t think they would investigate.

Why? They had him adopted and they haven’t now seen him since and they are just ordinary people. They aren’t murderers or anything.

Just who they are. I didnt say they are to blame.

Was the podcast called Blood Family or Blood Ties?

He absolutely saw through Saville. I know nothing about this current case. But Louis Theroux was very clever with Saville. He knew exactly who he was.

Most sociopaths/psychopaths have problematic childhoods age 0-2. The fact that he was adopted at 6 months old means that for the first 6 months of his life, at least, he would not have had a secure attachment to anyone. A mother who is attached to her child does not just give it up for adoption at 6 months. People aren't born psychopaths. Some people have a predisposed genetic make-up that can make them more likely, in the wrong circumstances, to become psychopaths. This is why those first few years of childhood are absolutely crucial.

Louis Theroux's modus operandi is to be calm and make people feel comfortable with him so they reveal their true colours to the audience. And he does it really well.

I've always found the case a bit bizarre- before my time but I read up on it - and I'm never entirely sure whether he did or didn't do it. A lot of the story is murky. I lean towards did but things nag at your conscience.

There seems to be quite a strange vibe about the family. I remember being rather rattled by one of the cousins when he was interviewed / filmed for some crime show in the early 00s and remarking to my mum that he made me uncomfortable. I think it was his attitude about Sheila. My mum agreed. I still think JB is the most likely offender but something generally seems off about them as a family group and that's what people pick up on. No one deserved to die though; the outcome is simply tragic, no matter what surrounds it.

There’s no proof a silencer was used, and she could have used the gun without it.

it’s an unsafe conviction imo.

Blood Family.

Left the camera running after he went to bed.

If it wasn’t for Sheila’s mental illness I’d be more inclined to be convinced of his guilt. But she was a known schizophrenic on a cocktail of anti psychotic drugs. She’d talked about suicide. She’d told a nurse she was worried she’d kill her sons. She was convinced that the boys were evil and would grow up to be killers. She skipped her meds, was deteriorating quickly hence why she’d moved back to the farm.

Quite. And for those saying that Sheila couldn’t have fought or overpowered her big strapping father, she could if she’d already shot him several times.