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 the phone call is the clincher and his biggest mistake. He claimed his father called from the farm saying Sheila had got the gun and gone berserk. So it has to be either Sheila or Jeremy.

The forensics did not believe she was strong enough to reload the magazine twice, with no damage to her nails or gunshot residue on her hands and body. Also no evidence of the fight with Nevill in the kitchen on her body. He was badly beaten.

Of course he’s guilty .. these Podcasters know it, there is not much money to be made by “he’s guilty, the authorities were correct”.

He was found dead in a kitchen chair. Which doesn’t give the impression of a man who had fought someone off. More the impression of someone who’d been shot unexpectedly. So first. Which ties in with June being found in the threshold of her bedroom.

But then the phone call which apparently was made by him to Jeremy saying Sheila had gone mad doesn’t make sense either….he’d hardly settle himself down in a chair to call.

unless he was shot, staggered to a chair and died I guess.

Ahh, I must have forgotten he’d been beaten. It’s a long time since I read the book on this.

Unsafe!

Her evidence was thoroughly tested under cross examination In court and was not undermined.

Bamber was and is a very arrogant man who despises women. I suspect that has a lot to do with his decision to dump his girlfriend, and indeed to try to frame his sister. He just didn't believe that Julie Mugford would give evidence against him, or that she would be believed in preference to him if she did.

nevill wasn’t found sat in a chair, he was found fallen face down across a piece of furniture exactly suggestive of a struggle

Yeah and I do think she only told because she got dumped but that's why you don't dump your girlfriend who knows you did.murders.

ah, I started listening to another podcast about it yesterday and it said he was in a chair. Obviously not a well researched podcast. Think I’ll skip the rest of it.

The podcast also talked about how the girlfriend said Jeremy had confessed to hiring a hitman and named a specific person. Who turned out to have an alibi.

Which casts doubt on the story. But then I guess Jeremy might have been telling half truths to her and didn’t dare admit he’d killed them by his own hand

She wouldn’t be the first person to perjure herself.

Mentioned just a few posts up is that she changed her story to the police. She also stood to receive £25k and not be charged for cheque frauds and smuggling and selling cannabis if Bamber was found to be guilty. Additionally, the police knew, because she confess to them, that she and Bamber stole money from the family business.

Overall, she is a textbook example of an unreliable witness.

That’s correct. The alleged hitman was arrested and provided his alibi, which then undermined Julie Mugford’s evidence. Also odd was that she claimed he told her about the murders but she did t immediately go to the police, she carried on seeing him. Wouldn’t you at least make your excuses?

I've never understood why it is always assumed there was one killer in that house.

It has been said that the entire family was a little unusual in polite terms and barking in less polite terms.

On a side note, I'm interested in the Jodie Jones/Luke Mitchell case. There are more and more YouTube and Tik Tok videos coming out claiming his innocence. It's intriguing.

I'm also intrigued by this case, and even if he is guilty, I wonder how much " nefarious" effort went into getting the guilty verdict on the behalf of police and prosecuters, as corruption in these institutions appears to have been common (and no doubt still is) in the 70s and 80s.

I'm thinking particularly of the chain of custody around the silencer. And alleged botching of some of the crime scene.

I know people who have worked with him in prison and don't doubt his guilt.

Their beliefs are no more valid than your or mine.

I'd say they'd have a good insight into his character though haven't met him and engaged with him, wouldn't you? And also observed his behaviours, some of which were quite the eye opener.

Do you have a link to the podcast please OP?

We don’t know you’re making this up, do we? So your post is worthless.

There's no need to be so snarky, whether you believe me or not. I've been on here for years and got literally no reason to make anything up, especially about a murderer I've never met. If you search my posts you'll probably find mention of my past work in Scottish prisons.

Here you go, sorry it was called Blood Relatives not Blood Family

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

I’m on the fence about Jeremy’s guilt after listening to the podcast mentioned above, but in any case the conviction feels unsafe, the police bungled the crime scene and the evidence.

I highly doubt anything will be overturned though, the body dealing with the appeals of such prisoners with bogus questions over their sentences has enough backlog to last them fifty years. I believe they won’t touch Jeremy’s case as the quashing would be very high profile, he’s charismatic and articulate and there’d be interviews and books galore. And how utterly shameful for Essex police, it might be forty years ago but their handling of the evidence and crime scene was nothing short of an embarrassment and will point to all sorts of accusations of corruption (which was most likely rife at the time)

I don't think it's that surprising that more is going on social media - his Mum is on a proper fundraising campaign atm and is pushing hard to have his name mentioned in as many places as possible as often as possible.

It's more interesting, imo, that the charges against her were dropped despite her obvious lying to defend him (her other son basically admitted that she 'confused' him about events of the day of the murder).

I get the focus on the main case, but it must be horrendous for Jodi Jones' parents to see the woman who thought it normal and acceptable to buy her son - who was under suspicion of murdering his girlfriend at the time - a hunting knife for Christmas just months after their daughters murder bleating on about justice.

The police officer in charge of the initial crime scene actually had the nickname Inspector Bungle.

It was only a year since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was passed. So the changes effected by that would not have had time to bed on.