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.

My question on that would be, if they wanted him to look guilty, why not leave the silencer on the gun? Why put it in a cupboard?

It would make sense that Jeremy quickly hid it in a cupboard so that the police didn’t know it was on the gun, but anyone wanting to frame him would leave it on the gun if they had any wits about them.

I guess that boils down to the timeframes on when the silencer was found. The quality of the initial search the police did etc.

I’ve always thought he was guilty.

I’ve read and watched various materials on the case over the years, and I’m yet to see/read anything that convinces me otherwise.

I don’t think there has ever been any suggestion that the whole crime scene was staged to frame him, has there?
His argument is that Sheila carried out the murders as the police originally thought and the framing came later, so the police would have already found the gun by Sheila’s body without the silencer.

I’ve just listened to the first two episodes of that podcast.
It’s very well made, very skilful storytelling. It’s also obvious how it’s going to go because when Ann Eaton was introduced she was described as wearing clouds of perfume and having dyed hair, and everyone knows that in fiction these things are code for ‘not a good woman! Can’t trust her!’
And of course the conviction was also about storytelling and making people fit existing negative stereotypes. It would be good if a conviction was more about solid scientific evidence rather than how much people fit stereotypical detective fiction tropes and whether their behaviour fits with how you would expect someone in their situation to behave (shock horror Bamber went on holiday! Omg Ann Eaton moved into the farmhouse and didn’t change the carpets!) but of course the police fucked that one up by allowing the crime scene to be messed with and later destroying evidence.

I have very strong doubts that Luke Mitchell is guilty!

That wasn’t a clincher. There’s a photo of the transcript of the phone call in the Guardian article I linked. He says his daughter is shooting.

In that podcast they spoke to a family friend who worked in the farm office doing the accounts. I can’t remember her name. Jeremy said he had overheard his mother telling She disliked Jeremy intensely, but when he said he overheard his mother in the kitchen telling Sheila she should put the boys in foster care. Jeremy was considered to have lied about this. But this family friend said he was telling the truth,she was in the kitchen at the time. She disliked Jeremy, had no time for him, so why would she have backed him on this unless it was the truth?

Barbara something.
Yes, the interview with her was very good. She seemed like a sane person with no axe to grind.
I was struck by her descriptions of what a bad state Sheila was in. Iirc part of the case against Jeremy was that he had exaggerated Sheila’s condition to cover up his crime. But she also described some very unpleasant behaviour by Jeremy, against both her and his mum.

Someone on the internet says he is innocent and people believe it
OMG

I don’t think anyone says ‘he is innocent.’ What they say is that there isn’t enough to be convinced of his guilt.

Michael Stone is another troubling one.

It is bone chilling to think you can spend your entire life in prison for something you didn’t do. But it’s happened before, hasn’t it? And once you’ve been convicted then that’s it; no opportunity for redress or appeal. It’s that which troubles me and it should trouble everybody.

And innocent people don’t even get any support when they leave prison, just booted out and left to pick up the pieces of their lives. Whereas guilty people released after life sentences do get support.

I remember this case well from the time, I've read the Whitehouse Farm book and watched the drama based on it. I believe he is guilty.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that provides his motive. But two things stand out for me that indicate it wasn't Sheila. One is the fact her fingernails were still perfectly manicured and polished. There is no way she could have reloaded the gun without damaging her nails (this is way before acrylics or gels so the polish would have chipped very easily). And for me, if she did kill everyone and then herself, she would have been found in the room with her boys, not with her mother.

This is without the facts that her father had been beaten up (he was a big strong farmer and she was described as very slight and frail) and that she had never used guns yet managed to reload and shoot very efficiently.

There is no doubt that Essex police completely screwed up the investigation which is why there's now all this scope for debate. But I believe he did it and I feel so sorry for all the victims, especially Sheila, her boys and of course Colin.

I agree about Michael Stone. I’ve always thought so.

Michael Stone is another troubling one.

Even Shaun Russell isn’t sure he’s guilty

I've not followed the case closely, although I do remember it and have read bits and pieces about it but one thing occurred to me on this one - why would Sheila have put her boys in foster care when they had a father who had until recently had custody and would have taken them back in a heartbeat? Why not just send them back to their father?

I’ve found some of the points on this thread really thought provoking. Also this, from
ghe Guardiam article posted by @berlinbaby2025

‘Stan Jones then carried out another test. He attached a silencer to a gun and asked somebody the same height as Sheila to pretend to shoot herself. She was unable to do so. The silencer increased the length of the gun and meant she couldn’t reach the trigger. Stan Jones believed he had his killer.’

Is that really the extent of the testing? Somebody the same height was asked to pretend to shoot themself? In the 2002 appeal it says the forensics show Sheila was sitting up on the floor when she received the gunshot wound/s. I wonder if Stan Jones ‘test’ included that.

This detail stood out to me too! It reminded me of an aspect in the Joanne Lees/peter Falconio case where they said there was no way she could have escaped the cables tied round her wrists by moving them from behind her back to the front as she claimed, then in court she showed them she could, easily.

https://innocencetexas.org/cases/sandra-melgar/

This sort of thing fascinates me, and the "how and why" of crimes should be robustly demonstrated IMHO.

The Sandra Melgar case is another one that seems "circumstantial" to the point of witch trial....

I remember that but I think that was an error by the defence, something about them thinking she'd said she'd been cuffed?

Yes this is the nearest to my views. Ive read a couple of books and saw the drama though it was some time ago.

I did vacillate a bit on a few things. Julie Mugford struck me as a woman scorned who didnt come out of the woodwork for a long time in such an emotive multiple family murder, I did wonder why.

As regards the phone calls, he took time to look up the phone book for the local station while his sister was going mental with a gun?

The thing though for me was Shielas condition, Neville was beaten badly, he was a well over 6ft strapping farmer, even if he was in his sixties, Sheila, apart from blood from her wounds was clean, nightie pristine, nails freshly manicured.

I could go over the silencer, her arms weren't long enough, how did she shoot herself twice in the neck, go downstairs and put the silencer in the cupboard, but acknowledge it could have been done without it...

I think it was auch a horrific event that folk are still interested, and part of me thinks hes still protesting his innocence, but when I look logically, hes guilty.

Guilty as charged

without shred of a doubt

I dont disagree with what you say, perhaps she could have somehow shot herself with the silencer attached in spite of the failure to properly test.

But if she did, how did it get in the cupboard downstairs?

Case closed!

Thanks for that contribution.

No problem 😌

His case has been reviewed multiple times hasn’t it?

The footage of his fake crying at funeral is what I remember