Jeremy Bamber - Is this the worst MoJ in British criminal history?

[HoGo1]

I watched a prog on C5 a few weeks ago re the above. I've also spent a fair bit of time researching the case (there's a mountain of docs on the 'Jeremy Bamber Forum') I have a feeling we will be hearing much more about this in the not too distant future Does anyone else think he might be innocent?

When I was young we talked about 'reading up' or 'finding out' about things. 'Research' was reserved for work done by serious students, academics and scientists. It involved prolonged study and critical analysis. When did it start to be the norm to 'research' train times and paint colours? When did reading one book on a subject become 'research'?

the guardian seem to have doubts

I am not in a position to judge his guilt (or innocence) but I agree that there are some seemingly interesting points that do seem to have been brushed under the carpet. However I am not naive enough to believe everything I read on the internet. It is interesting though.

I hadn't realised he'd passed a lie detector test. So he's either guilty or a psychopath of some sort.

Either innocent or a psychopath even.

I've dealt with this case through work.
I've read the original court transcripts and summing up.

Guilty guilty guilty.

reasons why it couldn't have been his sister not least the fact that she was shot twice which would be impossible if a murder suicide.

I haven't paid much attention to his website. I've been reading the 'Jeremy Bamber Forum'. I was amazed when I read the reports by the psychologist who treated the adoptive mother and adopted daughter for severe mental illness.

Also the witness statements of his extended adoptive family who it appears did not want a non-blood relative inheriting what had been in the blood family for generations. At the time of the murders '85 the estate was worth circa 436k.

I always thought he was guilty but I've read things over recent years that have made me have doubts. I couldn't say he's innocent but I think there is enough evidence for an appeal.

Lie detectors aren't really very good though. It's why they're not accepted in UK courts. But yes a psychopath/sociopath or someone who just doesn't experience guilt in the same biological way would be able to pass a lie detector even if lying.

Yes. I think quite possibly an MOJ.

Leaving all the other problems aside, a 'missing' police phone log sheet turned up a few years ago documenting a call from Bamber senior saying that his daughter had gone beserk with a gun.

That has to be highly suggestive at the very least.

Voyage Sheila Caffell was a paranoid schizophrenic who had voiced some very disturbed delusions about her sons. Not just depressed.

But...every attempt at appeal based on new evidence has failed. Obviously, if that changes I will change my mind, but on current evidence not a miscarriage of justice.

I've always thought he's guilty but I now have a couple of questions, after reading the Guardian piece Viva linked to.

"Last week, the Guardian was passed a letter, written by Sheila's ex-husband, Colin Caffell, to Nevill Bamber. In it, Caffell expresses deep concern about Sheila's mental state and asks his father-in law-to "try and convince Sheila that it would be better for her and the boys if they stayed with me most of the time". Ferguson says if Nevill had pleaded Caffell's case to Sheila, it could have had a "potentially catastrophic effect on her". As a result, he says, "she may have projected on to her father a concept of evil"."

Does this letter exist? If so why wasnt it presented in court? At the trial Bamber said his sister was distraught at the thought of losing her DC, but the prosecution said he was making that up.

And the discrepancy in the photos containing the "scratch" marks. Where those marks there on the night off the shootings, proving a struggle took place?

Mind you having written all that, I still think the forensic evidence shows that Shiela didn't kill her family.

I'm sure its been considered but could it have been someone else completely? Like a break in, or someone the family had pissed off??

The father rings Jeremy because he thought it was Sheila but he was wrong and it was a third party?? That's probably a bit far fetched isn't it?

Was there ever any forensic evidence to link Jeremy to it all?

I don't think there was?? I read that they reckoned he must have worn a wet suit and showered in it to wash all blood off. I suppose back then forensic techniques weren't as good but it seems odd that someone can murder so many people and there be no forensic proof.

I think he is guilty.

People have passed lie detector tests and then DNA has later proven they have committed the crime. Lie detector test results are not admissible in court because they can be wrong.

Re evidence. They found a hair on a silencer a while after the shooting which turned out to be Bambers. Also Sheila's feet were bare and clean. If she had been walking around the house her feet wouldn't have been clean. I read this book

When defence/appeal solicitors requested various pieces of evidence for up to date forensic examination, Essex Police explained that most artefacts from the crime scene had been destroyed.

Which is odd Police practice, particularly in a case where someone was serving a whole life tariff. It also means that we don't know what modern forensic science might have contributed. Lots of strange aspects to this case.

The chain of custody for the silencer was laughable. Consider who "found" it.

Nobody here is citing the things i'd expect a believer in Jeremy Bamber's guilt to cite.

Well there are only six people who know for sure - five are dead and one will never admit the truth. A very close friend of mine did a stint at some secretarial/grooming college with the sister and thought she was completely bonkers and more than capable of killing although that of course is just an opinion. I don't think it helps that the family was exactly "rounded" when considering what actually happened

I suppose someone is convicted of murder when the likelihood is beyond reasonable doubt. I think pragmatically after so many appeals, the conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

No, it certainly isn't.

Emma Bates is innocent though- that case is a heinous miscarriage of justice.

Lottie was the house filthy then. I can walk around my house and have clean feet; my grandparents owned a farm and I could walk around their house bare foot and my feet would have been clean.

They say that there was that much blood on the floor and broken glass whoever did it would have had tiny bits of glass and blood on their feet or soles of their shoes. But Sheila's feet were clean as were all her shoes and slippers.

Near- there would have been blood on her feet if she had killed 4 people.

And unless the whole house had been scrubbed with bleach, 2 mins before the shootings, her bare feet would have picked up 'dirt' as she would have been walking around the house.