As someone else said earlier in the thread, that phone call of Bamber's to the police effectively narrowed down the suspect list to just two - himself and Sheila. Given how he behaved in the weeks following what happened, I don't think he did himself many favours in terms of convincing people he was innocent. And that's before we get onto him having the family dog put down - something I wasn't aware of previously. I'm pretty convinced he did it, and I've stated previously on this thread that it isn't one of those cases that has ever jumped out at me as a possible miscarriage of justice. That said, I agree that the police investigation was a shambles and they're probably lucky that the suspect list was so short from the off because otherwise there would've been a greater chance of getting the wrong person for it.
Stephen Graham's accent is one of the worst i've ever heard.
It's like Dick Van Dyke has gone to Cardiff
I think he behaved like a cold heartless twat in the weeks following the murders. But if you put it in context he had no prior convictions for acts of violence against his family or anyone else, no psychopathic traits, he's passed lie detector tests etc. This is unusual for a man who can pump 25 bullets into his own family purely for profit.
Strangely although the ballistics evidence was important it seemed like the trial almost hung on the testimony of his ex girlfriend. The judges summing up was ridiculously leading (have a read if you can get hold of a copy) and implied that the case hinged on his word against hers. Yet it took her weeks to come forward and only then because he’d chucked her.
That said you’re right - it’s either him or his sister. I don’t believe there was enough evidence for a safe conviction but if I had to choose it’s Jeremy
and which authority subjected him to lie detector tests then?
They have no legal value in UK law.
I think he behaved like a cold heartless twat in the weeks following the murders. But if you put it in context he had no prior convictions for acts of violence against his family or anyone else, no psychopathic traits, he's passed lie detector tests etc. This is unusual for a man who can pump 25 bullets into his own family purely for profit.
An absence of violent antecedents has to be a material consideration though.To add some more context though, you could say that he'd already burgled a family office showing that he had pretty loose morals when it came to money and his family.
To add some more context though, you could say that he'd already burgled a family office showing that he had pretty loose morals when it came to money and his family.
That’s true. He was clearly a spoilt entitled rich kid. But but did his loose morals and his past crimes (nicking a few grand) show that he had the ability to pump 25 bullets in to his family - including two six year old kids?
No, not on its own. Along with the other evidence though, I think you could reach that conclusion.
I think you're more on the fence than me on this (I would have convicted him) so if you would have acquitted him, what do you think is the next likely explanation for what happened?*
*I realise that's not the role of a juror or the defence.