Jeremy Bamber - Innocent or Guilty?

Anyone see the Tonight programme earlier on ITV?...'Jeremy Bamber, The New Evidence'

Jeremy Bamber was jailed for life in 1986 for the murders of his adoptive parents, Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin sons, Nicholas and Daniel who were six. Bamber has always protested his innocence and claims Sheila shot her parents and children before turning the gun on herself. I have always taken an interest in this case as I live less than a ten minute drive from White House Farm, in a small village in Essex where the horrific murders took place. I have always believed that Bamber was guilty of the most cold and calculating atrocity imaginable and I saw very little tonight to make me change my mind.

Bamber is now 51 years old and is the eighth longest serving prisoner in the country. So should he rightly end his days in prison or has an innocent man been locked up in jail for the last 26 years?

I remember it well because I was driving up to Colchester via Coggeshal (Think its called) the same day it kicked off. At the time I believed he'd been wrongly charged as it seemed that nobody would want to blow their whole family away, unless you were attila the Hun. Then the evidence agaist him started coming out, and I believed he'd done it for the family cash and he was a sicko.

As years went on something always came out about him being innocent and i know theres been plenty of cases of a misscarriage of justice, but then why is he still inside after all these years? I believe that no parole is ever given unless you accept your crime, and he obviously hasn't. So he's either considered to be a real sicko by the authoroties in the mould of the ripper and Hindley, or very unlucky.

As a matter of interest as I didn't see the programme, who's representing him. If its Michael Mansfield or some other leading QC, then you can take it that he's a sicko and guilty

Yes it is Coggeshall on the way to Colchester Doc. Bamber's new lawyer now representing him, is a guy called Simon McKay who was involved with the making of the Tonight documentary.

Bamber is increasingly persistent with his protests of innocence. This is despite already having his bid to have his life tariff overturned by the European Court of Human Rights refused and having three appeals against his conviction thrown out by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I tend to side with Sheila Caffell's cousin who said that he couldn't believe that 27 years after the murders he was still having to appear on TV defending the original decision. He again repeated that Sheila's body was found with TWO gunshot wounds to her throat, her long manicured fingernails were undamaged and there was not a speck of any of the victims blood on her clothing or body.

All of that would tend to cast more than some doubt on Bambers continual claims that Sheila was the one responsible for firing the gun that resulted in five deaths, including those of her own six year old twin sons.

I don't think these things should be constantly revisited.

execution then burial of the records so that it's left as it is.

Bit harsh LJ but in Bamber's case you might have a point...

how often are they proven to be innocent? Very rarely.

All the constant appeals do is cost a fortune and potentially release nutters back into society.

Just kill em and save us all a fortune. I'm happy to do it and if it turns out that someone wasn't guilty years later then I'll say sorry.

Agree with you LJ. Why should we be paying out to keep people like Peter Sutcliffe alive?

LadyPutt wrote:Agree with you LJ. Why should we be paying out to keep people like Peter Sutcliffe alive?

Because as a society we are meant to rise above the morals of the people who commit these acts maybe ?

diggers wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Agree with you LJ. Why should we be paying out to keep people like Peter Sutcliffe alive?

Because as a society we are meant to rise above the morals of the people who commit these acts maybe ?

Surely those who have abandoned the morals of society can no longer expect to be treated by those imposed standards and as such only deserve the same treatment as that they have given others?

LondonJonnyO wrote:

diggers wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Agree with you LJ. Why should we be paying out to keep people like Peter Sutcliffe alive?

Because as a society we are meant to rise above the morals of the people who commit these acts maybe ?

Surely those who have abandoned the morals of society can no longer expect to be treated by those imposed standards and as such only deserve the same treatment as that they have given others?

Not in my mind nor in the eye of the law as it stands. You create a code in society and treat peope by that code, we dont have a code that says anyone will be killed because they kill, however abhorent we find the crime, nor do we have a code that says someone will be stabbed because they stab somebody else or that shoplifters will have their hands chopped off...however much you might like that to be the case. Our justice system, is not built on the concept of an eye for an eye. There are plenty of countries you could move to that might have a justive system more suited to your tastes but I think their may be other restrictions in place that you might not be so keen on, like Mrs LJ having to wear a Burka for instance.

No. But perhaps if such a code were in place there would be less of it in the first place,.

Doesnt seem to make any difference to the murder rates in the States. Death row is always fairly busy. I dont personally think psycopaths are particularly bothered about the consequences of their action, either to other people or to themselves.
Also if you take the USA as an example you still have the same appeal processes anyway, they drag on for years just the way appeals do over here.

diggers wrote:Doesnt seem to make any difference to the murder rates in the States. Death row is always fairly busy. I dont personally think psycopaths are particularly bothered about the consequences of their action, either to other people or to themselves.

And so by that argument, why should we, the hard-working, beleaguered taxpayers, pay to keep them alive for years if they don't care what happens to them?

Because we as a society should care what happens to everyone within our society, ie to at least treat them humanely and the moral code of the British justice system does not see executing someone as humane.
Remember we dont even currently allow people who wish to take their own lifes that option.
To be honest I think there are numerous sound arguments for and against the death penalty however saving the tax payer a few quid IMO is not one of them.

Most murders are not committed by Pyschopaths. Just people. Death Row should be limited to 6 months, with no appeal after sentence just a review of the trial to ensure no doubt, and execution carried out immediately upon expiry of that review.

As for the taxpayer why shouldn't they be an argument in this case? We pay a huge amount of tax and why should so much of it support people on lengthy sentences with no chance of release?

I'm not a fan of the Tory party but even they recognise the issues that capital punishment causes.So basically it's not going to happen, which is a good thing IMO. But then again I don't find killing squirrels funny or think that kids who run in front of cars deserve to die so what do I know.

Just seen on the BBC website that his appeal failed.

Apparently his defence team were arguing that there was no indication of sound suppressor marks on two of the bodies. This was suggested at the original trial and he was supposed to have disposed of the sound suppressor but it was never recovered.

Yes I read that too Grumps that Jeremy Bamber has failed in his appeal bid.

A spokesman for the Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed that it was not referring the case for appeal. He also added "This is a final decision and brings to a close the commission's current longest running case"

I am sure that David Boutflour and the rest of the remaining family are relieved at this news.

And still the saga continues

I read today that Jeremy Bamber has won the right for European judges to hear his appeal that keeping him in jail for the rest of his life breaches his human rights.

His case will be heard at a later date by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights who will test whether the UK's law allowing the most dangerous offenders to be sentenced to whole life tariffs, meaning they will never be released, amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Right just to recap then. Here we have a man who in cold blood, shot dead five members of his own family, including two women and six year old twin children as they lay asleep, side by side in their beds. But keeping him in jail breaches his human rights and is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment?

Does what happened to his victims mean nothing anymore? What about the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment they suffered at his hands and how he breached their human rights in the most grotesque way possible? Madness, complete madness. Can anyone begin to explain to me any sort of logic here? Anyone?

Another reason to get out of Europe and stop them poking their noses into our business. I'm sick and tired of hearing about criminals' "uman rights". What about the rights of their victims and their families?

LadyPutt wrote:Another reason to get out of Europe and stop them poking their noses into our business. I'm sick and tired of hearing about criminals' "uman rights". What about the rights of their victims and their families?

Hear, hear!

He is still trying but has failed in his latest High Court action to overturn his conviction. Two judges in London rejected a judicial review application.

Announcing the decision, Sir John Thomas, president of the Queen's Bench Division, said he could not see "any way" in which a challenge could be made to the decision reached.

Wanna bet?

Oh deep joy...the good old European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the whole-life tariffs given to Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breach their human rights

Words fail me, Blue. What about the 'uman rights of the people who have been killed? The sooner we get out of Europe the better.

I stand by my statement of refusing to abide by the european rulings, and never allow appeals of anyone convicted of murder.

Vote LJ for PM

I promise to never instigate war upon a helpless nation to make myself look good or to appoint a head of secret police... although I am taking applications for the role in case it becomes necessary in order to abolish democracy and become a faceless dictator with a bushy tache.