The Lies of Jeremy Bamber

[starryian]

I am sure as most on this forum knows, that Jeremy Bamber has lied persistently and constantly since he was questioned by police in relation to the White House Farm Murders in 1985. If you have seen or heard, as I have, the obnoxious, self-righteous and irritating denials by this psychopath, then you may also feel it is time to redress the balance somewhat.
A psychopath such as Jeremy Bamber is totally incapable of being honest. His version of the truth is not the same as most other people. Bamber seems to think the truth is a concoction of half-truths mixed with downright lies. He once told  girlfriend Julie Mugford 'As long as you mix a few truths with your story you can't be caught out if they check'  Bamber sees no problem with this.
For the last 27 years, those interested in the case have been virtually bombarded with his pleas of innocence. His cronies have saturated the internet with all manner of scenarios and reasons why he couldn't be responsible for these crimes. Those that have researched this case by typing his name into Google will know what I mean.
Bamber 'think tanks' have come up with all manner of absurd scenarios in a desparate effort to point the finger of suspicion elsewhere often imagining ridiculous scenarios involving either Sheila or some mysterious stranger. Bamber was either the architect of these or went along with them regardless. It seems overwhelmingly to be a case of blame someone for the killings as long as it is not Jeremy Bamber - anyone but him.
One of the main aspects I noticed was Bamber's inability to answer a direct question pertaining to the murders. It was all about his 'innocence' Not once have I heard, read or seen Bamber give a refutation to the nation that it was highly improbable that Sheila could have been responsible for beating her 6ft 4" father into unconsciousness so viciously that the stock of the rifle broke. Or that there was any evidence of a struggle. Or that she showed no signs of handling a firearm, or that she murdered her own sons. Bamber did not once question this.
I find this a tad strange. Has anyone ever, read, heard or seen Bamber make any form of apology for leaving a loaded .22 rifle out in full view where there are two six year old boys staying? Or express any guilt for doing so?

                                                    Bambers Lies Exposed                                                                         
The Rifle
The rifle was never left out where Bamber had stated it was. That was too simplistic and obvious. I strongly suspect that he hid the rifle somewhere in the kitchen, where the ever-fastidious Nevil wouldnt find it, or, if he did return it to it's rightful place in the gun cupboard.
Bamber made sure it would be within easy reach when he broke in that night and not risk a confrontation with Nevil should he be overheard retrieving it from the gun cupboard.

The Adoption of the Twins
Bamber set the scene by suggesting to the police that the murderous rampage may have been sparked off the night before the murders by a suggestion by Nevil and June that the twins be adopted or fostered out to a local family.
There are two reasons why this simply cannot be true. Firstly, the twins father Colin Cafell, stated unequivocably that there was 'no question of the twins ever being either adopted or fostered out' This was a downright lie by Bamber. No such conversation ever took place. Secondly, Bamber had failed to realise that he had already stated in regards to why his father hadn't called the police, that his father was very 'unlikely to get organisations involved'
No organisations except the entire multi-faceted bureaucracy of the British Adoption Agency? I think Bamber tripped over his own stupidity here.

He Got Along With His Family
This is another downright lie. Bamber claimed after the murders that he got along fine with his father, although he admitted having some 'difficulty' with his mother and understanding his mentally ill sister' He insisted that his relationship with them had 'improved and was on good ground'
Nothing can be further from the truth. Bamber, hated his family with a passion. There were many witnesses who often overheard Bamber complaining about how short of money they kept him and how he hated them. Julie Mugford testified that Jeremy stated that the 'family were better off dead, the whole bloody lot of them' it quickly became obvious to her that Bamber disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". Mugford added that Bamber had said to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced"
Hardly the stuff of cordiality is it??


This is just the first small step in the mountain of lies told by Bamber in his attempt to cover up the appalling crimes for which he is undoubtedly responsible. It was a crime, Bamber hoped, that would never be uncovered.
In this he was very much mistaken.

[Andrea]

Good post, Ian.

keep them coming 

[Andrea]

Why didnt Bamber mention in court the supposed "movement" at the window? If he was innocent he would have been screaming that out in the court room.

[Admin]

I am sure as most on this forum knows, that Jeremy Bamber has lied persistently and constantly since he was questioned by police in relation to the White House Farm Murders in 1985. If you have seen or heard, as I have, the obnoxious, self-righteous and irritating denials by this psychopath, then you may also feel it is time to redress the balance somewhat.
A psychopath such as Jeremy Bamber is totally incapable of being honest. His version of the truth is not the same as most other people. Bamber seems to think the truth is a concoction of half-truths mixed with downright lies. He once told  girlfriend Julie Mugford 'As long as you mix a few truths with your story you can't be caught out if they check'  Bamber sees no problem with this.
For the last 27 years, those interested in the case have been virtually bombarded with his pleas of innocence. His cronies have saturated the internet with all manner of scenarios and reasons why he couldn't be responsible for these crimes. Those that have researched this case by typing his name into Google will know what I mean.
Bamber 'think tanks' have come up with all manner of absurd scenarios in a desparate effort to point the finger of suspicion elsewhere often imagining ridiculous scenarios involving either Sheila or some mysterious stranger. Bamber was either the architect of these or went along with them regardless. It seems overwhelmingly to be a case of blame someone for the killings as long as it is not Jeremy Bamber - anyone but him.
One of the main aspects I noticed was Bamber's inability to answer a direct question pertaining to the murders. It was all about his 'innocence' Not once have I heard, read or seen Bamber give a refutation to the nation that it was highly improbable that Sheila could have been responsible for beating her 6ft 4" father into unconsciousness so viciously that the stock of the rifle broke. Or that there was any evidence of a struggle. Or that she showed no signs of handling a firearm, or that she murdered her own sons. Bamber did not once question this.
I find this a tad strange. Has anyone ever, read, heard or seen Bamber make any form of apology for leaving a loaded .22 rifle out in full view where there are two six year old boys staying? Or express any guilt for doing so?

                                                                          Bamber's Lies Exposed
The Rifle
The rifle was never left out where Bamber had stated it was. That was too simplistic and obvious. I strongly suspect that he hid the rifle somewhere in the kitchen, where the ever-fastidious Nevil wouldnt find it, or, if he did return it to it's rightful place in the gun cupboard.
Bamber made sure it would be within easy reach when he broke in that night and not risk a confrontation with Nevil should he be overheard retrieving it from the gun cupboard.

The Adoption of the Twins
Bamber set the scene by suggesting to the police that the murderous rampage may have been sparked off the night before the murders by a suggestion by Nevil and June that the twins be adopted or fostered out to a local family.
There are two reasons why this simply cannot be true. Firstly, the twins father Colin Cafell, stated unequivocably that there was 'no question of the twins ever being either adopted or fostered out' This was a downright lie by Bamber. No such conversation ever took place. Secondly, Bamber had failed to realise that he had already stated in regards to why his father hadn't called the police, that his father was very 'unlikely to get organisations involved'
No organisations except the entire multi-faceted bureaucracy of the British Adoption Agency? I think Bamber tripped over his own stupidity here.

He Got Along With His Family
This is another downright lie. Bamber claimed after the murders that he got along fine with his father, although he admitted having some 'difficulty' with his mother and understanding his mentally ill sister' He insisted that his relationship with them had 'improved and was on good ground'
Nothing can be further from the truth. Bamber, hated his family with a passion. There were many witnesses who often overheard Bamber complaining about how short of money they kept him and how he hated them. Julie Mugford testified that Jeremy stated that the 'family were better off dead, the whole bloody lot of them' it quickly became obvious to her that Bamber disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". Mugford added that Bamber had said to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced"
Hardly the stuff of cordiality is it??
This is just the first small step in the mountain of lies told by Bamber in his attempt to cover up the appalling crimes for which he is undoubtedly responsible. It was a crime, Bamber hoped, that would never be uncovered.
In this he was very much mistaken.

An excellent synopsis ian, keep up the good work.   

[ActualMat]

Another fine post, Starry!

[starryian]

Why didnt Bamber mention in court the supposed "movement" at the window? If he was innocent he would have been screaming that out in the court room.

Very good point Andrea. I have watched an interview given by PC Bewes who was with Bamber at the time of this supposed incident. Bewes stated that 'we were doing a perimeter check with Jeremy and he suddenly said "hang on is that movement up there" We looked up to the bedroom window and I moved my head and said yeah I thought we could see movement. But then I thought........hang on, and just by moving my head a little bit- there was a little bit of moonlight that night - and I think it was a reflection of the moonlight off of one of the window panes. So I was quite satisfied there was no movement"
Bamber capitalised on this as 'proof' that someone was alive and inside the farmhouse. It was a very minor incident, easily dismissed by Bewes, but later leapt upon by Bamber and his supporters. Personally, I must have been thrown this incident virtually every time I have discussed the case with anyone who thinks he is innocent. I have answered the same way each time. There was no movement in the window. It was nothing more than moonlight reflecting off a pane of glass.
It was a simple case of Bamber trying to set the scene and get the police officers present to believe that there was a woman inside armed with a gun. It was yet another extension of the cock n'bull story Bamber was weaving outside to police officers. This was a tense situation. The Tactical Firearms Team were now on standby, village bobbies unused to dramatic scenes such as these, were anxious and unsure of what to expect. Bamber knew this only too well. As one policeman later put it " Bamber painted the scene, and we just filled in the colours"

[starryian]

Thanks everyone. Your comments are most welcome.

[Dillon]

Congratulations to starryian on an extremely clear and well presented post. I recall a relative by marriage, a farmer,
commenting having met Bamber at a shoot not long before the murders that he found him absolutely charming but that it was very strange that a young man brought up on a farm seemed to have no interest in pursuing a career in farming. Bamber said that his ambition was to live in London and work in the music business. This somewhat flies in the face of Bamber's assertions that when he is released from prison his desire is to acquire a little farm in Dorset !
I suspect that he is capable of being very pleasant when it suits his objectives and maybe this is one of the reasons why some of his supporters find it so difficult to beleive that this articulate and apparently charming man could possibly have been guilty of this terrible massacre, although this conclusion is at odds with any logical analysis of the evidence. It is often stated that he has had numerous psychological assessments which conclude that he is not psychopathic. Having worked professionally in a number of contexts in the past with diagnosed psychopaths I know how pleasant and plausible some can appear until thwarted. Personally I suspect that under the veneer of politesse, he is an extremely disturbed and potentially dangerous individual. He had a private education and I know how well these institutions can inculcate an appearance of confidence and charm. Characteristics which historically have enabled public school products to succeed in ruthless pursuit of careers in business, the former colonies etc.     

[starryian]

Congratulations to starryian on an extremely clear and well presented post. I recall a relative by marriage, a farmer,
commenting having met Bamber at a shoot not long before the murders that he found him absolutely charming but that it was very strange that a young man brought up on a farm seemed to have no interest in pursuing a career in farming. Bamber said that his ambition was to live in London and work in the music business. This somewhat flies in the face of Bamber's assertions that when he is released from prison his desire is to acquire a little farm in Dorset !
I suspect that he is capable of being very pleasant when it suits his objectives and maybe this is one of the reasons why some of his supporters find it so difficult to beleive that this articulate and apparently charming man could possibly have been guilty of this terrible massacre, although this conclusion is at odds with any logical analysis of the evidence. It is often stated that he has had numerous psychological assessments which conclude that he is not psychopathic. Having worked professionally in a number of contexts in the past with diagnosed psychopaths I know how pleasant and plausible some can appear until thwarted. Personally I suspect that under the veneer of politesse, he is an extremely disturbed and potentially dangerous individual. He had a private education and I know how well these institutions can inculcate an appearance of confidence and charm. Characteristics which historically have enabled public school products to succeed in ruthless pursuit of careers in business, the former colonies etc.   

An excellent post Dillon. Lucid, well written and clear.
I agree that psychopaths, by their very nature are often charming, confident, and often on the surface, fun to be around. However, just beneath this surface lies a very calculating and manipulative individual. Psychopaths are masters at mimicry. They can often switch on the charm and imitate the actions of people that others are drawn to. This is why leaders of cults appear to hold great deal of influence over their followers and can easily manipulate them into doing things that they might otherwise have thought preposterous or out of character - Charles Manson and the Reverend Jim Jones are two good examples of this.
Psychopaths are also incorrigible and untreatable. It is now thought that offering the psychopath counselling or any other form of therapy is futile. The psychopath will only learn new methods of manipulation and deceipt by listening carefully to their therapist and mimic their actions or methods. In short, they will often tell the therapist exactly what they want to hear. 'I have changed, I have reformed, I can help others, I have seen the error of my ways'
It will often sound incredibly sincere and plausible to the listener and all too often too many psychotherapists have been taken in by these people. I believe that Jeremy Bamber is just such a person. A highly dangerous, manipulative psychopath.

[sika]

Having been subjected to numerous physcological assessments, how has Bamber been able to 'beat' the test?

What is involved in these assessments? How thorough are they?

[starryian]

Having been subjected to numerous physcological assessments, how has Bamber been able to 'beat' the test?

What is involved in these assessments? How thorough are they?

A very good question Sika. It can only be answered in two parts.
Firstly, a lie detector test, or polygraph test to give it's correct name is a test has little or no validity amongst scientists or courts of law. Lie detection has a long history in mythology and fairy tales; the polygraph has allowed modern fiction to use a device more easily seen as scientific and plausible. It is a test that measures normal human responses to questions. The belief is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers.
Secondly, based on the first statement, it presumes that all humans will exhibit the same responses if they try to be deceiptful in the answers to questions - sweating, shaking, increased heart rate, facial blushing etc. These are direct results of feelings of guilt, embarassment, shame and the knowledge that one has just told a lie etc. However, in a psychopath these normal physiological responses are, by-and-large, absent. Therefore the psychopath will appear to be telling the truth when questioned as they will exhib normal responses to highly important questions.
For a psychopath to tell a lie is second nature and therefore will exhib virtually no physiological response.
Polygraphy has also been faulted for failing to trap known spies such as double-agent Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.
In short, it is a useless tool and had been widely discredited by scientists anf psychologists alike, especially in Europe where it is mostly used by defendants trying to add weight to their protestations of their innocence.
It is probably best summed up on this site 'How to Cheat a Polygraph'
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
I hope this helps to explain your question Sika.

[sika]

Thanks for that Starryian,  I very much enjoy reading your posts which are ALWAYS excellent.

Due to the fact that I worded my post so badly, you misunderstood me. 

I wasn't referring to the polygraph test but rather the official prison service assessments.  I note that his supporters make great hay out of the fact that he has had many physcological assessments which conclude that he is not a physcopath.  Just how effective are these assessments though?

[Andrea]

During the Ripper case, the experts couldnt decide if he was mentally ill or not, they had opposing views.

They found him sane and sentenced him to life in prison, he's now in Broadmoor mad as a hatter!

[sika]

During the Ripper case, the experts couldnt decide if he was mentally ill or not, they had opposing views.

They found him sane and sentenced him to life in prison, he's now in Broadmoor mad as a hatter!

Thanks Andrea, that's interesting.  I suppose it just goes to show what an inexact science it is.
Never the less, you might have expected at least one of Bamber's assessments to have concluded that he was a physco.  Ive read that he's been assessed a dozen times or more.

[Andrea]

To be fair, Sika, we have never seen any documents relating to these assesments, so we dont what they say.

As ian said, psychopaths are cunning and manipulative. Shrinks have been fooled in the past by them.