Theroux introduces his latest documentary...
https://news.sky.com/story/louis-theroux-examines-jeremy-bamber-murders-and-reveals-why-legit-people-believe-five-time-killer-is-innocent-12406985
Nothing new here, and I doubt very much detail, if any, on Bamber's numerous bits on the side will be included. It'll cover exactly the same ground superficially as many other "investigative" programmes have done in the past with the same unresolved result, i.e. letting viewers decide which side of the fence they're on, when it's patently obvious to those who've spent time analysing this case, that Sheila Caffell was in no way responsible for the murders. The CCRC need to put this ridiculous farce to bed once and for all with Bamber Co. Ltd's latest, and hopefully last gratuitous submission. One thing's for sure... gimcrack cardboard and plasticine models will feature heavily, but Pat Brown won't be in it.
It's not surprising that a white, middle class, middle aged, privately educated man seems happy for people to believe that Bamber may be innocent. I think there's a bit of (not so)unconscious bias going on.
I thought that Theroux was going to have nothing to do with this doc. I'm a bit disappointed that he seems to have had quite a bit of influence in its content. I didn't think he'd be doing all the promotional stuff.
He's too much of a wind up merchant to do this sort of thing. It's okay to mildly mock Paul Daniels, or a bunch of swingers in America, but that childish, cantankerous attitude should be off limits for a doc of this nature.
He has talked about his inappropriate mocking style in the past, and I thought that was why he created this alternative way of making documentaries. To keep himself out of the loop.
So far he comes across as someone trying to wind up people who think Bamber is innocent, as well as wind up people who think he's guilty. If that's true, then he's trivialising the whole thing.
I just don't see why it's such a big thing that Bamber has been protesting his innocence for 35 years. It neither makes him innocent or guilty. It's a completely neutral thing in terms of evidence. It's meaningless.
But Louis Theroux seems to think it's important, like it makes him more innocent somehow. It doesn't.
Bamber hasn't just been protesting his innocence, he has also just as aggressively protested his sisters guilt.
He has spent 35 years protesting that Sheila is guilty. Hasn't anyone noticed that?
Who are the legit people who think Bamber is innocent? That Mark Williams Thomas bloke just seems to take the most controversial viewpoint, without providing any actual evidence. He does that for all his cases. Just because you get on the telly, it doesn't make you 'legit'.
We know Peter Sutherst is in it saying that he thinks he's not guilty. But we know that his evidence has been completely discredited and he was woefully unqualified to asses the photographs. Will that come out in the doc?
I think overall it will portray Bamber as more guilty than innocent, it has no option but to do that. But I am now thinking it will leave the door open wide enough to allow newbies to the case to say or think he's innocent.
