Jeremy Bamber - Debunking Mike Tesko's strange theories

[jackiepreece]

I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.

There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong

[puglove]

How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.

Good points Shona,
Moreover, the first bullet shattered the 4th vertebra in her neck making it virtually impossible for her to move her head. In short she could not have fired the second, fatal shot.
The pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possiblity of Sheila being about to move around. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
Sheila was shot by Bamber in the hope that it would kill her. It didn't. As she fell backwards from the first shot, her head hit the bedside cabinet immediately placed behind her, leaving her head at an angle which covered the wound and allowing the blood to flow,  seen on her nightdress; downwards and at an angle -  if Sheila was the killer and wanted to shoot herself, her shattered vertebrae would have made it impossible for her to move her head for the second shot - It is possible to deduce that Bamber pulled her by the ankles in order to straighten her and to expose her chin and fired a second, fatal shot. She could NOT have placed herself in that position.
The conclusion is; is that Sheila Caffell did NOT shoot herself and if she did not, someone else MUST have, that someone else can ONLY be Jeremy Bamber to the exclusion of ALL others.

I know we have touched on this previously but something which has always bothered me is the total lack of emotion on Sheila's face.  No pain, no shock, no sign of any fear and not a tear.  This is certainly very odd.

I read a comment yesterday where it has been suggested that Jeremy Bamber applied a mild undetectable anaesthetic to Sheila in order to incapacitate her while he murdered the others.  I know there was no sign of such a compound in her bloodstream but it may not have shown up if used in small quantities.

Any views on this one?   >@@(*&)

Yes. If you go onto the History channel, and see all sorts of madness going on, you will witness the faces of innocent people who were murdered, suicides, torture, terrible crimes. And hanging. But when they die, the muscles relax. No signs of truama.

[jackiepreece]

John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful

[puglove]

I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.

There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong

It's been suggested that lie detectors work. They don't. Google  David Pates Powick. I allowed him to take my girls on holiday. I have to live with that.

[John]

I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.

There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong

The Polygraph test can be affected by so many variables Jackie.  I guarantee if someone were to take the same test three times over the course of three weeks that it would come up with at least one rogue result.  The bottom line is that is just cannot be trusted.  Technology has not yet advanced so far that we can trust such a test.

The recent news that the Government is to use the test routinely when evaluating sex offenders is very worrying.  They are using the threat of the test to get offenders to own up to things.  That bluff won't last for long as the word will soo get around.  If anyone is damaging the credibility of the polygraph it is the Government..

[jackiepreece]

Shona did he look normal? He must have been cunning to take you in?

Next Sunday there is a sad programme about Jessica and Holly, it's ten years since Soham

[puglove]

John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful

She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?

Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.

[John]

John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful

She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?

Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.

Sheila didn't deserve to die like that.  She may have had mental health problems but from all accounts she was a loving daughter and mother who was on the mend and looking forward to a better future.

[puglove]

John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful

She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?

Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.

Sheila didn't deserve to die like that.  She may have had mental health problems but from all accounts she was a loving daughter and mother who was on the mend and looking forward to a better future.

[starryian]

Personally I think Sheila was threatened by Bamber - her or her kids. A mother would die to protect her children. Tragically Sheila did just that.
She could not have failed to see the body of poor June lying by the entrance. It was probably all the example she needed. I think he made her sit down next to the bed under pain of death, and pray for June, and as she closed her eyes Bamber stuck the gun under her chin and fired.
The poor woman must have been absolutely terrified, not just for herself, but for her dear little boys.
The body of brave Sheila is a grim and stark reminder of why the psychopathic animal Bamber must NEVER be released.

[starryian]

I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed. We are all aware of the simple immutable fact - if Sheila Cafell did not kill herself then Jeremy Bamber MUST have. The silencer, the circumstantial evidence and the numerous witnesses combined infer guilt greater than the sum of it's parts. However, inconsistencies and sloppy detective work let the floodgates open for them. These anomalies; dissected in the right manner and in the right hands and you can easily leave the case open to abuse and misinterpretation and facilitates the spread of misinformation by unscrupulous individuals none more so that the culprit himself.
However, I do believe that most of his supporters are good, well-meaning people. So what may you ask, are these people doing supporting a psychopathic child-killer? I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence.  Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example, a supporter that I spoke with recently is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' before she shot herself again. Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.

My advice - don't buy from it. 

[Aunt Agatha]

I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed.
I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence.  Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example one that I spoke with is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.

My advice - don't buy from it. 

Ian, you make some valid points - well executed.

However, there are also one or two other people, like me, who have known Jeremy for a very long time......and have sat for many hours during visits, questioning him whilst at the same time taking note of his body language.

I gave up trying to convince people of his innocence years ago.  The information I worked with was 'old' information.  All this new stuff is beyond me, however, I would like to state that Jeremy told me almost 20 years ago now exactly what happened that night as far as he was aware.  Hardly anything he told me was available in statements to support his story.  However, I repeat, almost 20 years later these documents have appeared/come to light, and they support fully everything Jeremy told me.

In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing.  Much about the silencer was unknown too.

Jeremy and I spent 'years' trawling through 'old' documents, trying to piece together the events of that night.  Jeremy told me his side of events (which did not fit in with the old documentation as he refuted much of it), and our combined efforts at solving this crime continued to baffle us for years.  Jeremy was as perplexed as I was!!

Knowing Jeremy very well, I do feel that had he committed these crimes, or was involved in any way at all, I genuinely feel he would have directed my attentions somewhere else, so support his innocence.  Without question, I honestly do believe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible events of that night.

A lot of what has been posted in the media and copied here, is incorrect or has been taken out of context, therefore, to begin to judge him on his reactions after that terrible night is wrong.

I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much.  However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!

[starryian]

I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed.
I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence.  Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example one that I spoke with is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.

My advice - don't buy from it. 

Ian, you make some valid points - well executed.

However, there are also one or two other people, like me, who have known Jeremy for a very long time......and have sat for many hours during visits, questioning him whilst at the same time taking note of his body language.

I gave up trying to convince people of his innocence years ago.  The information I worked with was 'old' information.  All this new stuff is beyond me, however, I would like to state that Jeremy told me almost 20 years ago now exactly what happened that night as far as he was aware.  Hardly anything he told me was available in statements to support his story.  However, I repeat, almost 20 years later these documents have appeared/come to light, and they support fully everything Jeremy told me.

In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing.  Much about the silencer was unknown too.

Jeremy and I spent 'years' trawling through 'old' documents, trying to piece together the events of that night.  Jeremy told me his side of events (which did not fit in with the old documentation as he refuted much of it), and our combined efforts at solving this crime continued to baffle us for years.  Jeremy was as perplexed as I was!!

Knowing Jeremy very well, I do feel that had he committed these crimes, or was involved in any way at all, I genuinely feel he would have directed my attentions somewhere else, so support his innocence.  Without question, I honestly do believe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible events of that night.

A lot of what has been posted in the media and copied here, is incorrect or has been taken out of context, therefore, to begin to judge him on his reactions after that terrible night is wrong.

I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much.  However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!

Thank you for your honest and frank reply.
Although I have not the benefit, like you do,  of actually knowing Jeremy Bamber I believe that after much research into him and his case it does give me some insight into his crimes and indeed his character, but this is all most people will know of him and must base a valued judgement around that fact.
While I admire your stance I do believe quite strongly that you are very much mistaken in your belief that this man is in any way innocent. I have heard many times from people who have known him and say exactly the same thing that you have in your reply - almost verbatim.
Take for example your statement about his father phone call. I am sorry to have to tell you this but this simply did not happen. It has been explained time and time again that this was a simple communication error where a message was repeated to another dispatcher, and it can be proven as such. Why have you accepted this is fact?
Further, why would Jeremy be 'perplexed'? what is there to be perplexed about? Perplexed because he cannot account for the evidence against him?
This 'perplexed' manner is nothing more than a ruse in order to make his case appear more genuine. It is called 'reverse psychology' Playing the poor 'clueless victim' adds weight to his plea of inncence.  A psychopath is well-versed in the use of this and will use it to great effect.
Your point about him not being a good liar? Well, I simply cannot agree with you on that one. He is a very skilled and accomplished liar. Ask Colin Caffell, ask Julie Mugford, ask David Boutflour and I suggest you read his police statements that stands as a mute witness to Bamber's innate ability to lie as naturally as if he were breathing.
As for his character..........who was it that stole money from his own family and tried to make it look like someone else had done it? Who was it that tried to hawk his own dead sisters pictures to a Sun reporter?  Who was it that sold drugs via mail order?  Who was it that tormented his own family in the run-up to the killings? ALL without so much as a shred of remorse or guilt.
You say you spent years piecing together 'the events that night' Jeremy knew EXACTLY what happened that night. Are you sure it was not a 'let us pore over these documents to try to find any discrepancy or inconsistency, anomaly or plain mistake in order to make a bid for freedom'?
If he told you what happened that night it would have been his own edited version, with himself of course a totally innocent victim. I say .......absolute nonsense. If you know him you need to tell him it is time that he grew a pair and accepted responsibility for what he has done instead of being the despicable coward that he has been for the last 27 years. One thing is absolutely certain.........he will never be released. He is as guilty as sin and he knows it, despite what he tells you.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs. It is clear that you are a decent and dedicated person, although I disagree with what you believe I admire your commitment nonetheless.

[John]

I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is.  The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have done before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.

There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale.  Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters?   The common thread comment which I have noted is that Jeremy will do it his way and will not be counselled. He knows best!

[starryian]

I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is.  The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have been before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.

There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale.  Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters?

Thanks for the info John. I think Bamber drops them like a hot potato once he feels they are no longer of any use to him. Typical psychopathic behaviour.
The authorities should have stepped in by now and put a stop to this kind of thing.