Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
Dear AA,
Thank you kindly for your reply. An interesting account. It strike me immediately that Bamber has obviously given his account to you as to what happened before, during and after the murders. Of course no-one but the killer was there that night. However, like 98% of all murder cases we must judge it according to the evidence that we have because there were no witnesses. Murder by it's very odiousness is a crime that will be surreptitious and secretive by nature. The purpetrators are mostly aware of what punishment will be meted out to them should they be exposed. It is obviously in their best interests to conceal evidence and deceive those who investigate it.
With this in mind, it is therefore necessary to look at the evidence - both physical and circumstantial.
In Bamber's case the doubt that he was the culprit arises almost exclusively from the fact that the police investigation was second rate and 'perfunctory' (to use the trial judge's words) This gave rise to doubt and also afforded the perpetrator the opportunity to cast themselves into a light of innocence using the very mistakes that the police at the crime originally made. In short Bamber found a way to cast doubt on his conviction by using the shoddy police investigation as a template.
However, the physical evidence that was gathered was quite compelling; Bamber cannot - although he has tried all manner of methods - explain why Sheila's blood was found on the silencer.
A hacksaw blade found outside the kitchen window matches the marks found on the newly painted window catch.
The compete lack of forensic evidence found on the body of Sheila Caffell - disproving that she was the purpetrator.
The numerous witness statements. This all points very clearly towards one purpetrator and one alone - Jeremy Bamber.
I think you are on the right track when you said that you have doubts in the back of your mind. It is very difficult to believe that somebody you know could actually have committed such a barbaric crime as this. However, it does happen. Bamber has all the hallmarks of a psychopath - just like the pschiatrist (brought in by the defense) believed at his orginal trial. He believed Bamber was a textbook case. Psychopaths are so adept at lying and manipulation that an ordinary person would not know. Most of us, no matter how savvy we are, would almost certainly in the past in one way or another have fallen prey to a psychopath. Whether it be down the market shopping for a bargain and find ourselves getting ripped off to more far grandious schemes. There is no disgrace in this. We are all human.
What is clear is the reason you gave for the 'photo incident' with Sheila's photos. Mike Fielder the Sun newspaper's crime reporter never wavered from his story either about Bamber. Fielder's story had the ring of truth to it for several key reasons. The sun would NOT be interested in 'ordinary photos' That simply is not their policy. Being a tabloid newspaper and knowing full well that 'sex sells' they would have expressed an interest in only photos of sexual nature. Mike Fielder was asked for a 'large sum of money' by Bamber. A tabloid newspaper does NOT pay a large sum of money for 'family photos' Bamber and his friend Brett Collins were
'gigling and being highly suggestive'Put plainly AA, he was offering nude photos of Sheila to the highest bidder.
'with such calm and ease as though, he were selling sweeties' said Fielder. If Bamber has told you otherwise he is
certainly lying. AA you must ask yourself WHY this man is lying. Moreover, Fielder was aghast not to be called by the prosecution at the trial and offered to put this in a sworn statement to be read out in court. (in the event, it wasnt needed)
This is just a small sample of the web of lies told by Jeremy Bamber after the murders. AA Bamber is certainly guilty of the murders and is now, without doubt a callous mass-murdering psychoipath who will dump anyone in a heartbeat that can no longer assist his 'innocence' campaign. He will listen to and take on board anyone that can provide a lie better than he can. Please do not be surprised by his callous rejection of you on the word of another. This is par for the course in his life. AA, it may not be 'gut instinct' that will show the way in this case, but circumstantial evidence and practical common sense. I say because we are dealing with a very cunning, deceiptful individual that will stop at nothing to squirm out of his just punishment.
Aunt Agatha, you are a humane, kind and decent person. Something that Bamber, definitely is not. Thank you for your points. If there is anything I can help you with please let me know.
