Bamber tries to sell nude pictures of Sheila to The Sun newspaper

[Caroline]

Thanks.  I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious.  I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal.  Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation.  I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong. 

If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker.  However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak.  That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy.  Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either. 

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Like I said previously, in isolation most of those things may not be suspicious and you're right inappropriateness isn't abnormal, I'm sure we are all guilty of it at some time or another. However, being consistently inappropriate is anothing thing altogether and Jeremy has a history of inappropriate behaviour which, iniself, doesn't make him a murderer but it does make him a prime candidate. The fact that he is also economical with the truth and a manipulator also adds weight.

[Brancher]

"Normal" is a word I try to stay well clear of. It's different for every one of us. Whilst Jeremy's behaviours -combined- maybe within the parameters of whatever your idea of normality is, it falls outside what many see as being acceptable.

I think it's fashionable in the psychology and therapeutic professions to steer clear of the word 'normal', but I differ on the point, and it seems most people on this Forum do too, or why else would we be having this discussion? 

I think we can define normal.  Normal reflects the norm.  It's the behaviour expected of ordinary people in general. 

Ordinary people have hearty breakfasts, put dogs down on slim pretexts, behave inappropriately at funerals, and go on foreign holidays to relieve stress.

The burden is on you to tell me that such behaviour is not normal.  Or to put it another way,you bear the heavy burden of telling me that such behaviour is so abnormal that I should even grant it consideration when deciding - for whatever is my own purpose - whether Jeremy Bamber really is guilty.

Thanks.

[Brancher]

Like I said previously, in isolation most of those things may not be suspicious and you're right inappropriateness isn't abnormal, I'm sure we are all guilty of it at some time or another. However, being consistently inappropriate is anothing thing altogether and Jeremy has a history of inappropriate behaviour which, iniself, doesn't make him a murderer but it does make him a prime candidate. The fact that he is also economical with the truth and a manipulator also adds weight.

Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal? 

It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes....and I appreciate the point.  Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion.  I think this is a good discussion.

The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life. 

I've done terrible, terrible things.  I hated my mother.  I disliked my father.  I didn't care when they died.  On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.

I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.

Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.

You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence.  It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act. 

Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head.  It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”.  You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.

And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context.   A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day.  Have you much experience with the police?  Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative.  That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying.  Far from it.  I would never call Colin Caffell a liar.  He's a lovely man.  But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious? 

Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence.  I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable.  I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.

But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character.  You're pushing at an open door with me on that point.

So upon what do you base your opinion that he is probably guilty?

[Caroline]

Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal? 

It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.

How is it normal? Also, As I have hasked and VS has asked, what are you basing his guilty on?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal? 

It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.

How is consistent inapproprateness normal?  How about if you consistently masturbated in public, would you consider that normal?

[Caroline]

How is consistent inapproprateness normal?  How about if you consistently masturbated in public, would you consider that normal?

I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed at the comment. The word 'inappropriate' kind of suggests it's not normal and if you're inappropriate all of the time - there is something amiss.

[Brancher]

Let's start with the points on which we are on the same page...

Assuming it's true, I am bothered by him burning clothes shortly after the killings.  What exactly was he burning?
Was it just clothes or was that a pretext for destroying other things more incriminating, like clothes of his own he was trying to hide?  I am given to understand that the police were not searching him at this point.

Another one that bothers me and may not yet have been mentioned is his decision to have his parents and Sheila cremated.  Why would he do that?  I expect cost of burials may be advanced as a reason, but would it really have been much of an imposition? 

Cremation is burning, and burning implies destruction and disposal, and bodies are key evidence, and Jeremy would be at least vaguely cognisant of this and would realise that if the investigation ever turned course, the police would want to exhume the corpses.

So there's another one for you, if it's not on your list already.  "Just because Jeremy insisted on cremation, doesn't mean he is a murderer."  It doesn't, but it IS suspicious.

Now, turning to where we disagree...

The word 'normal', to me, has a firmer meaning than the word 'inappropriate', which seems more in the eye of the beholder.

But let's move away from semantics. 

If I was a detective and saw a family member grinning at a funeral, I wouldn't be suspicious about that in and of itself, but depending on the context, it could be viewed as inappropriate, so I would make a note of it. 

Now, this may mark the beginnings of a veritable dossier of such behaviour, recurrent across varied situations, in which Jeremy is seen laughing and joking in the face of mourners, telling smutty jokes at funerals, selling antiques, ruthlessly having dogs put down, enjoying hearty breakfasts and indulging in sex and travel in the sun, but that would not necessarily amount to a 'pattern'.  A pattern suggests structured or planned behaviour (behind which may or may not be criminality). 

I would want to avoid templating patterns in retrospect on to innocent behaviour.  It would be an understandable mistake to fall into, especially since Jeremy Bamber probably is a mass murderer.  But the 'pattern' you infer from various facts is not what makes him a mass murderer, and I think my whole objection arises because most of the points raised seem quite airy-fairy and subjective.  It's stuff that a detective should note, but it's not evidence.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I actually find that quite comforting.

I bet your friend’s little dog who you kicked in its nose finds it comforting when you don’t turn up, smirking to yourself when your friends says hiw odd it is he steers clearly of you...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

'I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member'. Barry Manilow, Club Tropicana 7" single - 1983 - CBS Recordings.

Barry Manilow is nearing an Octogenarian too, but the original creator of that quote was Groucho Marx...just a little before your time

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You do read my posts or else why reply to them - but do read them properly.

I'm certainly not vexed at your posts - I'm just not getting why you are so passionate in your quest to nothing.

JB is serving life a life sentence he will be in prison till he dies - as you said just a couple of don't agree with you

The reason I would not have a go at those who sit on the fence etc that's all it is a differing opinion to yours

Because they are entitled to have their opinion on the case - it's not all about you sorry.

Do you go on the other forums I think its the blue on - with a similar passion or is it just this one

Everyone knows what happened reading this forum - if they didn't they do now.

Your assumptions are wrong — again

I do not read all your posts — I skip them usually — but when you’ve quoted me I do give them a quick scan...

If you’re not vexed, then you must be be in a constant state of simmering annoyance — because that’s how you come across. Annoyed.

You don’t need to “get” why I post, or why you think I’m passionate — it’s not your business. I’ve never considered why you post, dear...you’re of no interest to me, and I don’t care why you do.

I suggest you skip mine like I do yours, or have you a condition that forces you to read every single post on a forum?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.

You obviously read The Sun, then...

You’re ridiculing yourself talking about reliable sources

You believe a convicted mass murderer who’s a pathological liar and a diagnosed psychopath; whose psychiatrist called him an “irreverent liar”...and you try to say you only believe reliable sources 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?

Please hear me out....

Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious.  Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias.  Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer. 

Likewise:

Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.

Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male.  Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.

Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era.  Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type.  I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.

Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour.  Emotionally-normative people do this.  People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it.  Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common.  Not everybody likes their relatives.  It's not a crime.

Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.

Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.

Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.

Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.

Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious.  Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her?  It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.

Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal.  Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him?  Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows.  But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation.  Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'.  I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour.  Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities?  But is Jeremy the type to do that?

Burning clothes -  SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.  On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people.  Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes.  That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point.  Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice.  How would you even tell or know?  I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.

Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character.  But I didn't like my parents either.  I hated my mother and I disliked my father.  I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it.  In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.

Am I a murderer?  A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious.  Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.

Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.

None of what you’ve described is normal behaviour.


You come out with warped ideas, IMO, and you contradict yourself too.  You said:  “People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand”, yet in your previous long-winded post you said when told your father was dead you laughed, then realising that looked wrong you “immediately burst into tears”. Must be hard for an English man with a stiff upper lip, as you try to suggest Jeremy Bamber is, to force tears out!

Jeremy was no more a stereotypical English gentleman farmer with a stiff upper lip, than he was a caring, compassionate, well-liked, honest, respectable soul who treated all humans and animals with the respect and kindness they deserve. He was a lying, nasty, thieving, dishonest, evil piece of s..m . He shot dead all his family, including two little children for GREED: and you suggest he was a “fine English gentleman”.


And no, none of what Jeremy Bamber did was normal...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Thanks.  I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious.  I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal.  Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation.  I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong. 

If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker.  However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak.  That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy.  Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either. 

Anyway, that's my opinion.

You think his behaviour is normal because it’s how YOU behave.

Well, that behaviour is not normal at all. Besides, comparing your own circumstances with his is ludicrous. You said you either hated your father, or disliked him (can’t be bothered to look back), that he was mentally ill and I think you may have said you’d only seen him a few times...not sure

Whatever, you had NO love for him, so it’s no surprise you ate coco-pops when hearing he’d died. You weren’t affected by the news, were you...

Perhaps counselling might help you with your unresolved issues you appear to have. You come across deeply bitter and angry, which must be awful for you.


Incidentally, you’re almost right when you said:

“A pattern suggests structured or planned behaviour (behind which may or may not be criminality).”

Jeremy Bamber did indeed show a pattern of planned behaviour: he told four people that he planned to kill his family.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I don't think the above is  normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!

I think Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral was peculiar, and also very disrespectful, particularly grinning, and joking with his girlfriend. I have heard people argue that he might have been on the autistic spectrum, but , being on the spectrum myself, he doesn't come over that way to me----at all. (And, I know how to behave at funerals!). I do wonder whether Jeremy had downed his cocktail of Valium and booze beforehand-----that little mixture does not lend itself to appropriate behaviour.

Can't really comment re his "hearty breakfast", because I'm not sure how true this is: I heard somewhere that he made breakfast for the police officers who were with him, and decided to have some himself. Who knows what is true.

Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink!

I was interested in what Colin says in his book re Jeremy copying his responses: Colin, being an artist, is probably very observant, so I would tend to believe him. I would like to know, however, whether this was apparent to Colin at the time, or whether he realised it retrospectively.

Burning of clothes?  No, not normal as far as I'm concerned, but if you were to tell me that , out in the sticks, having a bonfire is the most convenient way to get rid of stuff one no longer wants, then it doesn't seem quite so abnormal----particularly as we suspect Jeremy didn't like his parents. In any event, disliking his parents doesn't necessarily mean he killed them.

The dog?  No, I could never have done it. Jeremy, by all accounts, disliked Crispy, but he didn't dislike dogs: I'm sure I read that he had a dog of his own at one time, and was heartbroken when it died. Perhaps he thought Crispy wouldn't settle with anyone other than June, so would be better off being put down. Perhaps Jeremy is guilty, and knew Crispy would always be a reminder of the night he killed his family. 

Who knows!

You’re always trying to make excuses for him, aren’t you? Why’s that?

For you to to say:



“Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink”


Trying to make out a busy Sun reporter would travel all the way to a pub in Essex to meet JB and BC, for no reason at all than have a booze up, is absolutely pathetic.

Listen, even Jeremy HIMSELF hasn’t denied THIS one!

FGS!