Should Jeremy Bamber ever be released?

[frank50]

Thank god we are not Denmark then. I would not like to live in a society where someone who has massacred his whole family in cold blood, including his two little nephews, is walking around  after  17 years. As for your bit about not knowing whether he did it, he was convicted by a jury, has had two appeals dismissed and is about to have a judicial review thrown out too. I dont think there is much doubt that he did it.

If Jeremy lived here (Denmark), I think he would have been out of prison ten to fourteen years ago. The maximum sentence is sixteen years. UNLESS you are given a life sentence because of extreme dangerousness, mental sickness or straight out psychopathy.
In average those "lifers" do 17 years. After 12 years, the minister of justice reviews the case and decides whether the convict should be eligible for parole. If that is not granted, the case will be reviewed once a year.
So, as you can see, it is much, much more lenient here, though some (a handful) actually serve a full life sentence.
That fact of course influences my stance. I think Jeremy has done enough time - if he is not deemed too dangerous to let out. To be honest, I just don't know. I don't think he will pose a danger, I am not sure he committed those murders in the first place, but I don't know.

[Angelo222]

I just wonder if in Denmark the judicial system is mamaged better in that they do punish and rehabilitate sucessfully? I can't say I've heard of many instances of 'mass' crime in Denmark or someone leaving jail and then committing another mass crime. We've had Peter Tobin, he's the only one I can name of the top.

Denmark has a population of just 5 million which is just over that of Scotland thus they have a system which is teeny compared to the rest of the UK.  Any system which let's cold blooded killer out at all is failing society imo.

[abs]

I just wonder if in Denmark the judicial system is mamaged better in that they do punish and rehabilitate sucessfully? I can't say I've heard of many instances of 'mass' crime in Denmark or someone leaving jail and then committing another mass crime. We've had Peter Tobin, he's the only one I can name of the top.

Denmark has a population of just 5 million which is just over that of Scotland thus they have a system which is teeny compared to the rest of the UK.  Any system which let's cold blooded killer out at all is failing society imo.

There is only one who received a 15 year sentence, who I think should have had a life sentence from the get-go (in fact I was furious he did not). He brutally murdered his girlfriend - a previous girlfriend "disappeared" and has never been found, and one prior to that died of an overdose, which all and one who knew him and her thought he administered to her. He is also under strong suspicion for a murder of an 18 year old girl, Stine Geisler, but there is no hard evidence. The only evidence against him was for the brutal murder of his last girlfriend.
HOWEVER, his sentence has since been converted to a life sentence, and I feel GOOD about that. So in my view the system works here - mostly. If he ever gets out, he will be a very old man at the time.

Another case I have to mention is about a woman, where I think the system was too lenient. She was a DOCTOR, and a pediatrician no less. She had an affair with a fellow doctor, a married man and father of two little boys. He ended the relationship. She befriended the wife, went to visit when she knew her ex-lover was not at home, then killed the wife with a morphium syringe, set the house on fire with the mother dead and the two boys asleep. She blocked all doors to the house, but the oldest boy made it out in spite of that and was found strongly burnt on the lawn. He lived for a month after that, poor little fella.
!
She got a life sentence, BUT now, after serving 15 years of her sentence, she was put in an open prison as a preparation to be set free - and now she IS free.
A nasty little detail about that case: while in prison she met another murderer. Over several months he had tortured his three-year-old little stepson and finally beaten him to death.
The pediatrician and the child torturer are now married and live not too far from where I live. It is NASTY - none of the two should be out! But heck, they can "enjoy" each other then, no?

[frank50]

If you were 100% sure that Bamber was guilty ( as most of us are) would you consider his case to be on a par with the exceptions that you have highlighted here  ie would you feel that a life sentance was fair?

I just wonder if in Denmark the judicial system is mamaged better in that they do punish and rehabilitate sucessfully? I can't say I've heard of many instances of 'mass' crime in Denmark or someone leaving jail and then committing another mass crime. We've had Peter Tobin, he's the only one I can name of the top.

Denmark has a population of just 5 million which is just over that of Scotland thus they have a system which is teeny compared to the rest of the UK.  Any system which let's cold blooded killer out at all is failing society imo.

There is only one who received a 15 year sentence, who I think should have had a life sentence from the get-go (in fact I was furious he did not). He brutally murdered his girlfriend - a previous girlfriend "disappeared" and has never been found, and one prior to that died of an overdose, which all and one who knew him and her thought he administered to her. He is also under strong suspicion for a murder of an 18 year old girl, Stine Geisler, but there is no hard evidence. The only evidence against him was for the brutal murder of his last girlfriend.
HOWEVER, his sentence has since been converted to a life sentence, and I feel GOOD about that. So in my view the system works here - mostly. If he ever gets out, he will be a very old man at the time.

Another case I have to mention is about a woman, where I think the system was too lenient. She was a DOCTOR, and a pediatrician no less. She had an affair with a fellow doctor, a married man and father of two little boys. He ended the relationship. She befriended the wife, went to visit when she knew her ex-lover was not at home, then killed the wife with a morphium syringe, set the house on fire with the mother dead and the two boys asleep. She blocked all doors to the house, but the oldest boy made it out in spite of that and was found strongly burnt on the lawn. He lived for a month after that, poor little fella.
!
She got a life sentence, BUT now, after serving 15 years of her sentence, she was put in an open prison as a preparation to be set free - and now she IS free.
A nasty little detail about that case: while in prison she met another murderer. Over several months he had tortured his three-year-old little stepson and finally beaten him to death.
The pediatrician and the child torturer are now married and live not too far from where I live. It is NASTY - none of the two should be out! But heck, they can "enjoy" each other then, no?

[Dillon]

Thank god we are not Denmark then. I would not like to live in a society where someone who has massacred his whole family in cold blood, including his two little nephews, is walking around  after  17 years. As for your bit about not knowing whether he did it, he was convicted by a jury, has had two appeals dismissed and is about to have a judicial review thrown out too. I dont think there is much doubt that he did it.

If Jeremy lived here (Denmark), I think he would have been out of prison ten to fourteen years ago. The maximum sentence is sixteen years. UNLESS you are given a life sentence because of extreme dangerousness, mental sickness or straight out psychopathy.
In average those "lifers" do 17 years. After 12 years, the minister of justice reviews the case and decides whether the convict should be eligible for parole. If that is not granted, the case will be reviewed once a year.
So, as you can see, it is much, much more lenient here, though some (a handful) actually serve a full life sentence.
That fact of course influences my stance. I think Jeremy has done enough time - if he is not deemed too dangerous to let out. To be honest, I just don't know. I don't think he will pose a danger, I am not sure he committed those murders in the first place, but I don't know.

Despite the deficiencies of our judicial system, Bamber's case has been thoroughly reviewed as Frank points out on a number of occasions and his conviction still stands. His only real defence ploy that the murders were committed by Sheila Caffell does not stand up to any serious, logical analysis . He has never admitted his guilt . He has demonstrated his vindictiveness towards relatives and other witnesses over the years through ill conceived civil action, letters and never allowing them the comfort of closure . If you read his latest blog you will see that he spends time keeping fit, lifting weights etc. He is a mendacious individual who has conveniently re engineered his perception of his late family and tries tp present a cosy spun image of himself, somewhat at odds with the Jeremy Bamber who stole from his own family, was apparently involved in other crimes of dishonesty and drug dealing etc. This is a strong, fit man in his early fifties . Some of his relatives are scared of the outcome if he is ever released and IMO justifiably until he is so weakened by the march of time or they themseves have passed on for this risk to have been mitigated. I think that it would be crazy to release him .   

[abs]

If you were 100% sure that Bamber was guilty ( as most of us are) would you consider his case to be on a par with the exceptions that you have highlighted here  ie would you feel that a life sentance was fair?

I just wonder if in Denmark the judicial system is mamaged better in that they do punish and rehabilitate sucessfully? I can't say I've heard of many instances of 'mass' crime in Denmark or someone leaving jail and then committing another mass crime. We've had Peter Tobin, he's the only one I can name of the top.

Denmark has a population of just 5 million which is just over that of Scotland thus they have a system which is teeny compared to the rest of the UK.  Any system which let's cold blooded killer out at all is failing society imo.

There is only one who received a 15 year sentence, who I think should have had a life sentence from the get-go (in fact I was furious he did not). He brutally murdered his girlfriend - a previous girlfriend "disappeared" and has never been found, and one prior to that died of an overdose, which all and one who knew him and her thought he administered to her. He is also under strong suspicion for a murder of an 18 year old girl, Stine Geisler, but there is no hard evidence. The only evidence against him was for the brutal murder of his last girlfriend.
HOWEVER, his sentence has since been converted to a life sentence, and I feel GOOD about that. So in my view the system works here - mostly. If he ever gets out, he will be a very old man at the time.

Another case I have to mention is about a woman, where I think the system was too lenient. She was a DOCTOR, and a pediatrician no less. She had an affair with a fellow doctor, a married man and father of two little boys. He ended the relationship. She befriended the wife, went to visit when she knew her ex-lover was not at home, then killed the wife with a morphium syringe, set the house on fire with the mother dead and the two boys asleep. She blocked all doors to the house, but the oldest boy made it out in spite of that and was found strongly burnt on the lawn. He lived for a month after that, poor little fella.
!
She got a life sentence, BUT now, after serving 15 years of her sentence, she was put in an open prison as a preparation to be set free - and now she IS free.
A nasty little detail about that case: while in prison she met another murderer. Over several months he had tortured his three-year-old little stepson and finally beaten him to death.
The pediatrician and the child torturer are now married and live not too far from where I live. It is NASTY - none of the two should be out! But heck, they can "enjoy" each other then, no?

It is hard for me to answer, since I am not sure. Too many doubts.

[goatboy]

It's been said before that if Bamber had just 'fessed up years ago he would probably be free by now. I'm not so sure. Maybe if he had only killed Sheila and his parents, but it's the involvement in the premeditated killing of two young boys that makes me doubt he ever had a chance of being released. Would he still be a danger to society were he to be released? I honestly don't think so, remember he has a very high public profile, something Peter Tobin didn't when he was released. His motive for murder was financial so it is unlikely he would have the motive to kill again. He simply would not have the opportunity as too many people would be watching him anyway.

A thought occurred to me recently. What if Bamber's famous polygraph test was correct? Let's say for example he had hired a hitman so he didn't actually do the murders himself, and he didn't pay the hitman in full as he never got the chance before he was arrested? By his warped logic he would have been telling the truth and have passed the test. However, I don't think the lone hitman story is likely. It was important to have no signs of forced entry or exit from the premises so I don't think Bamber could have relied on the hitman to successfully gain entry by the toilet window not having done this before, nor would the hitman have had the opportunity to test it out on a busy working farm.

And if the Bamber forum want to say Julie Mugford is a proven liar because she said Matthew McDonald was the hitman and his alibi proved that he was not, how about you take on board the possibility that she said McDonald because this was the story given by Jeremy? Saying something that was not true because you have been told this by someone else doesn't make you a liar. The only proven lie from Mugford is that she claims to have gone to the bank to confess to cheque fraud unprompted by police, yet the bank manager confirms Stan Jones was there when she visited. Bamber on the other hand has many more grounds to be labelled a proven liar.

[John]

Another case I have to mention is about a woman, where I think the system was too lenient. She was a DOCTOR, and a paediatrician no less. She had an affair with a fellow doctor, a married man and father of two little boys. He ended the relationship. She befriended the wife, went to visit when she knew her ex-lover was not at home, then killed the wife with a morphia syringe, set the house on fire with the mother dead and the two boys asleep. She blocked all doors to the house, but the oldest boy made it out in spite of that and was found strongly burnt on the lawn. He lived for a month after that, poor little fella.
!
She got a life sentence, BUT now, after serving 15 years of her sentence, she was put in an open prison as a preparation to be set free - and now she IS free.
A nasty little detail about that case: while in prison she met another murderer. Over several months he had tortured his three-year-old little stepson and finally beaten him to death.
The paediatrician and the child torturer are now married and live not too far from where I live. It is NASTY - none of the two should be out! But heck, they can "enjoy" each other then, no?

That is disgusting abs, no wonder you are angry.   That works out at 5 years per life lost which is appalling.  It wasn't as if she accidentally set fire to the house and accidentally barricaded the exits.  People like that should be incarcerated until they die in prison or be given the option of hanging or a lethal injection.  Was the story of their release published in the newspapers for all to see including their whereabouts?

[tonyb]

I strongly believe that his full life term should revert back to the original 30 year min. tarrif. When he then gets to 30 years he would have the opertunity of parole where as now he has no chance. Therefore if he's on a 30 year tariff he has something to lose by not confessing,whereas at the moment he has nothing to lose,if you get my drift?

[John]

I strongly believe that his full life term should revert back to the original 30 year min. tarrif. When he then gets to 30 years he would have the opertunity of parole where as now he has no chance. Therefore if he's on a 30 year tariff he has something to lose by not confessing,whereas at the moment he has nothing to lose,if you get my drift?

Certainly a good suggestion Tony but as you say it would depend on him admitting his guilt at some stage and giving up those who assisted him.   By assisted I mean either had prior knowledge or provided material assistance.

[abs]

Another case I have to mention is about a woman, where I think the system was too lenient. She was a DOCTOR, and a paediatrician no less. She had an affair with a fellow doctor, a married man and father of two little boys. He ended the relationship. She befriended the wife, went to visit when she knew her ex-lover was not at home, then killed the wife with a morphia syringe, set the house on fire with the mother dead and the two boys asleep. She blocked all doors to the house, but the oldest boy made it out in spite of that and was found strongly burnt on the lawn. He lived for a month after that, poor little fella.
!
She got a life sentence, BUT now, after serving 15 years of her sentence, she was put in an open prison as a preparation to be set free - and now she IS free.
A nasty little detail about that case: while in prison she met another murderer. Over several months he had tortured his three-year-old little stepson and finally beaten him to death.
The paediatrician and the child torturer are now married and live not too far from where I live. It is NASTY - none of the two should be out! But heck, they can "enjoy" each other then, no?

That is disgusting abs, no wonder you are angry.   That works out at 5 years per life lost which is appalling.  It wasn't as if she accidentally set fire to the house and accidentally barricaded the exits.  People like that should be incarcerated until they die in prison or be given the option of hanging or a lethal injection.  Was the story of their release published in the newspapers for all to see including their whereabouts?

It has been covered a little bit. She had the ambition to become a sexton and work in a church (again, !), I don´t know whether she succeeded. I looked a little bit more into where they are since I wrote the post about her. They moved to a different part of Denmark - guess too many people recognized especially her and it got unpleasant to live there. So at least they are not quasi neighbours of mine anymore.
The weird thing is that she had the same apartment from before she went to prison - she must have some money to have been able to keep that for so many years.

[frank50]

The hitman theory is a distinct possibility and could explain why Bamber passed the lie detector as he would have believed in his own warped way that he was innocent. However, as he was such a good shot Im sure he wouldnt have gone for a hitman as the risk of him being grassed up would have been too high and he would have been confident that he could do a better job himself ( without having to pay the hitman). Its not as if he had any qualms about murdering his family in cold blood . As for the Julie Mugford hitman evidence. you're obviously right - she only reported what Bamber had told her..

 tha he is

It's been said before that if Bamber had just 'fessed up years ago he would probably be free by now. I'm not so sure. Maybe if he had only killed Sheila and his parents, but it's the involvement in the premeditated killing of two young boys that makes me doubt he ever had a chance of being released. Would he still be a danger to society were he to be released? I honestly don't think so, remember he has a very high public profile, something Peter Tobin didn't when he was released. His motive for murder was financial so it is unlikely he would have the motive to kill again. He simply would not have the opportunity as too many people would be watching him anyway.

A thought occurred to me recently. What if Bamber's famous polygraph test was correct? Let's say for example he had hired a hitman so he didn't actually do the murders himself, and he didn't pay the hitman in full as he never got the chance before he was arrested? By his warped logic he would have been telling the truth and have passed the test. However, I don't think the lone hitman story is likely. It was important to have no signs of forced entry or exit from the premises so I don't think Bamber could have relied on the hitman to successfully gain entry by the toilet window not having done this before, nor would the hitman have had the opportunity to test it out on a busy working farm.

And if the Bamber forum want to say Julie Mugford is a proven liar because she said Matthew McDonald was the hitman and his alibi proved that he was not, how about you take on board the possibility that she said McDonald because this was the story given by Jeremy? Saying something that was not true because you have been told this by someone else doesn't make you a liar. The only proven lie from Mugford is that she claims to have gone to the bank to confess to cheque fraud unprompted by police, yet the bank manager confirms Stan Jones was there when she visited. Bamber on the other hand has many more grounds to be labelled a proven liar.

[frank50]

Also I wouldnt worry too much about what they say on the other forum. Honestly I have never come across such purile garbage as that site churns out. They get drip fed nonsense by Tesko and then develop his theories for weeks on end after. How sad can you be. The best example is this idea that Tesko is holding back information/documents which will blow the case apart. Posters on that site generally believe this and write excitedly about how Bamber cannot fail to be released once Mike divulges the stuff that's in his garage. Obviously they totally fail to explain why he wouldnt have released it to the CCRC during the years that it was considering the case. Its like some Marple murder mystery - next they will be suggesting the policeman did it!
 

It's been said before that if Bamber had just 'fessed up years ago he would probably be free by now. I'm not so sure. Maybe if he had only killed Sheila and his parents, but it's the involvement in the premeditated killing of two young boys that makes me doubt he ever had a chance of being released. Would he still be a danger to society were he to be released? I honestly don't think so, remember he has a very high public profile, something Peter Tobin didn't when he was released. His motive for murder was financial so it is unlikely he would have the motive to kill again. He simply would not have the opportunity as too many people would be watching him anyway.

A thought occurred to me recently. What if Bamber's famous polygraph test was correct? Let's say for example he had hired a hitman so he didn't actually do the murders himself, and he didn't pay the hitman in full as he never got the chance before he was arrested? By his warped logic he would have been telling the truth and have passed the test. However, I don't think the lone hitman story is likely. It was important to have no signs of forced entry or exit from the premises so I don't think Bamber could have relied on the hitman to successfully gain entry by the toilet window not having done this before, nor would the hitman have had the opportunity to test it out on a busy working farm.

And if the Bamber forum want to say Julie Mugford is a proven liar because she said Matthew McDonald was the hitman and his alibi proved that he was not, how about you take on board the possibility that she said McDonald because this was the story given by Jeremy? Saying something that was not true because you have been told this by someone else doesn't make you a liar. The only proven lie from Mugford is that she claims to have gone to the bank to confess to cheque fraud unprompted by police, yet the bank manager confirms Stan Jones was there when she visited. Bamber on the other hand has many more grounds to be labelled a proven liar.

[frank50]

Not sure I get you there.  He wouldnt have to involve anyone else if he admitted his guilt. As it is, he may not have had very much assistance, if any.

I strongly believe that his full life term should revert back to the original 30 year min. tarrif. When he then gets to 30 years he would have the opertunity of parole where as now he has no chance. Therefore if he's on a 30 year tariff he has something to lose by not confessing,whereas at the moment he has nothing to lose,if you get my drift?

Certainly a good suggestion Tony but as you say it would depend on him admitting his guilt at some stage and giving up those who assisted him.   By assisted I mean either had prior knowledge or provided material assistance.

[tonyb]

I think as John seems to do, JB had assistance, although i'd also agree he could of easily of done it on his own.
me,i cant see him getting any further appeal-wise. difficult to put yourself in his shoes,but if it were me,i'd put all my efforts into a reistatement of the original min. term, fess up and perhaps get some sun on my back when i'm in my 70's. Otherwise he's going out in a box...