Jeremy Bamber: He knows the truth
Bamber in his own words
I’ve been looking at the case of the White House Farm murders and the words of Jeremy Bamber, who was convicted of carrying out the attacks.
In the first two articles, I looked at how Bamber described his relationship with those that died, in particular his parents and his sister.
Here, I’m going to look at how Bamber deals with the night in question and his insistence that he isn’t the killer.
Bamber does communicate frequently from prison. Mostly when he is launching a bid to have his conviction appealed or re-examined. There’s not much on record as to his version of the events on that night, but what I do have from him raises many observations.
Let’s break it down
One of Bamber’s reasons for wanting an appeal is that he says there was someone moving in the house when he was outside with the police. He insists that if there was someone alive in the house when he wasn’t inside, then he can’t be the killer.
In 2004, he said:
We saw someone in the window of the house that night, and now there's something that supports it.
He says “we” saw someone in the window. That means both Bamber and at least one other person saw it.
Here he is talking about it in 2011:
I know that I was outside with the police when they saw someone moving around in the house, when they were talking to someone inside the house, when they saw my sister in the kitchen when they went into the house.
Here’s he talks about “they” a lot. Here, “they” means the police.
The police saw someone moving, the police were talking to someone, the police saw his sister in the kitchen.
It’s inconsistent. It’s not proof of guilt or lying, but a flag that we should be wary about what he says on this matter.
Guilty or innocent
Bamber does often address that he is not a murderer, that he did not kill his parents, his sister, and her children. But when he does make this statement, it is never straightforward. It takes a lot of work to get your head around what he is actually saying.
For example, in 2011:
Not only do I know I didn’t murder my family, but I know that they know I didn’t murder my family and that’s…. and it’s been … frustrating that those truths have been hidden under layer after layer after layer of lies for all this time.
There are much simpler ways of stating this rather than turning it into a confusing logic puzzle.
Very direct would be, “I didn’t murder my family”. “I know” weakens this. Why add “I know”? Is he going through an internal mental contortion? I don’t like honey, if I tell you that I would never say “I know I don’t like honey”.
“I know they know I didn’t murder my family” — again, “I know” is added when “they know I didn’t murder my family’ would be stronger and more direct.
The puzzle continues
Here’s another denial from a TV documentary:
I’m a strong person and I feel that I have a strong root, I have a strong connection with those I’m convicted of killing, but in a way they know I didn't and I know I didn't and its not really whether I know or they know it or anybody knows it its just the truth, it is what it is and it’s like a reality.
We have the repetition of “know” again and once more it’s like a logic puzzle trying to work out who knows what plus what they think they know and don’t know.
Let me pull out two keys lines:
I have a strong connection with those I’m convicted of killing, but in a way they know I didn’t and I know I didn’t’
It’s not clear what he “didn’t” do here. Is it about the strong connection? Is he trying to make it clear that he had a strong connection with those he’s convicted of killing, but a connection in ways people don’t know? It can’t be that because he says, “I know I didn’t” and I presume he would be aware of the connection.
Therefore, does the “I didn’t” refer to killing them? In which case, he doesn’t deny killing them, he only says that he knows he didn’t kill them in a certain way. He doesn’t rule out any other ways.
Here’s the next line:
Its not really whether I know or they know it or anybody knows it its just the truth, it is what it is and it’s like a reality.
Once again we have the logic puzzle feel of who knows what and at the very end he says, “it is what it is and it’s like a reality”. It’s only LIKE a reality. Not reality at all, just like it.
Conclusion
Jeremy Bamber does claim he is not responsible for the murders, but he is never straightforward about this and talks about it in a very convoluted way. That doesn’t make for a convincing denial.
Rather than saying “I did not murder my family members” Bamber gets hung up on who “knows” what, he repeats the word “know” a lot. There are few things in life we “know” for certain, and it seems that rather than focus on facts, Bamber wants us to focus on a much more airy concept of what people “know”. Again, this doesn’t make a convincing denial.
Are there any words you’d like to take a look at? Leave your ideas in the comments below or see the about section for contact details.
The problem with all this is that you haven’t read any of the evidence in the case - the cover-up and police corruption which sent an innocent man to prison. The transcript of the court case. With the use of language by the judge, prosecution and witnesses is far more interesting than a couple of telephone interviews. Be interested to get your opinion on this : https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/93-problems