Police interviews - The real Bamber in 1985:

[arthur]

Yes the interviews do him no favours but again it could be claimed he felt he was being "put up for offer". And further more he knew who the bidders were.Also he has no clue what the Police have been told. What they might spring on him if he gives a clear amswer.

Again if he is truely innocent, all of this wouldn't unduly bother him. He would have answers. An innocent man, would,I think be much more proactive with his denials. His demeanor etc begs the question.."what have you got to hide"?

[Adam]

Just saying 'no comment' would have looked really bad. So Bamber answered some questions. Lazily.

When feeling really lazy, he would say 'no comment'.

[Adam]

Yes the interviews do him no favours but again it could be claimed he felt he was being "put up for offer". And further more he knew who the bidders were.Also he has no clue what the Police have been told. What they might spring on him if he gives a clear amswer.

Again if he is truely innocent, all of this wouldn't unduly bother him. He would have answers. An innocent man, would,I think be much more proactive with his denials. His demeanor etc begs the question.."what have you got to hide"?

Believe the police confronted him with what they had got at the time - Julie's accusations, windows, bike, Sheila's two shots, wills, caravan breakin, silencer, phone calls to Julie.

Bamber made no effort to deny anything. He had no valid defence & failure to convince the police would not get him convicted.

He would have to focus all his attention on the trial. 

[guest7363]

Yes the interviews do him no favours but again it could be claimed he felt he was being "put up for offer". And further more he knew who the bidders were.Also he has no clue what the Police have been told. What they might spring on him if he gives a clear amswer.

Again if he is truely innocent, all of this wouldn't unduly bother him. He would have answers. An innocent man, would,I think be much more proactive with his denials. His demeanor etc begs the question.."what have you got to hide"?

Would have been nice to see his trial testimony what he answered in Court, seems everyone else’s is Available but Bamber’s?  I know Adam has some of it in Wilk’s book.  He admits he robbed the Caravan Park for greed and not for Security reasons etc

[Rob_]

Believe the police confronted him with what they had got at the time - Julie's accusations, windows, bike, Sheila's two shots, wills, caravan breakin, silencer, phone calls to Julie.

Bamber made no effort to deny anything. He had no valid defence & failure to convince the police would not get him convicted.

He would have to focus all his attention on the trial.

He had no valid defense? I am not sure what you mean Adam I have not seen any actual evidence he did it. There is serious doubt about every aspect of this case as you know full well.

The police's actions to me anyway prove he is innocent, they could easily have decided the case with all the withheld information at the time. The problem is there is nothing withheld that helps the prosecution otherwise they would have used it at trial. So the hundreds of photos and documents that are withheld help JB, and anything that could prove innocence like SC's nightdress etc. has gone missing.

[Adam]

He had no valid defense? I am not sure what you mean Adam I have not seen any actual evidence he did it. There is serious doubt about every aspect of this case as you know full well.

The police's actions to me anyway prove he is innocent, they could easily have decided the case with all the withheld information at the time. The problem is there is nothing withheld that helps the prosecution otherwise they would have used it at trial. So the hundreds of photos and documents that are withheld help JB, and anything that could prove innocence like SC's nightdress etc. has gone missing.

What?

[Adam]

Bamber went as close as he could to admitting guilt during his police interviews.

Not disputing Sheila could not have shot herself twice & giving two weak alternatives to say 'it wasn't me'.

He agreed with a lot of what the police told him Julie had said. Although could not remember much.

He stopped short of agreeing they had ever discussed the massacre & said he didn't know about the kitchen window.

As said, the game was up with the police. It was now going to be all about convincing a jury.

[guest7363]

Bamber went as close as he could to admitting guilt during his police interviews.

Not disputing Sheila could not have shot herself twice & giving two weak alternatives to say 'it wasn't me'.

He agreed with a lot of what the police told him Julie had said. Although could not remember much.

He stopped short of agreeing they had ever discussed the massacre & said he didn't know about the kitchen window.

As said, the game was up with the police. It was now going to be all about convincing a jury.

He said no I don’t believe that Sheila shooting herself twice wasn’t possible, Automatic gun, nerves could have triggered the second shot, then he blamed  crispy the dog. Then he said I think your right but how could you be 100%

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37801

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37803

[Adam]

He said no I don’t believe that Sheila shooting herself twice wasn’t possible, Automatic gun, nerves could have triggered the second shot, then he blamed  crispy the dog. Then he said I think your right but how could you be 100%

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37801

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37803

He also said Nevill may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone to him.