Bamber had an accomplice- Colin Caffell

[Munksa]

This is What Colin Caffell said on October this year

"It saddens me to see that a documentary maker of Louis Theroux's calibre has decided to make yet another programme about White House Farm  - it is a cheap way to make a fast buck for his fledgling production company. If, as the publicity suggests, this series can prove that BAMBER HAD AN ACCOMPLICE ON THAT DREADFUL NIGHT, AS I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, then I must applaud Theroux and his team, but I also think it is time to look at why there is a hunger for such broadcast material. "

OK, so Colin Caffell says that he always believed Bamber had an accomplice that night. His sons and ex wife were the victims of a horrible massacre so has he ever taken this matter and raised his concern with the Police who he thought was Bamber's accomplice so Police could follow that line of enquiry. Surely there must be something for him to believe this. He says he ALWAYS believed it so not a recent thing.

What are your thoughts? I wrote to him regarding this but did not hear back. I didn't expect to but tried in case he did.

[Steve_uk]

This is What Colin Caffell said on October this year

"It saddens me to see that a documentary maker of Louis Theroux's calibre has decided to make yet another programme about White House Farm  - it is a cheap way to make a fast buck for his fledgling production company. If, as the publicity suggests, this series can prove that BAMBER HAD AN ACCOMPLICE ON THAT DREADFUL NIGHT, AS I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, then I must applaud Theroux and his team, but I also think it is time to look at why there is a hunger for such broadcast material. "

OK, so Colin Caffell says that he always believed Bamber had an accomplice that night. His sons and ex wife were the victims of a horrible massacre so has he ever taken this matter and raised his concern with the Police who he thought was Bamber's accomplice so Police could follow that line of enquiry. Surely there must be something for him to believe this. He says he ALWAYS believed it so not a recent thing.

What are your thoughts? I wrote to him regarding this but did not hear back. I didn't expect to but tried in case he did.

He might have been thinking of Brett Collins or some of his Frog and Beans associates.

[lookout]

On the contrary, if anyone, it would have been a night-caller for Sheila. In one book it was said that the parents weren't happy with some of Sheila's associates, whoever they were.

[JackieD]

 It’s time Colin Caffell learnt to keep his mouth shut after what he put Sheila through

[Jane]

It’s time Colin Caffell learnt to keep his mouth shut after what he put Sheila through

Colin is the one -indeed, the ONLY- victim. As such he's fully entitled to have his say.

[Steve_uk]

On the contrary, if anyone, it would have been a night-caller for Sheila. In one book it was said that the parents weren't happy with some of Sheila's associates, whoever they were.

Sheila had arranged to meet cousin Yvonne the following day. Hardly the actions of a woman contemplating suicide.

[guest29835]

When I saw the thread title, I initially assumed that you meant Colin was Jeremy's accomplice and clicked eagerly to see how you had come to such an unusual conclusion.  It is slightly deflating to find that this is not the case, but I did not know that Colin held the view that there was an accomplice.

Among the people we know of, I suppose the obvious suspects for an accomplice would be Brett, Julie and Matthew.  In the case of Julie, an accomplice need not be present, and in the case of Brett and Matthew, their alibis are less-than-perfect.

Julie is still my favourite for an accomplice.  It occurs to me that her statement about Matthew McDonald may have been a ploy to further distance herself from the crime when she turned on Jeremy.  She is suggesting that, indeed, Jeremy had an accomplice: someone else.

But I assume that when Colin refers to an accomplice, he means someone actually on scene, assisting Jeremy in the shooting.  Brett did morally corrupt Jeremy.  What was the feasibility of him sneaking back to the UK?  Would he go to those lengths?  Did Matthew's alibi really stand up or was it more a case of the police being dismissive of Julie at that precise point?

[Munksa]

Jackie

I would appreciate if you could just try to express your thoughts on the subject raised. I am new here and even I am aware God knows how many times you have said the same thing about Colin!

Can you please stick to the topic and not try to derail the discussion?

[Roch]

Colin is the one -indeed, the ONLY- victim. As such he's fully entitled to have his say.

Obviously we differ on whether Colin is the only victim.

But David summed up Colin's media appearances perfectly here:

I think he honestly believes what he [is] saying. Probably due to a combination of emotional investment, a naive faith in the justice system and a lack of critical thinking.

[Jane]

Obviously we differ on whether Colin is the only victim.

But David summed up Colin's media appearances perfectly here:

I have him on ignore.

[Munksa]

QC

"When I saw the thread title, I initially assumed that you meant Colin was Jeremy's accomplice and clicked eagerly to see how you had come to such an unusual conclusion. "

Haha , looking at it again  yes it did look like that. At least it caught your attention!

Can't be Brett, he was not in the country. Julie, nope, she was in London sleeping! So who else? Imo, Colin certainly means someone being present with Bamber. So my point is did Colin ever express his belief to the Police? Did Colin have a name for that accomplice?

[guest29835]

QC

"When I saw the thread title, I initially assumed that you meant Colin was Jeremy's accomplice and clicked eagerly to see how you had come to such an unusual conclusion. "

Haha , looking at it again  yes it did look like that. At least it caught your attention!

Can't be Brett, he was not in the country. Julie, nope, she was in London sleeping! So who else? Imo, Colin certainly means someone being present with Bamber. So my point is did Colin ever express his belief to the Police? Did Colin have a name of that accomplice?

Ah, hold on a second Munksa:

Brett - are we sure about this?  My point is, for that amount of money, could he have been willing to sneak back?  Are we sure the police checked this out thoroughly?

Julie - an accomplice does not have to be present!  There's a whole body of posts from me on this special topic.  I do think Julie is the favourite.

You didn't mention Matthew, but same observations for him as for Brett. 

I always have in mind what a barrister once told me: "Unless you were chained to two High Court judges during the act, you don't have a flawless alibi."

You can adapt this to any situation, even situations where the suspected individual does have a praesens alibi but could have been involved.

[Jane]

QC

"When I saw the thread title, I initially assumed that you meant Colin was Jeremy's accomplice and clicked eagerly to see how you had come to such an unusual conclusion. "

Haha , looking at it again  yes it did look like that. At least it caught your attention!

Can't be Brett, he was not in the country. Julie, nope, she was in London sleeping! So who else? Imo, Colin certainly means someone being present with him. So my point is did Colin ever express his belief to the Police? Did Colin have a name of that accomplice?

Munska, I can't TELL you how many names have been put forward as potential accomplices to Sheila. They range from those who were associated with HRH, her birth mother in company with her birth grandmother who she'd kidnapped from a care home, various lovers, the guy who 'fled' back to SA. I guess you can take your pick!

[Steve_uk]

QC

"When I saw the thread title, I initially assumed that you meant Colin was Jeremy's accomplice and clicked eagerly to see how you had come to such an unusual conclusion. "

Haha , looking at it again  yes it did look like that. At least it caught your attention!

Can't be Brett, he was not in the country. Julie, nope, she was in London sleeping! So who else? Imo, Colin certainly means someone being present with Bamber. So my point is did Colin ever express his belief to the Police? Did Colin have a name for that accomplice?

There was some rumour that he knew of a way how to slip back into the country incognito.

[Steve_uk]

Ah, hold on a second Munksa:

Brett - are we sure about this?  My point is, for that amount of money, could he have been willing to sneak back?  Are we sure the police checked this out thoroughly?

Julie - an accomplice does not have to be present!  There's a whole body of posts from me on this special topic.  I do think Julie is the favourite.

You didn't mention Matthew, but same observations for him as for Brett. 

I always have in mind what a barrister once told me: "Unless you were chained to two High Court judges during the act, you don't have a flawless alibi."

You can adapt this to any situation, even situations where the suspected individual does have a praesens alibi but could have been involved.

Then you are mistaken.