Mindset of Jeremy Bamber, at time he was informed, that all his family was dead

[simong]

The Three Ways to Lie
A Handy Guide to Deception

Lies can often give you power
like a coffin filled with flowers
gives life to the living,
not the dead.

The Residents, "Silver, Sharp and Could Not Care"

Lying is an art. A good lie is to be savored, like a fine wine. Does this surprise you? If so, consider this question: why do we wince when we hear people lie badly?

The answer is that we recognize the lack of art, the lack of finesse. We are implicit connoisseurs of the lie.

What surprises me is that so few people know about different types of lies. Over the years, I've formulated three ways to lie. Let's examine them, in order of the skill it takes to deliver them.

1. Contradict the truth
This is the easiest way to lie. It's also the easiest kind to get caught telling. This is the first kind of lie that children learn:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: Sally did.

Note the use of the lie to shift blame away from the guilty party. However, the child's choice of another person as the victim is a mistake. A more sophisticated exchange would go like this:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

The child is now laying the blame on something that cannot defend itself. Our pupil is learning the art of the lie.

2. Tell part of the truth
Let's change the scenario a little bit. The dog did run through the room, and it did break the lamp. Now let's repeat the last conversation:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

What the child doesn't say is that the dog was being chased by our little hooligan. This is an example of the second kind of lie: the Lie of Omission. Strictly speaking, everything the accused has said is true. It is the fact that important information is left out that makes this the equivalent of a lie.

3. Tell the truth unconvincingly
This is a tough one to illustrate; the best example I've seen is in Neil Gaiman's Sandman story "The Kindly Ones", in which a woman recounts a murder she committed. When asked if she's kidding, she responds "Joking with you? Of course: if I had really killed a man, would I tell anyone?".

If you have the skill to pull this off, you're home free. You can lie to the Pope without guilt.

I hope this helps you. Now go forth and lie.

[Roch]

How can his initial reaction be a red herring?  It is what it is, or rather, what it was... his initial reaction.

Because even if he thought the police had shot them, he clearly thought that it was Sheila who initially had the gun.

"Stages of Grief"

"1. SHOCK & DENIAL-
You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. You may deny the reality of the loss at some level, in order to avoid the pain. Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once. This may last for weeks."

I recall sitting on the floor next to the dead body of a close member of my family, drinking a cup of tea as though nothing had happened as I waited or the coroner's assistant to arrive. I remember wondering I apparently felt nothing, no sadness, no grief, no emotion whatsoever. When the coroner's assistant arrived, I was calm and organised...or so I thought.

Then, as he was about to leave, I asked the CA, "Are you sure she's dead, only she's still breathing."

The CA looked at me with concern and asked if I would be ok to wait alone for the undertaker to arrive. I told him I was fine.

"No you're not", he said, "you're in shock." I said that was silly, I was fine.

I continued to feel fine with no feelings of grief or mourning for week or so. I remember feeling proud of myself for being so calm and strong, yet I also now I felt seriously guilty that I wasn't at all upset and was coping so well. I couldn't understand why I couldn't cry.

Shock, sends us to a strange place, one where time stands still or even reverses, as our brains struggle to protect us from the initial pain of unbearable grief. In that strange place, our brains convince us that the trauma we've witnessed hasn't really happened at all. Shock makes us feel and appear to be astonishingly rational in the most irrational of situations. Shock also turns emotions upside down. Within hours of my beloved father's sudden and very premature death, my mother and sat eating a large meal in the kitchen. We laughed and joked as though nothing had happened. We were like that for a couple of days...until we were suddenly overwhelmed by grief.

Does that ring any bells regarding the behaviour of Jeremy Bamber following the deaths of his family? He was in shock, plain and simple, Kaldin, and that's not a rational place to be.

Yes good post.  Regardless as to whether Jeremy prompted the police about Sheila's mental health or the police prompted Jeremy, upon being informed of the deaths inside the farmhouse, his inital reaction was not to link the deaths with Sheila.  Either he was in shock or he was dubious about the police operation.  He certainly does not appear to be following any cunning plan to pin it all on his sis.

[paulg]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

[Roch]

The Three Ways to Lie
A Handy Guide to Deception

Lies can often give you power
like a coffin filled with flowers
gives life to the living,
not the dead.

The Residents, "Silver, Sharp and Could Not Care"

Lying is an art. A good lie is to be savored, like a fine wine. Does this surprise you? If so, consider this question: why do we wince when we hear people lie badly?

The answer is that we recognize the lack of art, the lack of finesse. We are implicit connoisseurs of the lie.

What surprises me is that so few people know about different types of lies. Over the years, I've formulated three ways to lie. Let's examine them, in order of the skill it takes to deliver them.

1. Contradict the truth
This is the easiest way to lie. It's also the easiest kind to get caught telling. This is the first kind of lie that children learn:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: Sally did.

Note the use of the lie to shift blame away from the guilty party. However, the child's choice of another person as the victim is a mistake. A more sophisticated exchange would go like this:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

The child is now laying the blame on something that cannot defend itself. Our pupil is learning the art of the lie.

2. Tell part of the truth
Let's change the scenario a little bit. The dog did run through the room, and it did break the lamp. Now let's repeat the last conversation:

Adult: Who broke this lamp?
Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

What the child doesn't say is that the dog was being chased by our little hooligan. This is an example of the second kind of lie: the Lie of Omission. Strictly speaking, everything the accused has said is true. It is the fact that important information is left out that makes this the equivalent of a lie.

3. Tell the truth unconvincingly
This is a tough one to illustrate; the best example I've seen is in Neil Gaiman's Sandman story "The Kindly Ones", in which a woman recounts a murder she committed. When asked if she's kidding, she responds "Joking with you? Of course: if I had really killed a man, would I tell anyone?".

If you have the skill to pull this off, you're home free. You can lie to the Pope without guilt.

I hope this helps you. Now go forth and lie.

But he appears to be making an accusation, in the imediate aftermath of the incident, as opposed to telling a lie.

[Roch]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

[paulg]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

[Roch]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

[shonapugs]

Si, cool post. The whole Ralph-phone-call thing is crap. Jeremy just had to cover his arse when the hit-man rang him from WHF to tell him that the job was done. If poor, damaged Ralph ever had the chance to call anyone on that night, it certainly wouldn't have been useless Jeremy. He would have called for the police (why not 999?) and ambulances for June and the boys. And if he could have controlled the situation, and calmed Sheila down, he still wouldn't have involved Jeremy. We need to get real here.

[paulg]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

Lets take an alternative alternative approach.

If he was found not guilty, how many of the things that are used to suggest his innocence, could be turned around to show his guilt?

[Roch]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

Lets take an alternative alternative approach.

If he was found not guilty, how many of the things that are used to suggest his innocence, could be turned around to show his guilt?

Difficult to say, you'd have to be more specific in relation to what you have in mind.  But can you answer my question about the need to withhold the some of the logs?  There must be a reason?  What could the reason/s be?

[Kaldin]

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

I think you make some good points. It was certainly an odd thing to say to PC Saxby. I wonder at what point Jeremy was told that Sheila had killed them all (that's what the police thought at first). If Jeremy is innocent, he could have thought that Sheila was only waving a gun around, and it didn't occur to him that she would actually shoot everyone. I suppose he could have imagined that the scene got out of hand and everyone ended up dead in a police shoot-out of some kind.

However, Jeremy didn't seem to pursue this line of thought, and PC Saxby doesn't seem to have mentioned it to anyone else at the time.  I think Dr Craig had a few words with Jeremy outside the farm, and the next thing we hear is that he's at his house cooking breakfast.

[paulg]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

Lets take an alternative alternative approach.

If he was found not guilty, how many of the things that are used to suggest his innocence, could be turned around to show his guilt?

Difficult to say, you'd have to be more specific in relation to what you have in mind.  But can you answer my question about the need to withhold the some of the logs?  There must be a reason?  What could the reason/s be?

The logs do not show Sheila Caffell pulling the trigger 25 times.

[Roch]

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

I think you make some good points. It was certainly an odd thing to say to PC Saxby. I wonder at what point Jeremy was told that Sheila had killed them all (that's what the police thought at first). If Jeremy is innocent, he could have thought that Sheila was only waving a gun around, and it didn't occur to him that she would actually shoot everyone. I suppose he could have imagined that the scene got out of hand and everyone ended up dead in a police shoot-out of some kind.

However, Jeremy didn't seem to pursue this line of thought, and PC Saxby doesn't seem to have mentioned it to anyone else at the time.  I think Dr Craig had a few words with Jeremy outside the farm, and the next thing we hear is that he's at his house cooking breakfast.

Thanks.  He could have cooked breakfast because he was starving after having had the most surreal and shocking night of his life after being woke up after 3am.  His stomach may have been churning with acid.  He may have needed to fortify himself.  Or he may be a callous, uncaring killer who fancied a fry-up.  But again other than his conviction, there doesn't seem to be a scrap of psychiatric / psychological evidence in the public domain relating to a detached psycopathic killer type-profile.  Either he is so supreme in his abilities that he has hoodwinked criminal psychiatrists.... or like he's always maintained... it wasn't him 

[shonapugs]

Yum yum, grill me a kipper. What do the images of Sheila say to you? Small, slight, no signs of a battle, placed in that position after she was dead, nothing to say that she was involved in any way with a fight with her 6ft 4ins dad. No reason to do such terrible damage to June, who may have been a bit misguided, but still cared for her family and laid out the breakfast table for them for the next day. This family had no idea what was going to happen to them. All the clues are there. The poor family were taken totally by suprise. And the boys were killed first.

[Roch]

He accused the police of shooting his family? What, all of them?

TFU

Sorry, i'm aware that it was the TFU accused, but is he saying they are accused of shooting all the family?

Some sort of target practise? Kill a couple of kids while they sleep, bludgeon and kill a farmer and his wife, then shoot the daughter and make it look like she did it?

Blimey, this would be some story if true.

Paulg if you look at the document attached, you will see that it was his initial reaction to being informed that the occupants of the farmhouse were dead.

To put it politely, its testicles.

He's had a phone call from Nevill, saying Sheila/she/he has got a gun. He's told the police that she (sister) has knowledge of the guns at WHF, and been shooting with him. So many other things i can add, and his initial reaction was the police did it.......he should have been an actor.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.  We can only interpet things as we see them.  I would disagree and interpret his statement either as stemming from shock or suspicion of TFU operation.  I'm not aware of any psychiatric reports on bamber which would indicate the supreme levels of trickery that you would attribute to him.  Given he's been shut away for 26 years and been told he will leave prison in a box, I would have thought such reports may have surfaced for the general public's perusal?

Erm, i'd suggest a staged suicide/murder is as good as it gets for evidence of his trickery. But i'm here to be shown the evidence that it wasn't him.

Let's say we take your approach.  Why after laying the groundwork suggeting it was Sheila, would he suddeny divert to accusing the TFU?  His plan is going well so far.  Why make an absurd statement contrary to his plan, and the actual subsequent unfolding of events?  Take an alternative approach if you can. Imagine that you are in the situation your self and you are not guilty.  You've turned up at the scene and the first thing you know about your family being dead is the police informing you.  Bare in mind what you have just witnessed in the intervening hours.  And bare in mind the the logs which would / could support what you witnessed are being withheld, even to this day.  Why withhold the logs?

Lets take an alternative alternative approach.

If he was found not guilty, how many of the things that are used to suggest his innocence, could be turned around to show his guilt?

Difficult to say, you'd have to be more specific in relation to what you have in mind.  But can you answer my question about the need to withhold the some of the logs?  There must be a reason?  What could the reason/s be?

The logs do not show Sheila Caffell pulling the trigger 25 times.

Do you mean that is why they're withheld?  To withhold something is to impede some of the truth from being known by certain others. If you support that as being an acceptable component of due legal process , then you are entitled to do so.