I have just finished reading Scott Lomax’s book Jeremy Bamber: Evil,Almost Beyond Belief , the title quoting from the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake’s accusatory remarks to the appellant when sentencing him to 25 years, which was increased to a life tariff by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard in 1994. Regular members on this forum will remember this is the book I skim-read in an hour behind a pillar on the third floor of the Manchester branch of Waterstones a few weeks back, and I honestly wonder whether the extra effort in reading this tome from cover to cover was worth it.
To say the book is biased in favour of Jeremy Bamber is an understatement. From the opening pages this is clear when we are given a list of dramatis personae: for example Malcolm Fletcher is described as the ballistics “expert”,DCI Taff Jones’s “bizarre death” is alluded to even at this stage as is Matthew MacDonald’s irrelevance, and why we need to know that Liz Rimington slept with Jeremy Bamber at the page 11 stage is beyond me. Julie Mugford is often referred to simply as “Mugford” throughout the book and there is no analysis of her testimony, there is a mention of Barbara Wilson at this stage but no mention of her chats with Ralph(Nevill), neither of Charles Marsden’s, James Richards’ or Doris Foalkes’ evidence.There is no mention of Jeremy’s burglary of a jeweller’s in New Zealand. The very omissions which Lomax is fond of alluding to when this is part of an alleged Police cover-up he is guilty of himself, though he is unable to see the contradiction. Maybe he himself should be inadmissible for jury service, as in his opinion dim members of the public should be excluded, or as he puts it,people of “limited intelligence”. Maybe he aspires to become the physician and writer of detective stories Sir Arthur Conan Doyle he quotes;however on completion of the book I’m afraid to say in this context Lomax is no more than an amateur sleuth.
Let’s take the evidence against Sheila, because of course,it was Jeremy’s assertion that he had received a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father stating that Sheila had got one of the guns and had gone crazy, or words to that effect, which necessarily limit the suspects to either himself or Sheila. Lomax tells us that the twins were killed with “unnecessary violence” whch showed “hatred”, we are told Sheila’s bed was never slept in that night(how does he know for certain?),we are told of an allegation narrated by Jeremy that Sheila punched one of the children in the face when she was interrupted (the twins would have told Colin), we are told all shots hit the target, yet a woman in psychosis achieved this,we are told “it seems almost without doubt the killer moved Ralph’s body into this position”(on the overturned chair), when it’s inconceivable to assume Sheila had the strength to move her father’s body anywhere, we are told “by killing her children and herself they would be together for eternity in the afterlife”, yet Sheila does not lie down by her sons but shoots herself in the kitchen, then proceeds upstairs for the Defence’s necessary ritualistic washing, then kills herself in the same room as the one woman she did not get on with: her mother June.
We are given chapter and verse on blood and the silencer, yet even Lomax has to admit that a silencer was used because how else did June’s DNA come to be there? Lomax has more success with his laborious discussion of the hand swabs evidence, yet the lack of gun oil on Sheila’s nightdress is not sufficiently explained for my liking. Lomax also rushes to judgement about her knowledge of guns, stressing that she had been brought up in a farming environment, yet he is quick to say Sheila had been away at school much of the time and lived in London from the age of 16 when it suits his case that the relatives knew very little about her.
Now let’s look at Jeremy, whom let's face it Scott handles with kid gloves(did one fall off I wonder). The author has obviously had contact with the accused over a long period and fulfils the role of ersatz mother which Suzette Ford and Julie Mugford each provided in their turn. Thus Lomax quotes Jeremy’s verbal statements to Police on the morning of the murders: “What if anything has happened in there? They are all the family I’ve got”, yet nowhere is the allegation of Julie discussed that Jeremy screwed up June’s letter to be read in the event of her death, Jeremy telling Julie “I’m glad she’s dead”, his attempts to sell nude photographs of Sheila, and the existence of the torn-up photographs of the twins, nor are Jeremy’s trips abroad to Amsterdam and France successfully explained away, apart from to avoid media intrusion, which is understandable,except that the grief for the victims seemed to have dissipated as soon as Jeremy crossed the 21 miles to France.
Other things remain unexplained: why did Jeremy return to the scene of the crime on 14 September using the very same entry method he was accused of at trial, why did Jeremy have the bodies cremated when his parents were committed Christians and would have wanted a burial, why was Jeremy’s hair and skin so dark on the morning after the murders as noticed by Ann Eaton, if not for camouflage whilst on the bicycle, why was one half of the wetsuit found at the farm and the other half at Goldhanger, why were none of his prints on the murder weapon if he had handled it to shoot rabbits, why did Jeremy pretend to vomit in front of Police, yet was able to eat a hearty breakfast a couple of hours later?
The book is littered with similar howlers: a whole chapter is devoted to the lack of Jeremy’s financial motive, because, it is alleged, he had free use of a telephone,whilst Lomax ignores Jeremy living it up in London at the Maida Vale flat he had inherited as a direct consequence of Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel’s deaths. Does Scott see this or is he being deliberately naïve? The assertion that Nevill was held at gunpoint whilst making the original call to Jeremy also drops like a lead balloon on the kitchen table.
It’s my opinion that Jeremy should be made to confess by sycophants such as Lomax and the other people who have surrounded him for so long, some nonentities who like the false glamour association with Bamber has brought. If he said “I was young and stupid,it was the 1980s and I was carried away with the Zeitgeist of the times. I made a mistake and I bitterly regret it”-this would afford him at least a modicum of self- respect(if that is at all possible) in what might well prove to be a long and lonely old age. By the end of the book I just want Jeremy to be quoted as saying: “For f*** sake there was no sugar spilled in the kitchen and there was none of Sheila’s blood in the sound moderator because when I killed them all I didn’t use one”..likewise Scott Lomax’s tone becomes irritating when he repeats “I’m not saying the Police or the relatives lied but..” then goes on to quote at length evidence which puts them in just such a light. Thinking of Mike’s trip to Spain it’s a bit like the old joke of the official who says “Madam,I’m not saying you’re fat,but will you please get off the beach,the tide wants to come in..”
Jeremy at the end of the book asserts: “We cannot be certain that it was a third person who murdered my family. But if it wasn’t Sheila,and we know it definitely wasn’t me,then it had to be someone else. That is simply a possibility based on all the evidence and one that has been overlooked”.
Sorry Jeremy:do yourself a favour and everyone else one. Stop this charade and let’s get you on a course of rehabilitation. Maybe you can speak to current offenders in prison and help to prevent future murders. This would be the best testament to your future life,because you cannot bring back the five victims you slaughtered. You will never be allowed to walk along a Dorset beach, neither will you be allowed to eat Pot Noodle in your rocking chair as a free man. But a simple “sorry” to the people who have lived with dignity with the consequences of your actions 27 years ago would not go amiss.
