Another Freudian Slip?

[Stephanie]

"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."

Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6

In his first statement he says MY gun yet during this interview http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html he say "I think" "I think" - he's not so cock sure...  He gives himself away imo...

There are numerous slips like this - I can't be bothered to reference them but to my mind none of it suggests innocence - none of it suggests forgetfulness - none of suggests he was afraid - in fact the opposite imo.

[scipio_usmc]

In his first statement he says MY gun yet during this interview http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html he say "I think" "I think" - he's not so cock sure...  He gives himself away imo...

There are numerous slips like this - I can't be bothered to reference them but to my mind none of it suggests innocence - none of it suggests forgetfulness - none of suggests he was afraid - in fact the opposite imo.

The police never called him on his inconsistent statements though.  During the interrogation even they never asked his why he claimed one thing to the officers at the scene, another in his August 7 statement and yet a 3rd in his August 8 statement.  No one seemed to compare them.   That is the kind of thing you can use to shake him up but they failed to take advantage. They might have done too poor a job researching the evidence to have even recognized it.

In turn this emboldened Jeremy.  He figured he didn't have to worry about remaining consistent.       

[Stephanie]

It's not only his inconsistencies in question it's his attitude and some of the Freudian slips he makes - some of which I suggest he does purposely;

An example -

Page 6:

Q - In any event if your whole family died, you would be well off.

A - I would be better off, financially I would

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5816.0.html

[Stephanie]

It's not only his inconsistencies in question it's his attitude and some of the Freudian slips he makes - some of which I suggest he does purposely;

An example -

Page 6:

Q - In any event if your whole family died, you would be well off.

A - I would be better off, financially I would

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5816.0.html

"Emotions are shallow and short-lived for a psychopath and they will drop 'hints' of their true nature, but in a veiled manner. These hints are also called 'tells.'

[Adam]

There is already a thread on his police interviews.

[Adam]

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

Answers often said in a singing tone.  So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.

He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.

Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.

He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.

When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !

He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.

Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.

His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks.  After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez.  So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.

Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.

Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.

[Adam]

Scipio may be testing my knowledge on the case Maggie 

Lookout never makes things up.

She does tells the poster 'find it yourself', when a source is requested.

[Reader]

Interestingly, Jeremy didn't actually mention calling Julie at all in his first statement . . .

That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."

he also said he called the police IMMEDIATELY after his fathers call, but couldn't have done if he buggered about looking for the number of the local station which he later said took him 10 minutes.

According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.

[Stephanie]

That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."
According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.

It appears Caroline was referring to his first interview as opposed first statement. Easy mistake to make.

The bottom line is this - if he had told the truth each time he was asked about the phone calls and timings he would have said the same thing. He didn't!

"A lie, no matter how big or how propagated, will be destroyed when it's tested"

[Caroline]

That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."
According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.

Yes, fair comment, I have just read it.

He did mention it taking him around 10 mins to look up the number and I will find the reference.

Just read through his interview, he basically remembers nothing and is extremely cautious when answering, asking to see what he initially said in his earlier statements. However, he does let slip that he called Julie first and when he realises the implications, he changes it. He did the same thing with Jones on the day after the murders. Seems Jeremy doesn't remember anything unless the has the 'rehearsed' version right in front of him.

[Caroline]

It appears Caroline was referring to his first interview as opposed first statement. Easy mistake to make.

The bottom line is this - if he had told the truth each time he was asked about the phone calls and timings he would have said the same thing. He didn't!

"A lie, no matter how big or how propagated, will be destroyed when it's tested"

How very true! I think it's also very telling that he needed to ask for his statements when interrogated because he simply couldn't remember anything he'd said. he certainly wasn't expecting to be arrested and so had no time to try and recall what he'd originally said. His interrogation is a shambles.

[lookout]

A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.

Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !

[Caroline]

A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.

Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !

Of course they would and do frequently - that's how they get caught! 

[lookout]

Of course they would and do frequently - that's how they get caught! 

Not all the time. If Jeremy had remained focussed on being charged,he'd have remembered what to say because it would have been in his own interest to remember everything. He just didn't bargain for what he got and was totally unprepared.

[Jane]

A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.

Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !

You are highlighting the difference between how we perceive ourselves -and remember that psychopaths are so certain of their own supremacy that they cannot conceive of being wrong- and how we are perceived by others. Psychopaths know that they lie but believe they do it so convincingly that we plebs won't notice if the can't always remember what they said the last time they told the story. Jeremy didn't expect to be caught. He thought he'd outwitted the hoi polloi.