Jeremy's court testimony:

[guest154]

That sounds like someone trapped and not knowing how to get out of it - "No comment" Personally if someone was telling me I'd said something I hadn't, the air would be blue and far from not commenting, I'd have plenty to say! 

Sounds like someone in the shit and not wanting to say anything else that may get them into further bother - hence "no comment"

[Jane]

All I was saying is that he did deny some words the police had attributed to him regarding Sheila and her handling of the guns.

I agree he came across as looking down at the police in the interviews and far to cocky.


Considering if he murdered them all he knew about the two shots to Sheila  I don't think he would come across as he did - it looked like he thought they were joking , trying to wind him up - hence the stupid remark about the dog. He did not do himself any favours.

I guess, had I been in that interview room, I'd have found it very difficult, given  his attitude and responses, to think of him as being innocent.

[Alias]

I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.

[nugnug]

ha anoyone comenting actully been been qustioned by the police as a suspect.

if your innocent and the police acusing you of murdering family who your still grieving for how much respect are you going to show them abslutly zero.

[nugnug]

he said sheila had limited knowledge of guns.

[Mr. Gee]

I guess, had I been in that interview room, I'd have found it very difficult, given  his attitude and responses, to think of him as being innocent.

April if you had been in that interview room you would probably have your eyes open to the different tactics that the police use in order to get the "truth" they want to hear.

[Caroline]

I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.

I  wouldn't no, but that doesn't mean Jeremy didn't.

[Jan]

I see it as follows: if he was guilty, he would have been polite and cooperative, not snotty and ironic like here!
Like in, he wouldn´t have said to the police outside the WHF on the tragic night, that he didn´t particularly like Sheila.
Would you do that if you had just shot your entire family, and you were setting up a scenario to make yourself look innocent, then blurt out: I didn´t like them much....? I don´t think so.

there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.

I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .

It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it  - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.

[Alias]

there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.

I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .

It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it  - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.

Do we know for how long Jeremy had been interviewed here? If he had been asked the same questions over and over, that might explain his snotty answers.

[Jane]

April if you had been in that interview room you would probably have your eyes open to the different tactics that the police use in order to get the "truth" they want to hear.

Grahame, I've been intimately involved with police for most of my life, both through friends and family, so I do know what methods CAN be employed and I'm FULLY aware that SOME, given half a chance, will cross the line.

[nugnug]

Do we know for how long Jeremy had been interviewed here? If he had been asked the same questions over and over, that might explain his snotty answers.

how many times had they interviwed him before was this his first interview.

[Mr. Gee]

Grahame, I've been intimately involved with police for most of my life, both through friends and family, so I do know what methods CAN be employed and I'm FULLY aware that SOME, given half a chance, will cross the line.

So then you are fully aware of their practices then? And you still think that Bamber was interviewed with kid gloves?

[scipio_usmc]

All I was saying is that he did deny some words the police had attributed to him regarding Sheila and her handling of the guns.

I agree he came across as looking down at the police in the interviews and far to cocky.


Considering if he murdered them all he knew about the two shots to Sheila  I don't think he would come across as he did - it looked like he thought they were joking , trying to wind him up - hence the stupid remark about the dog. He did not do himself any favours.

His interrogation featured a common pattern.  He first told police he could not remember what he said in his conversations with them.  He could not recall what he told West over the phone, he could not recall what he told Julie in the 3 calls he had with her, he could not recall what he told police later. 

Despite saying he could not remember in detail the conversations he subsequently had no problem denying he told people certian things.  He coudl not rememebr their discussions but he known he didn't tehm them things that were harmful.  So he knows he didn't tell Julie he had not been to bed yet though he could not recall the substance of their discussion. 

He told police he had never seen Sheila shoot.  Not only in his first written statement he told them such 2 times during his interrogation.  He also listed those people who saw him shoot and Shela was not among them. 

He already previously said he didn't remember the substance of his discussion with police.  But they asked anyway if he told police Sheila had used all the guns in the house.  He said no he didn't.  How could he be sure he didn't say that since he didn't remember the conversation?  Well he told police earlier in his interrogation he had not seen her shoot and didn't want to admit he told a contradictory lie to the officers at the scene so he denied it simply.  They asked then what did he tell police about Sheila and guns and he answered "no comment" and would not discuss it further. 

He drastically changed his story about something else.  He repatedly said he could not recall when he last used the gun prior to getting it out to shoot rabbits but it was a least a week to fortnight prior.
Yet once it became clear the last known user of the gun was Anthony and that he said it was put away with the moderator and scope attached Jeremy changed his claims drastically and claimed he repeatedly used it the week before the murders. He said that Nevill also constantly used it that week and had sometimes put it away with the scope and moderator attached other times he removed them. Thus many times that week Jeremy found the gun with the moderator and scope unattached not just when he took it out to shoot rabbits. Jeremy's memory would all of a sudden improve when a famaging claim surfaced.  He would suddenly remember something to refute a claim but when challenged and pressed further on the point he would say no comment and refuse to talk anymore on it.

These are th emost damaging things form the interview it shows lies and deception.   

[Jane]

So then you are fully aware of their practices then? And you still think that Bamber was interviewed with kid gloves?

I didn't apply it ALL police, Grahame and whilst, not for a moment would I condone ANY improper behaviours, I can UNDERSTAND that when children are involved, emotions run high, and here was this guy appearing to make very light of the situation........................

[Mr. Gee]

His interrogation featured a common pattern.  He first told police he could not remember what he said in his conversations with them.  He could not recall what he told West over the phone, he could not recall what he told Julie in the 3 calls he had with her, he could not recall what he told police later. 

Despite saying he could not remember in detail the conversations he subsequently had no problem denying he told people certian things.  He coudl not rememebr their discussions but he known he didn't tehm them things that were harmful.  So he knows he didn't tell Julie he had not been to bed yet though he could not recall the substance of their discussion. 

He told police he had never seen Sheila shoot.  Not only in his first written statement he told them such 2 times during his interrogation.  He also listed those people who saw him shoot and Shela was not among them. 

He already previously said he didn't remember the substance of his discussion with police.  But they asked anyway if he told police Sheila had used all the guns in the house.  He said no he didn't.  How could he be sure he didn't say that since he didn't remember the conversation?  Well he told police earlier in his interrogation he had not seen her shoot and didn't want to admit he told a contradictory lie to the officers at the scene so he denied it simply.  They asked then what did he tell police about Sheila and guns and he answered "no comment" and would not discuss it further. 

He drastically changed his story about something else.  He repatedly said he could not recall when he last used the gun prior to getting it out to shoot rabbits but it was a least a week to fortnight prior.
Yet once it became clear the last known user of the gun was Anthony and that he said it was put away with the moderator and scope attached Jeremy changed his claims drastically and claimed he repeatedly used it the week before the murders. He said that Nevill also constantly used it that week and had sometimes put it away with the scope and moderator attached other times he removed them. Thus many times that week Jeremy found the gun with the moderator and scope unattached not just when he took it out to shoot rabbits. Jeremy's memory would all of a sudden improve when a famaging claim surfaced.  He would suddenly remember something to refute a claim but when challenged and pressed further on the point he would say no comment and refuse to talk anymore on it.

These are th emost damaging things form the interview it shows lies and deception.   

So why do you think he changed his story to one where he said that he had never seen Sheila use a gun?