Delusions, Crackpots and Lie Detection

Jeremy Bamber emphatically passed a lie detector test in 2007

Campaigning on behalf of Jeremy Bamber comes with certain territory.

To surmise it; you’re essentially a crackpot filled with fanciful delusions who has been duped by a master criminal and making a fool out of yourself. That’s fine, really. Never had a problem with it – after all, Jeremy has had no choice but to turn his cheek to much worse over 27 years, so a bit of name calling should barely even register.




Let’s look at why people say those things, though. In their own minds, Jeremy is guilty of some awful things. If we suspend what we know about the case and, for a moment, put our trust in the justice system like we used to – it’s clear that the crimes committed were appalling.

The issue these people have is that they feel that Jeremy committed them – they believe the evidence heard by the jury and stand by it.

They say, do you really think that so many people have been involved in a cover up and that so many people had it in for Jeremy? Can it really all be lies? Let’s answer that question straight as to not duck the issue – Yes – it can!

But to look at it another way, consider this:

People who believe Jeremy to be guilty say that it is inconceivable, unrealistic and fanciful that he could be innocent. Yet documentary evidence proves that it’s actually inconceivable, unrealistic and fanciful that he could be guilty.

He has underdone 27 different psychological evaluations and tests over the years and even a lie detector test. And no, I don't mean like wot they 'ave on Jeremy Kyle – none of them have shown him to have any sort of psychopathy or mental disorder. “Not a flicker,” said one expert. This is important, because whoever did carry out these crimes certainly would, you’d expect, suffer from such an ailment.

“Ah,” they say, “but he’s such a psycho, he fooled the experts!”

What, all 27 of them?

Just to make sure, they have a test for Self Presentation, too – to the laymen this is a test to see whether or not someone who has psychopathy is trying to fool someone into thinking they do not.

He passed that test too.

For Jeremy Bamber to be guilty, then we must be imagining the Police logs – written by Police, of course, that state:

-    Firearms teams were ‘in conversation’ from someone within the farm. Not the land surrounding it, not Jeremy Bamber (he was stood beside police and was referred to specifically in the same logs), but within the actual farmhouse.
-    Several officers saw Sheila’s body downstairs before they stormed the house (if they did, Jeremy must be innocent as, officially, Sheila’s body was found upstairs).
-    Jeremy’s father called police himself
-    Police dispatched a car in response to this call a minute before Jeremy himself called them
-    Police saw an ‘Unidentified Male’ within the house while Jeremy was stood with them
And plenty more besides.

What I’m saying is, the argument for Jeremy’s innocence is not unrealistic – but the case for his guilt certainly is.

Don’t take our word for it, though. Study the facts. The Campaign team never have anything to hide and have documents in abundance. Those who claim he is guilty, though? They hide behind non-disclosure and cover-ups.

If he is guilty, why refuse to disclose things that could supposedly prove it?

The clock ticks, the tide turns…