Brett Collins' theory that Jeremy had help

[Erik Narramore]

Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done.  I only speculate.  If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?

Conversely, if Jeremy is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him?  Brett makes a similar point in the podcast.  Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.

[Zak Beresford]

Have you watched the interview of Collins on Louie theroux where he specifically mentions Colchester?

Colchester as you may know was an army barracks town. In the late 1960s my father was based there. I also lived on layer road. Close to Colchester football club.

Very likely bamber knew some army people. Collins purports a theory that bamber may have hired a squaddie.

[Erik Narramore]

Have you watched the interview of Collins on Louie theroux where he specifically mentions Colchester?

Colchester as you may know was an army barracks town. In the late 1960s my father was based there. I also lived on layer road. Close to Colchester football club.

Very likely bamber knew some army people. Collins purports a theory that bamber may have hired a squaddie.

I don't personally believe he engaged a third party to carry out the killings.  If he is guilty, then he executed the plan himself and any accomplices - Julie or Brett, or both - were 'non-present' accomplices, or accomplices after the fact.

The reasons I dismiss the professional killer theory are:

(i). The killings involved the use of a native rifle.  I accept that the part of Jeremy's story where he left the rifle out could be true, even if he is guilty, on the basis that it is staged as a murder-suicide, but a professional killer would usually not agree to go along with this because of all the unknown factors involved and what could go wrong.  A professional would want total control of the situation and would suggest to Jeremy that it should be staged as a break-in and robbery gone wrong.  For one thing, how will he know that the rifle is still there when he arrives?  What does he do if Nevill has put the rifle away?  Go to the gun cupboard?  Does he then mess around loading the ammunition into a low calibre rifle of the type normally used to kill rabbits.  I do see the logic in this idea of staging, but it's not very plausible when you think it through in reality.

(ii). A professional would not do this alone, he would want at least two people involved in carrying it out, due to the need to control everybody in the house.  A professional minimises all risk and controls all anticipated variables.  The involvement of two killers multiplies the risk to Jeremy.  Now four people know: Jeremy himself, Julie, and the two strangers he has confided in.

(iii). The killings involved the murder of two small children.  If you look hard enough, you'll eventually find somebody nutty enough to kill kids for money, but you'll be looking for a long time.  It's not the 'done thing' amongst organised criminals and somebody in the armed forces would surely have moral qualms or, if not, would at least comprehend the risk being undertaken.

(iv). Let's say Jeremy does find such a person, or preferably two such people, then he/they would be deranged rather than 'professional', and therefore unreliable.  More risk for Jeremy, including the risk that the people he engages might be caught in the act or blab to somebody and it gets back to the police, and so forth.

(v). It's a complete stranger. Jeremy does not have much money in terms of ready cash.  You don't just walk up to somebody and say it.  Just approaching such a person would entail risk for somebody like Jeremy.  It could be a police trap, etc.  The person could go to the authorities and blow the gaff in exchange for a 'no prosecution' deal with the police (similar to what Julie actually did).  They could even do that instead of carrying out the killings.

(vi). Despite extensive and detailed discussion of the case by all sorts of people, with several police investigations and numerous documentaries, there have been no serious rumours about third party involvement.  I think if there were, the family would say so.  Both Brett Collins and Colin Caffell think Jeremy engaged a professional criminal of some sort, but neither can provide any substance or detail, it's just a vague suspicion (and probably unwise of them to voice it, as it sort of implies that subconsciously they don't really believe Jeremy could have carried out the killings).

[Zak Beresford]

Have you watched the interview of Collins on Louie theroux where he specifically mentions Colchester?

Colchester as you may know was an army barracks town. In the late 1960s my father was based there. I also lived on layer road. Close to Colchester football club.

Very likely bamber knew some army people. Collins purports a theory that bamber may have hired a squaddie.

I don't personally believe he engaged a third party to carry out the killings.  If he is guilty, then he executed the plan himself and any accomplices - Julie or Brett, or both - were 'non-present' accomplices, or accomplices after the fact.

The reasons I dismiss the professional killer theory are:

(i). The killings involved the use of a native rifle.  I accept that the part of Jeremy's story where he left the rifle out could be true, even if he is guilty, on the basis that it is staged as a murder-suicide, but a professional killer would usually not agree to go along with this because of all the unknown factors involved and what could go wrong.  A professional would want total control of the situation and would suggest to Jeremy that it should be staged as a break-in and robbery gone wrong.  For one thing, how will he know that the rifle is still there when he arrives?  What does he do if Nevill has put the rifle away?  Go to the gun cupboard?  Does he then mess around loading the ammunition into a low calibre rifle of the type normally used to kill rabbits.  I do see the logic in this idea of staging, but it's not very plausible when you think it through in reality.

(ii). A professional would not do this alone, he would want at least two people involved in carrying it out, due to the need to control everybody in the house.  A professional minimises all risk and controls all anticipated variables.  The involvement of two killers multiplies the risk to Jeremy.  Now four people know: Jeremy himself, Julie, and the two strangers he has confided in.

(iii). The killings involved the murder of two small children.  If you look hard enough, you'll eventually find somebody nutty enough to kill kids for money, but you'll be looking for a long time.  It's not the 'done thing' amongst organised criminals and somebody in the armed forces would surely have moral qualms or, if not, would at least comprehend the risk being undertaken.

(iv). Let's say Jeremy does find such a person, or preferably two such people, then he/they would be deranged rather than 'professional', and therefore unreliable.  More risk for Jeremy, including the risk that the people he engages might be caught in the act or blab to somebody and it gets back to the police, and so forth.

(v). It's a complete stranger. Jeremy does not have much money in terms of ready cash.  You don't just walk up to somebody and say it.  Just approaching such a person would entail risk for somebody like Jeremy.  It could be a police trap, etc.  The person could go to the authorities and blow the gaff in exchange for a 'no prosecution' deal with the police (similar to what Julie actually did).  They could even do that instead of carrying out the killings.

(vi). Despite extensive and detailed discussion of the case by all sorts of people, with several police investigations and numerous documentaries, there have been no serious rumours about third party involvement.  I think if there were, the family would say so.  Both Brett Collins and Colin Caffell think Jeremy engaged a professional criminal of some sort, but neither can provide any substance or detail, it's just a vague suspicion (and probably unwise of them to voice it, as it sort of implies that subconsciously they don't really believe Jeremy could have carried out the killings).

I think regardless of guilt or innocence scenario those closest to jeremy probably couldn't figure out why he could carry out such a disgusting crime ( if indeed guilty)

1) jeremy had no history of violence
2) he was described by people who knew him as " effinmate"
3) He had never been in trouble with the police.

Also he most likely like the rest of us had personality flaws. But even so, how could anybody comprehend him committing such an atrocious act.