Walletgate: Caroline's flawed insinuations against Jeremy

[Erik Narramore]

Walletgate was an allegation (or insinuation of an allegation) by the Blue Forum user, 'Caroline', that in the aftermath of the killings, Jeremy had inadvertently revealed to Ann Eaton that he knew the contents of Nevill's missing wallet.  The clear implication of this being that Jeremy could be the killer, as (Caroline assumes) only the killer would know this information.

Caroline claimed to have conducted a correspondence with Jeremy on this topic, consisting of two letters.  I therefore asked Caroline to post up redacted copies of both letters.  We could then make our own judgement about it.  I emphasised to Caroline that Jeremy could not object to publishing the letters on copyright grounds, because as long as Caroline posts up only the relevant parts for the purposes of discussion, it's fair dealing.  He also can't object on the basis of some moral right to privacy.  He's a convicted prisoner who protests his innocence: it's a matter of public interest.

Caroline never did post up the letters, stating:

I have posted letters here before and it led to the usual BS, so I won't be posting them here again.

I then asked her to link to where she had posted up the letters.  She replied that she had taken them down.

[Erik Narramore]

I then looked at the relevant statement from Ann Eaton on which Caroline had based this whole kerfuffle.  I immediately realised that Caroline had misinterpreted Ann Eaton's statement.  There appeared to be nothing in this.

[Erik Narramore]

To take a step back, if what Caroline is saying or insinuating has any basis, then she is holding evidence.

I think it is fair that we ask her to support her claims.  If she can't, then we can dismiss what she says.

It's not that I'm saying Caroline is lying, as such, it's more that a lot depends on one's interpretation of what is said and not said.  We must remember that these events will have taken place many years prior to Caroline's letters, and Jeremy's memory will come and go – a common problem that we all have. Caroline seems to interpret this as suspicious, which suggests to me that Caroline is giving us her slant on things, which in turn I think makes it important that we see what was actually written – both by Caroline and Jeremy – before we accept Caroline's version of it.

I wasn't asking Caroline to send us the full letters, just the relevant parts.

Since Caroline refused to do so, it will be appreciated that I will take a view accordingly.

[Erik Narramore]

Of course it could be suspicious if Jeremy knew what was in the wallet.  Yes, that's why I'm interested.

But we only have Caroline's interpretation of the letters, and she refuses to let us judge for ourselves.

Caroline was the one who brought it up.  She mentioned it now and then on the Blue Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask her questions about it, she gets huffy and refuses to answer.  She seems to want it both ways.

It's entirely her business what view Caroline takes about Jeremy, but she comes online and tells us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it.  Nobody is accusing her of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him.  More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.

[Erik Narramore]

To be fair, somebody says Jeremy did know how much was in the wallet, and that could be considered interesting, and maybe suspicious.  I'm also interested to know how he can tell Caroline he can't remember and then suddenly remember later on, though of course that could be the entirely innocent vicissitudes of memory.

Anyway, unless I see the letters, all I'm left with (if I understand this right) is Ann Eaton's claims.  Didn't Ann Eaton keep the wallet and not tell Jeremy, or have I got that wrong?

[Erik Narramore]

The allegation falls down anyway when you look at Ann Eaton's statement.  It does appear that Caroline has misinterpreted Ann Eaton and proceeded on that misunderstanding.

The whole thing has taken up a 44-page thread on the Blue Forum, but could have been resolved in 10 seconds.  Just read the statement.

[Erik Narramore]

Caroline eventually insulted me, but insulting people is not an argument, and what I say is true.

It appears that Caroline has misinterpreted the statement by Ann Eaton and gone off on a tangent, and frankly, made a fool of yourself.

Every time guilters do this, it weakens the case against Jeremy that bit more.

[Erik Narramore]

There is nothing in this.  Unless I have misunderstood, the wallet was handed in before Jeremy mentioned it, which is why the figure comes up in Ann Eaton's statement.  The reason Ann Eaton mentions the amount is because she is suspicious that Jeremy would ask after Nevill's wallet at all.  Caroline has misinterpreted this to mean Jeremy knew what was in the wallet, but that's not what Ann was getting at.

Is there anything else to say about it?  I don't believe there is.  I think it's a total non-issue, but if I have misunderstood something here, by all means somebody can correct me.

[Erik Narramore]

Caroline, in her own defence, asked us how Jeremy would know that the wallet is missing.

I can think of several possible reasons, including that he didn't know, he just guessed as much given that Nevill was found in his pyjamas and a wallet was nowhere to be seen.

I don't see Caroline's point.  Why shouldn't Jeremy know that his own father's wallet is missing?

[Erik Narramore]

Caroline doesn't know that Jeremy knew where it normally was.  She's assuming that.  Just because he's looking for the wallet and he notices that it's missing, it doesn't mean he knows exactly where it should be.  He could easily intuit where it should be, just by using common sense: just look in the master bedroom, where Nevill slept, and where he would naturally keep the wallet; if not there, then look in the office.  If he doesn't find it in the expected places, then it's 'missing'.  As I have just explained, his father was found bare foot in his pyjamas, so the wallet must be somewhere in the house.

And even if he did know where the wallet should be, so what?  That could well be because he just knew for innocent reasons.  It's his dad.  They work together.  He knows the house.  He will have recalled where his father kept the wallet in the past.  So?  It can be innocently explained and it doesn't follow he was at the scene when the shootings took place, but in any event, you can't prove he knew in the first place.

Caroline never showed us the letters, or she's taken them down.  Having looked through some of the thread, I'm not clear why she did that.  Without sight of the letters, it's still unclear to me what she's driving at.  So far, I see nothing suspicious.  It's his father and he's the only surviving next-of-kin. He's looking for his wallet.  That's exactly what I would expect him to do.   It's what anybody would do in the same situation.

[Erik Narramore]

Hypothetically, if your dad died and you were the first immediate next-of-kin, wouldn't you be keen to know where his wallet his?  Thinking about it, it's one of the first things the next-of-kin would need to know, is it not?  Apart from anything else, you need it to tie up things on the administrative side, but you'd also need to secure it if there are strangers (albeit, trusted police officers) traipsing round the house.

I genuinely don't see the issue here.  First we're told it's suspicious because he knew the amount, but he didn't.  Just read Ann Eaton's statement.  Now we're told it's suspicious because he knew where the wallet was, but how do we know he knew that?  Wouldn't he just use his common-sense and guess?  And even if he did have an idea, so what?  He could just say he knew, next question.  He may know for entirely innocent reasons.  It's his dad, and he works with him.

[Erik Narramore]

Another thing,why would JB risk handling the wallet on the night of the murders and risk leaving any evidence on it? He couldn't touch it with his bare hands without wiping it afterwards to remove fingerprints,and if he was wearing gloves during the shooting he would have to wash them thoroughly before handling the wallet.And if he did actually take the risk to handle the wallet,why didn't he just take most of the money,who would have been any the wiser as to how much was in it?
Surely you either go the whole hog and empty the wallet or keep well clear of it,you wouldn't just count the money and leave it would you.
O f course part of Zoso's argument is that he knew the wallet was 'missing',but of course it would classed as missing if he couldn't find it anywhere in the house.What should he have said,lost?

The thinking goes like this:

(a). Jeremy could not know the circumstances of the shootings unless he was guilty.  If innocent, he could not know that Nevill was found in his pyjamas because he would not know that the shootings took place later in the night.

(b). Bearing in mind (a) above, for all Jeremy would know, the wallet should be with Nevill's body and in the custody of the police.

(c). Yet on the 11th., Jeremy is asking after the wallet.  It can't be all show on Jeremy's part because if the wallet is still at the farmhouse on the 11th., then Jeremy would assume the family also know this, so he would hardly pretend that the wallet isn't there if it is and take it for himself. 

(d). It must be that Jeremy could not find the wallet (it had already been seized by Ann), implying he knew where it was normally kept.  If Jeremy knew where it was normally kept, and is asking after it on the 11th., this implies he knew that Nevill was shot without the wallet because he thought it should still be there.

(e). Another point of interest is, of course, how does Jeremy know what amount of money the wallet contains, even in rough terms?  And if Jeremy is guilty, why didn't he take the money from the wallet on the night?  If he is guilty, the reason he didn't remove the money from the wallet or take the wallet must be that he knew he must not make the assault look like a robbery, as that would implicate him.  This does imply he must have handled the wallet that night and noticed its contents.

(f). It follows that Jeremy's inquiry after the wallet with Ann Eaton is a further indication of his possible culpability because he would not know the wallet is missing (i.e. should be there and isn't) unless he had knowledge of the shootings.

This seems pretty convincing on its face, but to me, it falls down for the following reasons:

1. Nevill was in his pyjamas, so Jeremy must have had prior knowledge of where the wallet was to be able to know where to find it.  This point, considered in isolation, applies irrespective of Jeremy's culpability, as that knowledge could be independent of the shootings.

2. In Ann Eaton's statement (16th. September 1985), the context in which Jeremy asked after the wallet was that it was a few days following the shootings and at a time when Jeremy must have known that Nevill was shot in his pyjamas, so he obviously realised that the wallet should still be where it normally was.

3. It is likely Jeremy would look for the wallet anyway, as he would want to take the money out of it (which is not necessarily suggestive of improper motives, he had to continue the running of the farm and other businesses).  He must also have been suspicious by this stage that the relatives were stealing.  You will notice in the statement that Jeremy makes a show of calling the police immediately after mentioning the wallet to Ann. 

4. Ann Eaton's statement does not confirm that Jeremy knew how much was in the wallet, it only states what Ann Eaton thought was in the wallet.  I think that's a misinterpretation on Caroline's part, but let's make the assumption in Caroline's favour and say he knew roughly how much was in the wallet.  This can be innocently explained.  He and his father worked together, in those days businessmen like Nevill kept large amounts of cash around as a float, and Jeremy just may have known innocently roughly how much money his father carried around.

5. We are reliant on Ann Eaton's account of events.  She took against Jeremy and was suspicious of him and that may have coloured her account.  As a counterpoint to this, Caroline bases her suspicions on certain replies she received from Jeremy to her letters in which she asked him about the incident, but when I was discussing all this with her on the Blue Forum, Caroline refused to show me even redacted versions of those letters.  Aside from that, it doesn't seem to have occurred to Caroline and others that Jeremy's memory of a tiny part of a long distant conversation - conducted at a time when he may have been in great distress and grief - may be incomplete or non-existent or simply wrong.  Our recollections of things also come and go.  Caroline is quick to treat this as suspicious.

6. A lot of what Caroline is saying about this is based on her applying a suspicious interpretation to Ann Eaton's account, and in particular she interprets a singular statement of Jeremy's as a closed statement when it could have been open.  In other words, she assumes that if Jeremy said the wallet was missing, that must mean he knew it is missing and knew where it normally should be kept, but these things don't necessarily follow.  "The wallet is missing" could mean "Where is the wallet?"

I appreciate that my antipathy for Caroline may have coloured my view of her theories, and had she a better 'bedside manner', so to speak, she might have 'peeled more onions'.  People will have to make up their own minds.

Here is a link to the original thread of Caroline's on the Blue Forum: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5265.15.html

There is another thread on the Blue Forum in which I challenged Caroline's suspicions, but I don't know where it is.  It's not terribly important to me, but if anybody finds it, by all means attach it to a post on here, if you want.

[Erik Narramore]

I have now found all the Blue Forum threads I can find on the issue and attach them here.  I also attach a short Red Forum thread on the topic.

[Rob Garland]

I see nothing in this myself, if guilty JB could have taken three quarters of the money and no one would be any the wiser.

Nevil and JB worked together so JB would naturally have a rough idea of how mush cash Nevil carried around.

This whole aspect to me shows just how little evidence the guilters have and are grasping at anything to help their cause.

[Leslie Aalders]

I have now found all the Blue Forum threads I can find on the issue and attach them here.  I also attach a short Red Forum thread on the topic.

Still reading all the threads Erik,seems the one thing that Zoso keeps coming back to is the fact that Bamber avoided her question about the wallet,not how he knew the amount of money in it,just the way he avoided answering that one question only.Lookout says RWB took the contents of two purses too,haven't heard that before,but I agree with what she says about how stupid JB was giving the 'vultures' the keys as she puts it.

I mean,if JB is the cold blooded killer he is supposed to be, he would have had no problem entering the WHF in the aftermath of the murders.Why didn't he do this before the relatives got a chance to snoop around?
Especially if he moved anything out of place that they might notice,phones etc,.And its a funny thing,the silencer was spoken about from the start along with the sights,the police asked JB in the first few days if they were attached to the rifle,now this means two things,one,that the police knew at this stage that there was a silencer for the Anschutz and two,did JB take it that the sights and silencer were in the hands of the police.
The thing is,did Bamber ask the police at this stage if they had the silencer and sights? Well obviously no,he was later told that the relatives found them later on and handed them in,and he did not query this.
Point being,Bamber showed no apparent interest in the silencer or its whereabouts.Now,if JB is guilty,it seems his intention was to hide the silencer and the fact that it had been used in the shooting,yet the police were making enquiries about it.So shouldn't this have started a panic in JB knowing the silencer was used in the shooting?
Now we know that JB had no idea if the police had seized the silencer or not for reasons pointed out,so wouldn't he want to get inside the WHF as soon as possible to see if the silencer is still in the cupboard or not?
So,thats two reasons why JB SHOULD have been eager to get into the house first,the wallet and the silencer.
Yet he gave AE permission to enter the house first.This simply does not make sense from a guilty Bamber point of view,he lets the relatives in first without knowing if the silencer is still in the cupboard or not,and knows the wallet is lying around with four or five hundred pounds in it.
I mean,here we are years later discussing 'walletgate'when all JB had to do was walk into the farm house first and pick it up.

The thing is,his actions after the murders show no suspicion and do not fit in with what he should have done if he was the killer,the silencer and wallet being two examples.The fact is Bamber carried on in a slapdash overt manner,openly looking for the wallet in front of the relatives and taking the video recorder on the same day.
But here's the big question,if guilty,why didn't JB look in the gun cupboard that day with the relatives?
Surely he would have been eager to find out if it was still there,yet there is no mention of him looking in the den from the relatives.This just does not make sense to me.
From an innocence point of view,it all makes sense,he was present at the farm having afternoon tea or whatever and the wallet came into his mind,he instantly went to look for it then instinctilely phoned the police when he could not find it updtairs.Then his mind went to the VCR which he claimed was his,but no mention of rummaging around in the den at all.
I dont think the silencer entered JBs head that day at all,he clearly wasn't interested if it was in the gun cupboard or in the custody of the police,he probably just assumed as you would that the police took the silencer as an exhibit on the morning of the shooting.The silencer was of no use without the rifle anyway,so why would JB be in the least bit interested where it was?
Anyway,JBs actions over the wallet and the silencer make little sense to me if he is guilty.
Hope you can make some sense of this,I have gone a bit off topic,but as always once you start thinking about something other thoughts come into your head.
Just one other thing,it was the relatives who were deceitful that day hiding the fact that they had already found the wallet and'allegedly'removed the silencer.
What would they have said if JB looked for the silencer and found it wasn't there too? Talk about two faced,sitting having tea with Bamber while in the process of trying to prove he killed his family,very strange!