I’ve thought for a long time about what I’m going to say when writing about ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent.’
Not because I wrestle with any issues surrounding legalities, case elements or otherwise – just literally a matter of what I’m going to say. I’m a ‘word man’, as it were. Words form the largest part of every single day of my life, so they’re important to me, as are what I’ve chosen to do with them.
I have enjoyed reading many other contributions to this site; some wonderful, touching testimonials. I noted how interesting it was that many people’s explanations were quite complex; very well written but almost in a language that suggests something needs to be proven. The use of words, perhaps, that people might use in an essay but hardly ever when talking to the man on the street.
Personally I don’t think any of the people who’ve written testimonials for Jeremy have anything to prove – certainly not their belief in Jeremy’s innocence.
So that was one issue sorted in terms of what I should be writing; essentially, let’s not get caught up in the ‘this reason, that reason, that witness, this piece of evidence’ (we could go on.) That’s not to say that there isn’t a mountain of fact and evidence that supports the fact that Jeremy Bamber is innocent of the crimes he’s served more than my lifetime in jail for. In fact, if we want to concentrate on the facts and the evidence then we could surely win any argument. We all feel strongly about these issues and probably each of us, Jeremy included, could point to one single issue that points most significantly to his innocence (if you’re wondering, it’s the Police Logs for me – facts are facts, after all).
Instead, I do genuinely feel that none of this matters when we sit and think about the case of Jeremy Bamber. That sounds like an astonishing thing to say when you consider the fact that he remains a man without freedom he deserves – but really, the detail of the case isn’t actually that vital or crucial at all.
Let me explain:
Our legal system itself is surely quite flawed in many ways. In cases where a person maintains innocence –
But none of the above really changes that facts are facts and truths are truths. A crime is committed – that has happened, and no amount of deliberation or many millions of pieces of paper change the fact that it has happened. Experts are sworn in, people ponder – but the facts still remain the same.
What I’m trying to say is that we’re supposed to have a legal system on which guilt has to be proved, but where innocence never does. That, too, is a fact. I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man. The most frustrating thing is that so, so much points to his innocence, when proving his innocence shouldn’t even be an issue. Governed by a legal system in which, supposedly, only guilt has to be proved, we all now immerse ourselves in the work it will take to prove his innocence. Work none of us, nor Jeremy, should be doing.
I find it quite fitting that the man who perhaps sums up my entire argument better than anybody is Jeremy Bamber himself. In one newspaper interview, speaking of his innocence, he said:
“"It's not really whether I know it, they know it or anybody knows it.
"It is just the truth and it is what it is. It is like a reality."
So there we have it. ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent’ really doesn’t matter. Why any of us believe it doesn’t matter. In his own words, the reasons why he believes it don’t even matter.
As he says – the truth is what it is. And the truth is a fact.