White House Farm - ITV Drama Series - Part 4

[Nicholas]

Mike was at one time JB's 'McKenzie' man.

I think the docs needed a home and we're in danger of being lost.  Mike was able to take ownership and set up the forum.

Ngb1066 (April 2012)

‘Mike has offered to give Jeremy's legal team full access to the documents he has in his possession.  These documents have only been preserved because Mike agreed to look after them when Jeremy's original solicitors were no longer prepared to retain them in their archive store (this is standard practice for solicitors) and the documents would otherwise have been destroyed.

When this case is referred to the Court of Appeal (as I believe it will be) I am sure that all of these documents will be carefully considered in preparation for the appeal, along with the other documents which the defence team hold.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2599.msg82830.html#msg82830

&

I agree that if a photograph of Sheila on the bed surfaces it could be very important for the defence. 

There may be material in the documents held by Mike which assists in the preparation of the appeal.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2599.msg82840.html#msg82840

[steve_trousers]

Technicality?  It hasn't yet been evidenced the drawback phenomenon takes place with the Anshutz rifle,, Eley hollow nosed subsonic bullets and the Parker Hale sound moderator.  All we have is an officer collecting the silencer from JB's relatives which then went back and forth to the lab and cyanoacrylate fuming chamber until a blood flake was found which matched  SC's blood groups.   

I don't know what the police training manual said about consuming alcohol whilst on duty and in the company of potential witnesses?  According to AE he stayed some considerable time.

"All we have" is all we needed. Namely an officer unmarked at the back stick to nod home the late winner.

I'm sorry but I can't see that Jones has done much wrong, forgot to bring an evidence bag and had a wee dram with Pete Eaton - they were all at it in 1985
There must be more chance of a JM recant than any new forensic evidence that will overturn the conviction.

[steve_trousers]

You'll have to dole out some Danish dosh for it, steve...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-House-Farm-Murders-DVD/dp/B0828HHY5W/ref=pd_lutyp_crtyp_simh_2_6/257-9643226-9454669?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0828HHY5W&pd_rd_r=8b6c2d2c-2513-46f9-9c85-b57a2a450558&pd_rd_w=Xm51u&pd_rd_wg=FPpDy&pf_rd_p=7e064437-af76-4a47-8aae-7f4fb5fc88c6&pf_rd_r=MQEJ7ECCSB4BQW4GQFKT&psc=1&refRID=MQEJ7ECCSB4BQW4GQFKT

Thank you Myster. Judging from the comments on here about the dramatisation, I will swerve it until it either appears on Danish TV or in a bargain bucket in some dreadful pound shop.

At least even they managed to arrive at the correct conclusion of events.

[mrswah]

I caught up with Episode 4 last night. IMO, very good acting, and good photography, but I don't know the details of the case well enough to always know what is true and what is "drama".

I am unlikely to ever form a worthy opinion as to whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, as , unlike some of you, I am too lazy and uninterested to get involved with ballistics evidence (I have never even seen a loaded gun, to be honest). I am more interested in the characters. Jeremy comes across as a somewhat objectionable young man, IMO. Certainly not the sort of person I would have wanted as a boyfriend, however good looking he might have been!  Trouble is (and also  my opinion), some of the other characters come across as objectionable too. Had better not mention names.

The series (I assume) aims to portray a guilty Jeremy. For me, it doesn't necessarily, nor does it make me think he is definitely innocent. it just makes me ask more questions. Oh well, I'm doing plenty of background reading, so at least I am learning something.

[steve_trousers]

Good morning Mrs Wah.

Please see attached link to the full court transcript from 1986, for your perusal. It contains everything you need to know about the case unlike independent books which often have their own agenda.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[mrswah]

Good morning Mrs Wah.

Please see attached link to the full court transcript from 1986, for your perusal. It contains everything you need to know about the case unlike independent books which often have their own agenda.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Thank you very much Steve. I have to say that some of my fellow posters have been very helpful to me!

[steve_trousers]

No bother Mrs wah, here is another link to an excellent article by someone who was drawn to the case looking for a miscarriage of justice, only to become resolutely convinced of his guilt.

The original article is 10 years old and has been taken down now so I post a link to the page from this site where somebody has cut and pasted it in it's entirety (over several posts)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0

[Caroline]

Good morning Mrs Wah.

Please see attached link to the full court transcript from 1986, for your perusal. It contains everything you need to know about the case unlike independent books which often have their own agenda.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Hi Steve T, that actually the 2002 appeal transcript. Don't think there is a full transcript of the trial available.

[Holly Goodhead]

"All we have" is all we needed. Namely an officer unmarked at the back stick to nod home the late winner.

I'm sorry but I can't see that Jones has done much wrong, forgot to bring an evidence bag and had a wee dram with Pete Eaton - they were all at it in 1985
There must be more chance of a JM recant than any new forensic evidence that will overturn the conviction.

Yes it was all the prosecution needed to nod home the late winner but many question whether the hand of God featured.

JB was convicted based on 20th century policing and forensics.  Science and technology has moved on leaps and bounds both of which will assist JB in a successful 3rd appeal. 

[mrswah]

Hi Steve T, that actually the 2002 appeal transcript. Don't think there is a full transcript of the trial available.

It is indeed-----but its very interesting!

[Myster]

Yet another interview with Freddie Fox and Mark Addy... http://dramaquarterly.com/beyond-the-headlines/

[Holly Goodhead]

I caught up with Episode 4 last night. IMO, very good acting, and good photography, but I don't know the details of the case well enough to always know what is true and what is "drama".

I am unlikely to ever form a worthy opinion as to whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, as , unlike some of you, I am too lazy and uninterested to get involved with ballistics evidence (I have never even seen a loaded gun, to be honest). I am more interested in the characters. Jeremy comes across as a somewhat objectionable young man, IMO. Certainly not the sort of person I would have wanted as a boyfriend, however good looking he might have been!  Trouble is (and also  my opinion), some of the other characters come across as objectionable too. Had better not mention names.

The series (I assume) aims to portray a guilty Jeremy. For me, it doesn't necessarily, nor does it make me think he is definitely innocent. it just makes me ask more questions. Oh well, I'm doing plenty of background reading, so at least I am learning something.

JB's conviction is undoubtedly underpinned by the blood/silencer evidence.  I would day 95% plus of what is discussed here and elsewhere is irrelevant albeit many find it interesting. 

[steve_trousers]

Yes it was all the prosecution needed to nod home the late winner but many question whether the hand of God featured.

JB was convicted based on 20th century policing and forensics.  Science and technology has moved on leaps and bounds both of which will assist JB in a successful 3rd appeal.

Many would argue that VAR is a step backward, not forwards and has ruined the essence of the game. Surely the hand of god has more chance of being overturned 34 years later than DS Jones' late winner

His latest attempt at an appeal was thrown out as recently as 2012. Anything new that came to light could more easily shore up the safety of the conviction rather than cast doubt on it.

[Nicholas]

White House Farm highlights the *other* crime taking place

“Jeremy Bamber was not involved in the making of White House Farm and he has branded it a disgrace. But in the series, which is "based on extensive research, interviews and published accounts", what we get is a portrait of coercive control.

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a30712041/white-house-farm-tv-murders-julie-mugford/

‘Sally killed Richard in 2010 after years of being controlled and humiliated by him. At the time of her conviction, ‘coercive control’ was not a crime in England and Wales,  only becoming recognised in law as a form of domestic abuse in 2015. Coercive control is a way of understanding domestic violence which foregrounds the psychological abuse and can involve manipulation, degradation, gaslighting (using mind games to make the other person doubt their sanity) and generally monitoring and controlling the person’s day-to-day life such as their friends, activities and clothing. This often leads to the abused becoming isolated and dependent on the abuser. It was dramatised very well in Helen’s storyline in Radio 4’s The Archer’s back in 2016.
https://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/sally-challen-appeal

Bamber, through some of his supporters and his CT, has demonstrated how he uses ‘coercive control’ to get people to do what he wants

Trudi Benjamin at the graveside is one example https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472521/Mass-murder-Jeremy-Bamber-sends-supporter-read-bizarre-rant-grave-parents-killed-blaming-sister-murdered-mass-killing.html

When Adrian Prouts guilt was exposed I made the same mistake people like Trudi Benjamin are making; I (wrongly) directed my annoyance at Debbie Garlick.

[mrswah]

JB's conviction is undoubtedly underpinned by the blood/silencer evidence.  I would day 95% plus of what is discussed here and elsewhere is irrelevant albeit many find it interesting.

I bet Julie's testimony influenced the jury too-------rightly or wrongly.

What I do wonder about is this: there were two people who could have committed the murders. If Jeremy did it, it was down to wickedness and greed. If Sheila did it,  it was because she was very ill, and therefore, she cannot really be blamed.  I think that in a crime as ghastly as this one, people would want to see somebody actually brought to justice. I wonder how much this affected how the police, the relatives and friends, the jury etc viewed Jeremy , whose behaviour after the murders certainly did him no favours, and who appeared to be a rather unpleasant young man (IMO, anyway).  Just a thought.

This must have been a particularly unusual and appalling crime for EP to deal with, and I find it difficult to believe they messed it up. I would have thought they would have taken extra care, but who knows------.

Off out tonight---and NOT to celebrate Brexit!