White House Farm - ITV Drama Series - Part 4

[Myster]

The new tests are not up for conjecture they're irrefutable based on establish branches of science: biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics.

The CCRC will refer the case to the Coa if it thinks the new evidence is capable of undermining his conviction.

What verifiable mountain of evidence are you referring to?  The CCRC needs the wow factor to feel confident to pass to CoA as it did in 2002 with the blood/silencer.  This will then pave the way for all the add-ons eg soc reconstruction.

JB did not insist any carpets were burned.  It was DS Jones that asked JB to agree to the destruction of certain items.

Too much reliance on excessive scientific theorising which can easily be challenged and refuted, I'm afraid, and not enough on common sense.  The casing positions and bullet trajectories being cases in point, open to various interpretations and highly unlikely to bear the results you wish for.  The original 1985 investigation findings will still stand; that both parents were in bed and awakened by an intruder entering their room and Nevill wasn't downstairs at 3am in his favourite chair reading the Farmer's Guardian.  I dread to think how much money you're wasting... that is if you are actually funding any fruitless exercise and not just playing call my bluff.

[mrswah]

What's the definition of nice?  Does it matter when looking at the evidence?  How would any of us know about his true character unless we spent time with him?

According to my English teacher (1970s), the real definition of the word "nice " is "correct", so obviously, I'm using it incorrectly! (Funny how some things teachers say stick in one's mind many years later).

You are right that we can't really know someone without spending time with them (and I've no interest in getting to know JB, as he won't be the person he was in 1985). And I also agree that the evidence is what is important, not what sort of a person he was.

But, it seems, he was a liar and a thief , stealing from his own family's business. He was also unfaithful to his girlfriend, and liked to use money to show off.  So, in my book, not a particularly pleasant person, although this does not necessarily mean he committed the murders.

[mrswah]

By calling JB it was getting him in the loop  placing him in harms way and wasting valuable time- the emergency police wouldn't know how to get to the farm?- so how did they find out how to get there?  * can't stop laughing at this bit*
 
"Evidence exists the farm was growing opium poppies which no-one can account for."  was this the parents/family you think and not poor JB? What about the bit of bother JB got into down under? and the stolen money from the Cpark?

Was the tel engineer for the defence?


You could get itemised bill from BT in 1984 my parents still have some for tax purposes.

I have done that experiment I called my friend on land line then cut off- they tried to call me  back and it wasn't engaged - it rang!    We did it the other way- I phoned him- he cut me off then tried to phone me and it was engaged as I hadn't hung up.  If the phone at WHF was used it was used by JB as a tactical ploy when he was there with the murdered family- IMO.

Re the opium poppies, I read somewhere (and I cannot remember where, nor can I find a reference to it, having looked), that Nevill had a licence for growing these, for the purpose of selling them to the pharmaceutical industry.  Can't say whether this is true or hearsay, I'm afraid.

[steve_trousers]

The new tests are not up for conjecture they're irrefutable based on establish branches of science: biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics.

The CCRC will refer the case to the Coa if it thinks the new evidence is capable of undermining his conviction.

What verifiable mountain of evidence are you referring to?  The CCRC needs the wow factor to feel confident to pass to CoA as it did in 2002 with the blood/silencer.  This will then pave the way for all the add-ons eg soc reconstruction.

JB did not insist any carpets were burned.  It was DS Jones that asked JB to agree to the destruction of certain items.

The new tests will be a complete waste of time, sad, pointless and risible. Those "same established branches of science" will simply produce another test showing that you can come to a different conclusion. It will never get past the CCRC.

DS Jones did not ask JB to agree to burn his own carpet. He informed him they were finished with them. JB's own decision to burn the carpet.

 

[steve_trousers]

What's the definition of nice?  Does it matter when looking at the evidence?  How would any of us know about his true character unless we spent time with him?

Of course we can learn something about his character from the dozens of contemporary witness statements about him as well as his own. For example we know he ripped off his parents caravan park, what conclusions can we draw from that? nice lad eh

[steve_trousers]

Re the opium poppies, I read somewhere (and I cannot remember where, nor can I find a reference to it, having looked), that Nevill had a licence for growing these, for the purpose of selling them to the pharmaceutical industry.  Can't say whether this is true or hearsay, I'm afraid.

Yes that is true, it's in one of the books.  Noted with amusement the way Holly hinted at Nevill being some kind of drug kingpin - "no-one can account for"

[Angelo222]

Too much reliance on excessive scientific theorising which can easily be challenged and refuted, I'm afraid, and not enough on common sense.  The casing positions and bullet trajectories being cases in point, open to various interpretations and highly unlikely to bear the results you wish for.  The original 1985 investigation findings will still stand; that both parents were in bed and awakened by an intruder entering their room and Nevill wasn't downstairs at 3am in his favourite chair reading the Farmer's Guardian.  I dread to think how much money you're wasting... that is if you are actually funding any fruitless exercise and not just playing call my bluff.

I agree, ballistics testing will not prove anything one way or another. But then it's all about keeping Bamber in the public eye because that it what he feeds on. He will never be freed and rightly so imo. He should come out of prison in a box and be cremated.

[Angelo222]

According to my English teacher (1970s), the real definition of the word "nice " is "correct", so obviously, I'm using it incorrectly! (Funny how some things teachers say stick in one's mind many years later).

You are right that we can't really know someone without spending time with them (and I've no interest in getting to know JB, as he won't be the person he was in 1985). And I also agree that the evidence is what is important, not what sort of a person he was.

But, it seems, he was a liar and a thief , stealing from his own family's business. He was also unfaithful to his girlfriend, and liked to use money to show off.  So, in my book, not a particularly pleasant person, although this does not necessarily mean he committed the murders.

There are a number of forum members who knew Bamber very well and who no longer believe him. That says it all imo.

[Holly Goodhead]

But why do you disagree Holly?

Blood/silencer

All my research (written material from highly qualified experts in US) leads me to conclude the little known phenomenon referred to as 'drawback' would not present the way in which the prosecution claimed it did.

Email communication I have exchanged with US experts, including arguably the world's leading authority on blood serology, conflict with what has been claimed by the prosecution with regard to the blood flake in the silencer.

Scene of crime reconstruction

To date this hasn't been carried out.  Based on evidence provided by Dr Vanezis and others and then simply connecting it up NB did not sustain any gsw's in the bedroom.  All the physical evidence by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories, wound tracks shows the perp opened fire on June whilst she was lying in bed; NB 
then sustained his facial wounds on the landing as he was facing the bedroom with the perp just inside the bedroom shooting out onto the landing.

Lack of debris on SC's hands/nightdress

I think SC's found state is consistent with her as perp.  Tests for GSR did not take place.  The test for lead was unscientific.

I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag:
- the process was simple and easy to execute
- my hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye
- I did not damage any nails in the process
- the only established forensic test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for the presence of GSR (which wasn't carried out) and yet in this case the court was told the presence of gun oil would be expected on SC's nightdress.

SC's Found Position

First respondent A/PS Woodcock refers to SC's head wedged against the bedside cabinet.  Soc images were taken some 4 hours later which show her head flat to the ground.  How did this come about if she wasn't moved.?  In fact it supports Dr Ismail's testimony that SC was moved at soc but this was post firearms entering and pre soc images taken.

Unfair trial/poor legal representation

A reconstruction of the shooting should have taken place to show exactly where the victims were shot and position of shooter.

Jurors and judge needed to attend WHF to see the above for themselves along with how JB was supposed to have entered and exited any windows.  If it was possible to slam shut a window into the closed position from outside let jurors and judge see for themselves.

Rivlin's strategy of accepting the silencer was used but that the blood flake represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood with SC deciding to return the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life doesn't hold up.

Lawson did not challenge Fletcher when asked if any of the adult victims sustained upstairs gunshot wounds outside the bedroom.  When Fletcher said no he simply accepted this.

Malcom Fletcher

Most of the evidence used to convict JB was based on Fletcher's evidence.  At trial he told the court he had a few years experience in the firearms dept and a small amount of experience with a rifle as a small boy.  There's no evidence this individual was appropriately qualified to provide reliable testimony to the court.

And there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever JB's conviction will eventually be overturned based on new forensic tests.

[Holly Goodhead]

Blood/silencer

All my research (written material from highly qualified experts in US) leads me to conclude the little known phenomenon referred to as 'drawback' would not present the way in which the prosecution claimed it did.

Email communication I have exchanged with US experts, including arguably the world's leading authority on blood serology, conflict with what has been claimed by the prosecution with regard to the blood flake in the silencer.

Scene of crime reconstruction

To date this hasn't been carried out.  Based on evidence provided by Dr Vanezis and others and then simply connecting it up NB did not sustain any gsw's in the bedroom.  All the physical evidence by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories, wound tracks shows the perp opened fire on June whilst she was lying in bed; NB 
then sustained his facial wounds on the landing as he was facing the bedroom with the perp just inside the bedroom shooting out onto the landing.

Lack of debris on SC's hands/nightdress

I think SC's found state is consistent with her as perp.  Tests for GSR did not take place.  The test for lead was unscientific.

I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag:
- the process was simple and easy to execute
- my hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye
- I did not damage any nails in the process
- the only established forensic test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for the presence of GSR (which wasn't carried out) and yet in this case the court was told the presence of gun oil would be expected on SC's nightdress.

SC's Found Position

First respondent A/PS Woodcock refers to SC's head wedged against the bedside cabinet.  Soc images were taken some 4 hours later which show her head flat to the ground.  How did this come about if she wasn't moved.?  In fact it supports Dr Ismail's testimony that SC was moved at soc but this was post firearms entering and pre soc images taken.

Unfair trial/poor legal representation

A reconstruction of the shooting should have taken place to show exactly where the victims were shot and position of shooter.

Jurors and judge needed to attend WHF to see the above for themselves along with how JB was supposed to have entered and exited any windows.  If it was possible to slam shut a window into the closed position from outside let jurors and judge see for themselves.

Rivlin's strategy of accepting the silencer was used but that the blood flake represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood with SC deciding to return the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life doesn't hold up.

Lawson did not challenge Fletcher when asked if any of the adult victims sustained upstairs gunshot wounds outside the bedroom.  When Fletcher said no he simply accepted this.

Malcom Fletcher

Most of the evidence used to convict JB was based on Fletcher's evidence.  At trial he told the court he had a few years experience in the firearms dept and a small amount of experience with a rifle as a small boy.  There's no evidence this individual was appropriately qualified to provide reliable testimony to the court.

And there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever JB's conviction will eventually be overturned based on new forensic tests.

PS

Blood stained bible

All blood stained exhibits were collected by soc officers, given an exhibit number and bagged up for forensics which included the bible.  Biologists John Haywood and Glynis Howard carried out testing on all blood stained exhibits but for some unknown reason test results for the Bible remain unknown. 

[Caroline]

Blood/silencer

All my research (written material from highly qualified experts in US) leads me to conclude the little known phenomenon referred to as 'drawback' would not present the way in which the prosecution claimed it did.

Email communication I have exchanged with US experts, including arguably the world's leading authority on blood serology, conflict with what has been claimed by the prosecution with regard to the blood flake in the silencer.

Scene of crime reconstruction

To date this hasn't been carried out.  Based on evidence provided by Dr Vanezis and others and then simply connecting it up NB did not sustain any gsw's in the bedroom.  All the physical evidence by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories, wound tracks shows the perp opened fire on June whilst she was lying in bed; NB 
then sustained his facial wounds on the landing as he was facing the bedroom with the perp just inside the bedroom shooting out onto the landing.

Lack of debris on SC's hands/nightdress

I think SC's found state is consistent with her as perp.  Tests for GSR did not take place.  The test for lead was unscientific.

I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag:
- the process was simple and easy to execute
- my hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye
- I did not damage any nails in the process
- the only established forensic test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for the presence of GSR (which wasn't carried out) and yet in this case the court was told the presence of gun oil would be expected on SC's nightdress.

SC's Found Position

First respondent A/PS Woodcock refers to SC's head wedged against the bedside cabinet.  Soc images were taken some 4 hours later which show her head flat to the ground.  How did this come about if she wasn't moved.?  In fact it supports Dr Ismail's testimony that SC was moved at soc but this was post firearms entering and pre soc images taken.

Unfair trial/poor legal representation

A reconstruction of the shooting should have taken place to show exactly where the victims were shot and position of shooter.

Jurors and judge needed to attend WHF to see the above for themselves along with how JB was supposed to have entered and exited any windows.  If it was possible to slam shut a window into the closed position from outside let jurors and judge see for themselves.

Rivlin's strategy of accepting the silencer was used but that the blood flake represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood with SC deciding to return the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life doesn't hold up.

Lawson did not challenge Fletcher when asked if any of the adult victims sustained upstairs gunshot wounds outside the bedroom.  When Fletcher said no he simply accepted this.

Malcom Fletcher

Most of the evidence used to convict JB was based on Fletcher's evidence.  At trial he told the court he had a few years experience in the firearms dept and a small amount of experience with a rifle as a small boy.  There's no evidence this individual was appropriately qualified to provide reliable testimony to the court.

And there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever JB's conviction will eventually be overturned based on new forensic tests.

I could load thr magazine now, because I have seen it done due to my interest on here. I could probably fit it to a rifle and chamber the first shot for the same reasons. However, without any f that knowledge, I would struggle and defo not kow that you need to chamber the first shell - add to that a psychotic attack and you can forget the whole thing. How many times did you load the magazine and were they tested for GSR?

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course they can!  Bamber said they had a special licence to grow them.... his pet project as a step up from weed.

NB had ultimate responsibility for anything grown at WHF.

We've covered this numerous times.  The UK gov has never granted licences to UK farmers to grow opium poppies.  It is the pharma company that is granted the licence to manufacture opoids.  The pharma company then contracts with the farmer.

[Caroline]

NB had ultimate responsibility for anything grown at WHF.

We've covered this numerous times.  The UK gov has never granted licences to UK farmers to grow opium poppies.  It is the pharma company that is granted the licence to manufacture opoids.  The pharma company then contracts with the farmer.

Either way, they had premission.

[Holly Goodhead]

Too much reliance on excessive scientific theorising which can easily be challenged and refuted, I'm afraid, and not enough on common sense.  The casing positions and bullet trajectories being cases in point, open to various interpretations and highly unlikely to bear the results you wish for.  The original 1985 investigation findings will still stand; that both parents were in bed and awakened by an intruder entering their room and Nevill wasn't downstairs at 3am in his favourite chair reading the Farmer's Guardian.  I dread to think how much money you're wasting... that is if you are actually funding any fruitless exercise and not just playing call my bluff.

A reconstruction will stand up to scrutiny the same way it did in the case of Tony Martin at 46 mind in:

https://youtu.be/BemcOAg53eM

The silencer/blood are the only tests that require private funding.  Once a referral is made to Coa JB becomes eligible for legal aid for further tests so in effect you and others here as taxpayers will be funding it 

[Caroline]

A reconstruction will stand up to scrutiny the same way it did in the case of Tony Martin at 46 mind in:

https://youtu.be/BemcOAg53eM

The silencer/blood are the only tests that require private funding.  Once a referral is made to Coa JB becomes eligible for legal aid for further tests so in effect you and others here as taxpayers will be funding it 

Tony Martin case is different, they had witness's as to what happened - Martin and the prep that survived, there were none in the Bamber case so it's always going to be a best guess.