Author Topic: Introduction and new podcast  (Read 4364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KayPage1990

Introduction and new podcast
« on: April 21, 2021, 08:45:53 AM »
Hey everyone,

I've been an inactive member of this forum for a while now but have been in the shadows because I was in the process of producing my podcast.

But I thought that I would pop in to introduce myself and to tell you a bit about the podcast itself.

I'm Kay, I'm from the valleys in South Wales and I have been interested in Jeremy Bamber's case for years. I started the podcast following the ITV drama because I've always believed he was innocent and I, in essence, wanted to show my search for validation of that.

It's taken me over a year to finalise everything because I wanted it to be thorough and during the process I've interviewed a number of people. These have included Brett Collins, Chris Bews, Terry Mullins, Andy from Gunfire Grafiti, the campaign team, and other leading experts.

I really want to ensure that long-standing followers of the case are also including and so at some point, I will be hoping to offer some more involvement on that front.

Yesterday I published the first interview, that with Brett Collins and I'll pop a link here for you. I am building a website with all my sources, etc and will ensure that I pop that in here too, once it's live. Here's the RSS link for now.

https://thewhitehousefarmmurders.buzzsprout.com/

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-white-house-farm-murders/id1498375308


Please let me know if you have any questions or anything at all :)


Offline Myster

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2021, 09:34:04 AM »
What happened to your Dropbox transcript files, Kay?
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2021, 09:40:34 AM »
I had an issue with one of the files and when I checked I could see there was a huge issue with both.

Give me half hour to sort it and I'll pop them back up again :)


Offline Caroline

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2021, 02:51:33 PM »
Hey everyone,

I've been an inactive member of this forum for a while now but have been in the shadows because I was in the process of producing my podcast.

But I thought that I would pop in to introduce myself and to tell you a bit about the podcast itself.

I'm Kay, I'm from the valleys in South Wales and I have been interested in Jeremy Bamber's case for years. I started the podcast following the ITV drama because I've always believed he was innocent and I, in essence, wanted to show my search for validation of that.

It's taken me over a year to finalise everything because I wanted it to be thorough and during the process I've interviewed a number of people. These have included Brett Collins, Chris Bews, Terry Mullins, Andy from Gunfire Grafiti, the campaign team, and other leading experts.

I really want to ensure that long-standing followers of the case are also including and so at some point, I will be hoping to offer some more involvement on that front.

Yesterday I published the first interview, that with Brett Collins and I'll pop a link here for you. I am building a website with all my sources, etc and will ensure that I pop that in here too, once it's live. Here's the RSS link for now.

https://thewhitehousefarmmurders.buzzsprout.com/

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-white-house-farm-murders/id1498375308


Please let me know if you have any questions or anything at all :)

Do you still think he's innocent?

Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2021, 02:59:41 PM »
To be honest, I wasn't intending to share my current opinion until the final episode :p But I think as the series goes on it'll be kind of clear how I now feel  8((()*/


Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2021, 03:06:56 PM »
I'm editing some of my other interviews over the next few days and I'll pop the transcripts from those in here too

I found Chris Bews to be particularly interesting, he gave me 2 hours of his time and would no doubt talk to me again if I asked. He spoke to me about so many aspects of the case.

I also have an interview with a forensic scientist from America (who a lot of you will have heard of but that's a surprise) and a crime scene staging expert.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 03:53:31 PM by KayPage1990 »

Offline Caroline

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2021, 03:22:56 PM »
To be honest, I wasn't intending to share my current opinion until the final episode :p But I think as the series goes on it'll be kind of clear how I now feel  8((()*/

Sounds like you ran along a similar path to myself.  8((()*/

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2021, 03:40:36 PM »
I found Chris Bews to be particularly interesting, he gave me 2 hours of his time and would no doubt talk to me again if I asked. He spoke to me about so many aspects of the case.

Did you ask Chris Bews about the following?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmlWcVBU4f8
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2021, 03:46:45 PM »
I also have an interview with a leading forensic scientist from America (who a lot of you will have heard of but that's a surprise) and a crime scene staging expert.

Interesting you use the word ‘leading’ - are all the other forensic scientists misleading?  8(0(* 8((()*/

Have you interviewed John M Collins?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 03:56:26 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2021, 03:55:52 PM »
I didn't mean it like that. To be honest it was the wrong word to use. Experienced would have been better.

I did, I had a really thorough conversation with Chris Bews about this and while I know his story has changed slightly over the years, the essence of it was much the same. He was really helpful and explained everything well. Including his experience with Taff Jones.

That's next weeks episode  ?{)(**

And no, not yet. Working on it and still have 4/5 other interviews coming up.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2021, 03:58:21 PM »
I didn't mean it like that. To be honest it was the wrong word to use. Experienced would have been better.

Is the forensic scientist you’ve interviewed well known?

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2021, 04:01:19 PM »
Yup he is. He worked on a huge case in the US. It'll be a while before that one goes out yet. But I also have a blood expert who's going to chat with me about general blood forensics.

One is looking at blood patterns and case-specific (case-specific) and the other is more general.


Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2021, 04:12:46 PM »
Did you ask Chris Bews about the following?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmlWcVBU4f8

A couple of comments taken from the above YouTube link from around a year ago - in response to:

What DID Chris Bews say regarding this in his '85 witness statement(s) or court testimony in '86?   From what I understand, I think none of the three - Bews, Myall or Bamber remembered who saw movement at a bedroom window, although the latter pointed out where his parents, sister and nephews slept.  I wouldn't be surprised if Bamber was the originator of this mystery sighting and used it as a scare tactic.  Is it of such importance anyway, as no-one has denied it being anything other than a trick of the light?   Another thing... whilst outside the farm, why did Bamber try to implicate his sister and make her appear highly dangerous by announcing to Bews and Myall that she was a "depressive psychopath" who used to go target shooting with him and that she had used ALL the guns in the house, when on the following day, 8th August in his second w/s he said - " To my knowledge Sheila had never fired the rifle before although she has walked with me on occasions when I have been out shooting"?   Selective memory kicking in methinks, in just one day, not 26 years

Sandra Lean stated 
‘We only have Mr Bews "recollection" on August 16th of what he claimed Jeremy said outside the farmhouse. There's nothing in Jeremy's statement of 7th August that says anything like what you claim here. Also, Mr Bews was clear that he did not make notes at the time, so all of his "spoken word" comments were his "best recollection" of what he claimed was said. The term Jeremy used in his August 7th statement was "paranoid schizophrenic" although he used it only once - the reminder of the statement mentions only "bouts of depression."

As for Mr Bews statements, the first wasn't taken until 11 days later and made no mention of movement in the window or "trick of the light," but I think you may have misunderstood my reason for posting these clips.

It was to highlight how easily claims can be altered, in full view, and these are allowed to slip by without comment. I haven't been involved in the JB campaign - I've been interested in the case since the beginning (1985) but haven't done any deep analysis of the various claims and counterclaims, although I do recognise similarities with many of the cases I have been involved with. My concern is with the truth.

What you quote here is not truthful - you claim Jeremy said things that have only ever been attributed to him by a police officer. You offer opinion as fact - "No one has denied it being anything other than a trick of light" - that is not truthful. I didn't post this clip to make a statement about Jeremy Bamber's innocence, but rather to question why two major films, made in the same year, had the same police officer making two different claims about the same events, one of which was clearly intended to cast doubt on Jeremy Bamber. Only one of those claims is true, so which one was it? And why give two different versions if he is being truthful? Important questions for justice in general I believe.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2021, 04:16:47 PM »

One is looking at blood patterns and case-specific (case-specific) and the other is more general.

Will they also be commenting on the Guardian photos of SC?

or

Did you ask them about the photos? ⬇️

BAMBER LIE 3: The blood from Sheila's wounds were fresh and wet when the police entered the building, therefore she must have died whilst Bamber was outside the house with the police.
   
TRUTH: Whilst the blood from the actual wounds does look fresh and wet, the rest of the blood from the same wounds that had dripped onto Sheila's nightdress, is dark and dry.  These crime scene photos were publicly published during a time (early 2000's) when Bamber was legally represented by Giovanni De Stefano, who is a career criminal currently serving 21 years in prison for a number of frauds committed whilst pretending to be a lawyer. Only Bamber's legal representation can release documents to the public, so it looks like he had the images doctored, and then published them, possibly at Bamber's request. Carol Ann Lee, the author, has confirmed that the wet blood photos have been 'doctored', and has confirmed that the original crime scene photos show dry, cracked blood. 


I know that the above 3 points have been done to death in the past, but they haven't been done to death by the newbies, or casual observers.  So I think they are critical points to make.

There is a 15 minute video made by the Guardian newspaper, and that video contains all of the faked evidence that is very easy to disprove (including the points outlined above), but also, the points covered, creates the most confusion to newbies.

To be honest, you could just go through that Guardian newspaper video and disprove each point that that video makes, and most of the things that tricks people into believing he's innocent will be covered.

The points made in that video also happen to be the points that interest people.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 04:20:56 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation