White House Farm - ITV Drama Series - Part 4

[mrswah]

You mean I'm the only one who posts here believing JB innocent?   If so how can this be used to accurately gauge the level of support for JB against the population at large?

Despite the current TV series I doubt the population at large is interested in JB's case to the extent a) they hold strong views either way and b) if they did most are unlikely to want to spend much time on an Internet forum debating the case.

Afaik his CT and all those who tweet on his behalf are not active on forums.

The % of people with even a passing interest in JB is virtually non-existent.

From reading around (Facebook pages, other forums, responses to reviews about the TV series) it seems that a good number of people are watching the TV series, and this includes some who don't remember the massacre.

This forum does not appear to be representative of how people feel: a lot of people are "on the fence" like me, a minority think JB is innocent (but a larger minority than you would think), although it is true that most think he is guilty.  Even among those, there are a fair number who think JB may not have had a fair trial.

[Caroline]

Well let's just say I can't see the defence calling me as an expert witness at JB's 3rd appeal but I can see experts reconstructing the soc along the lines I have.

I've never said a soc reconstruction will show who fired the weapon but what it will do is show where victims were when they sustained gunshot wounds and where the perp was when he/she fired the weapon.

At JB's trial the court was told none of the 3 adult victims sustained gsw's outside the bedroom.  This is wrong.  NB did not sustain any gsw's in the bedroom and Afaik this has always been your position?

At the 2002 appeal MT QC argued that DCI Ainsley used the kitchen phone to dial out and in doing so inadvertently removed blood from the phone.  This is clearly nonsense but more importantly shows JB's own lawyers were not up to speed with the soc.  If this is the extent of your legal representation then what hope for the defendent?

It was important for the whole court at trial to understand who was shot where and the position of perp when the weapon was fired.  As it was the court was left asking the obvious questions: how could NB have called JB when the pathologist said he was incapable of purposeful speech after the gunshot wounds sustained upstairs and given the pathologist said these wounds produced heavy blood loss internally and externally then where were the blood stains on the phone?   Had a reconstruction been carried out as the vid I posted earlier re farmer Tony Martin it would show NB's facial wounds were inflicted as he stood on the landing stairs with the perp stood inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing and this puts a whole different complexion on the claimed phone call.

Yes, it has always been my position, once I understood about the case. However, I don't see how that would form part of an appeal because it doesn't render the case unsafe and it doesn't point to Nevill having called Jeremy. He quite easily could have called Jeremy before anyone (including himself) was shot and that's always been the case.   I don't think it was denied that Jeremy COULD have received a call, just that it was unlikely and no matter where Nevill was when he was shot, it's still unlikely.

[Caroline]

From reading around (Facebook pages, other forums, responses to reviews about the TV series) it seems that a good number of people are watching the TV series, and this includes some who don't remember the massacre.

This forum does not appear to be representative of how people feel: a lot of people are "on the fence" like me, a minority think JB is innocent (but a larger minority than you would think), although it is true that most think he is guilty.  Even among those, there are a fair number who think JB may not have had a fair trial.

I don't think social media pages are a good representation of the population. The Taback thread is testament to that.

[steve_trousers]

Compared to say 10-15 years ago, the golden age of free Bamber, I do reckon there has been a tangible shift in favour of his guilt, at least in my experience on various forums. Most of the apparently good, sensible posters abandoned him eventually.
His celebrity backers for the most part keep quiet about him now, he seems to have lost his 5th beatle status as a poster boy of miscarriage of justice that he kind of inherited for a while after Hanratty was proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by DNA (very interesting case by the way)

[mrswah]

I don't think social media pages are a good representation of the population. The Taback thread is testament to that.

 I would say that people who follow true crime cases and who are interested in MOJ's are not a good representation of the population! 

[Miss Taken Identity]

JB didn't say he hung up. He said the line went dead so he then attempted to reconnect with his father and the line was engaged.

I know I am being pedantic. But the phone call is an important part of the investigation.imo

Land lines in 1984  would have details of calls in the billing statement.

It seems a bit far fetched for a phone call to be abruptly ended from JB's side with no explanation, It would have had to be hung up if, when redialing the other phone, it means the person was still on a call- hence the engaged tone.

IF we are to believe that NB hung up- then the line would not be engaged when JB 'tried ' to call back for more details?

... how much more details would you need if someone calls you to say  someone has gone nuts  -has the gun?

I doubt very much that NB would call his son if he was terrified for his and his family's safety. He would have dialed police directly on 999.  Why waste a phone call to son? what was he expected to do anyway?


I stand by my claim there was no phone call from NB to JB.

[John]

Yes there's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that JB is innocent.  Much of what is posted here is subjective eg JM's testimony or views on JB's character.

I am shocked you still hold such a firm belief Holly given that only Jeremy Bamber had the inside knowledge and wherewithal, the skill and physical strength to have carried out these murders. There isn't a single scrap of exculpatory evidence despite the passage of almost 35 years. Don't you think that just a teensy weensy bit odd?

[steve_trousers]

I know I am being pedantic. But the phone call is an important part of the investigation.imo

Land lines in 1984  would have details of calls in the billing statement.

It seems a bit far fetched for a phone call to be abruptly ended from JB's side with no explanation, It would have had to be hung up if, when redialing the other phone, it means the person was still on a call- hence the engaged tone.

IF we are to believe that NB hung up- then the line would not be engaged when JB 'tried ' to call back for more details?

... how much more details would you need if someone calls you to say  someone has gone nuts  -has the gun?

I doubt very much that NB would call his son if he was terrified for his and his family's safety. He would have dialed police directly on 999.  Why waste a phone call to son? what was he expected to do anyway?


I stand by my claim there was no phone call from NB to JB.

The idea of Nevill calling his drug taking, playboy son for help in the middle of the night is risible in the first place.
He told Barbara Wilson he feared him and was "capable of anything"

[John]

The idea of Nevill calling his drug taking, playboy son for help in the middle of the night is risible in the first place.
He told Barbara Wilson he feared him and was "capable of anything"

Exactly, not many people came forward to refer to him as 'such a nice boy'.

[Caroline]

I know I am being pedantic. But the phone call is an important part of the investigation.imo

Land lines in 1984  would have details of calls in the billing statement.

It seems a bit far fetched for a phone call to be abruptly ended from JB's side with no explanation, It would have had to be hung up if, when redialing the other phone, it means the person was still on a call- hence the engaged tone.

IF we are to believe that NB hung up- then the line would not be engaged when JB 'tried ' to call back for more details?

... how much more details would you need if someone calls you to say  someone has gone nuts  -has the gun?

I doubt very much that NB would call his son if he was terrified for his and his family's safety. He would have dialed police directly on 999.  Why waste a phone call to son? what was he expected to do anyway?


I stand by my claim there was no phone call from NB to JB.

I'll second that!

[Caroline]

I would say that people who follow true crime cases and who are interested in MOJ's are not a good representation of the population!

Yes, I agree with that. I guess we could be described as 'murder nurds'    - although this is really the only case I follow.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Exactly, not many people came forward to refer to him as 'such a nice boy'.

Indeed, and I think he really did send JM into a real tailspin of emotions with his behavior after the murders. She must have noticed how unaffected he was and couldn't actually believe it.  That is  probably why she came forward.

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree, most people I know either have a buage recollection of the murders or have never heard of him at all. Outside of the forum, I don't discuss it.

Yes it's an esoteric hobby alright!

[Holly Goodhead]

Any new theory in relation to the physical evidence is up for conjecture and can be interpreted in different ways. You won't get past the CCRC. You conveniently ignore the veritable mountain of other facts which shore up the safety of his conviction. All of which have been discussed previously not only on this forum but this very thread.

Bamber insisted on burning the carpets, once the police told him they had all of evidential value for the trial. Personally if I was innocent and possessed a farm the size of a small country I would have retained them somewhere, particularly in light of the bungled police investigation.

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes, it has always been my position, once I understood about the case. However, I don't see how that would form part of an appeal because it doesn't render the case unsafe and it doesn't point to Nevill having called Jeremy. He quite easily could have called Jeremy before anyone (including himself) was shot and that's always been the case.   I don't think it was denied that Jeremy COULD have received a call, just that it was unlikely and no matter where Nevill was when he was shot, it's still unlikely.

I agree a soc reconstruction is unlikely as a stand alone to meet CCRC criteria for a referral but it will be an extremely strong add-on.  As I said above a third appeal needs the wow factor to undermine the blood/silencer irrefutably which requires private funding.  Once the CCRC refer the case to Coa JB becomes eligible for legal aid to cover a range of other tests incl a soc reconstruction which supports a call from NB.