The Bambers: Murder at the farm - Sky Crime documentary

[Nicholas]

When Bamber & Brett Collins were “monitored’ in St Tropez by the police what were their findings?

And did they take a police witness statement from the women Bamber was said to have had ‘an affair’ with and if so what did it say?

Also what did Virginia and Angela Greaves say about Bamber’s ‘affair’ with this women?

[Nicholas]

Some interesting comments here https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19592419.new-louis-theroux-documentary-jeremy-bambers-guilt/

Also

‘Director Lucy Gammon said:

“This is a really complicated four-episode story.

“Often with a series, each series has a different story and that’s kind of how all series used to be.

“Now, we’re in this world of doing single narrative, which as Louis was saying, is kind of novelistic and it takes a lot of brains to get that right.”

and

‘Theroux, who executive produced the documentary, said:

“What really amazed me was how bizarre almost every version of the story is, and yet one of them, quite evidently, must be true.

“Sheila did have a history of serious mental illness and had expressed confused ideations about possibly doing physical harm to people.

“And at the same time, to believe that she did it, you’d have to believe that in her psychosis she did an almost executioner-style job. Every one of the bullets, there were 20-something shots, hit its target.”

“There are various strange, anomalous factors that mean there are these two camps: the people who believe passionately that Bamber did it, and the people who believe passionately that he didn’t do it

[colsville]

Some interesting comments here https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19592419.new-louis-theroux-documentary-jeremy-bambers-guilt/

Also

‘Director Lucy Gammon said:

“This is a really complicated four-episode story.

“Often with a series, each series has a different story and that’s kind of how all series used to be.

“Now, we’re in this world of doing single narrative, which as Louis was saying, is kind of novelistic and it takes a lot of brains to get that right.”


and

‘Theroux, who executive produced the documentary, said:

“What really amazed me was how bizarre almost every version of the story is, and yet one of them, quite evidently, must be true.

“Sheila did have a history of serious mental illness and had expressed confused ideations about possibly doing physical harm to people.

“And at the same time, to believe that she did it, you’d have to believe that in her psychosis she did an almost executioner-style job. Every one of the bullets, there were 20-something shots, hit its target.”

“There are various strange, anomalous factors that mean there are these two camps: the people who believe passionately that Bamber did it, and the people who believe passionately that he didn’t do it

This is another strange response from Louis Theroux.

He only talks about Sheila and her mental health.

Apart from the tranquilising effect of Haloperidol, she did also suffer symptoms of Parkinson's disease which is a known side effect of Haloperidol in some people. 

It was the Parkinson's symptoms that was partly responsible for making her uncoordinated.  Her reaction to Haloperidol was more complicated than just making her feel a bit sleepy. She had quite an extreme reaction to it.

It's wrong to talk about her mental health without talking about the side effects of the drugs, confirmed by many eye witnesses, and without saying something about Jeremy Bamber.

Obviously the doc will cover all of these things, and Theroux is probably being a bit cantankerous, or having his comments presented out of context.

Maybe he's trying to calm down Bamber supporters knowing that there will be a Tsunami of hate coming from Bamber supporters over the next few weeks.

[Nicholas]

What I mean is that Theroux will give equal weighting to the possibility that Bamber is innocent and the possibility that Sheila is guilty.

It was always my concern that this doc was going to give equal weighting to these alternative scenarios, therefore muddying the waters, rather than clearing things up.

And he would justify it by saying that that is how you create balance.

But that's not how you create balance.  You create balance by looking at and analysing and assessing the evidence from a neutral point of view.  Ofcom rules allow broadcasters to take sides.

This quote from Theroux is the problem:

Theroux says: "Whether you think Jeremy Bamber did it or whether you think Sheila did it, both scenarios have anomalies, or at least require one to accept... surprising and in some cases seemingly anomalous details.

"The journey I went on was hearing something and going 'If Jeremy Bamber did it, how did they explain that?' - or 'If Sheila did it, how would they explain that?'"

In the Sheila is innocent scenario there are no anomalies.  Where are the anomalies?  There is scientific, forensic evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't do it.   There's more evidence today than there was in 1986. You don't have to believe a word Julie Mugford said to see that Sheila is innocent. There are literally no anomalies. There is no contradictory evidence.

All of the other 'smaller' pieces of evidence, like the fight in the kitchen, add credence to the Sheila is innocent scenario because it would be so unlikely that Sheila could have put up such a struggle against her dad and won.

All the evidence supports in a big or small way that Sheila didn't do it.

With the Bamber is guilty scenario, there are also no anomalies.  There is no contradictory evidence that throws a spanner in the works.

With the Bamber is guilty scenario, there is missing evidence because his house wasn't searched and he wasn't examined at the time for injuries of markings on his body. 

The silencer should have been found by the police, but that's not an anomaly, it's not contradictory evidence.  Although it does allow room for Bambers supporters to claim that the blood in the silencer was planted, for which there is no evidence, and planting the blood would also be a very difficult thing to do technically.  In fact, almost impossible. Therefore, no contradiction.

When you stick only to the evidence, there are no anomalies.

For Theroux to say what he did means that he doesn't understand this case, and hasn't properly gone through the actual evidence.

Louis Theroux may have an emotional attachment to Bamber because they are both white middle class, privately educated, well spoken, articulate people of a similar age.  We know Theroux was fooled by Saville in exactly the same way that some Bamber supporters have been fooled by Bamber. Could it happen again?  I believe it's a personality type that allows people to be fooled in this way.  So Theroux may be predisposed to sympathise with Bamber, just as he may have been predisposed to sympathise with Saville.

The only way to defend Theroux is that the quote looks like it originated from an informal spoken interview and sometimes a written down excerpt comes across completely differently to the actual spoken interview.  The quote therefore may be out of context, and also Theroux could have mis spoken the words, saying something that he didn't really mean, that then gets printed slightly out of context.

I hope that's the case.

It could well be Colsville

The more articles one reads on the forthcoming doc the more it seems some journalists may have paraphrased and not made this clear in their own articles

[Nicholas]

This is another strange response from Louis Theroux.

He only talks about Sheila and her mental health.

Apart from the tranquilising effect of Haloperidol, she did also suffer symptoms of Parkinson's disease which is a known side effect of Haloperidol in some people. 

It was the Parkinson's symptoms that was partly responsible for making her uncoordinated.  Her reaction to Haloperidol was more complicated than just making her feel a bit sleepy. She had quite an extreme reaction to it.

It's wrong to talk about her mental health without talking about the side effects of the drugs, confirmed by many eye witnesses, and without saying something about Jeremy Bamber.

Agreed

[Nicholas]

Obviously the doc will cover all of these things, and Theroux is probably being a bit cantankerous, or having his comments presented out of context.

Maybe he's trying to calm down Bamber supporters knowing that there will be a Tsunami of hate coming from Bamber supporters over the next few weeks.

It’s hoped the ‘doc with cover all these things’ although I’m not sure 4 hours will be long enough?

It’s quite possible his comments have been taken out of context and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn some have been

He’s probably used to dealing with the varying types of ‘feedback’ he receives

[Nicholas]

Some interesting comments here https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19592419.new-louis-theroux-documentary-jeremy-bambers-guilt/

Also

‘Director Lucy Gammon said:

“This is a really complicated four-episode story.

“Often with a series, each series has a different story and that’s kind of how all series used to be.

“Now, we’re in this world of doing single narrative, which as Louis was saying, is kind of novelistic and it takes a lot of brains to get that right.”

Does Lottie Gammon (NOT ‘Lucy’ - as printed by the Colchester Gazette/Jessica Day-Parker) mean she has ‘a lot of brains’ or was she referring to more than one person ?

[Nicholas]

His fraudster dad must have been released and given him ideas and a bundle of faked photos.

Annette Newman has asked Louis Theroux direct on Twitter

annette newman
@titchnewman
Replying to
@louistheroux
How did you obtain the crime scene photographs. ?
The real facts and evidence are on the podcasts White House farm Jeremy Bamber. Which prove beyond any doubt Jeremy is innocent
7:44 PM · Sep 14, 2021·Twitter for iPad
https://mobile.twitter.com/titchnewman/status/1437849705480916999

Is she not aware there could be several sources for the distribution of the crime scene photos

Bamber (And anyone he could have chosen to send copies to)
Bamber’s ex CT members?
Andrew Hunter
Mike Teskowski
Giavanni di Stefano (And possibly his son Michael)
Eric Allison
Mark Williams Thomas

Hasn’t Bill Robertson also seen them and passed them round ? Or was that someone else?

[Nicholas]

Is the attached Mindhouse colour pic of Mike Ainsley who appears in the doc?

https://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00005EAyJho0wuc

There’s a thread here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11541.msg595174#msg595174 on Bamber’s further attempts to smear Mick Ainsley

[colsville]

Annette Newman has asked Louis Theroux direct on Twitter

annette newman
@titchnewman
Replying to
@louistheroux
How did you obtain the crime scene photographs. ?
The real facts and evidence are on the podcasts White House farm Jeremy Bamber. Which prove beyond any doubt Jeremy is innocent
7:44 PM · Sep 14, 2021·Twitter for iPad
https://mobile.twitter.com/titchnewman/status/1437849705480916999

Is she not aware there could be several sources for the distribution of the crime scene photos

Bamber (And anyone he could have chosen to send copies to)
Bamber’s ex CT members?
Andrew Hunter
Mike Teskowski
Giavanni di Stefano (And possibly his son Michael)
Eric Allison
Mark Williams Thomas

Hasn’t Bill Robertson also seen them and passed them round ? Or was that someone else?

Carol Ann Lee had access to the photos when she wrote her book, and I think she saw them from people like Mike Ainsley.  I think he may have his own stash of photos. CAL saw the original 'wet blood' images, which she said clearly depicted the blood as dry and cracked.  Other photos have been 'photoshopped' too, according to CAL.

CAL said she decided not to publish any crime scene photos in her book, but she didn't say where those photos would have originated from if she had.  Mike Ainsley may or may not have allowed her to publish the photos he might have in his possession.   

I don't know who annette newman is, but why is she concerned about the photos?  They are all over the internet for anyone to see, all published illegally by the same people criticizing this doc for using the same photos.

I don't particularly want to see crime scene photos,  but Giovanni Di Stefano was happy to show the world Sheila's neck wounds in that 2005 Sky doc.  None of Bambers supporters complained about that.

We know those photos were faked, possibly at the request of GDS himself.  It would be right and proper for this doc to put the record straight on all the instances where Bamber and his lawyers have photoshopped images, in order to enhance his case.

I think that's what Bamber supporters may be worried about. 

[Nicholas]

’Since then, Bamber has been fighting his conviction from prison, maintaining his innocence.’

The above was written by someone called Greta Levy and published by Tyla.com

What it should read is,

‘since then Bamber has refused to admit to his crimes and has been committing innocence fraud ever since

[Nicholas]

Carol Ann Lee had access to the photos when she wrote her book, and I think she saw them from people like Mike Ainsley.  I think he may have his own stash of photos. CAL saw the original 'wet blood' images, which she said clearly depicted the blood as dry and cracked.  Other photos have been 'photoshopped' too, according to CAL.

CAL said she decided not to publish any crime scene photos in her book, but she didn't say where those photos would have originated from if she had.  Mike Ainsley may or may not have allowed her to publish the photos he might have in his possession.   

Did Carol Ann Lee meet with Mick Ainsley, where the original crime scene photographs are kept in storage*, and view the images there?

*I don’t know where the original documents are held - in Essex somewhere?

[Nicholas]

I don't know who annette newman is, but why is she concerned about the photos?  They are all over the internet for anyone to see, all published illegally by the same people criticizing this doc for using the same photos.

Maybe this is something the doc will also highlight ?

[Nicholas]

I don't particularly want to see crime scene photos,  but Giovanni Di Stefano was happy to show the world Sheila's neck wounds in that 2005 Sky doc.  None of Bambers supporters complained about that.

No they didn’t and they still aren’t! 🙄

[Nicholas]

We know those photos were faked, possibly at the request of GDS himself.  It would be right and proper for this doc to put the record straight on all the instances where Bamber and his lawyers have photoshopped images, in order to enhance his case.

I think that's what Bamber supporters may be worried about.

I agree with both your points