The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[David1819]

Seems that David is on his own. Saying the relatives fabricated the silencer and the police were not involved in the frame.

No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.

[Adam]

No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.

Really? NGB, please elaborate.

[Roch]

No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.

Sound moderator aside, If Sheila committed the killings, there would have been a tonne of evidence to suggest she did. There had to be, because she was / would have been responsible, therefore her involvement would have been plain to see / detect / record / discuss etc. Do you honestly believe Sheila killed four individuals without leaving a trace of her own involvement? No clue, no pointers, nothing?

How is it possible for a new case head, to then oversee the prosecutuon of Bamber from the ground up, without having any fore-knowledge of or access to the above data / evidence?   It is not possible.

It is therefore not possible for Ainsley to have NOT been involved in deliberate wrongdoing.

[guest29835]

No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.

He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.

[guest29835]

Sound moderator aside, If Sheila committed the killings, there would have been a tonne of evidence to suggest she did. There had to be, because she was / would have been responsible, therefore her involvement would have been plain to see / detect / record / discuss etc. Do you honestly believe Sheila killed four individuals without leaving a trace of her own involvement? No clue, no pointers, nothing?

How is it possible for a new case head, to then oversee the prosecutuon of Bamber from the ground up, without having any fore-knowledge of or access to the above data / evidence?   It is not possible.

It is therefore not possible for Ainsley to have NOT been involved in deliberate wrongdoing.

I don't believe that logically follows.  This whole case is basically about how different people interpret the same evidence. 

[guest7363]

Ainsley and Stan Jones were comfortable with portraying Jeremy in a bad light, regardless of accuracy. The relatives were comfortable in going along with that.

Well he had the baggage to go with it!  My only regret this thief, druggy,  greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?

It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family!  It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!

[JackieD]

Well he had the baggage to go with it!  My only regret this thief, druggy,  greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?

It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family!  It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!

In your opinion that counts for what exactly???

Let’s deal with the elephant in the room

You obviously appear to know what is in the 340,000 withheld documents which have clearly been withhold to distort the facts in the case or can you come up with any possible excuse

What has come across clearly numerous times on this forum was that the relatives were obsessed by the thought of Jeremy getting his inheritance and they are seen as money grabbing and greedy

RJ is this conviction is overturned there will be a focus on ‘the silencer’ and who found it in every film and tv series

[Roch]

I don't believe that logically follows.  This whole case is basically about how different people interpret the same evidence.

The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?

[JackieD]

The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?

Exactly

[Adam]

He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.

What mistake? They found a silencer and handed it in.

[Roch]

He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.

Scott Lomax worded his book cautiously. So much so that he drew some ire from one or two of the more hardcore supporters hovering around the CT.

[Roch]

Well he had the baggage to go with it!  My only regret this thief, druggy,  greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?

It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family!  It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!

He may have had some baggage. Without it, I'm not sure he would have been framed. In other words, I think his baggage became a contributing factor.

I'm in the camp that believes his conviction was brought about by the suppression of evidence implicating his sister.  For me, that suppression renders his conviction worthless.

[guest29835]

Scott Lomax worded his book cautiously. So much so that he drew some ire from one or two of the more hardcore supporters hovering around the CT.

I agree that the book comes across as him having one eye on defamation law.  Even so, I can only go on what he says.

The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?

But you don't know what, if any, other evidence was available to Ainsley.  I'm sure he did see things that nobody outside the police (and others closely-connected to the incident) saw, but it's just an assumption to say that it is of any relevance.

[guest29835]

What mistake? They found a silencer and handed it in.

I didn't know that.  Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

I didn't know that.  Thanks Adam.

Answer the question if you have an answer.

Thanks QC.