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

[guest29835]

Maybe Nevill and June thought Jeremy needed more focus in life. So decided he must drive June to & join her at bible classes for the next 6 mknths.

Thanks Adam.  It could be that Jeremy took a different view of a few of the Bible passages and this is why they came to blows.

[Adam]

Thanks Adam.  It could be that Jeremy took a different view of a few of the Bible passages and this is why they came to blows.

Maybe Nevill banned Jeremy from sitting in the tractor. But told him he must clean it every evening.

[guest29835]

Just the cheque book fraud.

Does anybody else here find that quite interesting?  Julie pays back the bank - supposedly - but doesn't pay back Osea, even though she was just as involved as Jeremy in the latter.  Even if she had made a token payment or tried to pay back half, that would have indicated remorse.

She then receives a pay out from a cheap, scummy newspaper, the News of the World, lies to the court about it in the process despite being a pivotal witness, and thinks it's all behind her and she doesn't have to compensate Osea.

The difference between the two incidents is that in the theft she paid back, she was acting with Susan Battersby, whereas in the Osea theft, she acted with Jeremy.  In both incidents, she was fully culpable, stole out of greed entirely and not for any needful reason, enjoyed the proceeds of her misdeeds, and had no mitigation or excuse whatsoever.  But only one is paid back.  Why?

[guest29835]

Maybe Nevill banned Jeremy from sitting in the tractor. But told him he must clean it every evening.

We know Jeremy liked dressing up as a glam rocker on his tractor.  Stan may have taken offence.  I think Mike may have information.  Another one for the appeal file.  Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

We know Jeremy liked dressing up as a glam rocker on his tractor.  Stan may have taken offence.  I think Mike may have information.  Another one for the appeal file.  Thanks Adam.

So that's how David got his forensic evidence breakthrough.

[Roch]

Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.

[guest7363]

Does anybody else here find that quite interesting?  Julie pays back the bank - supposedly - but doesn't pay back Osea, even though she was just as involved as Jeremy in the latter.  Even if she had made a token payment or tried to pay back half, that would have indicated remorse.

She then receives a pay out from a cheap, scummy newspaper, the News of the World, lies to the court about it in the process despite being a pivotal witness, and thinks it's all behind her and she doesn't have to compensate Osea.

The difference between the two incidents is that in the theft she paid back, she was acting with Susan Battersby, whereas in the Osea theft, she acted with Jeremy.  In both incidents, she was fully culpable, stole out of greed entirely and not for any needful reason, enjoyed the proceeds of her misdeeds, and had no mitigation or excuse whatsoever.  But only one is paid back.  Why?

She was as bad as him and should have faced justice.  There is no coercive control whatsoever from Bamber with Julie, everything she did or knew was her own doing or knowledge.

[guest7363]

Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.

Why Bevan Hurley is from New Zealand and writes for the NZ Sunday News, do you think he’s now part of the orchestrated frame up?  Anyone who ever says anything negative about Bamber is automatically put into this bracket.

[Roch]

Why Bevan Hurley is from New Zealand and writes for the NZ Sunday News, do you think he’s now part of the orchestrated frame up?  Anyone who ever says anything negative about Bamber is automatically put into this bracket.

Hardly a balanced article. It has appeared in the wake of the drama. Why would he suddenly just appear and do that interview.  Let's see how much he got paid snd by who?

[Roch]

Didn't he also bottle one of his TV interviews over here?

[guest29835]

She was as bad as him and should have faced justice.  There is no coercive control whatsoever from Bamber with Julie, everything she did or knew was her own doing or knowledge.

Whether you take the view that Jeremy is guilty or innocent, or like me, you're neutral, the whole case requires a complete re-think.  If Jeremy is guilty, I simply do not accept that Julie was an innocent party.  It's not credible.  If Jeremy is innocent, then Julie has some serious questions to answer and an extradition lawyer in Winnipeg will be getting some new instructions.

Would you agree with me that her 2002 witness statement is really quite reprehensible? 

Would you also agree that it is clear that the visit to the bank and paying the money back was a set-up by the police and the 2002 evidence from the bank manager cannot be believed?  He claimed it was a spontaneous gesture from the two young women.  Frankly I am insulted that anybody would think I'd buy that story.  It is clear even from the bank manager's own evidence that it can't be true.  It was obviously staged, and I think I have previously remarked sardonically to NG1066 that the appeal judges must have been asleep when they heard that evidence.

Would you also agree that, in view of the staged scenario at the bank, it is suspicious that Julie pays back the money she stole from the bank but not the money she helped steal from Osea?  To spell it out, to my mind it lends itself to the view that Julie was a groomed witness more than a spontaneous witness of truth.  I could speculatively go further and, as I have suggested on here in the past, propose that Julie's entire evidence is a concoction, with collusion from the police, to conceal her own involvement in order to convict Jeremy, and thus the trial was a sham.

[guest29835]

Hardly a balanced article. It has appeared in the wake of the drama. Why would he suddenly just appear and do that interview.  Let's see how much he got paid snd by who?

Supposing Jeremy is guilty, would you agree with me that it is quite likely that Brett was mixed up in it all, and may even have been the genius behind the escapade, if genius is the right word?  How can we be sure he really was physically in Greece? 

I remember in those days I had a temporary passport made of cardboard from the Post Office with my photo glued on it by the nice subpostmaster who always used to practice German with me.  Greece was a member of the EEC back then.  Border controls and paperwork were lax-to-nonexistent.  He could have travelled around undetected quite easily.

In any event, and whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty, I certainly take the view that Brett morally corrupted Jeremy from their acquaintance in New Zealand onwards.

By the way, just for Adam's benefit: Brett was present during the legal proceedings, though I'm not sure if it was just earlier hearings or the trial itself, or both.  There are photos of him with Anji Greaves strolling out of one of the courts, either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court (not sure which).  I could look it up and find out, but frankly can't be bothered at the moment.

What I can also say is that after the trial and the guilty verdict, Brett disappeared and went off the radar.

[Adam]

Supposing Jeremy is guilty, would you agree with me that it is quite likely that Brett was mixed up in it all, and may even have been the genius behind the escapade, if genius is the right word?  How can we be sure he really was physically in Greece? 

I remember in those days I had a temporary passport made of cardboard from the Post Office with my photo glued on it by the nice subpostmaster who always used to practice German with me.  Greece was a member of the EEC back then.  Border controls and paperwork were lax-to-nonexistent.  He could have travelled around undetected quite easily.

In any event, and whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty, I certainly take the view that Brett morally corrupted Jeremy from their acquaintance in New Zealand onwards.

By the way, just for Adam's benefit: Brett was present during the legal proceedings, though I'm not sure if it was just earlier hearings or the trial itself, or both.  There are photos of him with Anji Greaves strolling out of one of the courts, either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court (not sure which).  I could look it up and find out, but frankly can't be bothered at the moment.

What I can also say is that after the trial and the guilty verdict, Brett disappeared and went off the radar.

'Collins stuck by his friend during the arrest and initial court appearances. But he left London before the trial in 1986, when a majority 10-2 verdict found Bamber guilty of five counts of murder.'

[Adam]

Bamber went to Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez. After or before the champagne funeral.

Brett & other friends being invited to the jolly ups.

WHF being cleared out of it's valuble possessions during this time & Bamber setting up a base at Sheila's flat.

[guest29835]

Bamber went to Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez. After or before the champagne funeral.

Brett & other friends being invited to the jolly ups.

WHF being cleared out of it's valuble possessions during this time & Bamber setting up a base at Sheila's flat.

Yes, I am finding it very difficult to believe Brett was not involved.  Like Julie's involvement, it's another one of those 'elephants in the room' that this case throws up.  I think you would have to be pretty obtuse not to see it really.