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

[Steve_uk]

I'm sorry but this has to be said: the latest podcast is a South Sea Bubble of lies.

[Bill Robertson]

I have the same photos in my possession, I can see what they are.

Who ever has told you this has been verified is either pulling your leg or they have hired a dishonest clown.

How do you explain these 28 "wounds" not being mentioned in Vanezis autopsy notes written on the very same day as the tragedy?. DI Cook and two other officers were also present at the autopsy how did they not see all these wounds also?

Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?

Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.

When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?

[Roch]

DI Cook and two other officers were also present at the autopsy how did they not see all these wounds also?

They will have seen the wounds, as will have some of the police at the crime scene.  Some had an up close view, e.g. SOCO, crime scene photography etc.

To be fair David, as late as 6th Sept. Kenneally reported to top brass, that the evidence pointed to Sheila.  I suspect that marks and wounds on victims, were given consideration by Kenneally, when coming to this conclusion.

[Steve_uk]

Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?

Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.

When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?

I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.

[Roch]

I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.

I don't necessarily believe the case will be referred. I always tend towards pessimism. I could be wrong. I certainly hope I am wrong. I am trying to keep an open mind. I suspect that within the submissions there wiil possibly be dissmissable grounds, whether that be due to difference of interpretation / misinterpretation of evidence, or whether it be on a technicalities regarding legal processes. I also suspect there will be material that is worrying in terms of the safety of the conviction. The test for me regarding the CCRC, is whether they will sacrifice the material that is worrying or whether they will sacrifice the material that is potentially dissmissable. If they choose the latter, I think they will raise their profile in terms of trust and integrity.

What exactly is it Steve that you don't believe?

[Steve_uk]

I don't believe Peter Vanezis falsified his evidence for a start. I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents. I don't believe she was capable of reloading an Anschütz rifle. I don't believe Julie lied.

[Bill Robertson]

I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.

You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".

There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.

Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.

The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.

Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.

I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.

Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.

[Bill Robertson]

I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents.

Just suppose that she did have 28 or more defensive wounds not mentioned in Court. And, June had 10 or more wounds not mentioned by Vanezis. How does that affect the conviction of Jeremy?

[Steve_uk]

You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".

There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.

Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.

The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.

Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.

I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.

Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.

So Sheila has 28 wounds and you're claiming they are contact wounds, gouge marks resulting from some life and death struggle altercation, yet none of the marks impact her face? How strange and how convenient (where are the photographs of Sheila's face online by the way..they seem to have disappeared)?

You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis), you haven't a clue about a dilemma between young love and diabolical forces (Julie), you don't understand the banality of evil (to coin a phrase) of someone who blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys because he preferred a £38,000 Porsche to a Vauxhall Astra, you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.

[Steve_uk]

Just suppose that she did have 28 or more defensive wounds not mentioned in Court. And, June had 10 or more wounds not mentioned by Vanezis. How does that affect the conviction of Jeremy?

Please refer to the above post.

[JackieD]

I don't believe Peter Vanezis falsified his evidence for a start. I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents. I don't believe she was capable of reloading an Anschütz rifle. I don't believe Julie lied.

You don’t believe Julie lied??? I take that is a joke???
So you don’t believed Julie lied about the cheque book fraud?
Maybe you would like to enlighten the forum exactly how and what Julie did during the cheque book fraud??
If you ‘believe’ Jeremy is guilty do you think Julie lied to Colin

Do you think Julie lied when she said she couldn’t remember what date she signed the NOTW deal?

[JackieD]

So Sheila has 28 wounds and you're claiming they are contact wounds, gouge marks resulting from some life and death struggle altercation, yet none of the marks impact her face? How strange and how convenient (where are the photographs of Sheila's face online by the way..they seem to have disappeared)?

You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis), you haven't a clue about a dilemma between young love and diabolical forces (Julie), you don't understand the banality of evil (to coin a phrase) of someone who blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys because he preferred a £38,000 Porsche to a Vauxhall Astra, you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.

Here we go again what Porche exactly and I expect you to be able to back up your claim

Your getting your knickers in a twist again because Julies been mentioned again

[lookout]

For obvious reasons we weren't afforded the viewing of Sheila's back where wounds could well have been because of blood that was visible on the back of her nightdress and the pattern of it. Why the back and not the front ?
 The " wound " in the lower part of her body was presumably hidden by a dressing but how do we know it didn't occur that night or the night before when there'd been a to do ? 

There'll be a heck of a lot that's been hidden that we know nothing about and it's criminal to hold back the truth in a case as big as this was. I'm prepared to be further disgusted at what finally comes to light. It says a lot about those who've condemned Jeremy ! 

Let's not forget about Nevill's broken arm that he probably received on his way downstairs from the bedroom.  How easy for an attacker to tackle someone whose arm is already broken regardless of their size etc. Sheila would have had no trouble taking down her father.

[Steve_uk]

Here we go again what Porche exactly and I expect you to be able to back up your claim

Your getting your knickers in a twist again because Julies been mentioned again

He told PC Robert Lay standing outside White House Farm that August morning before the bodies were discovered that he was going to buy a £38000 Porsche (w/s 1 October 1985).

[Steve_uk]

For obvious reasons we weren't afforded the viewing of Sheila's back where wounds could well have been because of blood that was visible on the back of her nightdress and the pattern of it. Why the back and not the front ?
 The " wound " in the lower part of her body was presumably hidden by a dressing but how do we know it didn't occur that night or the night before when there'd been a to do ? 

There'll be a heck of a lot that's been hidden that we know nothing about and it's criminal to hold back the truth in a case as big as this was. I'm prepared to be further disgusted at what finally comes to light. It says a lot about those who've condemned Jeremy ! 

Let's not forget about Nevill's broken arm that he probably received on his way downstairs from the bedroom.  How easy for an attacker to tackle someone whose arm is already broken regardless of their size etc. Sheila would have had no trouble taking down her father.

But reloading a rifle lookout? She couldn't even drive a car.