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

[JackieD]

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).

I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof

[JackieD]

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 I don’t know if you know the answer to this but I wondered if it’s proved Julie lied about Jeremy can the powers that be get forced to supply all her statements and notes

[David1819]

I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof

It was PC Myall who brought the subject up. Its in the trial transcripts.

[lookout]

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

Bit of a difference Steve.

[Steve_uk]

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?

The solicitor whom she went to would have been aware of the law. Julie admitted the cheque book fraud before and during the trial. She was at breaking point as most people would have been when she observed how stoically Colin was handling the situation on 10 August, but finally told Susan Battersby of the crimes (not the police) on 27 August.

[Steve_uk]

I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof

I've just given you proof. The glossy brochures were already laid out on the coffee table at Bourtree Cottage. The kit car was spin par excellence.

[Steve_uk]

It was PC Myall who brought the subject up. Its in the trial transcripts.

He did not. He was told by a superior to make conversation with him to take his mind off the carnage he himself had created.

[David1819]

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 was given several high resolution crime scene photos of Sheila back in 2016. These photos are not in the public domain.

What you think are 28 wounds is nothing but dried up blood stains that have dripped and run on Sheila's skin.

Saying Ainsley got Vanesiz to rewrite his notes is not an argument that any reasonable person will accept. That's almost as ridiculous as the idea of Ainsley re-writing Wests statements to omit a 999 call from Nevil.

When the bigger picture does not fit your theory, saying Ainsley and Co must have edited everything is not going to work.

[David1819]

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.

If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.

Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit.  🙄

[Roch]

If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.

Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit.  🙄

I'm not aware of there being any back injuries.

[Bill Robertson]

You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis)

Peter Vanezis has no professional integrity, just an overblown ego and an ability to secure high profile cases which has now deserted him (he is no longer a Home Office approved pathologist)

In 1996 a deaf elderly woman was murdered in her home. Forensics teams found an impression on the patio door made by the assailant’s ear. The unfortunate Mark Dallagher was arrested and Dr Vanezis gave evidence in which he stated the ear print taken from the glass matched that of the accused, qualifying it as “Unique” the same as a fingerprint would be. Based on this evidence Dallagher was imprisoned for life in 1998. On Appeal after the advancement of DNA it was proven that the ear print did not match the DNA profile of the convicted man and his conviction was quashed and in 2004 he was released after serving seven years in jail.

Vanezis gave evidence in relation to the evidential worth of ‘ear-prints’ that consisted of the statement “My conclusion was that it was the closest match for the overall fit of the prints. That is both left and right. All I can say is that bearing in mind that we have left and right ear prints and with the paucity of knowledge etc., I am prepared to go so far as to say that there is a remote possibility .... That they may have been left by someone else, but it is remote. .... I am of the firm opinion that it is very likely to be the same person, (Dallagher) but I cannot be 100% positive.”

In fact, his conclusion was entirely incorrect and an innocent man was convicted of murder, serving seven years in jail before the error was corrected. Thus, we might reasonably conclude that Vanezis was reckless about the possibility that his testimony was false and he has a track record of involvement in assisting the police with the locking up of innocent men.

[Bill Robertson]

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).

No he didn't, you are making it up. According to the witness statement he said, "I'm going to get a £38,000 Porche, a dream car from my dad - or words to that effect". " "He was only earning farm wages and the car was a perk - a means of boosting his wages" so Jeremy did not say that he was going to buy it, the clear implication is that it would have been a gift from Nevill.

I doubt that there is any truth in PC Lay's statement at all.

[Bill Robertson]

Bill I don’t know if you know the answer to this but I wondered if it’s proved Julie lied about Jeremy can the powers that be get forced to supply all her statements and notes

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I know that if Jeremy is released there will be demands from Jeremy's lawyers for a public enquiry and a requirement for full disclosure of all evidence withheld.

[lookout]

If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.

Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit.  🙄

No---they burnt it instead.

[Bill Robertson]

Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit.  🙄

The interesting thing about the nightdress is that in the evidence of Vanezis there is no mention of the large earring that was snagged close to the right armpit, it was big enough, about an inch long, that nobody could have missed it. It is not listed as an exhibit either. It is just one example among many of how evidence was not mentioned, or disappeared.

I'm not aware of any wound to Sheila's back by the way, but I haven't seen it.