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

[JackieD]

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.

The she’s a liar. Simple. Fact

She lied to get stolen goods fact

[JackieD]

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.

There you go Steve the facts
The interesting thing in that statement would have been Jeremy referring to his dad as if he was still alive.

[JackieD]

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.

I think it has to be made clear if she made the whole think up so she can face similar consequences as Jeremy.

[Roch]

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.

How likely is it, that if Sheila was involved in a life or death struggle (on the part of both June and Nevill), that she might have ended up with marks on her back?  There must be autopsy images of her back.

The snagged earring component can be seen in image ms33, on page 2 of images thread (started by Alias) in Archive and Library. It is in the folds of her night dress. It may also be present in more images, not sure.

[lookout]

I think most are clear about Sheila having been still alive before the police arrived at the farmhouse. JB was with police at the time, so if he'd been the killer, why would he leave a person alive ?

[Roch]

Bill, what do you think of the latest podcast. It is full of supposition; and some of the claims made may cause consternation among supporters who take a more conservative, cautious and restrained view of evidence available to us (in comparison to YH / the CT's interpretations of that same evidence).  Who challenges their interpretations? 

[Steve_uk]

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.

I think you've got the wrong person. It was a Dutch policeman who testified in that case. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/expert-s-unique-earprint-evidence-overturned-as-courts-clear-man-of-murder-74963.html

 

[David1819]

How likely is it, that if Sheila was involved in a life or death struggle (on the part of both June and Nevill), that she might have ended up with marks on her back?  There must be autopsy images of her back.

The snagged earring component can be seen in image ms33, on page 2 of images thread (started by Alias) in Archive and Library. It is in the folds of her night dress. It may also be present in more images, not sure.

How likely is it that Sheila let someone inflict 28 injuries on her, before she decided to shoot them? Zero.

How likely is it that Ainsley would cover up these alleged 28 injuries and not destroy the photos of them? Zero.

[Bill Robertson]

Bill, what do you think of the latest podcast. It is full of supposition; and some of the claims made may cause consternation among supporters who take a more conservative, cautious and restrained view of evidence available to us (in comparison to YH / the CT's interpretations of that same evidence).  Who challenges their interpretations?

I think that it is about 60-70% accurate and we will never get any closer than that unless the contents of Taff Jones’s investigation becomes available. There are quite a few suppositions that I would have reservations over. I don’t know if anyone challenges the scripts I’m not sure what the roles of the CT are these days. I recognize some of my work in the scripts, it seems to be a cut and paste job from various sources. I suppose that the podcasts are in effect there to keep interest alive in the case while the CCRC deliberates the submission.

[Bill Robertson]

I think you've got the wrong person. It was a Dutch policeman who testified in that case. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/expert-s-unique-earprint-evidence-overturned-as-courts-clear-man-of-murder-74963.html

They both testified

[Steve_uk]

They both testified

So out of the 1500 suspected homicides Vanezis has been involved with since 1974 he's got two wrong. That's if you believe the Dallagher case and White House Farm murders fall into a similar category.

[Roch]

How likely is it that Sheila let someone inflict 28 injuries on her, before she decided to shoot them? Zero.

How likely is it that Ainsley would cover up these alleged 28 injuries and not destroy the photos of them? Zero.

I think you have to imagine a life or death struggle with somebody who has got hold of a gun and won't let go of it. How quickly would June become exhausted and how quickly might she be flung off? Was she already injured prior to the struggle commencing? Was Sheila off balance at anytime and could any wounds be friction related, ie caused by inanimate objects situated in the room? Think outside the box David. Push the envelope. Brainstorm it.

[guest29835]

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.

How do you know?  Do you know Colin?  Have you met him?

[Steve_uk]

How do you know?  Do you know Colin?  Have you met him?

Is Jeremy a predator QCC..

[guest29835]

Is Jeremy a predator QCC..

I think I said that I don't believe he is.  What I did not say is that I know he isn't, nor did I give the impression that I have met him or know him, nor have I ever implied this.

Once again, for somebody with your academic and professional qualifications, your reading comprehension and ability to understand nuance are quite dire.

Back to my questions.  Your answer is?  You give us the impression you know Colin.  Do you?

Can I also request that you stop mentioning the 'predator' issue given that I have already explained it at length and you have ignored the explanation, it is not relevant to the threads you are bringing it up on, and it is just goading on your part, and as such a breach of the Forum Rules.  If you do have an issue with it, you should start a new thread setting out what your issue is.