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

[Roch]

They didn't. It was his relatives and Julie Mudford.

The simple answer is, if you shoot dead unarmed defenceless people then you can't be scathed. How do you think Anders Brevik massacred 69 people on that island and remained completely unscathed? 

I know that it is your stance - ie regarding Mugford and the relatives.  With regards to AB, I cannot possibly think why you would choose that incident as being comparable to WHF.

[Roch]

Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things.  I insist on the distinction.  Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man.  It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence.  It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day.  It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system.  Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent. 

The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.

Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position.  I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance.  The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions.  In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain.  Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly. 

What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative.  It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.

Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.

However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it.  It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team. 

Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative.  In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.

Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'.  Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.

I understand the points you make. However, we can dress up wrong doing as much we want. Even if some people merely went along with the flow in their limited role, without any intentional malice, somewhere, somebody knew that what they were doing was essentially 'wrong', even if they were doing it as some kind of 'ends justifies the means' mission, relating to their own beliefs, suspicions prejudices etc. Let's say that Ainsley doesn't like Jeremy and he does like 'Bobby' and he does empathise with the Boutflours and Eatons. And he can see why they think Jeremy is in some way responsible for the killings. That doesn't excuse any actions he undertook, to knowingly conceal facts or evidence that didn't fit with that narrative.

[David1819]

I know that it is your stance - ie regarding Mugford and the relatives.  With regards to AB, I cannot possibly think why you would choose that incident as being comparable to WHF.

How did AB shoot dead 69 people while remaining unscathed?   

[Roch]

How did AB shoot dead 69 people while remaining unscathed?   

The two incidents are incomparable, Imo. They are vastly dissimilar. What weapons did AB have and what was his MO during the Incident? In addition, how large was the locality where the incident took place?  Not forgetting, did he have no personal connection to those involved and might there have been some kind of 'herd panic'? Like QC, I may be inventing my own terminology here.

[David1819]

The two incidents are incomparable, Imo. They are vastly dissimilar. What weapons did AB have and what was his MO during the Incident? In addition, how large was the locality where the incident took place?  Not forgetting, did he have no personal connection to those involved and might there have been some kind of 'herd panic'? Like QC, I may be inventing my own terminology here.

Answer the question.

If AB can shoot 69 people and remain unscathed. Then Sheila can shoot 2 elderly people and remain unscathed.

How many American mass shooters have anything more then their own self inflicted shots after they have committed the act? 

[guest29835]

I understand the points you make. However, we can dress up wrong doing as much we want. Even if some people merely went along with the flow in their limited role, without any intentional malice, somewhere, somebody knew that what they were doing was essentially 'wrong', even if they were doing it as some kind of 'ends justifies the means' mission, relating to their own beliefs, suspicions prejudices etc. Let's say that Ainsley doesn't like Jeremy and he does like 'Bobby' and he does empathise with the Boutflours and Eatons. And he can see why they think Jeremy is in some way responsible for the killings. That doesn't excuse any actions he undertook, to knowingly conceal facts or evidence that didn't fit with that narrative.

Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened.  For me, that's a bit of a stretch.

[Roch]

Answer the question.

If AB can shoot 69 people and remain unscathed. Then Sheila can shoot 2 elderly people and remain unscathed.

How many American mass shooters have anything more then their own self inflicted shots after they have committed the act? 

I do not think the incidents are comparable is my answer. Perhaps another member will give an opinion.

[Roch]

Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened.  For me, that's a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure I agree. He was a detective. He would know what wounds are. If he in any way attempted to conceal them, either by sleight of hand with crime scene images or cajoling a pathologist - arguably, he deliberately, knowingly contributed to the framing of a person, when evidence pointed away from that person.

[David1819]

Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened.  For me, that's a bit of a stretch.

A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.

[David1819]

The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.

Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).

Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.

[Roch]

A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.

How can you possibly know whether they had no motive?

[Roch]

Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).

Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.

This is where I think you do well. Exposing AE and also JM.

[Adam]

Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).

Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.

Stop being over dramatic.

[Adam]

The relatives would need to know -

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.

What back splatter is.

Who received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on everyone.

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

How to realistically put blood into a silencer.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Was there a kitchen fight.

How to effectively scratch the aga.

What the kitchen crime scene photos show.

Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.

What blood group was Sheila.

How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.

Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.

Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.

..........

That is after having the idea in the first place.

[guest29835]

The relatives would need to know -

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.


........

I could go through all your list, but just to concentrate on the above two, you are actually contradicting your own argument.  If it's true that this needed to be known for somebody to introduce the silencer into evidence, then why did the silencer come into play at all, whether genuinely or otherwise?

In reality, they would not have needed to know the things you mention or even had an appreciation of the silencer's relevance.  What happened is that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard, and they say it was 'sticky' and had blood on it, and they realised it belonged to the rifle. 

If they did plant the silencer, that would mean all they needed to figure out was that the detection of any blood at all in the silencer could potentially be incriminating, regardless of whose blood it was.