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

[guest29835]

This certainly wasn't the case with Bamber, as it was quite clear DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones and DI Stan Jones had their own individual views from the outset.

Which then developed into two separate camps of opinion, with one eventually becoming the dominant narrative.

I also reject the idea that Peter Vanezis could be leant on to provide evidence which suited someone else's own agenda.

Peter Vanezis agreed to be pathologist even though he'd been ignored and not called to the scene, which means he was leant on from the start.  He was basically presented with a narrative and confirmed it.
He then changed his mind when another narrative took hold. 

Anybody can be manipulated for someone else's agenda in the right circumstances, and they needn't be 'leant on'.

[David1819]

That's the very post I was replying to.  You haven't included any evidence in that post.  You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land.  Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this?  Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park?  We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.

Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592

[Adam]

Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592

That is hard to read. I will translate the last paragraph, which is the only thing relevant.

[Adam]

'Peter later discovered that the land his brother was farming on was to be sold to property developers in London. So a confidential approach was made to Nevill who had purchased the land to allow Peter and Ann to farm it. No mention by Nevill to anyone about him purchasing the land - not even to June.'

----------

Not sure how this prompted the relatives to attempt to frame an innocent man of murdering his own family. In an impossible frame a few days after the massacre.

[Adam]

The relatives already had land they were farming on. They would not know what Bamber's plans would be for the other land.

A dead duck.

[Roch]

Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592

Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.

[Adam]

The Eatons had been farming for years. On their own land. Whether they farmed on land Peter's brother had been farming on was not make or break for them.

There is nothing about the Eaton's wanting to purchase this land.

The only motive to attempt the impossible frame would be that they thought Bamber was responsible. A belief they told the police of. Several times.

[Adam]

That's the very post I was replying to.  You haven't included any evidence in that post.  You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land.  Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this?  Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park?  We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.

Bamber may have had a controlling share of the caravan park. Assume Nevill had the biggest share.

However that would not change what AE's share was. So the Eaton's were no worse off.

[Adam]

Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.

David put up a hand written source on the Eaton's and hoped no one would read it.

[David1819]

Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.

A handful of posters on here do make things up but I'm not going to divulge into that matter.

As for claims made by Bill and yourself, its rather a case of usubstanciated theories and conjecture that you express in good faith. Which is very different from dishonestly making things up.

[guest29835]

Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592

Where did I say you'd made it up?  I merely asked you to provide evidence.  You've provided a link to another 24-page thread.  I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.

[Roch]

A handful of posters on here do make things up but I'm not going to divulge into that matter.

As for claims made by Bill and yourself, its rather a case of usubstanciated theories and conjecture that you express in good faith. Which is very different from dishonestly making things up.

Firstly, on the one technical issue where we have jointly stood stock still, I do not believe it is unsubstantiated theories or conjecture. That is your personal take on it (for which you cite the pathologist as evidence).

Secondly, on the Ainsley issue - he had oversight. If there was any wrongdoing regarding statements, exhibit labels, misleading information, holding back information etc., the buck stops with him. If that was the culture of the second investigation, it was a culture that he fostered (and no doubt expected compliance from those under him).

[Adam]

Where did I say you'd made it up?  I merely asked you to provide evidence.  You've provided a link to another 24-page thread.  I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.

David is referring to Mike's thread post. Which has hand written notes.

I have already dismissed the only barely relevant 8 lines.

[guest29835]

Bamber may have had a controlling share of the caravan park. Assume Nevill had the biggest share.

However that would not change what AE's share was. So the Eaton's were no worse off.

I thought it was Jean and that she and Ann were at par?  Nevill was certainly involved, as was Robert, but I always thought the shares were in the names of the two women, Jean and Ann, and Jeremy was brought in as part of giving him a stake in things.  I note that the family have continued that tradition of female-direction of the holiday park up to this day.

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that Jeremy already had a share, but that could have been taken from Jean's share, so it's not necessarily the case that he more than Ann, and even if he did, company law doesn't quite work that way.  To control a company, a shareholder would need at least greater than 50%, and preferably at least 75%, otherwise he can be hindered by minority shareholders.  It could also be that the constitution of the company - its Articles of Association - were crafted by lawyers to allow for a cross-family management situation such as this.

This is why I think the whole thing needs deeper investigation, not just off-hand glib utterances of 'he controlled this, he controlled that'.  I appreciate the Eatons and Boutflours were not lawyers and may have made certain assumptions that drove their motives, but they were businesspeople and would have had regular consultations with their private lawyers and developed some understanding of the true situation.

[David1819]

Where did I say you'd made it up?  I merely asked you to provide evidence.  You've provided a link to another 24-page thread.  I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.

You don't need to read 24 forum pages. Just Peter Eaton's COLP interview Mike attached at the beginning.