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

[David1819]

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).

Again unsubstantiated conjecture. Saying Ainsley changed all the evidence because it doesn't suit your conspiracy theory isn't going to get you anywhere.

[guest29835]

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

I've read it.  What do you think it is saying?  I ask because it isn't saying to me what you appear to think it is saying.

[guest29835]

There is a bit at the end that mentions Nevill's purchase of land for Peter.

That was a third of a third of Peter's mother's land that the brother had inherited.  This means that Peter and Ann retained their own third share that they had inherited from John Eaton (the one who punched Nevill).

But this means that even if Jeremy intended to sell the smaller portion of land, that's just the land inherited from his mother; Peter and Ann would still have retained the greater part of the land Peter inherited from John, regardless of what Jeremy intended.

Speaking of which, what is the evidence that Jeremy proposed to sell the land or communicated this to the Eatons?  Come to mention of it, what is the evidence Jeremy even knew that Nevill owned the land?  And were there title deeds?

There's also the legal dimension to this.  I can't accept that Jeremy could have just thrown the Eatons off agricultural land they were working and that probably didn't even have planning consent for development.  If Jeremy really did indicate he wished to sell, it's much more likely that this would have been put in the hands of lawyers and the Eatons would have ended up having to pay farm rent to Jeremy - an outcome Jeremy may even have preferred.

Overall, I don't see a strong motive for framing Jeremy as an innocent man, but I do accept that there could have been a motivating drive to make him a suspect in the belief he did it and that belief may have been driven by bias, and this bias may have had its root in a perception that the family's own interests conflicted with Jeremy's interests.  In the end, the result is the same, so the distinction I am making may seem pedantic to some.

[Adam]

It is obvious that the relatives would have benefitted if Bamber was convicted. However even the CT says they were already rich.

David tries to paint a picture that Bamber was able to bankrupt them. His source is a scribbled note which says nothing. 

[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.

Backing up my previous post.

[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.'

----------

This seems to be saying the farm land PE's brother was farming on was going to be sold to property developers. Until it was sold PE asked Nevill if he could also farm on the land in the meantime.

PE accepted the land was going to be sold and made no offer to buy the land.

All very trivial 

[Adam]

David needs to provide proof that -

Jeremy owned most of the relatives farm land.

Jeremy planned to sell the Eaton's farm land to pay death duties.

The relatives were aware of this days after the massacre.

Jeremy's extra stake in the caravan park effected the other relatives stake.

[lookout]

" no offer to buy the land " because they were broke !!

[guest29835]

David needs to provide proof that -

Jeremy owned most of the relatives farm land.

Jeremy planned to sell the Eaton's farm land to pay death duties.

The relatives were aware of this days after the massacre.

Jeremy's extra stake in the caravan park effected the other relatives stake.

This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.

That is exactly what David needs to prove.  I am pleased to say I agree.

As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.

And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.

[Roch]

Again unsubstantiated conjecture. Saying Ainsley changed all the evidence because it doesn't suit your conspiracy theory isn't going to get you anywhere.

I don't understand this. Please refer to the thread about Ainsley.

[Adam]

This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.

That is exactly what David needs to prove.  I am pleased to say I agree.

As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.

And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.

This may be the first time I agree with one of your posts.

Where does the one-third come from?

[guest29835]

This may be the first time I agree with one of your posts.

Where does the one-third come from?

On the first page of the thread David links to, Mike has posted up a note of the COLP interview of Peter Eaton. 

What Peter told COLP about the land is this:

He, his brother and his mother inherited land from his father, John, split three ways. (As an aside, John was the one who punched Nevill, but that was an entirely separate incident, I believe.  This is often wrongly blamed on Peter).

Peter and his brother split the mother's one-third equally - i.e. 50:50.  (I incorrectly referred to it as one-third as for some reason I had in mind that there were three siblings, but on looking again in fact I see there were just two, so the split of the mother's land is half - it doesn't change the point, though).

The half of the mother's land that went to the brother, is what Peter persuaded Nevill to buy into order to stop his brother selling to property developers.

My point is that, when you take all this into account, it means that Peter and Ann Eaton own their own land, plus half of the land inherited from the mother.  Even if Jeremy knew about the Eaton land that Nevill owned and intended to sell it, the Eatons retained ownership of most of their land.  Jeremy could not have ended their livelihoods.

[Adam]

On the first page of the thread David links to, Mike has posted up a note of the COLP interview of Peter Eaton. 

What Peter told COLP about the land is this:

He, his brother and his mother inherited land from his father, John, split three ways. (As an aside, John was the one who punched Nevill, but that was an entirely separate incident, I believe.  This is often wrongly blamed on Peter).

Peter and his brother split the mother's one-third equally - i.e. 50:50.  (I incorrectly referred to it as one-third as for some reason I had in mind that there were three siblings, but on looking again in fact I see there were just two, so the split of the mother's land is half - it doesn't change the point, though).

The half of the mother's land that went to the brother, is what Peter persuaded Nevill to buy into order to stop his brother selling to property developers.

My point is that, when you take all this into account, it means that Peter and Ann Eaton own their own land, plus half of the land inherited from the mother.  Even if Jeremy knew about the Eaton land that Nevill owned and intended to sell it, the Eatons retained ownership of most of their land.  Jeremy could not have ended their livelihoods.

Similar to David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & attempted quiet stance change, this months claim has been dismissed.

[David1819]

This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.

That is exactly what David needs to prove.  I am pleased to say I agree.

As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.

And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.

Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript

In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.

In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.

The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.

[guest29835]

Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript

In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.

In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.

The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.

I thought the wallpaper incident was over Vaulty Manor?  Maybe I've misremembered what I read.

It seems reasonable that Jeremy would ask the Eatons to pay back the land, but I wonder why he didn't just rent it to them?  A lot seems to be made of the estate's inheritance tax bill and the need to liquidate capital to meet it, but surely the Bambers took advice on how to make arrangements so that the estate would be tax efficient?  It's not difficult and any competent high street solicitor specialising in private client work and familiar with agricultural law would have assisted.

No need to look further at the letters.  I have them all, so I'll look myself some time.