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

[Adam]

1.

Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA


2.

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA


3.

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.


4.

Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


5.

No broken nails - Not disputed COA.


6.

Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.


7.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.


8.

No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


9.

No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


10.

No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


11.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.


12.

No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


13.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA


14.

Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


15.

Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


16.

Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.


17.

No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.


18.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


19.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


20.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


21.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


22.

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.


23.

No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


24.

Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.


25.

Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


26.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


27.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.


28.

Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


29.

Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


30.

Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


31.

Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


32.

Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


33.

No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.


34.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.


35.

Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.


36.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.


37.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.


38.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.


39.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.


40.

Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.


41.

Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.


42.

Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.


43.

No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.


44.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.


45.

Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.


46.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.


47.

June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.


48.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.


49.

2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.


50.

The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.


51.

Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.


52.

Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.


53.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.


54.

No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.


55.

Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.


56.

Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.


57.

Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.


58.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.


59.

Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.


60.

Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.


61.

Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.


62.

Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.


63.

Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER


64.

Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK


65.

Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.


66.

Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.


67.

Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.


68.

Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.


69.

Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA


70.

Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.


71:

Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.

------------

[Adam]

Currently 71.

Thank you David. For reminding me.

[Adam]

Thought David would have addressed my points in reply 654. They were first posted several years ago.

He is saying the relatives used diluted period blood to fabricate the silencer. Without police assistance. Although has never said how.

[Adam]

Until recently, Adam never explained why he changed stance from neutral/undecided to dogmatically-committed to the guilty position.  Now he has admitted that he was lying and in fact he has believed all along that Jeremy is guilty, based on documentaries and the Wilkes book.

It's unclear what connection Adam has to the case, if there is a connection at all.  It could be that he is just a strange person who likes to spend a large chunk of his time spamming a discussion forum about a random case that he has no connection to.

This was my intro. Posted a couple of days ago.

Keep up.

----------

Hello everyone.

This is a fasinating case which I have taken an interest in during the last month. This seems like the busiest forum so am looking forward to some good non abusive discussion. At present I have an open mind & lots of questions. Am ready to be persuaded one way or the other.

[lookout]

Oh dear, more than a touch of narcissism there Adam.

[guest29835]

This was my intro. Posted a couple of days ago.

Keep up.

----------

Hello everyone.

This is a fasinating case which I have taken an interest in during the last month. This seems like the busiest forum so am looking forward to some good non abusive discussion. At present I have an open mind & lots of questions. Am ready to be persuaded one way or the other.

You are simply lying again.  You admitted a few days ago on here that you did not tell the truth when you joined and that your stance in the above introductory post was not your true position because you were scared of being banned.

I don't understand why you brazenly lie so much and think that people won't read what you said a few messages ago.  It's quite amusing really.  You're like Comical Ali.

[Adam]

You are simply lying again.  You admitted a few days ago on here that you did not tell the truth when you joined and that your stance in the above introductory post was not your true position because you were scared of being banned.

I don't understand why you brazenly lie so much and think that people won't read what you said a few messages ago.  It's quite amusing really.  You're like Comical Ali.

I've just posted my 2013 intro. Again.

You lie. Saying I said Nevill woke while being shot. Then saying you were not going to quote my post.

Anyway you need to focus on the case & keep fire fighting. Only self denial is keeping you from the dreaded 99%.

[Adam]

It is strange how supporters do not support for evidence reasons.

Lookout, JaneJ & JackieD support/ed for non evidence reasons. However they do/did not deny that evidence exists.

David changed stance for a non evidence reason & now refuses to acknowledge sourced evidence! The only evidence important to him is his 5 year old 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which he has refused to post!

QC and Mike discuss the evidence. However Mike is now a guilter and QC has surely gone past his high threashold of 99%.

[guest29835]

I've just posted my 2013 intro. Again.

Yes, and?  It's clear that what I say is right.  You started out by lying, then came out as a guilter when you knew it was safe.  You've admitted it in black and white, and you are now brazenly lying in our faces, like saying the Earth is flat or there are Little Green Men hiding on the Moon.  It's insulting.

You lie. Saying I said Nevill woke while being shot. Then saying you were not going to quote my post.

That is true.  You literally actually did say that.  You know it.  I am not trawling back through all your stupid, idiotic spamming posts to find evidence of you saying something stupid and idiotic when it's obvious you say things that are stupid and idiotic, because you're a troll.  You've virtually admitted you're a troll.  It's absurd.

Anyway you need to focus on the case & keep fire fighting. Only self denial is keeping you from the dreaded 99%.

It's not dreaded.  I have no vested interest in the case.  If Jeremy is guilty, he is guilty.  You have yet to convince me that he actually is guilty.  So far, your posts only serve to deepen my doubts. 

[Adam]

Yes, and?  It's clear that what I say is right.  You started out by lying, then came out as a guilter when you knew it was safe.  You've admitted it in black and white, and you are now brazenly lying in our faces, like saying the Earth is flat or there are Little Green Men hiding on the Moon.  It's insulting.

That is true.  You literally actually did say that.  You know it.  I am not trawling back through all your stupid, idiotic spamming posts to find evidence of you saying something stupid and idiotic when it's obvious you say things that are stupid and idiotic, because you're a troll.  You've virtually admitted you're a troll.  It's absurd.

It's not dreaded.  I have no vested interest in the case.  If Jeremy is guilty, he is guilty.  You have yet to convince me that he actually is guilty.  So far, your posts only serve to deepen my doubts.

That is true.  You literally actually did say that.  You know it.  I am not trawling back through all your posts.

----------

You just needed to quote my post. Either then or now. It is what people do on forums.

Keep digging.

[JackieD]

I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence.  It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in.  The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands.  Somebody would have stepped forward.  I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.

I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise.  Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers.  They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit.  That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen.  The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'. 

This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case.  Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent.  What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it.  It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.

Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved. 

This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence.  For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not?  The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent.  He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force.  The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter.  They cannot be a law unto themselves.

What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home?  It cannot be right that this was allowed.

A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness.  They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question.  This is of course something that almost everybody does.

This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case.  At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.

My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:

(i). the nature of the incident and crime scene itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;

(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,

(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.

But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions.  I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others.  Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.

Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length. 

The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all.  The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.

It's complex and messy.  Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.

Surely corruption and noble cause corruption boils down to the same thing

[guest29835]

Surely corruption and noble cause corruption boils down to the same thing

Frame an innocent man/not care if he is innocent or guilty =/= Frame a (believed to be) guilty man

Both are corrupt, but they involve different motives and actions, and one is much more common and plausible than the other.

[Roch]

Frame an innocent man/not care if he is innocent or guilty =/= Frame a (believed to be) guilty man

Both are corrupt, but they involve different motives and actions, and one is much more common and plausible than the other.

That afternoon, the Boutflours were at Witham police station again.  The indefatigable Stan Jones listened encouragingly as the family outlined their suspicions of Jeremy.  Stan explained that everyone on the case had heard the theory… and no one bought it.  Everything pointed to Sheila as the culprit.  DI Miller appeared and announced that he had just come from a case conference and that so far ‘all the tests point to Sheila as the person responsible.’

Shaw - Chapter 6:

[Roch]

That afternoon, the Boutflours were at Witham police station again.  The indefatigable Stan Jones listened encouragingly as the family outlined their suspicions of Jeremy.  Stan explained that everyone on the case had heard the theory… and no one bought it.  Everything pointed to Sheila as the culprit.  DI Miller appeared and announced that he had just come from a case conference and that so far ‘all the tests point to Sheila as the person responsible.’

Shaw - Chapter 6:

Which tests was Miller referring to...English and Maths O'Levels?

[Adam]

Which tests was Miller referring to...English and Maths O'Levels?

What is Shaw's book like? Could not find any reviews. Is it more pro Bamber than Lomax's?