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

[lookout]

Another good podcast, but it failed to include the time when JM had been questioned by Rivlin and she " cried " so much that she hadn't been able to answer ( conveniently ) and so it had been halted.

The whole fiasco just beggars belief.

[guest29835]

What did you think QC?

Not much.  I think the Campaign Team are bringing up old points from the past and claiming to have found new evidence to support what they say about these old points.  Old wine in new bottles, but admissible because these are points not rigorously tested at trial.  We will have to see if there really is new evidence of any significance or it's a bluff.  I doubt there is any evidence that 'exculpates' Jeremy, as one of the interviewees claims, though I certainly do accept that there is reasonable doubt, but what I think and what will happen are different things.  It's down to the courts and the CCRC.

Shaun Attwood is attaching his flag to this.  We will have to see what effect this has, both for Attwood himself and for Jeremy.  I suppose Attwood's calculation is that Jeremy is never going to fall down and confess now, and Jeremy's cause aligns with Attwood's target audience: mainly disaffected YouTubers and people inclined to conspiracy theories and criticism of the police, that sort of thing.  Conversely, I can see why one or two pro-guilt posters here on the Forum are worried about Attwood's support for the campaign and have reacted tempestuously to it.  What Jeremy has always lacked is momentum behind his campaigns.  I personally have never taken to Attwood or Steeples.  I think they are both fairly superficial and craft their content with their target audience in mind, rather than due to any belief in pursuing the truth.  They have both fallen for the Savile-era sex abuse hysteria. 

Nevertheless, support from a social media personality could change everything, and this can - I believe - affect the legal outcome.  I recall it was said at the time of the Birmingham Six appeals that the appellate judges resented the involvement of the media in the Chris Mullins' campaign, which included at least two documentaries (I remember way back when I had a TV, the Granada documentary on the case was quite good), but even if the judiciary resented the crude 'legal populism' of Mullins, I also suspect that the mass of support and 'atmosphere' this generated must have influenced things. 

If Jeremy can penetrate the mainstream media, and even have his own 'Granada' treatment, his campaign may gain traction.  However, as I think I have observed previously, the Birmingham Six cause fell within the Zeitgeist of the times, whereas a convicted mass murderer/double child killer does not, or may not.  Is the 'air war' of public perception more important than the 'land battles' of the CCRC and the courts?  They are both important, but I think success in the former can affect the latter, though maybe not always for the better.  How does Jeremy go about winning this 'air war'?  I think it will be difficult because, in my view, the 'big picture' theories of the innocent camp are overblown and misguided and reek of desperation.  If I am wrong about that and it was all a conspiracy, then it's Pulitzer Prizes all round and somebody has a blockbuster Hollywood movie on their hands, starring Tom Cruise as the aging victorious Count of Monte Tolleshunt.  We must wait to see what is this evidence that the Campaign Team and the legal team have got in their possession. 

My view is a bit more down-to-earth.  Nobody knows what happened in the farmhouse that night, except possibly for Jeremy - and perhaps even Jeremy does not know.  The 'big picture' theories involving the police cannot be rationally proved or disproved, due to a lack of evidence.  The evidence for the police accidentally shooting Sheila and then swopping out a bullet is weak and contrived.  I would say the same for the claims that Nevill and/or Sheila made 999 calls and/or calls to a police station.  This is a case that rests on technicalities and raising doubt about little things that add up to big things affecting the safety of the convictions. 

To be clear: I think the convictions are unsafe, but that is not the same as saying Jeremy is innocent.

[lookout]

It's the most difficult form of conviction when using a blank sheet of paper !

[Steve_uk]

38. Jeremy's Arrest, On Remand and Preparation for Trial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwbQwGiKbc

The Campaign Team has upped its game for those superficially acquainted with the case. However presentation is no substitute for knowledge of the facts. No scrutiny of Jeremy for his monosyllabic answers, a lame excuse for picking fibres from his white Aran sweater, uncritical of his use of Sheila's flat, which he inherited as a direct result of the murders, no scrutiny of his actions in dancing the night away at Stringfellows, frequenting a gym or waltzing off to France, no mention of the Amsterdam cannabis trip where he stayed at 5-star Hotel Europe.

He was never inquisitive as to alternative theories for the murders, because that would have been a bootless errand, wouldn't it Jeremy..

[guest29835]

The Campaign Team has upped its game for those superficially acquainted with the case. However presentation is no substitute for knowledge of the facts. No scrutiny of Jeremy for his monosyllabic answers, a lame excuse for picking fibres from his white Aran sweater, uncritical of his use of Sheila's flat, which he inherited as a direct result of the murders, no scrutiny of his actions in dancing the night away at Stringfellows, frequenting a gym or waltzing off to France, no mention of the Amsterdam cannabis trip where he stayed at 5-star Hotel Europe.

He was never inquisitive as to alternative theories for the murders, because that would have been a bootless errand, wouldn't it Jeremy..

What alternative theories?  I thought it was either Sheila or Jeremy, and Jeremy said it was Sheila - and so did the police, at first.

Anyway, the latest podcast from the Campaign Team is an audio version of the Shaun Attwood/Matthew Steeples interview with Philip Walker and Yvonne Hartley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I

[lookout]

Body temperatures ! When I first came onto the forum I can remember posing this question and since I'd learned that none were taken, so far as I was concerned it was case closed.
Having worked in a hospital it was part of the training that when a patient died you recorded that time of death, among other things, as it was important for lots of reasons.

[Steve_uk]

What alternative theories?  I thought it was either Sheila or Jeremy, and Jeremy said it was Sheila - and so did the police, at first.

Anyway, the latest podcast from the Campaign Team is an audio version of the Shaun Attwood/Matthew Steeples interview with Philip Walker and Yvonne Hartley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I

I mean he never speculated as to why Sheila had run amok with a rifle, because he knew it wasn't true.

[guest29835]

I mean he never speculated as to why Sheila had run amok with a rifle, because he knew it wasn't true.

He did.

[guest29835]

Latest podcasts from the CT:

39. Yvonne and Philip on the Shaun Attwood show, with Matthew Steeples

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I&t=480s

40. Jeremy Bamber: A Life of Less Liberty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFO1eZ6ZjFY&t=194s

41. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7qnCKGr980&t=2359s

42. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm' Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hwo99LneJI

43. Presentation by Peter Tatchell to Jeremy Bamber Campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDvHgUDy6ow&t=1790s

I don't have much comment on the above, save that Peter Tatchell seems not to be saying he believes Jeremy to be innocent, only that there are questions about legal fairness and quality of the evidence.  In other words, he takes broadly a similar line to mine.

Tatchell suggests direct militant (but lawful) action, such as demonstrations outside Essex Police headquarters.  I must say that I am still not clear about the PII issue.  Public interest immunity requires a court order.  When did the court order this?  Which court ordered this?  The CT and responses here on the Forum have always been opaque about this, partly I think because the legal process is not widely understood, but also because maintaining the state secrecy theory seems to suit Jeremy.  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that disclosure in this case has been a problem, and as we all know, there has been destruction of evidence, as Essex Police have frankly admitted.

[guest29835]

Today's podcast from the CT is an interview with Barbara De'Ath:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP38IkZJEkc

In my view, this is one of the better podcasts and worth listening to because it's new and original content and involves real people speaking, not a robot.

Barbara De'Ath is an established supporter of decades standing.  Her loyalty to Jeremy is obvious.  This has to be taken into account in what she says.

Some key points:

(i). She talks about the history of the site from the 1980s onwards, and how after the tragedy, the family sought to commercialise and homogenise the site, with the result that Osea lost its original working-class and communitarian ethos, and friendliness and informality, and became more profit-driven.

(ii). She avers that the retired Mike Ainsley who worked at Osea was a horrible man, a bully, etc., and she was threatened by Ainsley on behalf of the family, as they wanted her family off the site because they did not fit in with the new plans.

(iii). She talks about how Jeremy was shy.  (This is a revelation, but it does not come as a surprise to me).

(iv). She took well to both June and Nevill, and comments about how they were both pleasant, friendly and welcoming.

The Campaign Team are moving into a second season of the podcasts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlYDHVCyu4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omrfk0mH8Wk

Lessons for the Campaign Team for Season 2:

(i). Get rid of the HAL9000.  "Sorry Dave, but I can't stand you".  Natural speech from ordinary people is fine, scripted or unscripted.  Doesn't need to be overly-polished.

(ii). More interviews with CT members, supporters, etc., speaking from the heart and offering original insights and experiences.  Maybe interviews with opponents as well.

(iii). More of a structure/chronology to the series overall is needed.  Needs to progress to a conclusion and highlight key points.

(iv). A lot of YouTube channels offer 'membership' - with insider Q & As and so forth.  The CT could think up ideas for pulling people in to the campaign's themes and messages and developing loyalty.

Those are my thoughts.  Thanks.

[Roch]

Today's podcast from the CT is an interview with Barbara De'Ath:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP38IkZJEkc

In my view, this is one of the better podcasts and worth listening to because it's new and original content and involves real people speaking, not a robot.

Barbara De'Ath is an established supporter of decades standing.  Her loyalty to Jeremy is obvious.  This has to be taken into account in what she says.

Some key points:

(i). She talks about the history of the site from the 1980s onwards, and how after the tragedy, the family sought to commercialise and homogenise the site, with the result that Osea lost its original working-class and communitarian ethos, and friendliness and informality, and became more profit-driven.

(ii). She avers that the retired Mike Ainsley who worked at Osea was a horrible man, a bully, etc., and she was threatened by Ainsley on behalf of the family, as they wanted her family off the site because they did not fit in with the new plans.

(iii). She talks about how Jeremy was shy.  (This is a revelation, but it does not come as a surprise to me).

(iv). She took well to both June and Nevill, and comments about how they were both pleasant, friendly and welcoming.

The Campaign Team are moving into a second season of the podcasts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlYDHVCyu4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omrfk0mH8Wk

Lessons for the Campaign Team for Season 2:

(i). Get rid of the HAL9000.  "Sorry Dave, but I can't stand you".  Natural speech from ordinary people is fine, scripted or unscripted.  Doesn't need to be overly-polished.

(ii). More interviews with CT members, supporters, etc., speaking from the heart and offering original insights and experiences.  Maybe interviews with opponents as well.

(iii). More of a structure/chronology to the series overall is needed.  Needs to progress to a conclusion and highlight key points.

(iv). A lot of YouTube channels offer 'membership' - with insider Q & As and so forth.  The CT could think up ideas for pulling people in to the campaign's themes and messages and developing loyalty.

Those are my thoughts.  Thanks.

While I admire YH's tenacity and commitment, I'm not certain she is an ideal narrator. With regards to podcasts, I think there's too many.

I wish the resource was better spent on a slick video presentation with appropriate diagrams, images etc., solely around the actions of Mick Ainsley, ideally in chronological order. I'm talking about something that avoids any ambiguous evidence. It would need to basically blow the podcasts away with style content and presentation. You couldn't have YH narrating. Nor HAL. It would need to be professional affair designed for longevity in terms of impact. Something that's going to go viral for the right reasons.

[guest29835]

While I admire YH's tenacity and commitment, I'm not certain she is an ideal narrator. With regards to podcasts, I think there's too many.

I wish the resource was better spent on a slick video presentation with appropriate diagrams, images etc., solely around the actions of Mick Ainsley, ideally in chronological order. I'm talking about something that avoids any ambiguous evidence. It would need to basically blow the podcasts away with style content and presentation. You couldn't have YH narrating. Nor HAL. It would need to be professional affair designed for longevity in terms of impact. Something that's going to go viral for the right reasons.

You have to take a step back and ask: 'What is all this social media for?'  Why 'campaign' at all?  Why not just treat it as a legal matter and leave it to the courts, investigators/researchers and lawyers?

As I suggested in a previous post, you could say that there is an air war and a land war.  The air war is propaganda and media; the land war is the nuts and bolts of the law and evidence.  The aim of the air war is to capture a critical mass of support and interest to build some sort of political momentum behind the case in the belief that this will affect the legal outcome in some way.  Yet 'everybody knows' that Michael Stone is 'innocent', but he is still in prison.  I wonder if, similarly, Jeremy Bamber's case is suitable for campaigning at all?  Remember that he stands convicted of mass murder, including two young children.  The Birmingham Six case was mass murder, but there was a political dimension to it that helped to generate interest among people with agendas of their own, including those who wanted to subvert confidence in the British Establishment and the English criminal justice system.  Jeremy's case is not comparable.

On the other hand, Jeremy' case offers some constitutional issues that should interest 'political' people, such as disclosure failures and the destruction of evidence.  There is also the theme of Jeremy as social outsider.  I agree that lengthy series may not be a good idea as delving too much into detail can put people off and also leave you open to attack, but frankly, the man has been in prison for nearly 36 years and has at least four failed appeal attempts behind him, so you have to accept that they may be past the stage of fretting about tactics.  And if he's innocent, he's innocent.

I sense the podcasts represent them feeling their way and they are going to learn lessons from it.  They probably don't have a creative director on board who can take over that 'department' of the campaign and steer things for them.  I think a single movie-length production would be a good idea.  It could be something along the lines of the Michael Moore-style, which nowadays might not be too expensive to put together professionally as it's based on montages, with original interviews cut in.

If I was doing this, I would come up with a compelling title, such as The Innocent Man or Innocence, or whatever, secure a domain name, pay for a professional 'Coming Soon' trailer promising excitement and revelations, and put everything into promoting that on social media.  On the back of that, you'd then secure some funding to finish it off.

[guest29835]

An outline of how I would do this if I was a supporter:

Provisional Title:
AN INNOCENT MAN

Sub-titles:
The sensational framing of Jeremy Bamber
The inside story of Britain's worst-ever miscarriage of justice

Length:

70 minutes.

Goal:

To promote Jeremy's cause to a wider audience.

Aim:

To show why and how Jeremy is innocent and why and how he was wrongly-convicted, without compromising the ongoing CCRC application.

Themes:

'Inside story'
The real Jeremy.
Inconsistencies and problems with the evidence.
Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Jeremy.

Content:

I take my inspiration here partly from Granada's World in Action drama-documentary about The Birmingham Six, and partly from Michael Moore.  It would be a hybrid of the two styles.
 
The film would be a pseudo-dramatic account of the Campaign Team's fight for Jeremy, with a full script written, but only a small fraction of this would make it into the final production.  Starring Yvonne and Philip, maybe a couple of others.  The aim would be to have conversations between the two principals and others as a link between different revelations about the case.  It sounds a bit corny and cringey, but one of them would play the 'sceptic' character (the ersatz 'John Hurt') who ends up being totally convinced, whereas the other would be the 'true believer' character (ersatz 'Martin Shaw') who knows Jeremy is innocent.

You would need an indoor location, which could be a temporarily-rented office, and there could be outdoor shots at key locations.

One idea I have is that they could have a scene with Barbara De'Ath at the quay with them trying to figure out how Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.

Montages would highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, and consist of media footage, documents, and interviews.

There would also be new interviews with sympathisers.

There could also be interviews with figures from the opposing side - though that could be a legally difficult due to the ongoing CCRC application.

Anyway, that's just an idea.  In principle, there is no reason why ordinary supporters could not produce something like this.  It would require a bit of technical nous, some money - maybe a couple of thousand, if using existing equipment - and some acting ability.

If I was going to do something like this, I would produce it from a strictly neutral point-of-view, so it would be a bit different, but inevitably the leaning would be towards Jeremy because of all the doubts and questions.

[Adam]

An outline of how I would do this if I was a supporter:

Provisional Title:
AN INNOCENT MAN

Sub-titles:
The sensational framing of Jeremy Bamber
The inside story of Britain's worst-ever miscarriage of justice

Length: 70 minutes.

Goal:

To promote Jeremy's cause to a wider audience.

Aim:

To show why and how Jeremy is innocent and why and how he was wrongly-convicted.

Themes:

'Inside story'
The real Jeremy.
Inconsistencies and problems with the evidence.
Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Jeremy.

Content:

I take my inspiration here partly from Granada's World in Action drama-documentary about The Birmingham Six, and partly from Michael Moore.  It would be a hybrid of the two styles.
 
The film would be a pseudo-dramatic account of the Campaign Team's fight for Jeremy, with a full script written, but only a small fraction of this would make it into the final production.  Starring Yvonne and Philip, maybe a couple of others.  The aim would be to have conversations between the two principals and others as a link between different revelations about the case. 

You would need an indoor location, which could be a temporarily-rented office, and there could be outdoor shots at key locations.

One idea I have is that they could have a scene with Barbara De'Ath at the quay with them trying to figure out how Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.

Montages would highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, and consist of media footage, documents, and interviews.

There would also be new interviews with sympathisers.

Anyway, that's just an idea.  In principle, there is no reason why ordinary supporters could not produce something like this.  It would require a bit of technical nous, some money - maybe a couple of thousand, if using existing equipment - and some acting ability.

If I was going to do something like this, I would produce it from a strictly neutral point-of-view, so it would be a bit different, but inevitably the leaning would be towards Jeremy because of all the doubts and questions.

Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.

----------

Even the CT have never said this.

[guest29835]

Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.

----------

Even the CT have never said this.

Actually, they explicitly have - in the latest podcast, for one.