Hello another newbie

[handymanz]

Ex pat Brit living in Nz, been out of the UK for over 30 years.

Last night watched a Doco on Sky TV's Crime Investigation channel about Jeremy Bamber.

I was pretty gob smacked not only because I'd never really heard of the case, but the guy has been inside for 27 years for a conviction based on the testimonies of people with ulterior motives.

All the information that has come to the surface since Mr Bamber's trial should have at least given him a retrial.

Funnily enough the whole episode at White House farm and it's subsequent dodgy conviction, could have been written as a combination of 2 of New Zealand's most high profile who dunnit crimes, (the Crewe murders & the Bain famiy massacre) where both the convicted suspects had their convictions eventually over turned.

[tyler]

Welcome to the forum Handyman 
Can I ask,do you believe Bain to be guilty or innocent?

[handymanz]

Hi there Tyler, I believe David Bain to be innocent.

What struck a chord in me about the White House farm case was the similarities between Robin Bain (David's father) & Sheila Caffell, in that the Police thought neither were capable of using the murder weapon, on themselves. despite them both being unhinged.

[Bridget]

I hadn't heard of the Bain case before, but a quick read throws up some really quite striking similarities.

[tyler]

Hi there Tyler, I believe David Bain to be innocent.

What struck a chord in me about the White House farm case was the similarities between Robin Bain (David's father) & Sheila Caffell, in that the Police thought neither were capable of using the murder weapon, on themselves. despite them both being unhinged.

Handyman.........thanks for your reply 
Although both Bain and Bambers cases are strikingly similar,having read a fair amount on Bains case,I actually believe him to be guilty.I feel that Bain left behind many clues/evidence,whereas there appears to be nothing but speculation/assumptions/ hearsay in the Bamber case.But that,of course,is only my opinion.

[handymanz]

In the Bain case it was believed that Robin couldn't have turned the rifle on himself, which appears to be a similar arguement in favour of Sheila Caffell.
David Bain had no apparant motive, where by Robin was about to be exposed for sexually molesting his daughter, yet during the trial this was kept from the jury.

[Patti]

Welcome to the forum

[handymanz]

Welcome to the forum

Thanks for the welcome.

[Roch]

Thanks for the welcome.

You're welcome.

[susan]

handyman  welcome to the forum.

[handymanz]

Thanks Susan, once I get more familiar with this case hope to be making some constructive posts, on behalf of Jeremy

[susan]

Hi handyman

I am still trying to do the same thing myself

[Caroline R]

Hi Handyman, welcome to the forum! 

[OnceSaid]

Welcome 

[handymanz]

Thanks again for the warm welcomes.

The David Bain case is again in the spotlight regarding his application for compensation.
One of the main issues about his wrongfull conviction is the fact that his 2 sisters had been working as prostitutes and had been molested by their father. This had been concealed from the jury thus denying a motive.

Just been reading through this site.http://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/

Can't help but see similarites with the WHF case. Information leading to a motive for purgery, being kept from the jury.

Peter’s father had died and left this land to both Peter and his brother John. [2]  But John had plans to sell his share of the land to property developers. In a bid to help Peter and Ann, Nevill Bamber secretly bought this land from John Eaton. There was no love lost between Nevill and John and at a later stage local people recall John and Nevill arguing over land in the local pub. Nevill claimed that John had overcharged him for the land and this resulted (according to witnesses) in a drunken John Eaton punching Nevill Bamber.[3]
 
You can imagine Ann and Peter’s concern to know that the land that had previously been secured by Nevill was now going into Jeremy’s control and being sold on. Ann was the one driving the argument that Jeremy had killed the family. [4] The jury didn’t know anything of the secret land purchase, but must have had suspicions about the relatives and when they they asked specifically [5] if Robert Boutflour or any of the relatives had motive to say that Jeremy had told them he was going to kill his family they were not told about this purchase. The detail of this secret land purchase was only disclosed to the Defence after the 2002 appeal, but it is noted in these linked documents as part of the Dickinson Review[6] conducted during November 1986, just one month after Jeremy Bamber was convicted