Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.

[JackieD]

No wonder you wanted members to concentrate on Episode 3, given the exceptionally moving interview with Colin in Episode 2, whom you accused of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia. As for David Bain, you are once again woefully ignorant of the case. After the retrial and the Binnie report came the devastating Callinan report, which you may wish to read here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/08/bain_found_most_likely_to_have_killed_his_family_but_gets_925000_anyway.html/comment-page-1

If like me you believe Jeremy is most likely to be innocent Colin has a lot to answer for, the violence, the affairs and trying to mislead the media with lies for over 30 years to deflect blame from himself

[guest29835]

Why even quote his stupid comments, Jackie?  He addressed it at me, not you, so I have replied to him and set him straight once again.

I've just remembered something else fatuous that he said.  He says I want people to focus on episode 3, and I don't want anybody to watch episodes 1 and 2.  Like most of what Steve says, this makes no sense whatsoever. If you follow my link to episode 3, you can then easily find episodes 1 and 2 if you want.  There's also this thing called Google that been around for a good few years.  We've established on a different thread that Steve doesn't know how to use Google, but I'm sure most other people here are quite capable and competent in doing so and can use their own initiative without my assistance.

Just for the avoidance of doubt - Please feel free to watch episodes 1 and 2 and start your own threads on these and have whatever discussions you like about it.  I'm really not stopping you, and there are also things I would like to discuss about those episodes, but I don't have the time right now.

I am sorry, but I'm struggling to articulate Steve's fatuousness and stupidity.  He is clearly here to needle and goad me.  I don't understand why this is tolerated.  Could one of the moderators please come on the thread and provide an explanation?

Thank you.

[ngb1066]

Why even quote his stupid comments, Jackie?  He addressed it at me, not you, so I have replied to him and set him straight once again.

I've just remembered something else fatuous that he said.  He says I want people to focus on episode 3, and I don't want anybody to watch episodes 1 and 2.  Like most of what Steve says, this makes no sense whatsoever. If you follow my link to episode 3, you can then easily find episodes 1 and 2 if you want.  There's also this thing called Google that been around for a good few years.  We've established on a different thread that Steve doesn't know how to use Google, but I'm sure most other people here are quite capable and competent in doing so and can use their own initiative without my assistance.

Just for the avoidance of doubt - Please feel free to watch episodes 1 and 2 and start your own threads on these and have whatever discussions you like about it.  I'm really not stopping you, and there are also things I would like to discuss about those episodes, but I don't have the time right now.

I am sorry, but I'm struggling to articulate Steve's fatuousness and stupidity.  He is clearly here to needle and goad me.  I don't understand why this is tolerated.  Could one of the moderators please come on the thread and provide an explanation?

Thank you.

I am trying not to worsen the situation.  I agree that Steve_uk's post contained an unnecessary personal dig at you.  You have responded to that.  I hope this does not now escalate.  I try not to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary because if I edit or remove posts there is often an adverse reaction.  I have not edited or removed the posts here but hope there is no tit for tap response with escalating personal attacks.

[David1819]

I've now listened to her in two or three different interviews, and she doesn't come across as piercingly intelligent. I think her talent is in writing rather than critical thinking.  She is not a denker.  Probably half the people who post regularly on this Forum have a better grasp of the case than she does, notwithstanding all the interviews and research she did.  I love how in the podcast she got worked up about Jeremy having the dog put down.  People have dogs destroyed every day for all sorts of frivolous reasons.  As if that proves somebody is a mass murderer. 

I doubt she carries out all the research herself for these books anyway.  I expect it will be more of a team/committee effort and she is the figurehead/chair, she interviews the key players, she pulls it all together in a manuscript, it's then edited by somebody else, and her name goes on it.

I've been thinking over the point I raised earlier.

To recap:

Book - Affects to be neutral, but strongly implies guilt.

Dramatisation - He's guilty, but door left open for some doubt.  Maybe it was Sheila?  See zombie scene when she looks out of the bedroom window at Colin.  What was going on there then, eh?  Who knows?  Isn't Jeremy a cad, though?  On second thoughts, he must be guilty.

Newspaper articles, podcast, social media - He's definitely guilty, it's so obvious you numpty.  What's wrong with you?

The puzzle is: If she's so sure, then why all the caution?  Let's face it - a book or TV drama can be just as gripping even when we know who the killer is from the start.  If anything, knowing who it is can make it all the more interesting.  It all boils down to how you want to write it, whether it's a book or screenplay. 

One possible explanation is to do with propaganda.  Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things. 

A theory I have about this is that, if the subject-matter is complex, propaganda is optimal when they (whoever 'they' are) use implication to encourage people to come to the desired conclusion, rather than straight-out telling them what to think.  This sort of subtle, implied propaganda requires a credo or ethos that brings people to a particular coda: in this case, Jeremy is guilty.  The reader or viewer thinks he is watching something neutral and he is being allowed to form his own view that he can then debate with friends, family and work colleagues, when in fact he is being manipulated.  This is far more effective than the more explicit, in-your-face type of propaganda used by guilters online that relies on simplifications and mantras repeated over and over and that can get people's backs up.

In the podcast and in her newspaper articles and on social media, Carol Ann Lee perhaps falls into an error of strategy, possibly under encouragement from her anxious backers.  She reverts to the strategy of overt propaganda, and many viewers, regardless of IQ/intelligence, will find this obnoxious and annoying.  A lot of people don't like having their thinking done for them and are offended by such efforts - one of the reasons I sometimes find dogmatic guilters offensive.

The book and dramatisation are 'smarter' in the sense that the propagandising is more implied, allowing the viewer to believe that what they are watching or reading is truly 'neutral', so that when they do what they are supposed to do and make up their minds that Jeremy is guilty, that conclusion is self-validating and self-affirming.

I think CAL underestimated how much her book would be scrutinized. I would not be surprised if she one day comes to regret writing it the way she did.

[Roch]

I think CAL underestimated how much her book would be scrutinized. I would not be surprised if she one day comes to regret writing it the way she did.

I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.

[JackieD]

I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.

Who else was in the category? They must of been shit

[David1819]

I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.

Hardly means anything. Making a Murderer won FOUR Emmy awards back in 2016 . Now the creators are being sued and their credibility as documentary makers are in tatters.

[Steve_uk]

(i). Where do I accuse Colin of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia?  Could you please quote both the post and also link to the thread for context.

(ii). The Callinan report is one opinion, the Binnie report is another.  I have not expressed a view on Bain's guilt or innocence.  Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I actually say/misquoting me?

(iii). Why do you come on here picking fights with me?

Moderators - could you also comment on the above, and as a precaution, I have also reported Steve's post.

Thank you.

Certainly I can. Clicking on your name and trawling through your posts it's #1185:

Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia?  Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage?  This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.

This was such an important observation to you that you thought it deserved a new thread. You had already commented on a previous post that you never liked Colin:

The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell.  I've never taken to him.  I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him. (#1294)

These posts are concomitant in that you are developing a thought process. The process evolves into you believing that Colin was the person who caused Sheila to develop schizophrenia.

The Moderators won't remove this post because it's my right to free speech, and I've given my view on how you expressed yourself.

[JackieD]

Certainly I can. Clicking on your name and trawling through your posts it's #1185:

Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia?  Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage?  This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.

This was such an important observation to you that you thought it deserved a new thread. You had already commented on a previous post that you never liked Colin:

The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell.  I've never taken to him.  I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him. (#1294)

These posts are concomitant in that you are developing a thought process. The process evolves into you believing that Colin was the person who caused Sheila to develop schizophrenia.

The Moderators won't remove this post because it's my right to free speech, and I've given my view on how you expressed yourself.

Wrong again Steve!!!
QCC said
Is there a case?

A few questions for you Steve
Do you believe it’s ok for a man to physically attack a women?
Do you believe a women would almost certainly suffer mental health problems after being physically attacked by her husband?
Why do you think Colin misled the media feeding them the idea Sheila and him could be getting back together?
Why do you think Colin misled the media saying Sheila could not have been responsible for the murders because she would have had to be a marksmen to carry out the murders?
Do you not think it’s really bad to lie to the media just to sell a book?
Why was there talk of fostering and previous fostering when the children had Colin?

[lookout]

Can you imagine the outcry there'd be today if headlines read " that a young woman had to have an abortion, then went on to suffer 2/3 further miscarriages and nobody cared or looked after her mentally or physically ?" Because this is what had happened to Sheila. The seed was sown for mental health problems to develop as time went on. Is it any wonder she flipped ? Her situation would have tried the strongest of people.

Sheila's story should have been told, then people could judge for themselves !

[JackieD]

Can you imagine the outcry there'd be today if headlines read " that a young woman had to have an abortion, then went on to suffer 2/3 further miscarriages and nobody cared or looked after her mentally or physically ?" Because this is what had happened to Sheila. The seed was sown for mental health problems to develop as time went on. Is it any wonder she flipped ? Her situation would have tried the strongest of people.

Sheila's story should have been told, then people could judge for themselves !

Your right Lookout. Colins had his say, he has courted the media to sell his book and it’s about time Sheilas story is told especially as we are focusing on Mental Health at this moment. I have always thought a new documentary about the WHF should focus on Julie Mugfords part in Jeremys conviction but maybe the real focus should start with Sheila. It’s hard to imagine the state of Sheilas mind on that last trip to WHF and what led up to the events that night.

To be honest I am still shell shocked by the events last Friday at Little Baddow Fruit Farm which involved someone I saw every single day 

30 years on and we are still not doing enough

[lookout]

Your right Lookout. Colins had his say, he has courted the media to sell his book and it’s about time Sheilas story is told especially as we are focusing on Mental Health at this moment. I have always thought a new documentary about the WHF should focus on Julie Mugfords part in Jeremys conviction but maybe the real focus should start with Sheila. It’s hard to imagine the state of Sheilas mind on that last trip to WHF and what led up to the events that night.

To be honest I am still shell shocked by the events last Friday at Little Baddow Fruit Farm which involved someone I saw every single day 

30 years on and we are still not doing enough

Not enough is known about mental health and the triggers which cause people to take their own lives as well as those of others . It's not as though such cases are rare either.

[Steve_uk]

Wrong again Steve!!!
QCC said
Is there a case?

A few questions for you Steve
Do you believe it’s ok for a man to physically attack a women?
Do you believe a women would almost certainly suffer mental health problems after being physically attacked by her husband?
Why do you think Colin misled the media feeding them the idea Sheila and him could be getting back together?
Why do you think Colin misled the media saying Sheila could not have been responsible for the murders because she would have had to be a marksmen to carry out the murders?
Do you not think it’s really bad to lie to the media just to sell a book?
Why was there talk of fostering and previous fostering when the children had Colin?

I understand Colin retaliated only once, after what must have been months or even years of abuse. He evidently couldn't live with her, and in her state I doubt anyone could. Apart, Sheila realized that she had gone too far, and Colin realized that he had to step in with childcare responsibilities as his ex-wife just wasn't capable of looking after Nicholas and Daniel full time.

[Roch]

One possible explanation is to do with propaganda.  Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things. 

I've read her book.  Though I thought it was well written, I felt it was a poor representation of the case.  I sense that she has a pro-police / pro-authorities confirmation bias.  One could be forgiven for wondering whether she either led JB on, and he then placed too much trust in her which she exploited. I wonder whether she was unable to grasp the complexities of the issues he was trying to inform her about - so she reached for the more familiar world of police explanations - a bit like a CCRC caseworker, who has been assured by EP that all is above board regarding curation of the negatives and therefore dismisses the explanation by the defence as to why the missing images of a particular location are so important. 

Let's say there were five key aspects of the case that defence researchers could agree on, that were damaging to the police / prosecution / conviction.  If they tried to get that in to a quality documentary, I do not believe it would happen.  Contrast that with the adaptation of CAL's book, with all its investment and stars, which for all intents and purposes will be seen by the majority of a mass audience as being an accurate representation of the facts.  In that sense, it is propaganda.  The program makers were allowed to shut out the defence. They should have been made to mention that in captions. 

Then we have Roy Tyzack (if he's bona-fide) who's been inside EP, knows that this case is fetid and is a very sensitive matter to bring up behind closed doors.  If I was CAL, I would be contemplating 'how come this senior ex-detective from within EP has come to that view... have I missed something?'. 

She's done alright out of it.  Whether she lives to regret it - who knows.  I like to think she could do in old age.

[JackieD]

I understand Colin retaliated only once, after what must have been months or even years of abuse. He evidently couldn't live with her, and in her state I doubt anyone could. Apart, Sheila realized that she had gone too far, and Colin realized that he had to step in with childcare responsibilities as his ex-wife just wasn't capable of looking after Nicholas and Daniel full time.

As usual your post is a joke?
“You understand”

What? Have you got a hot line to Colin?
Where do you understand this from?
The fact is you don’t know do you?

If a man is capable of violence it’s likely to have happened more than once but Colin likes to make things up doesn’t he?

How big was Colin and how small was Sheila?

Why were her children fostered why didn’t he look after his children when his wife was seriously ill?

Did Colin have a girlfriend at the time of the murders? Or was he planning to get back with Sheila as he told the press?
Why did Colin only include Jeremys letters in his book not his replies?
EVERYTHING Colin did would have had an  affect on Sheilas mental health

Let’s post some facts and the truth on here Steve because I am sick to death of your “I understands”