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

[Adam]

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

Where in the podcast?

[guest29835]

Where in the podcast?

Just listen to the podcast, if you're so inclined.

[killingeve]

Just listen to the podcast, if you're so inclined.

It should come with some sort of health warning its so bad!

I got to the part when Ms De'Ath tells the listener Bamber was a lovely man and DCI Ainsley was a horrible man, or words to this effect, and decided to turn off.  I mean they're hardly likely to say otherwise are they?    Its the stuff of playgrounds.  Seriously embarrassing. For those who are campaigning on Bamber's behalf what on earth have the trials and tributlations of Ms De'Ath's family life and her caravan got to do with him?

[killingeve]

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.

Sometimes less is more!

The general public are not remotely interested in Bamber per se.  They tuned into the 2020 ITV and 2021 Sky progs as they fall under the very popular genre of TRUE crime. 

If the review commission rejects Bamber's latest submission it will really sound the death knell.  Most, lay and professional, will think 'hey hang about this guy has been to the appeal courts and review commission umpteen times he must be guilty'.  And if the 2021 submission is rejected will Bamber disclose its findings or will he withhold like the 2012 findings?   

Those that believe Bamber innocent form an insignificant number and are rightly written off as a freak show of sorts. 

[Adam]

It should come with some sort of health warning its so bad!

I got to the part when Ms De'Ath tells the listener Bamber was a lovely man and DCI Ainsley was a horrible man, or words to this effect, and decided to turn off.  I mean they're hardly likely to say otherwise are they?    Its the stuff of playgrounds.  Seriously embarrassing. For those who are campaigning on Bamber what on earth have the trials and tributlations of Ms De'Ath's family life and her caravan got to do with Bamber?

Where does it say Bamber could not walk or cycle to WHF?

I can face listening to those 2 minutes.

[killingeve]

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.

As far as I know Yvonne and the support group do not post on forums?  They produce a lot of what I would describe as propaganda cutting off the opportunity for feedback.  They obviously can't do this with the review commission and I think they will have a rude awakening when the submission is inevitably demolished. 

[killingeve]

Where does it say Bamber could not walk or cycle to WHF?

I can face listening to those 2 minutes.

I can't recall the exact words but it says something about lots of people about partying and fishing as it was summer hol time and therefore he would have been seen.  I think it was along those lines as opposed to him not being up to the physicality of cycling/walking. 

[Adam]

I can't recall the exact words but it says something about lots of people about partying and fishing as it was summer hol time and therefore he would have been seen.  I think it was along those lines as opposed to him not being up to the physicality of cycling/walking.

Fishing. As people do at 2am.

Partying. As people used to do in the dark fields of Tolleshunt D'arcy. At 2am.

What do think of Bamber's reason for bringing June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre - So Julie could cycle to the train station when going home.

[killingeve]

Fishing. As people do at 2am.

Partying. As people used to do in the dark fields of Tolleshunt D'arcy. At 2am.

What do think of Bamber's reason for bringing June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre - So Julie could cycle to the train station when going home.

Obvious what he wanted it for!

Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description. 

If the defence employed two private detectives to look into Sheila's background they were surely able to call at least one witness at trial who could say 'I was there and I didn't meet anyone fitting Bamber's description'.  I can only assume Ms De'Ath was wrong with her recollections and the place wasn't as busy as she thought. In fact totally isolated seems more likely.  Bamber probably did a recce in the nights leading up to the murders.   

[killingeve]

I've sent Yvonne a further email -

asking again for a copy of the 2012 commissions statement of reasons

pointing out she is seeking public support therefore we surely have a right to make an informed decision on all the available info

pointing out the hypocrisy in Bamber talking about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing

asking if Peter Tatchell is aware of Bamber's position re the above (bet Tatchell hasn't seen it).

asking when expect to hear from commission

asking regardless of decision will Bamber disclose the statement of reasons

[lookout]

Where does it say that JB himself is withholding evidence ?

[killingeve]

Where does it say that JB himself is withholding evidence ?

Who do you think is withholding it if not Bamber?

[guest29835]

I've sent Yvonne a further email -

asking again for a copy of the 2012 commissions statement of reasons

pointing out she is seeking public support therefore we surely have a right to make an informed decision on all the available info

pointing out the hypocrisy in Bamber talking about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing

asking if Peter Tatchell is aware of Bamber's position re the above (bet Tatchell hasn't seen it).

asking when expect to hear from commission

asking regardless of decision will Bamber disclose the statement of reasons

There is no hypocrisy. 

Jeremy is not under any duty to disclose the Statement of Reasons.  It's a private document.  Jeremy is a private individual engaged in litigation.  He is not a public body. 

A court can order Jeremy to disclose private documents, but let us consider what the word 'disclosure' actually means.

It's when in litigation, or potential litigation, one party reveals to another documents on which it intends to rely.  The Crown can't rely on the Statement of Reasons, as it's not relevant to the current application.  Nor do they need to, as the same body that issued the Statement of Reasons is now reviewing Jeremy's latest CCRC application and will not normally accept re-submissions of evidence already disposed of.

That's why, whatever it may contain, disclosing the Statement of Reasons would be a pointless exercise in terms of the legal process.

What you really mean is not that Jeremy should disclose the Statement of Reasons, but that he should share it with the public and publish it for all to see.  Why should he?  You may say that if it's no longer relevant to the legal process, then what's the harm? But if it's no longer relevant, then why should he bother?  Would you share with all the world private correspondence with a public body if you were undertaking a criminal appeal or some other sort of litigation?  You are asking him to voluntarily do this.  Or you think, failing that, the CCRC should be permitted to publish the document on its own initiative, yet the CCRC is not allowed to do that, as the document is directed at the applicant. 

In contrast, documents generated by and held by public bodies, such as the police, are not just directed at police officers and there is no expectation that only other police officers will ever read them.  They are public property and potentially disclosable. 

[Adam]

Obvious what he wanted it for!

Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description. 

If the defence employed two private detectives to look into Sheila's background they were surely able to call at least one witness at trial who could say 'I was there and I didn't meet anyone fitting Bamber's description'.  I can only assume Ms De'Ath was wrong with her recollections and the place wasn't as busy as she thought. In fact totally isolated seems more likely.  Bamber probably did a recce in the nights leading up to the murders.   

Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description.

----------

That is a good point.

Seeing Bamber on a bike at that time would not be hard to forget. Or fishing/partying at 2am & seeing nothing would not be hard to forget.

There were 3 cycle routes to/from WHF,. So options for Bamber in ensuring he is not seen.

Doubtful there would be a potential witness on one route, let alone three. But if one witness had come forward, the CT would be all over it.

[lookout]

Who do you think is withholding it if not Bamber?

You distinctly said that JB was withholding evidence, such as him personally ??