Jeremy Bamber White House Farm...Innocent or Evil scumbag?

What happened to @Mercia Blackcat I haven't seen him on here for a long while. He always had good points to make.
Just checked and he was posting this week. Ah well.

Hi John. Was it this long ago when the thread started. I've tried to see if this new docu is available on the Channel 5 player but couldn't find it. My main conclusion was based on the belief that Sheila could not have murdered her family and so by default, Jeremy must be guilty due to statement he made to the police blaming Sheila. If it wasn't Jeremy, although I'm not saying he is innocent, than it would have to be someone else in my opinion. The problem is that over the years the same evidence has been recycled several times so unless I see the docu I don't know know if it is simply regurgitating the same stuff or is offering something new.
 


Bacchus

Midfield
Hi John. Was it this long ago when the thread started. I've tried to see if this new docu is available on the Channel 5 player but couldn't find it. My main conclusion was based on the belief that Sheila could not have murdered her family and so by default, Jeremy must be guilty due to statement he made to the police blaming Sheila. If it wasn't Jeremy, although I'm not saying he is innocent, than it would have to be someone else in my opinion. The problem is that over the years the same evidence has been recycled several times so unless I see the docu I don't know know if it is simply regurgitating the same stuff or is offering something new.
Offers new information, police had record of father's call advising Sheila was running amok with gun. This was not disclosed at the trial. Also scratch on wall appeared after extended family had done a search and discovered the silencer with red paint on it. Also, when the police entered the property they recorded 2 bodies downstairs, this changed to just 1 later...
Also, police records show they were in touch with someone inside the farm while bamber was with them outside
 
Last edited:

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
Watch last night's update, evidence withheld from the trial back's up Bamber's series of events

Aye I saw bits of it. It was footage from crimes that shook Britain but with some extra bits in. Case needs a real quality documentary - but very hard to get one up and running. Gone are the days of 'Rough Justice'.
 

viccarlton

Striker
Just watched the series on Netflix, quite watchable as tv series go, would like to see this channel 5 documentary that is being mentioned on here, what was it called and is it available anywhere?
 

sidneyeric

Striker
He's right though. I've read everything there is to read about this case and only his family and the normal conspiracy theory nutters would have him as innocent.
The challenge is based on 347,000 pages of evidence, including Essex police logs, that were originally withheld from Bamber under public interest immunity laws that no longer apply after 30 years. Bamber said he had “multiple grounds” for an appeal. He told the Guardian: “Our comprehensive submissions contain the evidence to prove that the jury at my trial were not provided with the full facts and that they were misled repeatedly. “I am filled with hope and anticipation that the new submissions to the CCRC will achieve a speedy referral to the court of appeal.” The CCRC has a duty to refer the case if it believes there is a reasonable chance the court of appeal will quash Bamber’s conviction.
There's 100's of thousands of pages of new evidence been sent, numerous stuff hidden from the jury, even the stuff known now there's no way a jury could be absolutley certain of guilt. Unless his lawyers are conspiracy theory nutters.
 
Last edited:

rentaghost

Striker
There's 100's of thousands of pages of new evidence been sent, numerous stuff hidden from the jury, even the stuff known now there's no way a jury could be absolutley certain of guilt. Unless his lawyers are conspiracy theory nutters.
His lawyers are doing their job building a case for the person that pays them to do so. There's nothing to suggest his conviction is unsafe or he would get released. Even then there's a clear difference between a safe conviction or being innocent of the crime.
 

sidneyeric

Striker
His lawyers are doing their job building a case for the person that pays them to do so. There's nothing to suggest his conviction is unsafe or he would get released. Even then there's a clear difference between a safe conviction or being innocent of the crime.
There's plenty of evidence including a shit load that has been hidden, and it doesn't work like that, the only way he can get released is if the CCRC refir his case to the court of appeal and considering they've just been repremanded for not being independant, not investigating cases properly and have faced a huge cut in resources it's not going to be anytime soon.
 

rentaghost

Striker
There's plenty of evidence including a shit load that has been hidden, and it doesn't work like that, the only way he can get released is if the CCRC refir his case to the court of appeal and considering they've just been repremanded for not being independant, not investigating cases properly and have faced a huge cut in resources it's not going to be anytime soon.

Surely they would more likely get reprimanded for ignoring blatant evidence showing a wrongful conviction. If its not going to happen anytime soon there a more obvious reason for that.
 

sidneyeric

Striker

Bacchus

Midfield
Just watched the series on Netflix, quite watchable as tv series go, would like to see this channel 5 documentary that is being mentioned on here, what was it called and is it available anywhere?
Will give the Netflix series a view as the C5 show was definitely erring on the side of caution regarding his guilt
He's right though. I've read everything there is to read about this case and only his family and the normal conspiracy theory nutters would have him as innocent.
Did you watch the C5 update?
 
Last edited:
There's 100's of thousands of pages of new evidence been sent, numerous stuff hidden from the jury, even the stuff known now there's no way a jury could be absolutley certain of guilt. Unless his lawyers are conspiracy theory nutters.
There's no way they can be 'absolutely certain' in any case. That's why they convict based on beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Absolutley certain is what the judge asks of the jury, beyond reasonable doubt is very rarely used now.
Have you got any links where this is explained? I've found something that says they should use 'satisfied that they are sure' but that's very different from 'Absolutely certain'.
 

Top