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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
viccarlton said:
I haven’t seen the update where is it available?
Click to expand...

The Greatest TV of The '70s Airs October 28 2023 on Channel 5 - TV Everyday

On Saturday, October 28, 2023, at 9:55 PM, Channel 5 presents "The Greatest TV of The '70s," a two-hour celebration of the finest television moments from the
tveveryday.com

Evidence not disclosed at the trial backs up Bamber series of events... The cops were in communication with someone inside the farm while Bamber was outside with them. Also first on crime scene recorded 2 bodies downstairs which later changed to 1. The dead don't walk unless it's a zombie flic
 


Bacchus said:

The Greatest TV of The '70s Airs October 28 2023 on Channel 5 - TV Everyday

On Saturday, October 28, 2023, at 9:55 PM, Channel 5 presents "The Greatest TV of The '70s," a two-hour celebration of the finest television moments from the
tveveryday.com

Evidence not disclosed at the trial backs up Bamber series of events... The cops were in communication with someone inside the farm while Bamber was outside with them. Also first on crime scene recorded 2 bodies downstairs which later changed to 1. The dead don't walk unless it's a zombie flic
Click to expand...
The cops at the scene did hail the house but that was recorded back at control as police in discussion with someone but they never received a response to their hail so this is down to poor communication by the police but it was back in the 80s. The confusion over the bodies downstairs was because two different officers reported the same body differently as a male and a female.
Bacchus said:
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
Click to expand...
When I looked at the call logs, the allegation of the father was reported by Jeremy who said his father had called him.
Before he left the farm after calling himself, Jeremy left the phone off the hook so the police were able to listen in but all they reported was hearing a dog barking in the house.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
The cops at the scene did hail the house but that was recorded back at control as police in discussion with someone but they never received a response to their hail so this is down to poor communication by the police but it was back in the 80s. The confusion over the bodies downstairs was because two different officers reported the same body differently as a male and a female.

When I looked at the call logs, the allegation of the father was reported by Jeremy who said his father had called him.
Before he left the farm after calling himself, Jeremy left the phone off the hook so the police were able to listen in but all they reported was hearing a dog barking in the house.
Click to expand...
In the C5 programme in October 20, the police logged a call from his father. Also they counted the bodies and recorded 2, not 1.
 
Bacchus said:
In the C5 programme in October 20, the police logged a call from his father. Also they counted the bodies and recorded 2, not 1.
Click to expand...
Who actually recorded the bodies? The police at the scene or control?
I'll try and find the Ch5 documentary but none of this sounds like new evidence.
We did a thread last year and it was done in detail but to honest it's an unpleasant and difficult subject to research. The only other time I experienced such a reaction was when I did extensive research on Belsen. I'm not keen to research Bamber again unless it is new evidence rtather than regurgitating old stuff. His case went to Appeal and then a Judicial Review but I'll try to see the doc.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
Who actually recorded the bodies? The police at the scene or control?
I'll try and find the Ch5 documentary but none of this sounds like new evidence.
We did a thread last year and it was done in detail but to honest it's an unpleasant and difficult subject to research. The only other time I experienced such a reaction was when I did extensive research on Belsen. I'm not keen to research Bamber again unless it is new evidence rtather than regurgitating old stuff. His case went to Appeal and then a Judicial Review but I'll try to see the doc.
Click to expand...
I think the crux of the C5 October 20 documentary was that evidence was withheld by the police from the trial.
 
RestlessNatives said:
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'.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Judges told to stop using 'beyond reasonable doubt'

British judges have been told to stop using the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' because there are concerns that jurors don't understand what the phrase actually means.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Different judges use different words, absolutely sure was used in the one I attended.
 
I'm not 100% sure about this case with Bamber.
He could be as guilty as all hell but there seems to be a lot of stuff that was omitted......why?
If he was the nailed on murderer then why should anything be omitted?

There's definitely something not quite right about all of this, imo.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I'm not 100% sure about this case with Bamber.
He could be as guilty as all hell but there seems to be a lot of stuff that was omitted......why?
If he was the nailed on murderer then why should anything be omitted?

There's definitely something not quite right about all of this, imo.
Click to expand...
The problem is it was 1986 and so you have to consider by todays standards, poor police methodology both in collecting and analysing any evidence, level of technology available then that today could clarify certain issues, human error and what procedures were there to minimise this, and downright poor professionalism in how it was all presented. It seems to me that the police could and should have done a much better job but whether that indicates any intent is debateable.
Bacchus said:
I think the crux of the C5 October 20 documentary was that evidence was withheld by the police from the trial.
Click to expand...
I think many such issues were considered at the Judicial Review but were considered would have made no difference to the jury. The Judicial Review even rejected some prosecution evidence as it decided that was not available at the time so could not have been considered by the jury in reaching their verdict and it was the original trial and the subsequent appeal that were being considered. So, if anything the Judicial Review favoured Bamber in what evidence they accepted.
 
Last edited:
sidneyeric said:
Different judges use different words, absolutely sure was used in the one I attended.
Click to expand...
sidneyeric said:
Absolutley certain is what the judge asks of the jury, beyond reasonable doubt is very rarely used now.
Click to expand...
You've given two different phrases here.
sidneyeric said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which leads me back to the point I was making. A jury can never be absolutely certain of guilt on any case. That's why I'm surprised those words were used. I'm maybe being pedantic but the law is pedantic. Even in the most open and shut cases, there will be minute elements of doubt about aspects of the case but on balance, a decision is reached.
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
The problem is it was 1986 and so you have to consider by todays standards, poor police methodology both in collecting and analysing any evidence, level of technology available then that today could clarify certain issues, human error and what procedures were there to minimise this, and downright poor professionalism in how it was all presented. It seems to me that the police could and should have done a much better job but whether that indicates any intent is debateable.
Click to expand...

The Netflix doc on the Yorkshire Ripper highlights how unsophisticated the police were at the time.

mountains of paper and by today’s standards incompetence. He would have killed a fraction of the women he did in 2021. Searching for tyre tracks on 1000’s of cars and notes which are in circulation, I think they interviews sutcliffe a fair few times as well, but the volume of paperwork made it hard to pinpoint him as a lead suspect until a lot later
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
The problem is it was 1986 and so you have to consider by todays standards, poor police methodology both in collecting and analysing any evidence, level of technology available then that today could clarify certain issues, human error and what procedures were there to minimise this, and downright poor professionalism in how it was all presented. It seems to me that the police could and should have done a much better job but whether that indicates any intent is debateable.

I think many such issues were considered at the Judicial Review but were considered would have made no difference to the jury. The Judicial Review even rejected some prosecution evidence as it decided that was not available at the time so could not have been considered by the jury in reaching their verdict and it was the original trial and the subsequent appeal that were being considered. So, if anything the Judicial Review favoured Bamber in what evidence they accepted.
Click to expand...
The evidence withheld would have cleared Bamber. Did you manage to watch the C5 October 2020 programme? Worth a watch
 
Herr Lipp said:
The Netflix doc on the Yorkshire Ripper highlights how unsophisticated the police were at the time.

mountains of paper and by today’s standards incompetence. He would have killed a fraction of the women he did in 2021. Searching for tyre tracks on 1000’s of cars and notes which are in circulation, I think they interviews sutcliffe a fair few times as well, but the volume of paperwork made it hard to pinpoint him as a lead suspect until a lot later
Click to expand...
Their method of recording information was suspect also. If I remember the call log that states Nevill Bamber has called and informed them of Sheila running amok with a gun, has been received from another police officer who received the call from Jeremy. The CD number of this officer is noted in the upper row as being the sender. It was one police call handler contacting another call handler and relaying the allegation but the second handler has reported it in the first person as if he had received the call. It's simply poor use of language and the essential information is recorded in the upper row that lists several CD police numbers and their role.
...
Jeremy's police interviews are best described as weird but considering both his parents, his sister and his two nephews have been murdered at trial when he asked by the prosecution barrister if he murdered them his response was *That is for you to prove". Now that is seriously weird.
He's a narcissist psychopath and quite capable of planning and carrying out the killings. Sheila was a schizophrenic and could not have carried out such meticulous premeditated murders with such efficiency. I think only one of the 26 shots fired missed its target and even then was still a grazing shot. She was under sedation and could certainly not have overpowered the much stronger Nevill in the kitchen as he fought to save their lives.
Bacchus said:
The evidence withheld would have cleared Bamber. Did you manage to watch the C5 October 2020 programme? Worth a watch
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to find a link yet.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
Their method of recording information was suspect also. If I remember the call log that states Nevill Bamber has called and informed them of Sheila running amok with a gun, has been received from another police officer who received the call from Jeremy. The CD number of this officer is noted in the upper row as being the sender. It was one police call handler contacting another call handler and relaying the allegation but the second handler has reported it in the first person as if he had received the call. It's simply poor use of language and the essential information is recorded in the upper row that lists several CD police numbers and their role.
...
Jeremy's police interviews are best described as weird but considering both his parents, his sister and his two nephews have been murdered at trial when he asked by the prosecution barrister if he murdered them his response was *That is for you to prove". Now that is seriously weird.
He's a narcissist psychopath and quite capable of planning and carrying out the killings. Sheila was a schizophrenic and could not have carried out such meticulous premeditated murders with such efficiency. I think only one of the 26 shots fired missed its target and even then was still a grazing shot. She was under sedation and could certainly not have overpowered the much stronger Nevill in the kitchen as he fought to save their lives.

I haven't been able to find a link yet.
Click to expand...

The Greatest TV of The '70s Airs October 28 2023 on Channel 5 - TV Everyday

On Saturday, October 28, 2023, at 9:55 PM, Channel 5 presents "The Greatest TV of The '70s," a two-hour celebration of the finest television moments from the
tveveryday.com
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
The problem is it was 1986 and so you have to consider by todays standards, poor police methodology both in collecting and analysing any evidence, level of technology available then that today could clarify certain issues, human error and what procedures were there to minimise this, and downright poor professionalism in how it was all presented. It seems to me that the police could and should have done a much better job but whether that indicates any intent is debateable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can definitely understand that line of thinking.
However, just reading up on it all I just think there's a lot of stuff that comes across as odd.
In now way can I rule out Bamber, of course...like I said....but there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really make much sense.

I mean, why would Bamber wait till his sister and her kids were there?
I could understand it if he waited for his sister and his parents to be there.

If he was going to plan something like this you'd think he would omit as many people as he could from being murdered who had no direct claim on inheritance.

The kids surely wouldn't, unless there was a will made out that put them in to a claim. I don't know if this was the case. I can't remember reading anything towards that.
Maybe you might know.

Understand that I'm more playing devil's advocate.
Bamber could well be (like I said) 100% nailed on guilty and the way he came across based on media stories, didn't bode well for him.
However we all know what the media is like when they want their pound of flesh.
They could turn angles into demons if the narrative is required. Not to say Bamber was any angel, of course.....but.


What do you think?
 

Back
Top