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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
If there was a second prosecutor at that trial it was Jeremy himself daring the defence team to prove it. Acting like an arrogant prick just as he had done in the aftermath of his family being slaughtered.
Half the stuff on this thread is clichés. Like The Sun's version of events accepted without question. A lot of other opinions on here are from the drama or documentaries posing as 'balanced'. Bamber did have an arrogant streak. However, he also had friends who saw worth in him and tried to support him. People gave supportive statements to police and these never reached the defence. Like I say, he had a weak as piss defence Barrister who had never taken on a defence case before. There were complaints made to police by other people, that the relatives were trying to frame him. What you want is a 2 dimensional version of the case, propped up by clichés. It's like saying Hillsborough was caused by drunken Liverpool fans and trashing every other discovered fact about what took place that day as irrelevant. Or accepting that the mags were the most entertaining football team for the whole of the 90's, without question.
 


So I said Bamber behaved like an arrogant prick and you conceded he was arrogant and then went on to say half the stuff on here is cliche :confused: nonetheless how he acted and whether or not he is a complete tool isn’t really a main factor here. What is significant is that a schizophrenic who was ‘going bezerk’ who has never been seen by anyone, let alone her own brother handling a gun could manage to hit 25 times out of 25. Reload bullets that we’re soaked in bees wax without getting a trace of it on her hands, not get a scratch on her despite evidence of a 6ft 2 mountain of a man putting up a massive struggle and then taking two shots to blow her own head off. Having an unlikely explanation for one of these things is a struggle but when you put them altogether it’s impossible for Sheila to have done it. And that means Jeremy did.
 
Half the stuff on this thread is clichés. Like The Sun's version of events accepted without question. A lot of other opinions on here are from the drama or documentaries posing as 'balanced'. Bamber did have an arrogant streak. However, he also had friends who saw worth in him and tried to support him. People gave supportive statements to police and these never reached the defence. Like I say, he had a weak as piss defence Barrister who had never taken on a defence case before. There were complaints made to police by other people, that the relatives were trying to frame him. What you want is a 2 dimensional version of the case, propped up by clichés. It's like saying Hillsborough was caused by drunken Liverpool fans and trashing every other discovered fact about what took place that day as irrelevant. Or accepting that the mags were the most entertaining football team for the whole of the 90's, without question.
You mean clichés like Sheila was mentally ill so she must be the killer.
The only people coming up with a version of events that would suit the Sun are supporters of Jeremy and that version has been quite rightly challenged.
 
Last edited:
So I said Bamber behaved like an arrogant prick and you conceded he was arrogant and then went on to say half the stuff on here is cliche :confused: nonetheless how he acted and whether or not he is a complete tool isn’t really a main factor here. What is significant is that a schizophrenic who was ‘going bezerk’ who has never been seen by anyone, let alone her own brother handling a gun could manage to hit 25 times out of 25. Reload bullets that we’re soaked in bees wax without getting a trace of it on her hands, not get a scratch on her despite evidence of a 6ft 2 mountain of a man putting up a massive struggle and then taking two shots to blow her own head off. Having an unlikely explanation for one of these things is a struggle but when you put them altogether it’s impossible for Sheila to have done it. And that means Jeremy did.
I've already answered your points but you just ignore my answers. Being cocky or arrogant is not evidence of murder. Not everyone saw him that way. Sheila did in fact have wounds on her person (right hand, wrist, throat, upper arm). There could have been a struggle for the rifle or their could have been an earlier incident prior to the main incident. She has a mark on the inner span of her right hand which matches part of the rifle. She may have only fired one shot at herself. The pathologist wasn't concerned if she fired two - he'd seen multiple gunshot suicides before. That pathologist also didn't have any issue with Sheila bring able to cause the injuries she did to Nevill. There may have been 30 shots fired not 25. Wounded people at close range are easy targets etc etc etc. Etc etc etc.
 
I've already answered your points but you just ignore my answers. Being cocky or arrogant is not evidence of murder. Not everyone saw him that way. Sheila did in fact have wounds on her person (right hand, wrist, throat, upper arm). There could have been a struggle for the rifle or their could have been an earlier incident prior to the main incident. She has a mark on the inner span of her right hand which matches part of the rifle. She may have only fired one shot at herself. The pathologist wasn't concerned if she fired two - he'd seen multiple gunshot suicides before. That pathologist also didn't have any issue with Sheila bring able to cause the injuries she did to Nevill. There may have been 30 shots fired not 25. Wounded people at close range are easy targets etc etc etc. Etc etc etc.
May have been, could have been, might have been. Honestly man just read that back. It’s canny how after 35 years there might have been 30 shots. Where was the damage caused by the other 5? Where were they lodged? Which wall were they lodged in? Which bit of furniture did they obliterate. I’ve seen stronger defences of Harold Shipman. It’s true that being an arrogant prick doesn’t make him a murderer it just happens to be in this case he’s both.
 
May have been, could have been, might have been. Honestly man just read that back. It’s canny how after 35 years there might have been 30 shots. Where was the damage caused by the other 5? Where were they lodged? Which wall were they lodged in? Which bit of furniture did they obliterate. I’ve seen stronger defences of Harold Shipman. It’s true that being an arrogant prick doesn’t make him a murderer it just happens to be in this case he’s both.
I think you should broaden your sources of information. I'm not sure I've done too bad, given I've been in a war on about five fronts. It's exhausting 😏
 
So, my position is that I have no idea what happened, but I can't believe a man has had his life taken away basically on the word of one person. Also that 2 of the jury thought he was innocent.

Having watched the latest programmes, I'm slightly less convinced he was innocent because of 1) Sheila not being injured at all after what seems to be a massive scrap with the father, and 2) the woman who spent 18 months examining the evidence in detail and stating that she's certain he did it. The obnoxious, arrogant, fat ex copper doesn't do the prosecution case any favours at all.

Anybody care to answer those points?
 
The author who studied the case had her book made in to a drama which was largely a work of fantasy. Her book was pro-police and pro-authorities (in other words she is not the type of person who would question such agencies to the extent they need to be, particularly in this case). SC did have fight wounds. At trial, these were either omitted or passed off by the pathologist as being smears. The copper you refer to was put in place at the behest of JB's uncle, a beneficiary via his wife and a prosecution witnesses. He oversaw the editing of statements and the concealment of other statements and negatives. He took evidence home to destroy, in the years since the case.

So, my position is that I have no idea what happened, but I can't believe a man has had his life taken away basically on the word of one person. Also that 2 of the jury thought he was innocent.

Having watched the latest programmes, I'm slightly less convinced he was innocent because of 1) Sheila not being injured at all after what seems to be a massive scrap with the father, and 2) the woman who spent 18 months examining the evidence in detail and stating that she's certain he did it. The obnoxious, arrogant, fat ex copper doesn't do the prosecution case any favours at all.

Anybody care to answer those points?
Tried to reply but forgot to quote your post.
 
Last edited:
When the local police arrived at the farm house and were waiting outside with Jeremy, they said they thought saw someone moving behind the window but couldn't tell if it was a man or women. Were they mistaken in what they thought they saw?
 
When the local police arrived at the farm house and were waiting outside with Jeremy, they said they thought saw someone moving behind the window but couldn't tell if it was a man or women. Were they mistaken in what they thought they saw?
One of the officers on the scene has given several different versions of what happened. There was a sighting of potential movement and it caused the officers and JB to run back to the police control vehicle, where the officer in question called for armed back up and issued a situation report to justify this. The police have ignored all requests to disclose the situation report. In the 1980's, permission for force arms to be drawn was not obtained lightly. At trial, the defence lawyer, instead of pursuing the matter, placed words in the officer's mouth that it could have been a 'trick of the light'. The officer agreed. Apparently it could not have been the moon...

It was the barrister's first case where he represented the defence and he displayed a lot of deference towards police and some prosecution witnesses. A more aggressive and experienced defence barrister may have chosen a different strategy.
 
They are shit scared of appeal courts, a complete waste of time and money.
 
I've always been uncomfortable with the fact that the family members who found the evidence that helped convict him had the most to gain financially from Bamber's conviction.

Also, for Bamber to be imprisoned with no chance of parole seems to go against natural justice. Especially since the conduct of the trial and others involved in the prosecution seems to stink the place out
 
If the argument is that tainted evidence and a flawed police investigation should mean Bamber shouldn’t have been convicted that’s fair enough.

If the argument is that only one of Sheila or Jeremy did it then it was Jeremy.
 
One of the problems with so much time passing since the murders, is that the once clear lines become blurred.
New investigations, new guesses at what happened and dramatised TV shows all combine to put doubt out there. The guilty then become innocent and the innocent look guilty. All it needs is one source to cast doubt on the conviction. Be it a journalist, a TV producer or someone involved in the original investigation.
Suddenly we are asking, did he really do it? Then more amateur investigators jump on the bandwagon to smear the police, the witnesses and the courts. Easy to do decades after the trial. Unless there is concrete evidence it needs to stop.
 
The article is fairly detailed TBF. And referenced. If police and prosecution witnesses had acted genuinely in the first place, we wouldn't be here.
 

Back
Top