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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
smoker said:
I'm of the opinion that, while the case was bodged (as many were back then) he is still likely to be guilty. If there is enough evidence for a retrial then there should be one.
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely there would be a retrial. Too many protagonists are dead. The Crown wouldn't contest the case and would be on a hiding to nothing if they did. Also, any appeal at this stage would potentially open up multiple cans of worms for the authorities and Essex Police (because the evidence used to convict him was snide and there are all sorts of implications). So their tactic is to stonewall and gatekeep, finding any technicality possible to reject any submissions from the defence or requests for further disclosure.

The pathologist worked on Diana case and also UN human rights commission in former yougoslavia, exhumation of bodies etc. If his reputation was impugned, it wouldn't be good for UK rep. None shall pass.
 


I’d seen a few documentaries around this and it always seemed to be an open and shut case, On a unrelated note I had been reading about the phantom of the Forest Barry Prudom, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen any dramas or documentaries about,
 
The more I watch the television programme the more convinced I am that he is innocent but the guy was repulsive

But that does not make him a murderer...for instance a lot of the prosecution case was focused on what he allegedly told Julie Mugford.

But in written statements to the police she said she had tried suffocating Jeremy once and burglary charges against her were dropped on condition she went witness for the defence. She also signed a deal with the newspapers to sell her story on proviso that Bamber was found guilty

The problem is now their is no chance of new evidence and Bamber will die in prison.
 
Therokerroar said:
The more I watch the television programme the more convinced I am that he is innocent but the guy was repulsive

But that does not make him a murderer...for instance a lot of the prosecution case was focused on what he allegedly told Julie Mugford.

But in written statements to the police she said she had tried suffocating Jeremy once and burglary charges against her were dropped on condition she went witness for the defence. She also signed a deal with the newspapers to sell her story on proviso that Bamber was found guilty

The problem is now their is no chance of new evidence and Bamber will die in prison.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting post. I would have thought the effect of the drama would be for average Joe to say 'guilty'. Certainly that is what is hoped for by the people behind it.

I think the problem is that the authorities will find any reason to reject new submissions from his defence, as the case is an embarrassment to them on so many levels. They reject on technicalities and reject without even countering reports from experts tasked by the defence. Then average Joe says 'well he must be guilty, otherwise his appeal wouldn't have been hoyed out' etc.

I think you're right about death in prison.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
....I think the new 'evidence' amounts to: a documented phone call to the police proving Bamber couldn't have been at the farm and a second silencer that was analysed during the investigation but never put before the court. That first piece of new 'evidence' would surely have seen him set free by now.....
Click to expand...

Was the alleged call by his father audio recorded? Was it also to the local police station as was Bamber's? There are ten minutes between the two calls. Bamber lived nearby and could have made both calls.
I realise that's not evidence of guilt but it's not a sound alibi either.
It just seems odd that he called the local police in such an emergency. Did he know their number off the top of his head?
He also wanted the bodies cremating despite the religious beliefs of the mother and the father of his sister's children.
I don't think they saw movement in the house or were actually talking to anyone inside. So the siter shot herself without a silencer and without making a sound of a gunshot?
All very circumstantial but also very weird.
 
Last edited:
Watching the drama. It's making him look very guilty. Also the copper played by Stephen Graham isn't coming out of it very well if it's accurate.
 
I also don't buy the alleged motive for Sheila killing her entire family then herself. That there had been an argument over placing the children in foster care when they lived with their father anyway who had joint custody. Her father was a magistrate and it would have taken incredibly ignorant parents to even consider that possible. Yet Jeremy claimed it had pushed her over the edge.

There is no doubt that the police investigation was initially poor but that doesn't make him innocent.
 
bowers2 said:
I know him personally well.
It is my opinion that he is one of the most manipulative people I have ever met.
Extremely confident self centred and has the ability to convince you that the sky is green.
The barrage of high flying people and also supporters have been tempted into his web.

I didn’t know that he has passed a lie detector, however on hearing this it has now got me thinking that lie detectors are very inaccurate.

100% guilty.
Click to expand...
I know a few people that have worked at full sutton and all have said similar.
 
Roker Skate said:
However, it will eventually come to light that all three adults had fight wounds, many of which were not disclosed by the pathologist in his report. These undisclosed wounds were cuts, gouges, grazes.

Bamber didn't have long fingernails himself and he was not marked himself. He may have had a single cut or scratch on his hand which was not further investigated i.e. it was attributed to farm work or similar.
Click to expand...

He had a wet suit that he may have worn.

The weapon used was a .22 rifle. There are nicks in his sister's right hand consistent with her hand having gripped a machined part of a the rifle.

If Bamber carried out the killings, he would have had to enter the farmhouse without alerting the dogs and subdue three adults, with a low calibre weapon designed for shooting vermin on the farm. One of the adults, his father, was a strong farm worker. If his sister carried out the killings, she would have two adults to deal with, from a position of already being in the farmhouse, with the other two adults thinking she had gone to bed.
Click to expand...

It may be a low calibre weapon for shooting vermin but it is an assassin's favourite calibre because the bullet is likely to rattle around in the skull rather than exiting thus causing maximum damage to the brain.

His father may indeed have been strong for his age so less likely to find a weaker sister a strong opponent.

(1) Prior to the Tactical Firearms Group entering the farm, two separate police officers on spotting duty independently sighted 'what appears to be a rifle' placed against one of the upstairs windows. This event occurred just prior to the police raid. However, there was only one rifle found upstairs - and by time of the trial, that was apparently found on top of the sister's body.
Click to expand...

It may have been something else that appeared to be a rifle.

Join the dots...
Click to expand...

Well that's just some of the dots...
Overall, I am not convinced someone having a frenzied psychotic episode could have carried out such a methodical series of killings in which every victim is effectively executed by at least one shot into the brain. The assumption being that the other 20 shots were part of a random burst of fire in which one happened to find the head on each occasion. That this frenzied psychotic episode involved reloading the weapon of which they were not familiar at least twice and also engaging in close quarter struggles. If the burn marks were caused by a hot barrel of a rifle being prodded in the fathers back while he was frogmarched downstairs before being finished off then it all becomes even more bizarre that someone having a frenzied psychotic break could be so methodical. To finish it all off she then either shoots herself after the police arrive without them hearing a gunshot, or she uses the silencer but after killing herself despite being unable to reach the trigger, she then becomes the Walking Dead and hides the silencer in the cupboard, not sure why she would do that despite being temporally resurrected.

The other possibility is someone else methodically killed all five by head shots but sprayed a few other bullets around to make it look frenzied. Someone who was familiar with that gun and could reload at least twice.Then they removed the silencer and hit it is a cupboard convinced an effective search would not be undertaken if the police were led to believe from the start it was a murder/suicide.

So was it a frenzied yet methodical psychotic killing or one in which it was attempted to make it look so.
And to just remove any doubt there is a carefully compiled suicide note tucked into the Bible by her body despite having a frenzied psychotic episode.
Was this a psychotic killing of people by someone who loved them or a psychopath who had no feelings or empathy for them.
 
Last edited:
Roker Skate said:
That's an interesting post. I would have thought the effect of the drama would be for average Joe to say 'guilty'. Certainly that is what is hoped for by the people behind it.

I think the problem is that the authorities will find any reason to reject new submissions from his defence, as the case is an embarrassment to them on so many levels. They reject on technicalities and reject without even countering reports from experts tasked by the defence. Then average Joe says 'well he must be guilty, otherwise his appeal wouldn't have been hoyed out' etc.

I think you're right about death in prison.
Click to expand...

Calling people 'average Joe' (twice) who consider him guilty is certainly not helping your arguement here. You're also going as far as paraphrasing your new imaginary friend's imaginary words.

Were you part of Bamber's defence team?

The Jury who found him guilty by the way, what would you call them?
 
Last edited:
Linus said:
Calling people 'average Joe' (twice) who consider him guilty is certainly not helping your arguement here. You're also going as far as paraphrasing your new imaginary friend's imaginary words.

Were you part of Bamber's defence team?

The Jury who found him guilty by the way, what would you call them?
Click to expand...

He’s an ‘Above average John’
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
I also don't buy the alleged motive for Sheila killing her entire family then herself. That there had been an argument over placing the children in foster care when they lived with their father anyway who had joint custody. Her father was a magistrate and it would have taken incredibly ignorant parents to even consider that possible. Yet Jeremy claimed it had pushed her over the edge.

There is no doubt that the police investigation was initially poor but that doesn't make him innocent.
Click to expand...

Correct. It doesn't make him Innocent.
One documentary however, which is made for TV and discussed on the SMB and the detectives, judge and jury have him as some sort of victim.
Bamber WILL die in jail and personally I hope every one of the passing hour he spends holed up in his single cell researching law is the most horrible hour he spends.

Incidentally, the little Irish fellow from the Guildford four who used to smash fuck out of him, I hope he gets a medal.
 
bowers2 said:
Correct. It doesn't make him Innocent.
One documentary however, which is made for TV and discussed on the SMB and the detectives, judge and jury have him as some sort of victim.
Bamber WILL die in jail and personally I hope every one of the passing hour he spends holed up in his single cell researching law is the most horrible hour he spends.

Incidentally, the little Irish fellow from the Guildford four who used to smash fuck out of him, I hope he gets a medal.
Click to expand...

To be honest since I've last posted I've looked into the case more and simply become even more convinced of his guilt.

The main thrust of any continuing defence by his supporters is to grasp at straws continuously. As an example the first two officers in the raid team each looking through a window reported a different gender for Neville who was slumped face forward over a chair. This is reported in the active log as one male and female in the kitchen, two bodies instead of one. No mention is made of any rifle. As they proceed upstairs they initially discover the two children and the mother in the doorway of her bedroom. So three bodies are reported as upstairs. Only on further entry to the bedroom do they discover Sheila on the floor the other side of the bed with the rifle. This placement of the bodies was subsequently confirmed by the team as accurate.

However, supporters of Jeremy Bamber claim it as a fact that there were two bodies in the kitchen. Which means before the team actually entered the premises Sheila came round and went upstairs where she finished herself off, or after the police had entered she sneaked upstairs, or the police carried her body upstairs and planted it in its location to make it look like a murder-suicide in an attempt to frame Bamber. Bizarre.

All because two officers initially thought the body in the kitchen was different genders which was noted in the active log as two bodies.

Guilty as fuck in my opinion.
PS
In the documentary I saw, they tried to reproduce the three burn marks on Neville's back with a silencer on the gun and the gun without a silencer to confirm whether a silencer was on the gun or not. They used pigskin and heated the gun on each occasion to 200 degrees with a blowtorch. Neither produced burns like those on his back, although the ones without a silencer were closer, which appear to have been made by something more like a poker. However, they did establish that the barrel would be hot after firing 25 shots but not hot enough to produce those marks. This dis establish that he had not been frogmarched downstairs with the gun in his back as his shirt was not burned and must have been lifted to prod him in the back with something very hot. The only real conclusion is that they were made after he had been incapacitated or was dead to confirm he was finished off after the struggle in the kitchen. Would someone on a frenzied psychotic episode actually think to do that? I doubt it.

Yet his supporters are clinging to the belief the gun made those burns without a silencer attached.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
Was the alleged call by his father audio recorded? Was it also to the local police station as was Bamber's? There are ten minutes between the two calls. Bamber lived nearby and could have made both calls.
I realise that's not evidence of guilt but it's not a sound alibi either.
It just seems odd that he called the local police in such an emergency. Did he know their number off the top of his head?
He also wanted the bodies cremating despite the religious beliefs of the mother and the father of his sister's children.
I don't think they saw movement in the house or were actually talking to anyone inside. So the siter shot herself without a silencer and without making a sound of a gunshot?
All very circumstantial but also very weird.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was a sound modifier rather than a silencer, which is an important distinction. I can't remember the full details but it's something like: a sound modifier is a tool to distort what a rabbit hears and does not actually reduce the sound, unlike a silencer. In terms of his actions after the murders, e.g. going on a massive spending spree in the immediate aftermath, it beggars belief that a potential suspect would draw attention to himself in that manner. He did, however, display some of the characteristics seen in serial killers at an earlier time in their lives, e.g. cruel to animals, petty crime and so on. I think the jury returned a verdict of 10-2 guilty, and based on what I've read of this case I reckon most juries would return something similar. The case is bordering on proven beyond reasonable doubt with the potential to go a couple of percentages either way. I personally think he's guilty.

There are a few issues, however, that could do with clarifying: was it Sheila's blood in the sound modifier, can it be demonstrated that there is a decent chance that the sound modifier was not used in the murders. Bamber's latest argument, supported by some forensic type experts, is that the jury was misled into thinking it was Sheila's blood in the sound modifier and that the sound modifier was used on the gun during the murders. In the event Bamber is right on this, and the jury were misled due to more primitive DNA and forensic techniques in 1985/86, and you add in there is no forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene nor witnesses, then I think it would be an unsafe conviction. But, as said, Bamber has been making such claims of new evidence pretty much since he was convicted.

One interesting thing that I believe is a fact: Essex police have not made available for scrutiny all of the documents that they have in their possession.
 

Back
Top