White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
youngsyr said:
I've pointed out the actual facts that prove Jeremy's guilt.
You've posted inaccuracies, hypotheticals and demanded mind readings, none of which exhonerate him.
You state he is 100% guilty and yet there are 2 jurors who think he is innocent - if one more found him innocent he would be having a ping with pie mash and peas. You've posted inaccuracies, hypotheticals and demanded mind readings, none of which exhonerate him.
Can you explain this disconnect. The jurors had all the evidence and 17% of them did not ding him guilty — had 25% of those jurors found him not guilty game over for the prosecution.
Why couldn’t the evidence the police and the CPS presented was so weak they only just got a guilty outcome.
You’ve posted 109% guilty/ don’t look at the granular just look at the general path of the evidence.
There is no factual evidence against him.
1. Jilted x
2. Silencer found by cousins some time after the police and SOCO search of the property
3. Character /behaviour traits.
It’s weak the police could only come up with so little evidence.
youngsyr said:
How would I know? You're asking me to read the minds of 12 hypothetical people! Absolute nonsense.
What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
The evidence presented is from the prosecution. They only submitted the evidence they wanted in the court to convict Jeremy - to present ALL the evidence wouldn’t happen. What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
Jeremy himself only fairly recently was able to extract the phone log evidence / that wasn’t in the court hearing was it.
youngsyr said:
How would I know? You're asking me to read the minds of 12 hypothetical people! Absolute nonsense.
What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
This is hard work. Let me ask it another way.What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
If you were a juror, today, hearing that evidence, would you convict?
Largechris said:
youngsyr said:
How would I know? You're asking me to read the minds of 12 hypothetical people! Absolute nonsense.
What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
This is hard work. Let me ask it another way.What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
If you were a juror, today, hearing that evidence, would you convict?
Easy enough for you?
youngsyr said:
Largechris said:
youngsyr said:
How would I know? You're asking me to read the minds of 12 hypothetical people! Absolute nonsense.
What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
This is hard work. Let me ask it another way.What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
If you were a juror, today, hearing that evidence, would you convict?
Easy enough for you?
Scary.
Think I will avoid Trial by Jury next time I'm in court.
Largechris said:
youngsyr said:
Largechris said:
youngsyr said:
How would I know? You're asking me to read the minds of 12 hypothetical people! Absolute nonsense.
What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
This is hard work. Let me ask it another way.What I do know is that the evidence, as a whole, excludes everyone but Jeremy.
Sheila was not capable of carrying out the killings in the way they occurred and the limited forensic evidence available at the time proves she didn't do it. That is beyond any doubt.
You can go through the whole list of potential suspects and there are strong reasons why none of them could have been the killer.
Only Jeremy had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the killings. There is also strong evidence that he was criminally minded, disliked his parents and sister and had considered killing them. He had no alibi and his words and actions following the killings raise suspicions.
Put all that together and you have sufficient grounds to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeremy was the killer.
If you were a juror, today, hearing that evidence, would you convict?
Easy enough for you?
Scary.
Think I will avoid Trial by Jury next time I'm in court.
Explains why you'll jump through hoops to find the guilty innocent at least.
Welshbeef said:
The evidence presented is from the prosecution. They only submitted the evidence they wanted in the court to convict Jeremy - to present ALL the evidence wouldn’t happen.
Jeremy himself only fairly recently was able to extract the phone log evidence / that wasn’t in the court hearing was it.
I didn't even realise this was a thing until finding out it's what happened in the Bamber case... that out of all the evidence the police gather in a case they can then pick and choose what bits of it they want to release/present/submit to the court (presumably all that is in favour of the case for the prosecution) and can equally hold back as much of it as they choose to (presumably all that is potentially beneficial to the case for the defence)Jeremy himself only fairly recently was able to extract the phone log evidence / that wasn’t in the court hearing was it.
Bizarre that this is an acceptable practice in what is supposed to be the fairest and most transparent legal/justice system in existence.
Edited by mike74 on Monday 7th February 15:51
youngsyr said:
Make a habit of appearing in court then?
Explains why you'll jump through hoops to find the guilty innocent at least.
Beyond reasonable doubt. Explains why you'll jump through hoops to find the guilty innocent at least.
2 jurors found him not guilty
Sole evidence is a change of statement a month later (after cashing in on News of the world cash & jilted) plus a dodgy silencer found in the premises but found by the only other side who gain financially from a certain outcome. Who’s to say they didn’t place it there?
No factual evidence at all.
Just because it’s bad not finding someone guilty doesn’t mean oh well need to get someone inside. The murderer could still be out there.
The circumstantial evidence is according to you his behaviour afterwards. Do you not think he may have serious mental health issues bi polar etc.
Christ on a bike see someone acting oddly - GUIltY jeez
Welshbeef said:
Fact is 10 out of 12 found him guilty 2. Found him not guilty and they know the evidence far better than anyone on here - why did they vote not guilty? Answer that.
One person on Ian Huntley's jury didn't find him guilty.Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
Muzzer79 said:
Welshbeef said:
Fact is 10 out of 12 found him guilty 2. Found him not guilty and they know the evidence far better than anyone on here - why did they vote not guilty? Answer that.
One person on Ian Huntley's jury didn't find him guilty.Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
Got it.
Muzzer79 said:
Welshbeef said:
Fact is 10 out of 12 found him guilty 2. Found him not guilty and they know the evidence far better than anyone on here - why did they vote not guilty? Answer that.
One person on Ian Huntley's jury didn't find him guilty.Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
White House Farm is a completely different kettle of fish.
Muzzer79 said:
One person on Ian Huntley's jury didn't find him guilty.
Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
The Soham murders were almost 20 years after the Bamber case... the investigative processes and forensic analysis techniques had moved on leaps and bounds in that time and anyone questioning their validity (as presumably this one juror was) would have little grounds for justification.Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
There is far more justification for questioning the validity, if not the actual integrity, of the investigative processes and forensic analysis techniques carried out in the Bamber murders.
Welshbeef said:
Muzzer79 said:
Welshbeef said:
Fact is 10 out of 12 found him guilty 2. Found him not guilty and they know the evidence far better than anyone on here - why did they vote not guilty? Answer that.
One person on Ian Huntley's jury didn't find him guilty.Do you go around protesting his innocence as a result?
Got it.
You used the fact that Bamber's jury wasn't unanimous as an indication that he might be innocent.
Using that logic, you should therefore agree that it applies to Huntley too.....
originals said:
Largechris said:
Would a cold blooded killer, a farmer, use an old small 0.22 rifle to commit mass murder of 5 people? Needing 25 shots to do so?
I suggest not.
Irrelevant.I suggest not.
It had to be a weapon that Caffell had access to, for his narrative to work.
As I said before, if he's innocent, he made a tactical error in immediately assuming / blaming Sheila for the sake of a quick resolution.
originals said:
Irrelevant.
It had to be a weapon that Caffell had access to, for his narrative to work.
I thought they had numerous firearms in the house, rifles and shotguns, and they weren't ever kept particularly securely.It had to be a weapon that Caffell had access to, for his narrative to work.
Jeremy admitted using this particular rifle earlier on in the evening before to shoot rabbits and left it lying on a bench or worktop in the kitchen after removing the magazine.
I'm not sure why he'd choose to voluntarily and unnecessarily potentially implicate himself by admitting to using the murder weapon earlier that day.
Edited by mike74 on Monday 7th February 17:14
mike74 said:
I thought they had numerous firearms in the house, rifles and shotguns, and they weren't ever kept particularly securely.
Jeremy admitted using this particular rifle earlier on in the evening before to shoot rabbits and left it lying on a bench or worktop in the kitchen after removing the magazine.
I'm not sure why he'd choose to voluntarily and unnecessarily implicate himself by admitting to using the murder weapon earlier that day.
Did the police on questioning ask him did you use this gun or did he simply state I used gun xyz for rabbit hunting Jeremy admitted using this particular rifle earlier on in the evening before to shoot rabbits and left it lying on a bench or worktop in the kitchen after removing the magazine.
I'm not sure why he'd choose to voluntarily and unnecessarily implicate himself by admitting to using the murder weapon earlier that day.
Welshbeef said:
Did the police on questioning ask him did you use this gun or did he simply state I used gun xyz for rabbit hunting
Do you mean was he asked or did he just volunteer the info? I don't know.He said he came into the house early evening to take a brief break from his harvesting and had spotted some rabbits in the field near the house, so took the rifle out to try and shoot some of them, brought it back in, removed the magazine, left the rifle on the side in the kitchen and went back out to continue the harvesting.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff