White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
The biggest mistake was involving himself at all. There was no requirement for the phone call story and then turning up at the crime scene.
It would have been sufficient to do the deed, set the scene and then go home to await someone else finding the bodies.
He is a flawed character in many ways and got himself too much noticed before and after the event. Whether he is guilty or not, he only has himself to blame for his conviction.
It would have been sufficient to do the deed, set the scene and then go home to await someone else finding the bodies.
He is a flawed character in many ways and got himself too much noticed before and after the event. Whether he is guilty or not, he only has himself to blame for his conviction.
stevensdrs said:
The biggest mistake was involving himself at all. There was no requirement for the phone call story and then turning up at the crime scene.
It would have been sufficient to do the deed, set the scene and then go home to await someone else finding the bodies.
He is a flawed character in many ways and got himself too much noticed before and after the event. Whether he is guilty or not, he only has himself to blame for his conviction.
“Sort of”It would have been sufficient to do the deed, set the scene and then go home to await someone else finding the bodies.
He is a flawed character in many ways and got himself too much noticed before and after the event. Whether he is guilty or not, he only has himself to blame for his conviction.
If he was innocent, and there was a phone call from Neville, he had to mention it / report it, the police were going to know eventually.
I’ve agreed many times, Jeremy is unlikeable and his behaviour after the event implicated him. See the wrongful arrest of Christopher Jeffries for reference.
Largechris said:
“Sort of”
If he was innocent, and there was a phone call from Neville, he had to mention it / report it, the police were going to know eventually.
I’ve agreed many times, Jeremy is unlikeable and his behaviour after the event implicated him. See the wrongful arrest of Christopher Jeffries for reference.
Surely everyone wants the guilty individual or individuals locked up for their crimes. If he was innocent, and there was a phone call from Neville, he had to mention it / report it, the police were going to know eventually.
I’ve agreed many times, Jeremy is unlikeable and his behaviour after the event implicated him. See the wrongful arrest of Christopher Jeffries for reference.
That must be the cornerstone of any debate in this thread
Largechris said:
If he's guilty, it's a bizarre plan poorly executed (having to beat Neville etc.). If you're going to implicate that your sister used a (long but weak) gun to kill 5 people, might as well use a shotgun, that would be equally believable and the deaths much quicker and more certain.
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.
He stated that on the evening his entire family were slaughtered he left the rifle and extra ammunition lying around in the kitchen.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.
Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
originals said:
He stated that on the evening his entire family were slaughtered he left the rifle and extra ammunition lying around in the kitchen.
Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Who knows - might have been the norm. Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Remember before Dunblane and Huntercombe gun laws were very different.
Lots of young whipper snappers on this thread - I’d wager many were primary school age on OJ or younger.
Welshbeef said:
originals said:
He stated that on the evening his entire family were slaughtered he left the rifle and extra ammunition lying around in the kitchen.
Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Who knows - might have been the norm. Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Remember before Dunblane and Huntercombe gun laws were very different.
Lots of young whipper snappers on this thread - I’d wager many were primary school age on OJ or younger.
And I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph, or its meaning.
originals said:
He stated that on the evening his entire family were slaughtered he left the rifle and extra ammunition lying around in the kitchen.
Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
As I've already mentioned I had read that they did have numerous firearms and they weren't particularly securely stored and were often just left out after use.Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
That doesn't strike me as especially unusual, very different times back then especially in rural communities, compared to the heavily regulated nanny state we live in today.
Welshbeef said:
originals said:
He stated that on the evening his entire family were slaughtered he left the rifle and extra ammunition lying around in the kitchen.
Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Who knows - might have been the norm. Would you leave a deadly weapon and ammunition lying around with 2 kids and an unstable sister in the house?
What rotten luck she decided to go 'mental' that night with the murder weapon left out for her.
Remember before Dunblane and Huntercombe gun laws were very different.
Lots of young whipper snappers on this thread - I’d wager many were primary school age on OJ or younger.
If you'd bothered to read even the first page of the appeal summary linked earlier in the thread, you'd know.
That's my issue with you and several other posters - you aren't here for answers, you're here for an argument.
Even when other posters lead you by the nose to the information, you can't be bothered to read it. You prefer to start with your conclusion and then argue against anyone who doesn't agree.
mike74 said:
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
youngsyr said:
Who knows???
If you'd bothered to read even the first page of the appeal summary linked earlier in the thread, you'd know.
That's my issue with you and several other posters - you aren't here for answers, you're here for an argument.
Even when other posters lead you by the nose to the information, you can't be bothered to read it. You prefer to start with your conclusion and then argue against anyone who doesn't agree.
It’s called a discussion forum. For debate If you'd bothered to read even the first page of the appeal summary linked earlier in the thread, you'd know.
That's my issue with you and several other posters - you aren't here for answers, you're here for an argument.
Even when other posters lead you by the nose to the information, you can't be bothered to read it. You prefer to start with your conclusion and then argue against anyone who doesn't agree.
Lots of different views and with everything in life these are never binary outcomes.
Far too many young whipper snappers
Randy Winkman said:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding because I don't really follow this - if he did commit the murder he'd want to give a reason as to why he had used the gun. I cant find it now but there was a similar issue a few pages back - if he had done the crime he couldn't deny the evidence existed, he'd have to be ready to explain why the evidence was there.
It works both ways:-He was the perpetrator so needed to have a reason for his prints potentially being on the gun.
Or
He wasn't the perpetrator so had nothing to hide when openly saying he had used the gun earlier in the evening.
(I don't know if the forensics did actually find any of his prints on the gun?)
Welshbeef said:
youngsyr said:
Who knows???
If you'd bothered to read even the first page of the appeal summary linked earlier in the thread, you'd know.
That's my issue with you and several other posters - you aren't here for answers, you're here for an argument.
Even when other posters lead you by the nose to the information, you can't be bothered to read it. You prefer to start with your conclusion and then argue against anyone who doesn't agree.
It’s called a discussion forum. For debate If you'd bothered to read even the first page of the appeal summary linked earlier in the thread, you'd know.
That's my issue with you and several other posters - you aren't here for answers, you're here for an argument.
Even when other posters lead you by the nose to the information, you can't be bothered to read it. You prefer to start with your conclusion and then argue against anyone who doesn't agree.
Lots of different views and with everything in life these are never binary outcomes.
Far too many young whipper snappers
A debate requires both sides to participate in good faith, by considering the other side's position and responding to their points.
You do not do this. You ignore the information provided and then ask questions in attempt to cast doubt on a position you don't agree with, without having bothered to read the information that answers your question and counters your point.
And this is literally a binary outcome, any way you look at it.
Either JB is the killer or he isn't.
And then you sign of by casual ageism, without even knowing the ages of the people you're complaining about!
In short, you're ridiculous.
Randy Winkman said:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding because I don't really follow this - if he did commit the murder he'd want to give a reason as to why he had used the gun. I cant find it now but there was a similar issue a few pages back - if he had done the crime he couldn't deny the evidence existed, he'd have to be ready to explain why the evidence was there.
It was his foster parents house. Guns used on the farm
There would be no doubt his prints would be in one or all of them from previous use. His DNA would be throughout the house clearly as it’s a property he would often be in.
Who gained financially at the end of the day from this crime? The cousins
Who happened to find the silencer without the presence of the police and then took it home to “decide what to do” before taking it to the police - the cousins
Who was flesh and blood relatives to the Bamber family the cousins - Did the cousins want the foster children to inherit ?
She was suffering from serious mental health issues Bi polar too & it’s a point of fact in the days running up to the murders she was having an “event”. She was out of control. Sadly these days we see far too often killers who have serious mental health. Could she be another ? Maybe.
mike74 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding because I don't really follow this - if he did commit the murder he'd want to give a reason as to why he had used the gun. I cant find it now but there was a similar issue a few pages back - if he had done the crime he couldn't deny the evidence existed, he'd have to be ready to explain why the evidence was there.
It works both ways:-He was the perpetrator so needed to have a reason for his prints potentially being on the gun.
Or
He wasn't the perpetrator so had nothing to hide when openly saying he had used the gun earlier in the evening.
(I don't know if the forensics did actually find any of his prints on the gun?)
They also found one of Sheila's prints on it.
No other prints could be identified on it.
Randy Winkman said:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding because I don't really follow this - if he did commit the murder he'd want to give a reason as to why he had used the gun. I cant find it now but there was a similar issue a few pages back - if he had done the crime he couldn't deny the evidence existed, he'd have to be ready to explain why the evidence was there.
Don’t think he needed to in any case, it was a family gun that everyone including Sheila used. Makes no difference in terms of fingerprints, and gunshot residue and oil (re Sheila clothing as highlighted earlier) doesn’t seem to have been an evidence factor.youngsyr said:
Absolute tosh.
A debate requires both sides to participate in good faith, by considering the other side's position and responding to their points.
You do not do this. You ignore the information provided and then ask questions in attempt to cast doubt on a position you don't agree with, without having bothered to read the information that answers your question and counters your point.
And this is literally a binary outcome, any way you look at it.
Either JB is the killer or he isn't.
And then you sign of by casual ageism, without even knowing the ages of the people you're complaining about!
In short, you're ridiculous.
RubbishA debate requires both sides to participate in good faith, by considering the other side's position and responding to their points.
You do not do this. You ignore the information provided and then ask questions in attempt to cast doubt on a position you don't agree with, without having bothered to read the information that answers your question and counters your point.
And this is literally a binary outcome, any way you look at it.
Either JB is the killer or he isn't.
And then you sign of by casual ageism, without even knowing the ages of the people you're complaining about!
In short, you're ridiculous.
You have stated many times Jeremy is 100% innocent and even when asked by another posted if it was a live case today based on the list of issues he raised you said 100% guilty (to which he replied something I hope never to meet you in court).
You refuse to accept that the evidence provided in court only managed to get 1 more juror than is required else he would be a free man. 2 found him not guilty and you cannot comprehend that rather you want to talk about other cases.
It’s frankly unbelievable.
I’ll wager no matter what or how or what evidence is provided you would 100% refuse to change your view. As such it isn’t a debate is it it’s you shouting one set and anyone who doesn’t agree is a bit thick - strange way to make friends and influence people.
How do you deal with differing views / options in work?
Welshbeef said:
She was suffering from serious mental health issues Bi polar too & it’s a point of fact in the days running up to the murders she was having an “event”. She was out of control. Sadly these days we see far too often killers who have serious mental health. Could she be another ? Maybe.
“Maybe?” As in “maybe” she executed 5 family members, had a fight with a 6’5” man who was covered in blood, traversed the kitchen covered in broken glass, sugar and blood then killed herself with a gun that was too long for her to reach the trigger and using the same finger on the trigger that she used for the other victims. All this while keeping her feet, hands and nightdress completely void of any gunshot residue, blood, glass or sugar! Maybe, I suppose.Welshbeef said:
youngsyr said:
Absolute tosh.
A debate requires both sides to participate in good faith, by considering the other side's position and responding to their points.
You do not do this. You ignore the information provided and then ask questions in attempt to cast doubt on a position you don't agree with, without having bothered to read the information that answers your question and counters your point.
And this is literally a binary outcome, any way you look at it.
Either JB is the killer or he isn't.
And then you sign of by casual ageism, without even knowing the ages of the people you're complaining about!
In short, you're ridiculous.
RubbishA debate requires both sides to participate in good faith, by considering the other side's position and responding to their points.
You do not do this. You ignore the information provided and then ask questions in attempt to cast doubt on a position you don't agree with, without having bothered to read the information that answers your question and counters your point.
And this is literally a binary outcome, any way you look at it.
Either JB is the killer or he isn't.
And then you sign of by casual ageism, without even knowing the ages of the people you're complaining about!
In short, you're ridiculous.
You have stated many times Jeremy is 100% innocent and even when asked by another posted if it was a live case today based on the list of issues he raised you said 100% guilty (to which he replied something I hope never to meet you in court).
You refuse to accept that the evidence provided in court only managed to get 1 more juror than is required else he would be a free man. 2 found him not guilty and you cannot comprehend that rather you want to talk about other cases.
It’s frankly unbelievable.
I’ll wager no matter what or how or what evidence is provided you would 100% refuse to change your view. As such it isn’t a debate is it it’s you shouting one set and anyone who doesn’t agree is a bit thick - strange way to make friends and influence people.
How do you deal with differing views / options in work?
You don't even have a basic grasp of key points of this case, let alone provide anything new!
You're a joke.
Largechris said:
Don’t think he needed to in any case, it was a family gun that everyone including Sheila used. Makes no difference in terms of fingerprints, and gunshot residue and oil (re Sheila clothing as highlighted earlier) doesn’t seem to have been an evidence factor.
This is incorrect. Read the linked summary on an earlier page.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff