White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
nikaiyo2 said:
AshVX220 said:
It appears that Bambi couldn't have killed herself with the silencer on, wouldn't have been able to carry the required number of rounds in the clothes she was wearing. The killings couldn't have been done with the silencer off, so at least all the killings were done with it on. Why then, did she remove it? because she couldn't commit suicide with it on....so, why hide it? Just take it off and do the deed.
From what I've read and seen I'm in no doubt it was Jeremy.
Really enjoyed the show, up to a point. It was a bit like watching Vera and it ending with “well pet one of them did it...not sure who.”From what I've read and seen I'm in no doubt it was Jeremy.
The thing that bothers me about the silencer, you are right, a rational person would take it off and do the deed but I would imagine a person who has just shot dead their parents and children are not behaving in a rational manner.
Derek, (or other policey types) if you had taken this case to court with the evidence as presented would you have expected to get a conviction?
Beauford said:
If you have any doubts about the safety of Bamber's conviction, I urge you to Google 'R v Bamber Appeal' and read the last Appeal Court decision in its entirety. All of the so-called 'doubtful' issues are addressed in great detail and are dismissed with full explanations. Two further matters were identified by the Court not even addressed by the prosecution: the bible beside Sheila's corpse was moved after her death and her nightdress was pulled up beneath her, showing that her body had been repositioned after her death.
The prosecution case was very strong and Bamber's conviction is safe; he is exactly where he needs to be and IMV should never be released.
Will have a look, thanks for the info.The prosecution case was very strong and Bamber's conviction is safe; he is exactly where he needs to be and IMV should never be released.
Welshbeef said:
And what if it was neither the daughter or JB if it was another.
I’m sure he did it as he had a majority ruling on it so trust their judgement and they saw all the facts. However the facts presented in this show plus the Bamber show a few years ago showing new evidence that it wasn’t him I’d really struggle to be putting a man inside for life no parole, more to the point I’d be looking at who’s really gained in all this £ wise. Of those who finally got the £ was it them really turning up the dial on JB.... maybe with validity or maybe as a ploy.
Purely because of the telephone call JB claimed to have recived, means that it was either him or Bambi. At the time of the murders, I doubt other family members outside of the Nevilles, Jeremy and Bambi would know what the will contains.I’m sure he did it as he had a majority ruling on it so trust their judgement and they saw all the facts. However the facts presented in this show plus the Bamber show a few years ago showing new evidence that it wasn’t him I’d really struggle to be putting a man inside for life no parole, more to the point I’d be looking at who’s really gained in all this £ wise. Of those who finally got the £ was it them really turning up the dial on JB.... maybe with validity or maybe as a ploy.
I don't have a clue what any of my families wills contain. So, no, due to the phone call it could only have ever been one of two people, JB or Bambi.
Derek Smith said:
I doubt anyone can make a qualatitive judgement without seeing the evidence in full; the disclosure. It would have been an interesting case to give evidence in. Oddly enough, I used to frquently be sick, that's once a case, when the evidence was overwhelming as that would mean that the defence would have to come up with some weird and wonderful unexpected questions. With this case, you'd be able to predict what questions you'd be asked. So much more comfortable as you could prepare for it.
I was on a course with an Essex ex-DS at the time of the trial, and he took a lot of stick, although he was quietly confident of a guilty verdict. He was less quiet about the handling of the case, but said that once the team was allowed to investigate the murder, they did their job well and quickly, getting a lot of evidence that you'd have thought would have been lost. They negated a lot of what they thought Bamber's defence would exploit.
Not a great advert for the English police though.
Derek, during the court scenes, the defence lawyer seemed to very aggresive in his questioning, we also see this regularly on US style law shows. Is this accurate? Is it a method to try and get a witness to crack, or is it much more measured in real life? I've done jury service (22 years ago), but only 2 days as my Dad died while I was on it. So have no real experience to draw on.I was on a course with an Essex ex-DS at the time of the trial, and he took a lot of stick, although he was quietly confident of a guilty verdict. He was less quiet about the handling of the case, but said that once the team was allowed to investigate the murder, they did their job well and quickly, getting a lot of evidence that you'd have thought would have been lost. They negated a lot of what they thought Bamber's defence would exploit.
Not a great advert for the English police though.
I can't really understand why JB was such an idiot in the way he carried this crime out. If he had kept his views to himself, carried out the crime and stayed out of the picture until the bodies were discovered, he would undoubtedly have gotten away with it. He just made some really poor decisions before and after the fact. There are a lot of similarities between him and Ian Huntley in the way they behaved after the murders.
Derek Smith said:
I doubt anyone can make a qualatitive judgement without seeing the evidence in full; the disclosure. It would have been an interesting case to give evidence in. Oddly enough, I used to frquently be sick, that's once a case, when the evidence was overwhelming as that would mean that the defence would have to come up with some weird and wonderful unexpected questions. With this case, you'd be able to predict what questions you'd be asked. So much more comfortable as you could prepare for it.
I was on a course with an Essex ex-DS at the time of the trial, and he took a lot of stick, although he was quietly confident of a guilty verdict. He was less quiet about the handling of the case, but said that once the team was allowed to investigate the murder, they did their job well and quickly, getting a lot of evidence that you'd have thought would have been lost. They negated a lot of what they thought Bamber's defence would exploit.
Not a great advert for the English police though.
Interesting!I was on a course with an Essex ex-DS at the time of the trial, and he took a lot of stick, although he was quietly confident of a guilty verdict. He was less quiet about the handling of the case, but said that once the team was allowed to investigate the murder, they did their job well and quickly, getting a lot of evidence that you'd have thought would have been lost. They negated a lot of what they thought Bamber's defence would exploit.
Not a great advert for the English police though.
When you say "sick" can you elaborate? Jsut curious
A few years ago I did jury service, and tried a case of domestic assault (cant remember the correct charge, Offences against the Person maybe?) we found not guilty, largely because of an iffy phone call and the judge (or maybe defence QC? cant remember 100%) was very clear that if there was ANY doubt we could not convict. The events presented by the prosecution could not have happened because of a phone call.
It has always bothered me that we in all likelihood acquitted a guilty person!
Tyre Smoke said:
Who probably offended again and got found guilty. Don't err, beat yourself up.
I dont, if we did wrong it was for the right reasons, and I think the CPS lead to it if anyone was at fault, but i did lead the other jurors down the path of if X happened then Y cant have so what else is made up? 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The problem with the Sutcliffe case was that the amount of information given and obtained by the police was massive. Printed out it would have filled a library. The figure of nine is mentioned a number of times, but one has to ask how many others were interviewed a number of times. There were 12,500 statements. There were any number of police officers. There were any number of names. That's fine, but there was no method of collating that amount of information. There were no Excel databases. If police officer A spoke with Sutcliffe and cleared him as a person of immediate interest, ie no evidence to link him, and didn't interview him again, the next officer who interviewed him would have no reason not to clear him. And again.
Oldfield could not be criticised for his dedication and worked long and intense hours on the case. This is now seen as something to avoid, except in the first hours and days of a case. The idea that you needed to be refreshed was very foreign to the service in those days.
There was also a cult (ish) of the individual. Those in charge were great thief-takers who were to be obeyed. You didn't challenge them. This is seen frequently in the Vera series where she is very aggressive, and sarcastic, against anyone who throws in a doubt about the direction of the case, or something material. It’s fiction I know, but irritating.
The difference between the way the two Bishop cases were run was remarkable, although it took a decision to risk his career by the OIC to get the evidence that convicted him in the second case.
Nowadays, if a case bogs down, outsiders are brought in to see if there's an alternative direction. From memory, once the change was decided in the Bamber case, a senior City of London detective got involved. (Not shown in the series, much to the irritation of an ex City of London police officer.)
In the intervening 40-odd years, major incidents enquiries have changed a bit. With the HOLMES computer system, Sutcliffe would have been awarded a person of interest marker when found twice. Three times and he’d have been sorted. With DNA checks, he might even have only made it once.
I don’t think you can judge the way the Sutcliffe enquiry was run by using today’s methods as a comparison. Incompetence is a harsh word for following the accepted methods of the time. There was a massive investigation as to why things went wrong, and just putting it down to incompetence would have meant improvements to methods would have been delayed.
The misogyny is played up a great deal. However, my experience of those times is somewhat different. There was a fair bit of verbal, but actions, which speak louder, were a different matter. There was a fair degree of attention payed to the plight of prostitutes, although most felt they should just stop doing it. I used to chat (and only chat) to local prostitutes in the City. While the system might have been less than sympathetic to their woes, woe-betide a pimp who exceeded his authority. I was told of summary justice events, especially in the Mets. Not lawful, but not misogyny either.
Morally, it was accepted that prostitutes were ‘fallen women’, who particularly could not be bothered to pull themselves out of the un-Christian mire of their own making. The police merely reflected the views of the general public, and the great and the good, many of whom were religious. It’s not an excuse, but it is a reason. I found operational officers were generally of a different point of view.
I was taught at training school, this is 1975, that pimps and madams were the ones to focus on.
My first demand that the Prostitutes Register be checked for a name when I found one plying her trade near Smithfield Market (actually outside Sir John Betjeman’s house. I mean, pick you spot.) was met with a stern ‘talking to’ by a sergeant. We didn’t, I was told, want to make their lives any more difficult.
Remember that the past is a different country. They did things differently there.
AshVX220 said:
Derek, during the court scenes, the defence lawyer seemed to very aggresive in his questioning, we also see this regularly on US style law shows. Is this accurate? Is it a method to try and get a witness to crack, or is it much more measured in real life? I've done jury service (22 years ago), but only 2 days as my Dad died while I was on it. So have no real experience to draw on.
It's fiction in the main. I've known lawyers to exude frustration, but it's an act. They knew full well what the reply was going to be. It just looks good in front of the jury. It can also upset the judge, and that's always a risk. I had one brief challenge me as to my knowledge of ID Codes of Practice. I'd been ID officer for 18 months or so, so knew what I was talking about. If I had ten minutes to spare, I'd read the Codes. I always had the book in my pocket. It was a stupid tactic by the defence.
He, on the other hand, had not been briefed effectively. He thought the ID officer opted for video film identification when, then, it was the OIC. He threw a strop when I told him that I could not, and also threw a folder on his little bench, spilling the advice report I'd sent the OIC regarding VFI. When I pointed this out, the judge gave me a look over the top of his glasses. It doesn't do to be too clever by half in a well-run court.
It was thoroughly enjoyable though. After my evidence the chap changed his plea to guilty. Whilst I did feel chuffed, it was more down to the defence's lack of preparation than me doing my job.
Everyone in the court should take their lead from the judge. Some prefer a quiet court. Others prefer a very quiet court. Briefs generally know their judges and will act accordingly. OICs will tell police witnesses what to call the judge. Most prefer Sir after the first and occasional My Lord or Your Honour. Some like the fill title every time. There was a thread on here which discussed what to call magistrates. The answer is simple enough; what they want to be called. Don't mess with the decision maker.
stevensdrs said:
I can't really understand why JB was such an idiot in the way he carried this crime out. If he had kept his views to himself, carried out the crime and stayed out of the picture until the bodies were discovered, he would undoubtedly have gotten away with it. He just made some really poor decisions before and after the fact. There are a lot of similarities between him and Ian Huntley in the way they behaved after the murders.
The man murdered his father, mother and sister, along with his 6 year old twin nephews, in cold blood.He shot them in the house at close range.
He does not think like normal people. To him, subconsciously or not, the 'flamboyance' of his actions post-crime were part of his makeup.
A sane, rational person would have just stayed out of the picture as you suggest and let the evidence point to his sister. But Bamber is not rational or sane.
Muzzer79 said:
The man murdered his father, mother and sister, along with his 6 year old twin nephews, in cold blood.
He shot them in the house at close range.
He does not think like normal people. To him, subconsciously or not, the 'flamboyance' of his actions post-crime were part of his makeup.
A sane, rational person would have just stayed out of the picture as you suggest and let the evidence point to his sister. But Bamber is not rational or sane.
What was he like as an individual before the murder and by that I mean primary and secondary school and the years between then and the murders?He shot them in the house at close range.
He does not think like normal people. To him, subconsciously or not, the 'flamboyance' of his actions post-crime were part of his makeup.
A sane, rational person would have just stayed out of the picture as you suggest and let the evidence point to his sister. But Bamber is not rational or sane.
These days,following that murderer in the USA tall chap who was near 200 IQ and shared his views insight etc with the FBI for years, we clearly focus on children who harm animals. They are big alarm bells of something being very wrong - was this Bamber?
Lastly it would certainly appear 30years + ago it was much easier to get away with crime. How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person.
Welshbeef said:
Muzzer79 said:
The man murdered his father, mother and sister, along with his 6 year old twin nephews, in cold blood.
He shot them in the house at close range.
He does not think like normal people. To him, subconsciously or not, the 'flamboyance' of his actions post-crime were part of his makeup.
A sane, rational person would have just stayed out of the picture as you suggest and let the evidence point to his sister. But Bamber is not rational or sane.
What was he like as an individual before the murder and by that I mean primary and secondary school and the years between then and the murders?He shot them in the house at close range.
He does not think like normal people. To him, subconsciously or not, the 'flamboyance' of his actions post-crime were part of his makeup.
A sane, rational person would have just stayed out of the picture as you suggest and let the evidence point to his sister. But Bamber is not rational or sane.
These days,following that murderer in the USA tall chap who was near 200 IQ and shared his views insight etc with the FBI for years, we clearly focus on children who harm animals. They are big alarm bells of something being very wrong - was this Bamber?
Lastly it would certainly appear 30years + ago it was much easier to get away with crime. How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person.
ClaphamGT3 said:
My brother and one of my cousin's were at school with him. He was a psycho then and no one who knew him at school was even slightly surprised
After Bamber appeared on tv hamming it up at the funeral his old school master called the police to tell them he was very definitely acting in his opinion.tim0409 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
My brother and one of my cousin's were at school with him. He was a psycho then and no one who knew him at school was even slightly surprised
After Bamber appeared on tv hamming it up at the funeral his old school master called the police to tell them he was very definitely acting in his opinion.For someone to watch a grainy 10 second picture on 14-20 inch tv (remember this is the 80s) and decide someone was acting at a funeral, then ring the police is odd.
Smacks of when all the old pupils and the press decided Jeffries had killed his tenant.
In hindsight he may have been right, but odd all the same.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff