White House Farm murders - ITV series

White House Farm murders - ITV series

Author
Discussion

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person.
What does it mean?

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
Welshbeef said:
How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person.
What does it mean?
Guilty people not in jail

But yes it’s failure of police courts and possibly intimidation I agree what does it mean about our nation if we don’t have that clarity.

RATATTAK

10,593 posts

188 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
What does it mean?
he's been drinkin' ag'in


Edited by RATATTAK on Saturday 15th February 22:42

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
The Mad Monk said:
Welshbeef said:
How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person.
What does it mean?
Guilty people not in jail

Ok.

What does this bit mean?

Quote
"those nurseries having lives a full life"
End quote

aponting389

741 posts

177 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
Autocorrected murderers I think

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
aponting389 said:
Autocorrected murderers I think
Spot on.

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
aponting389 said:
Autocorrected murderers I think
Spot on.
So if I change 'nurseries' to 'murderers' and 'lives' to what - 'lived'? It then makes sense?

Sigh.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
Welshbeef said:
aponting389 said:
Autocorrected murderers I think
Spot on.
So if I change 'nurseries' to 'murderers' and 'lives' to what - 'lived'? It then makes sense?

Sigh.
Sorry you’ve lost me know

Seems deliberate thread ducking about again. Stop it.

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Sorry you’ve lost me know

Seems deliberate thread ducking about again. Stop it.
Certainly not messing around.

Your sentence:-

Quote : - How many unsolved murders still exist with those nurseries having lives a full life / maybe killed again while acting like a totally normal person. End quote.

It does not make sense.

ewolg

1,678 posts

278 months

Sunday 16th February 2020
quotequote all
The DS who persisted with the case should have been recognised I reckon. Bamber came across as a nasty little st.

Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area

7,015 posts

188 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Sorry you’ve lost me know

Seems deliberate thread ducking about again. Stop it.
roflroflrofl

He was trying to make sense of the waffle that you posted. Even by your standards it was incomprehensible.

Anyway I really enjoyed the series, I think the pacing was just right and the acting was excellent throughout. I’d never normally watch an ITV series as I’ve always had the impression that they’re not up to BBC standards but I guess I was wrong.


2fast748

1,091 posts

194 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
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.
I've started reading this (warning its very long!) and there is more evidence than seems to be known about on this forum linking Jeremy to the murders but the overwhelming overtone that comes out is Jeremy appears to have told every man and his dog that he was going to kill his parents someday, of course they were all lying in court according to him.

youngsyr

14,742 posts

191 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
One tangental question that I've been left with is: why did they make this series now?

It's not quite 25 years since the killings, so I suspect it's not a freedom of information or anniversary factor.

So why drag this all up in great detail now 24.5 years later?

youngsyr

14,742 posts

191 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
2fast748 said:
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.
I've started reading this (warning its very long!) and there is more evidence than seems to be known about on this forum linking Jeremy to the murders but the overwhelming overtone that comes out is Jeremy appears to have told every man and his dog that he was going to kill his parents someday, of course they were all lying in court according to him.
That's a very interesting document. Some parts that stood out for me:

"Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead."

"51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times."

"The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. "

"88. When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.

89. In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life."

"[Jeremy Bamber] described his father as reasonably careful with guns and agreed that had Mr Bamber seen the rifle lying around in the kitchen he would have put it away in the gun cupboard. He agreed it would have taken him 30 seconds to have returned the gun to its cupboard and that he had been lazy."

"The appellant confirmed he had not seen his sister fire a gun as an adult."


"


Edited by youngsyr on Monday 17th February 14:40

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
youngsyr said:
One tangental question that I've been left with is: why did they make this series now?

It's not quite 25 years since the killings, so I suspect it's not a freedom of information or anniversary factor.

So why drag this all up in great detail now 24.5 years later?
Coming up to 25yrs
Capacity in the schedule
Book release
It’s a good story - did he didn’t he

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
youngsyr said:
that there were quite a few items of evidence that Sheila did not commit the murders.
If we accept that Sheila didn't do it. how do we know that Jeremy Bamber did?

2fast748

1,091 posts

194 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
Another damning point from the appeal is that the prosecution have more evidence that they would have liked to present but the appeals court decided it was unnecessary.

dieselgrunt

685 posts

163 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
If we accept that Sheila didn't do it. how do we know that Jeremy Bamber did?
Because Jeremy tries to frame her for the murders by his call to the police, saying Sheila had gone mad with the gun. Either Neville lied to him when he supposedly called him directly or he tried to frame the murders on her with the details of this call.
It's obviously the latter as Bamber mentions she is good with guns (everyone else says she hated guns) and that she was a nutter etc on the way to the farm, so he's already laying the groundwork for Sheila to be the killer.



Edited by dieselgrunt on Monday 17th February 15:33

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
dieselgrunt said:
Because Jeremy tries to frame her for the murders by his call to the police, saying Sheila had gone mad with the gun. Either Neville lied to him when he supposedly called him directly or he tried to frame the murders on her with the details of this call.
It's obviously the latter as Bamber mentions she is good with guns (everyone else says she hated guns) and that she was a nutter etc on the way to the farm, so he's already laying the groundwork for Sheila to be the killer.



Edited by dieselgrunt on Monday 17th February 15:33
To be fair - in the drama he said that at the scene having just been told his family had been slaughtered. Not sure how much weight you can or cannot put on that given it’s clearly a monumentally difficult time.

Also it’s not necessarily fact that if it’s not her then it’s him.
He called the cops but apparently so did daddy Bamber - and he called AFTER the James Bamber call which really is difficult for the prosecution to answer / they didn’t.

jcremonini

2,099 posts

166 months

Monday 17th February 2020
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
dieselgrunt said:
Because Jeremy tries to frame her for the murders by his call to the police, saying Sheila had gone mad with the gun. Either Neville lied to him when he supposedly called him directly or he tried to frame the murders on her with the details of this call.
It's obviously the latter as Bamber mentions she is good with guns (everyone else says she hated guns) and that she was a nutter etc on the way to the farm, so he's already laying the groundwork for Sheila to be the killer.



Edited by dieselgrunt on Monday 17th February 15:33
To be fair - in the drama he said that at the scene having just been told his family had been slaughtered. Not sure how much weight you can or cannot put on that given it’s clearly a monumentally difficult time.

Also it’s not necessarily fact that if it’s not her then it’s him.
He called the cops but apparently so did daddy Bamber - and he called AFTER the James Bamber call which really is difficult for the prosecution to answer / they didn’t.
Neville Bamber didn’t call the police at any time .

No evidence was made to the contrary in the original trial. Also, no appeal has used that as a central argument to Bamber’s innocence.

The reason being is that it’s not disputed that the first injuries to Neville would have rendered him unable to speak so how could he have possibly communicated the detail in the log the tin foil hatters are using to protest his innocence. Also, it’s not disputed that Neville called Jeremy first and Jeremy claimed the line went dead. So, if Neville did call after that then how did he get the line back ?


Edited by jcremonini on Monday 17th February 17:21