White House Farm murders - ITV series

[Flumpo]

silobass said:

Apologies if I've missed it in the thread, and it didn't seem to be mentioned in the program either but why was the father sat on the arms of a chair that had fallen with his trousers down? It seemed very strange to me and I was suprised the program didn't mention it.

Jesus, I hope there isn’t a photo of that on this other website posted above.

But yes, that was shown on the tv show and I did wonder why it looked like he was giving or receiving a sexual assault to the chair.

[Welshbeef]

Flumpo said:

Jesus, I hope there isn’t a photo of that on this other website posted above.

But yes, that was shown on the tv show and I did wonder why it looked like he was giving or receiving a sexual assault to the chair.

That would be a lifetime ban here no doubt

[youngsyr]

Welshbeef said:

I did watch it yes and seen the documentary a few years ago putting ? About the evidence from his side.


A poster stated a whole magazine was unloaded into the boys. Also it’s impossible to give 2x instant headshots in two different locations one would have woken.

The facts are no one knows the killing sequence only a guess. Boys could have been last or first or in between.

You imply that the gunshots would have woken people to immediate alertness and awareness that there was a psycopathic muderer in the house intent on killing them all.

You obviously have no basis for this: Neville was reported to be a heavy sleeper, the rifle was a low-powered .22 of the type that children learn to shoot with and quite likely had a silencer fitted. That's why it took several shots to actually incapacitate Neville.

Having used a .308 (a large calibre) rifle used to hunt wild boar with a silencer fitted, I can tell you it reduces the sound signature significantly and the .22 was already a quiet gun.

6 year olds are often also very heavy sleepers - you can often actually pick them up, carry them and talk to them and they won't wake up.

Even if you discount all of that - hearing a series of bangs in the middle of the night is not necessarily going to wake you up into immediate panic mode.

Regardless, the prosecution suggested a sequence that makes sense to me: he shot June first, as she lay asleep in bed, but not fatally until a second volley. Neville then woke up and got up to tackle him. He then fired the remainder of the magazine into Neville, but only wounded him severely as he backed out of the bedroom and down the stairs.

Out of bullets, he went into the kitchen to reload. Struggled with Neville in the middle of reloading and eventually overpowered him and fired the fatal shots to Neville.

He then returned upstairs and either shot the boys and then woke up Sheila and showed her, then told her she had nothing left to live for and to allow him to end it for her, or he woke Sheila up and he told her that either she let him kill her or he'd kill the boys.

Either way, it the above ties in with the location that the shells (which the rifle ejected as it fired) were found. Plus, every single one of the 25 shots hit a victim. Not one single shot missed. I find it highly unlikey that Sheila, who had possibly only fired a gun once or twice in her life could achieve that. Jeremy on the other hand was a practiced shot, including with that specific rifle.

It also explains why Sheila's body was found close to June's. Sheila and June did not get on at all, so it seems an unlikely choice of location to return to to kill herself, when she could have been near her boys or totally on her own. However, if you had to how Sheila the carnage to destroy her motive to fight, it would make sense to have her there.

On top of that, someone battered 6'4", physically fit farmer, Neville in the kitchen with the rifle, enough to cause him serious head wounds in their own right and break part of the butt of the rifle. On its own I'd say that's much more likely to be Jeremy than Sheila. Even if you say Sheila was psychotic, then she went from being able to aim a rifle carefully 10 times to being crazy enough to over power Neville and reload, to careful aim again within a short time period, and then washing her hands and feet and changing her clothes (without leaving any evidence of having done so) before calmly killing herself next to her hated mother.

Once you take all the evidence into account, it's pretty easy to see that the 10 jurors were right. The appeal judges say as much in the appeal documents too, if you care to read them.

Edited by youngsyr on Wednesday 19th February 17:37

[youngsyr]

Flumpo said:

silobass said:

Apologies if I've missed it in the thread, and it didn't seem to be mentioned in the program either but why was the father sat on the arms of a chair that had fallen with his trousers down? It seemed very strange to me and I was suprised the program didn't mention it.

Jesus, I hope there isn’t a photo of that on this other website posted above.

But yes, that was shown on the tv show and I did wonder why it looked like he was giving or receiving a sexual assault to the chair.

Was an odd set up for sure, but in struggles to the death weird things happen to clothes and bodies.

[Flumpo]

For me I’m convinced he did it. That’s fine.

I can’t fathom what happened or how to Sheila. I’m starting to think she was drugged.

Has that ever been mentioned anywhere?

It also seems part of the girlfriend’s evidence was that she got prescription tranquillisers on bambers request in order to kill his family. She said he tested them on himself.

[youngsyr]

Flumpo said:

For me I’m convinced he did it. That’s fine.

I can’t fathom what happened or how to Sheila. I’m starting to think she was drugged.

Has that ever been mentioned anywhere?

It also seems part of the girlfriend’s evidence was that she got prescription tranquillisers on bambers request in order to kill his family. She said he tested them on himself.

Blood tests prove she wasn't drugged, beyond cannabis a few days before and her ongoing anti-psychotic drugs she had been prescribed, which made her distant and disconnected.

Much more likely that Jeremy convinced her that she was better off dead and she went along with it in her shock/prescription drugged state, IMO.

He is/was a cold, calculating, extremely self-centered, killer and he clearly wasn't stupid, IMO.

Jeremy didn't tell his girlfriend the truth about the murders at any point. He clearly realised doing so would give her a huge amount of power over him. So he told her half-truths like a hitman did it for him and the twins were damaged by their mum beyond saving. He knew this gave him wriggle room should she turn on him. Just like he set up the fake phone calls to make it look like he couldn't have done it if people started looking at him.

[Flumpo]

youngsyr said:

Flumpo said:

For me I’m convinced he did it. That’s fine.

I can’t fathom what happened or how to Sheila. I’m starting to think she was drugged.

Has that ever been mentioned anywhere?

It also seems part of the girlfriend’s evidence was that she got prescription tranquillisers on bambers request in order to kill his family. She said he tested them on himself.

Blood tests prove she wasn't drugged, beyond cannabis a few days before and her ongoing anti-psychotic drugs she had been prescribed, which made her distant and disconnected.

Much more likely that Jeremy convinced her that she was better off dead and she went along with it in her shock/prescription drugged state, IMO.

He is/was a cold, calculating, extremely self-centered, killer and he clearly wasn't stupid, IMO.

Jeremy didn't tell his girlfriend the truth about the murders at any point. He clearly realised doing so would give her a huge amount of power over him. So he told her half-truths like a hitman did it for him and the twins were damaged by their mum beyond saving. He knew this gave him wriggle room should she turn on him. Just like he set up the fake phone calls to make it look like he couldn't have done it if people started looking at him.

Horrific.

[Welshbeef]

Let’s say if PH was bombers legal team how would we argue beyond reasonable doubt to a court?

[tim0409]

Welshbeef said:

Tyre Smoke said:

Welshbeef, have you read up about this at all? Or even watched the dramatisation on TV?
None of your questions or points of view are based on any of the known facts.
Both the boys were killed instantly by head shots. I think a total of six were fired into them both. Perhaps that left four in the magazine for Neville, then Jeremy went downstairs to reload, or perhaps Neville did while Jeremy despatched his mother and sister with two shots each. Then went downstairs and finished off his father.

I did watch it yes and seen the documentary a few years ago putting ? About the evidence from his side.


A poster stated a whole magazine was unloaded into the boys. Also it’s impossible to give 2x instant headshots in two different locations one would have woken.

The facts are no one knows the killing sequence only a guess. Boys could have been last or first or in between.

I would really recommend that you read the book that the series was based on (it's only 99p on Amazon) in conjuction with the appeal document that has been linked to in this thread; not only are they fascinating, they will give you a better understanding of why the jury reached the (correct) verdict they did.

It really wasn't just the evidence of his ex-girlfriend, there was a large amount of circumstantial evidence; I attended a murder trial where the body was never found, so there was only limited forensic evidence; there was however a lot of circumstantial evidence (mobile phone records etc., even the fact that CCTV showed the murderer had moved an umbrella from his boot to the parcel shelf after he had concealed the body in the boot; none of the evidence was particularly damning on its own, but taken together it was compelling. The prosecuting advocate described the evidence as being like lots of thin strands of wire, which on their own were not very strong but when woven together formed a very strong cable.

[Derek Smith]

Got to hand it to ITV - this thread's still going despite there being no doubt that Bamber was the murderer.

[Flumpo]

Derek Smith said:

Got to hand it to ITV - this thread's still going despite there being no doubt that Bamber was the murderer.

That’s not quite accurate. There are plenty of people who doubt he is guilty.

They just haven’t read the evidence or are suffering from delusion.

It’s interesting that according to reports, two female jurors wept when guilty was read out. Odds on these were the two who voted not guilty. And before anyone says just because they voted not guilty doesn’t mean they thought he was innocent, they wept at the verdict ffs.

[Flumpo]

Welshbeef said:

Let’s say if PH was bombers legal team how would we argue beyond reasonable doubt to a court?

I Don’t think you could. As this is ph, I think the only chance would be to get mr loophole on the case. The police messed this one up badly, get a lot of the evidence thrown out on technicalities or the judge winking at Bamber.

[youngsyr]

Flumpo said:

Welshbeef said:

Let’s say if PH was bombers legal team how would we argue beyond reasonable doubt to a court?

I Don’t think you could. As this is ph, I think the only chance would be to get mr loophole on the case. The police messed this one up badly, get a lot of the evidence thrown out on technicalities or the judge winking at Bamber.

You'd have to pin it on Sheila, or come up with a very good reason why Jeremy was lying to pin it on Sheila, but was otherwise innocent.

To pin it on Sheila, you'd have to have an explanation for all of the points I listed above and quite frankly I can't see a reasonable one.

[Flumpo]

youngsyr said:

Flumpo said:

Welshbeef said:

Let’s say if PH was bombers legal team how would we argue beyond reasonable doubt to a court?

I Don’t think you could. As this is ph, I think the only chance would be to get mr loophole on the case. The police messed this one up badly, get a lot of the evidence thrown out on technicalities or the judge winking at Bamber.

You'd have to pin it on Sheila, or come up with a very good reason why Jeremy was lying to pin it on Sheila, but was otherwise innocent.

To pin it on Sheila, you'd have to have an explanation for all of the points I listed above and quite frankly I can't see a reasonable one.

I’m not sure you would need to and I think that would be too complex. I would undermine the evidence against Bamber. You don’t have to prove Sheila did it, just that it wasn’t Bamber beyond doubt.

Which, as he clearly did it would be incredibly difficult.

Your 8 points are interesting But the only one I think you couldn’t put up okayish (again bearing in mind he did it) argument against would be the phone call. I can’t see a way around explaining how Neville could have made the call.

[Welshbeef]

Is the claims by banners team there were 2x calls and 2x squad cars sent out true or not?

It could have been Jeremy call twice who knows but if there were two calls it must be fact as why else send out two squad cars from different locations due to different calls.

Otherwise the call x2 claim isn’t true.
If it is true.... then what does it mean?

[Flumpo]

Welshbeef said:

Is the claims by banners team there were 2x calls and 2x squad cars sent out true or not?

It could have been Jeremy call twice who knows but if there were two calls it must be fact as why else send out two squad cars from different locations due to different calls.

Otherwise the call x2 claim isn’t true.
If it is true.... then what does it mean?

They did send out two separate squad cars. That’s true.

But the claim by Bamber is that there is record of two calls to police one from Neville one from him. This was only ‘found’ by team Bamber decades later and is based on two pieces of paper from the files. One is the report from the call from Bamber, the second one is a written up version that the police used to record radioing the squad car. They are on different note pads one saying call and one saying radio. The guy who wrote them explains it as that’s procedure not two separate call logs.

The police say two squad cars were called as one original one bambers first call and a second because Bamber had phoned back irate that no one was coming quickly enough.

[Flumpo]

[youngsyr]

Flumpo said:

I’m not sure you would need to and I think that would be too complex. I would undermine the evidence against Bamber. You don’t have to prove Sheila did it, just that it wasn’t Bamber beyond doubt.

Which, as he clearly did it would be incredibly difficult.

Your 8 points are interesting But the only one I think you couldn’t put up okayish (again bearing in mind he did it) argument against would be the phone call. I can’t see a way around explaining how Neville could have made the call.

But due to nature of the killings, either Jeremy did it or Sheila did.

There's no possibility that a 3rd person did.

So, any evidence that Sheila didn't do it is by default evidence that Jeremy did.

[Welshbeef]

youngsyr said:

But due to nature of the killings, either Jeremy did it or Sheila did.

There's no possibility that a 3rd person did.

So, any evidence that Sheila didn't do it is by default evidence that Jeremy did.

How can you say that.
There is no cast iron proof just circumstantial.

There is a possibility someone else did it - though chances are slim but it’s not a binary situation

[Flumpo]

youngsyr said:

Flumpo said:

I’m not sure you would need to and I think that would be too complex. I would undermine the evidence against Bamber. You don’t have to prove Sheila did it, just that it wasn’t Bamber beyond doubt.

Which, as he clearly did it would be incredibly difficult.

Your 8 points are interesting But the only one I think you couldn’t put up okayish (again bearing in mind he did it) argument against would be the phone call. I can’t see a way around explaining how Neville could have made the call.

But due to nature of the killings, either Jeremy did it or Sheila did.

There's no possibility that a 3rd person did.

So, any evidence that Sheila didn't do it is by default evidence that Jeremy did.

Which is why that argument failed first time round. I would only be looking to have each juror believe there was reasonable doubt Bamber didn’t do it. As his defence team it would be idiotic to try and rerun his defence as shiela did it. Which is why they are slinging mud at everything from notes of calls to blood in the silencer was from a rabbit.

You want to put reasonless doubt in the jurors mind about Bamber, not that Sheila definitely did it. I wouldn’t be looking for them to find him ‘innocent’ im looking for the majority of them to be unable to live with themselves to send down a man for life who they are not 100 percent sure did it beyond reasonable doubt.