White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
pitboard said:
Taffy Jones and his boss come out of this none too well. I wonder if any of their surviving relatives have had anything to say about it?
From what I’ve seen, a lot of the officers who were involved have been very critical of the depiction of taff in the series. I could have this wrong, but I think Stan Jones was reluctant to discuss his role. It seems strange from today’s view point that he didn’t write a book. Would have been a nice pension top up or at worst maybe a world cruise.
Flumpo said:
pitboard said:
Taffy Jones and his boss come out of this none too well. I wonder if any of their surviving relatives have had anything to say about it?
From what I’ve seen, a lot of the officers who were involved have been very critical of the depiction of taff in the series. I could have this wrong, but I think Stan Jones was reluctant to discuss his role. It seems strange from today’s view point that he didn’t write a book. Would have been a nice pension top up or at worst maybe a world cruise.
Perhaps the ITV programme did comment on his thoughts about it as it closed - he visited Julie Mugford, saw she was cashing in and walked away very dejectedly. Maybe he just wanted to wash his hands of it all.
Tyre Smoke said:
Ok, Welshbeef, if you won't accept Wiki, at least do a bit of research. In fact, regarding your phone records post, just a page ago on this thread it stated that BT didn't log local calls back then. You were even posting in and around that very post.
It's very annoying having to read you questioning something from only a few posts ago that was shown to be false/fact, etc.
Agreed, its derailing a very interesting thread. Give it a rest WB please. It's very annoying having to read you questioning something from only a few posts ago that was shown to be false/fact, etc.
Watched this yesterday.
Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
Ayahuasca said:
Watched this yesterday.
Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
If your theory is true then it must be the ultimate Perfect Murder[s], not only have the true murderers gone undetected, a fall guy is doing Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
time for the crime and no-one believes for a second his protestations of innocence.
In the annals of crime potentially a unique situation.
coppernorks said:
If your theory is true then it must be the ultimate Perfect Murder[s], not only have the true murderers gone undetected, a fall guy is doing
time for the crime and no-one believes for a second his protestations of innocence.
In the annals of crime potentially a unique situation.
Not so sure about that. time for the crime and no-one believes for a second his protestations of innocence.
In the annals of crime potentially a unique situation.
You would only be aware of cases where the true murderers were, in fact, detected.
Ayahuasca said:
Watched this yesterday.
Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
I though this too - but others on here and some who actually lived in the area at the time and before flagged Jeremy was a proper wrong un etc. Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
What adds to my belief that he didn’t do it is if he had since being sentenced confirmed he actually did it instead of even today plead his innocence he would have been released. He wasn’t given a full life sentence without parole.
How did the farm get inherited by the cousins? Surely legally it would have been to Jeremy and his sister. If she is dead then to Jeremy (unless there is a will stating otherwise). I’ve no idea what happens if you murder the other beneficiary of the estate does it then totally bypass you too? What happens in a situation whereby he life long pleads innocence - and let’s say 40 years after sentence it’s overturned do the cousins then hand back the entire inheritance they received or is it tough s
t you’ve spent 40 years inside for a crime you didn’t commit and your rightful inheritance is sat with someone else with no recourse of recovery?The court clearly saw the full evidence available but I’d wager those 50:50 jurors had their kind made up when the prosecution were nailing him and he turned round and simply said you’ve got to prove it and you have no real evidence on me (or something like thatH).
The arrogance
Also the post death behaviour was extremely odd and in my mind wouldn’t be normal behaviour of someone who’s parents and sister and 2 nephews had been brutally murdered. Who knows maybe some have to act that way to cope with it
Ayahuasca said:
Watched this yesterday.
Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
Why would Jeremy's girlfriend accuse him of admitting to her that he'd done it?Alternative theory: the cousins did it and framed Jeremy.
Ann Eaton stood to gain from the deaths, and from Jeremy‘s imprisonment. She ended up with the farm. Had the Bambers lived, the farm would have gone to Jeremy and his sister, and they would have been out.
She drew police attention to the gun silencer, and the cousins also found a scratch in the kitchen said to have been made by the silencer and pointing to its use on the weapon and subsequent removal. The police had searched the gun cabinet and not seen the silencer. Was it taken from the scene by the murderer, and later planted?
She also drew police attention to the dodgy kitchen latch. The cousins drove the investigation all the way and made sure it pointed at Jeremy, a person it would be easy to hate.
Of course, Jeremy was convicted due to the phone call he said he had from his father. If he was lying about that, as the police thought he was, then he was the murderer. But, if he did in fact receive a call that he thought was from his father, but was actually from a cousin, or from his father being held at gun point, then the cousins could easily have done it. Motive, means and opportunity. They had it all.
Why would other friends state that Jeremy had suggested killing his family before and it would be easy to do?
If you look at the evidence as a whole, then it's quite clear that either Jeremy did it, or he knows who did and possibly helped or even ordered them to.
youngsyr said:
Why would Jeremy's girlfriend accuse him of admitting to her that he'd done it?
Why would other friends state that Jeremy had suggested killing his family before and it would be easy to do?
If you look at the evidence as a whole, then it's quite clear that either Jeremy did it, or he knows who did and possibly helped or even ordered them to.
Because and it’s covered in the show she sold her story to the sun for mega ££. Why would other friends state that Jeremy had suggested killing his family before and it would be easy to do?
If you look at the evidence as a whole, then it's quite clear that either Jeremy did it, or he knows who did and possibly helped or even ordered them to.
Also as she was very bitter at the break up.
Perhaps his previous loose talk about his plans to kill his family was just a lot of Billy big balls fantasy but it planted a seed in his cousins mind.
She could have constructed the whole thing to make it look like Jeremy did it and the girlfriends statement could just be a woman scorned getting her revenge. It's very unlikely to be the case but possible. The callous attitude of Jeremy after the murders though, was his downfall and he deserves his sentence for that.
She could have constructed the whole thing to make it look like Jeremy did it and the girlfriends statement could just be a woman scorned getting her revenge. It's very unlikely to be the case but possible. The callous attitude of Jeremy after the murders though, was his downfall and he deserves his sentence for that.
stevensdrs said:
Perhaps his previous loose talk about his plans to kill his family was just a lot of Billy big balls fantasy but it planted a seed in his cousins mind.
She could have constructed the whole thing to make it look like Jeremy did it and the girlfriends statement could just be a woman scorned getting her revenge. It's very unlikely to be the case but possible. The callous attitude of Jeremy after the murders though, was his downfall and he deserves his sentence for that.
Callous attitude however abhorrent that is does not deserve any jail term. She could have constructed the whole thing to make it look like Jeremy did it and the girlfriends statement could just be a woman scorned getting her revenge. It's very unlikely to be the case but possible. The callous attitude of Jeremy after the murders though, was his downfall and he deserves his sentence for that.
How wealthy were the cousins who ended up inheriting the lot? Money is always a motivator
So the cousins murder five people, including 2 kids and make it look like Sheila murder suicided them all. They do this to get their hands on the estate, inconveniently leaving the loose end that is Jeremy, who stands to inherit everything. The police then accept the staged murder suicide as what happened, case closed. Jeremy inherits the lot. The cousins now have to stitch him up and frame him for murdering everyone and making it look like a suicide and hope that he doesn't walk free, thus continuing to inherit everything.
Why not just include him in the original plan to murder everyone?
Why would you go through all of the trouble of staging a murder suicide but leave behind the one person who stands in your way of accomplishing your goal?
Why not just include him in the original plan to murder everyone?
Why would you go through all of the trouble of staging a murder suicide but leave behind the one person who stands in your way of accomplishing your goal?
Oakey said:
So the cousins murder five people, including 2 kids and make it look like Sheila murder suicided them all. They do this to get their hands on the estate, inconveniently leaving the loose end that is Jeremy, who stands to inherit everything. The police then accept the staged murder suicide as what happened, case closed. Jeremy inherits the lot. The cousins now have to stitch him up and frame him for murdering everyone and making it look like a suicide and hope that he doesn't walk free, thus continuing to inherit everything.
Why not just include him in the original plan to murder everyone?
Why would you go through all of the trouble of staging a murder suicide but leave behind the one person who stands in your way of accomplishing your goal?
Why because then he clearly didn’t do it so it’s someone else - possibly the cousins as they take everything of the estateWhy not just include him in the original plan to murder everyone?
Why would you go through all of the trouble of staging a murder suicide but leave behind the one person who stands in your way of accomplishing your goal?
I’m assuming they knew Jeremy well enough - the husband was his “best mate” wasn’t he .
Really?
If cousins killed everyone incl Jeremy then the police would have to investigate much further seeking motives- well cousins would have a motive £, other may have a motive too but police always start investigating the closest family first then friends etc - of all murders a random person being killed is minuscule possible but minuscule.
If cousins killed everyone incl Jeremy then the police would have to investigate much further seeking motives- well cousins would have a motive £, other may have a motive too but police always start investigating the closest family first then friends etc - of all murders a random person being killed is minuscule possible but minuscule.
Welshbeef said:
Really?
If cousins killed everyone incl Jeremy then the police would have to investigate much further seeking motives- well cousins would have a motive £, other may have a motive too but police always start investigating the closest family first then friends etc - of all murders a random person being killed is minuscule possible but minuscule.
What's more likely?If cousins killed everyone incl Jeremy then the police would have to investigate much further seeking motives- well cousins would have a motive £, other may have a motive too but police always start investigating the closest family first then friends etc - of all murders a random person being killed is minuscule possible but minuscule.
Scenario A:
1: Jeremy kills everyone
2: Makes it look like Sheila did it
3: He inherits everything
The only requirement for this plan to work is that the police believe Sheila did it. Which they did, initially!
Scenario B:
1: The cousins kill everyone
2: They make it look like Sheila did it
3: Jeremy inherits everything
4: ???
5: Stitch Jeremy up
6: Hope he's found guilty at trial
7: ???
How does this plan work in their favour? They staged a murder suicide but leave behind someone who stands to inherit everything leaving them with nothing. The police accept the staged murder suicide as fact meaning Jeremy definitely inherits everything. The cousins then have to concoct a plan to frame Jeremy, hope the police buy it, investigate it, charge him and he's found guilty at trial.
Wouldn't it have been easier to either include Jeremy in the initial murders and make it look like Sheila did it or just frame him for their murder from the outset?
Your scenario A is not correct your missing additional points beyond inherits everything where his behaviour is beyond belief which could only be the case if he was crazy as any sane person who did it to inherit the lot would clearly act as you’d expect let time pass then you’ve got the lot.
There were no ??? In my point 4&6. Do you not think if they were ALL killed the police would then look at a much wider groups of people incl the cousins and who benefits from this outcome?
The x girlfriend changed her story when she sold her story to the Sun for mega £ and then left for Canada. ... odd.
Clearly another option is it was someone else entirely and they were blackmailing the cousins to help with the police narrative.
We’re back handlers given to certain invesotgators? Was it ineptness so much evidence lost and “finding” a silencer on a second house search a very long time later that it was in a draw / its then a contaminated crime scene how they were able to use it in court who knows but anyone could have put it there (no finger prints were there ...) or maybe it was sloppy crime scene investigation to miss something so massive.
I couldn’t care less he’s been jailed by a court so that’s that - however it’s mind boggling he persists to proclaim not guilty and with that claim it means he cannot be freed as if he had pleaded guilty after sentencing he would have been released years ago. This bit is really baffling. I cannot comprehend why a guilty person would do it - but I can an innocent person to state guilty simply to get out sooner cs namecleared.
There were no ??? In my point 4&6. Do you not think if they were ALL killed the police would then look at a much wider groups of people incl the cousins and who benefits from this outcome?
The x girlfriend changed her story when she sold her story to the Sun for mega £ and then left for Canada. ... odd.
Clearly another option is it was someone else entirely and they were blackmailing the cousins to help with the police narrative.
We’re back handlers given to certain invesotgators? Was it ineptness so much evidence lost and “finding” a silencer on a second house search a very long time later that it was in a draw / its then a contaminated crime scene how they were able to use it in court who knows but anyone could have put it there (no finger prints were there ...) or maybe it was sloppy crime scene investigation to miss something so massive.
I couldn’t care less he’s been jailed by a court so that’s that - however it’s mind boggling he persists to proclaim not guilty and with that claim it means he cannot be freed as if he had pleaded guilty after sentencing he would have been released years ago. This bit is really baffling. I cannot comprehend why a guilty person would do it - but I can an innocent person to state guilty simply to get out sooner cs namecleared.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff