White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
It's all very well to criticise the SIO for being prejudiced. It is so easy to be blinded by a couple of perceived facts. If anyone doesn't believe me, read the post of those who bring up one thing they've read and use that to convict the innocent woman and pardon the murderer.
Essex police made a series of errors in the initial investigation. This gave the defence at Bamber's trial lots of opportunity to muddy the waters, and that's what they do best. Yet 10 jurors were convinced of his guilt. That alone should be enough.
However, the circumstances of the bodies, the use of the firearm and Bamber's behaviour need to be answered first, and all of them. The evidence points to Bamber.
It's been widely quoted that the woman was familiar with firearms. For evidence we have Bamber's statement and, of course, the fact that the woman lived on a farm. We've had those who state that Bamber could not have done it because the building was secure. Yet it was admitted by Bamber that he used to get in through the closed windows, and did so post murders.
I did not expect Bamber to be convicted after the way the scene was mishandled. However, the other evidence was enough for the jury, or ten of them. They sat through the whole case. They had a distinct advantage over us.
It's great theatre of course. The series is well produced, the script is excellent and the actors take their parts, in the main, to perfection. But it is theatre.
Essex police made a series of errors in the initial investigation. This gave the defence at Bamber's trial lots of opportunity to muddy the waters, and that's what they do best. Yet 10 jurors were convinced of his guilt. That alone should be enough.
However, the circumstances of the bodies, the use of the firearm and Bamber's behaviour need to be answered first, and all of them. The evidence points to Bamber.
It's been widely quoted that the woman was familiar with firearms. For evidence we have Bamber's statement and, of course, the fact that the woman lived on a farm. We've had those who state that Bamber could not have done it because the building was secure. Yet it was admitted by Bamber that he used to get in through the closed windows, and did so post murders.
I did not expect Bamber to be convicted after the way the scene was mishandled. However, the other evidence was enough for the jury, or ten of them. They sat through the whole case. They had a distinct advantage over us.
It's great theatre of course. The series is well produced, the script is excellent and the actors take their parts, in the main, to perfection. But it is theatre.
thebraketester said:
Yeah it was a good one.... that guy should be sacked.
It's a play, no matter how dressed up. They 'invent' scenes for the purposes of drama. I don't think we should read too much into the particular people as portrayed. They've stuck closely to the facts as I remember them and from a reading of details of the incident online, not something we can accuse all scriptwriters of 'actually happened' TV.
That said, I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Quality stuff. Oddly, despite knowing what the result, or at least the result so far, is, I find it irritating having to wait for the episodes.
The kindle book on this has been reduced to 99p; should make an interesting read as it contains a lot of detail.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murders-White-House-Farm-...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murders-White-House-Farm-...
Edited by tim0409 on Thursday 6th February 22:40
Tyre Smoke said:
Plus it was proven that the sister could not have possibly stuck the gun under her chin and reached the trigger with the silencer fitted. Therefore she must have murdered everyone, taken the silencer off and replaced it in the cupboard, then walked back upstairs and shot herself. Twice.
Interesting aside - I went to a talk last week given by a now-retired forensic scientist involved in the Bamber case. She was the lady that they got to lie on the floor in the lab, with the rifle, to show that it was not possible to reach the trigger (she was the same height and build as Sheila).Her opinion, it was definitely him, and the forensics would have been a slam dunk had the investigation not been a complete cock-up (her words!)
Enjoyed it.
Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
jules_s said:
Welshbeef said:
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
I think the end sequence said the sentence had been appealed twice - so hopefully soundSurely he should be blaming the police for destroying all the evidence at site which could have found the real killer/or confirm it was his sister.
Where was the regather if the two boys? What alibis does he have for that night? Do all family members have rock solid alibis for all of that night?
Who actually inherited the farm/caravan business in the end? Who actually took the bounty?
Genuine question does a convicted murderer who is named in the final will of the deceased suddenly be removed from the will / it goes to the state of they find the next of kind down the line?
Welshbeef said:
But he was convicted on a majority but that was based on a single persons evidence (possible lies possible wrath possible opportunist for £).
Surely he should be blaming the police for destroying all the evidence at site which could have found the real killer/or confirm it was his sister.
Where was the regather if the two boys? What alibis does he have for that night? Do all family members have rock solid alibis for all of that night?
Who actually inherited the farm/caravan business in the end? Who actually took the bounty?
Genuine question does a convicted murderer who is named in the final will of the deceased suddenly be removed from the will / it goes to the state of they find the next of kind down the line?
You really ought to read the book I linked to above as it will answer a lot of your questions; it’s 99p well spent.Surely he should be blaming the police for destroying all the evidence at site which could have found the real killer/or confirm it was his sister.
Where was the regather if the two boys? What alibis does he have for that night? Do all family members have rock solid alibis for all of that night?
Who actually inherited the farm/caravan business in the end? Who actually took the bounty?
Genuine question does a convicted murderer who is named in the final will of the deceased suddenly be removed from the will / it goes to the state of they find the next of kind down the line?
He wasn’t just convicted on the evidence of one person; her evidence was clearly the most significant but there was a lot of additional evidence led by the prosecution. As stated in the programme, if it wasn’t Sheila it had to be Jeremy otherwise why would he make up the story about his father’s call?
In terms of your question about the will; Jeremy Bamber was disinherited following his conviction; the estate was then distributed to the next in line - in this case the courts eventually ruled the estate should pass to Pamela (Nevill’s sister), working on the principle that in the absence of contrary evidence, the five deceased were assumed to have died in order of seniority. The beneficiary was the first victims next of kin.
tim0409 said:
You really ought to read the book I linked to above as it will answer a lot of your questions; it’s 99p well spent.
He wasn’t just convicted on the evidence of one person; her evidence was clearly the most significant but there was a lot of additional evidence led by the prosecution. As stated in the programme, if it wasn’t Sheila it had to be Jeremy otherwise why would he make up the story about his father’s call?
In terms of your question about the will; Jeremy Bamber was disinherited following his conviction; the estate was then distributed to the next in line - in this case the courts eventually ruled the estate should pass to Pamela (Nevill’s sister), working on the principle that in the absence of contrary evidence, the five deceased were assumed to have died in order of seniority. The beneficiary was the first victims next of kin.
Is disinherited the case for anyone who murders and would inherit? Even if they are the sole remaining family of any kind?He wasn’t just convicted on the evidence of one person; her evidence was clearly the most significant but there was a lot of additional evidence led by the prosecution. As stated in the programme, if it wasn’t Sheila it had to be Jeremy otherwise why would he make up the story about his father’s call?
In terms of your question about the will; Jeremy Bamber was disinherited following his conviction; the estate was then distributed to the next in line - in this case the courts eventually ruled the estate should pass to Pamela (Nevill’s sister), working on the principle that in the absence of contrary evidence, the five deceased were assumed to have died in order of seniority. The beneficiary was the first victims next of kin.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Where is the physical evidence linking him to the crime?From the TV series (pinch of salt) and what I’ve read online (bigger pinch of salt), there seems to be very little. Circumstantial evidence from (potentially) biased witnesses should not be enough for a murder conviction.
Welshbeef said:
Enjoyed it.
Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
This. Very odd.Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
85Carrera said:
Welshbeef said:
Enjoyed it.
Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
This. Very odd.Surprising really that he was convicted not in forensic evidence (none that would give beyond reasonable doubt) rather mere the claims of his x girlfriend no one else.
On the face of it that’s a bold move - a single individual with no other corroborating evidence.
Assuming the evidence was as presented if I was on the jury I’d find it impossible to find beyond reasonable doubt (I assume there was far more convincing evidence given in actual court).
I hope he did it as having a totally innocent person inside for life with the courts refusing to hear more evidence/retrial would be a monumental failure of justice.
But, if there is any truth in a lot of evidence put out by his team, in balance, I couldn’t say beyond reasonable doubt he did it.
dieselgrunt said:
He deliberately pointed the finger at Sheila and there is a mountain of evidence that she didn’t do it. He did it, no doubt.
There is doubt it was a majority ruling not unanimous. There is no forensic evidence that nails him beyond reasonable doubt
There are no witnesses to the crime
If he did do it it’s odd why he would call it in - imagine if he had done it but never contacted the police just wake in the morning go about his usual day and await them being found by someone (sensible NOT him unless he was due there anyway).
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff