White House Farm murders - ITV series
Discussion
I followed this case at the time and it was fascinating. I knew a few Essex officers and was at courses in Chelmsford in the middle/late 80s, around the time of the trial and the criticisms. It was a matter of some embarrassment to the officers in the force and, one would hope, to the force itself. On one course, there was a defrocked detective sergeant (DS) who had just got his rank back and he had some strong opinions on the enquiry.
Essex, at that time, was very progressive in many ways. Their traffic department was highly professional, with high standards for their training. Their firearms unit was seen, at least in the early 80s, as the class of the home counties. They ran a lot of training courses at Chelmsford that were well regarded (and didn’t they like to tell you all about them).
The scene evidence was corrupted. This was unforgiveable. Rumours abounded that there was pressure brought on the senior investigating officer (SIO) to clear the matter up as discretely as possible. It was a possibility, but even so, there’s discrete and there’s sleeving.
I watched the first episode of the six of the ITV series last night. Some things stood out for me.
It was of vary high production quality, with a very good script (so far, it can be difficult to keep up as the plot and character develop), great acting and the locations were spot on. The twins were good.
The first discordant bit was the hardened, old style, do-it-his-way DS against the SIO. It was hardly breaking the mould. That said, I doubt there’s a bobby in the world who can’t put a name to the detective constable (DC) who just sort of hangs around awaiting being pointed somewhere.
The casual nature of actions at the scene seem to me to be all but impossible. Mistakes were made, any number of them, but the type and frequency seemed well over the top. The SIO was experienced and would have done things better, even if he was trying to deal with the matter speedily (unknown if true of course). If it had been the daughter who’d gone on a rampage, then the coroner would have wanted evidence of it at his hearing.
I’m not sure any female police officer would give multiple death messages to the NoK on a doorstep. Whilst the scene was highly emotional, and great TV, it would not have happened. In any case, if they were going to collapse, my experience is that they do it before you’ve said anything.
I get the feeling that I can predict the nature of the rest of the series, with the DS valiantly battling corporate indifference.
At the time, and certainly since, I’ve been convinced of Bramber’s guilt. Firstly, the jury found him so, albeit with a majority, helpfully explained on Wiki as: 10:2, only one more person to say not guilty and he’d be free. Secondly, there was lots of evidence to support the method he used.
Thirdly, and both unreasonably and illogically, the nature of those who call for his release because he’s obviously innocent. Pretty boy Galloway for one. The PR released by the defence team has been pretty crude at times.
A poor showing by Essex, for which they were heavily criticised, and quite rightly. The progress of such a major incident should have been supervised closely. However, they got their man in the end.
I’m looking forward to the next and subsequent episodes with interest.
Essex, at that time, was very progressive in many ways. Their traffic department was highly professional, with high standards for their training. Their firearms unit was seen, at least in the early 80s, as the class of the home counties. They ran a lot of training courses at Chelmsford that were well regarded (and didn’t they like to tell you all about them).
The scene evidence was corrupted. This was unforgiveable. Rumours abounded that there was pressure brought on the senior investigating officer (SIO) to clear the matter up as discretely as possible. It was a possibility, but even so, there’s discrete and there’s sleeving.
I watched the first episode of the six of the ITV series last night. Some things stood out for me.
It was of vary high production quality, with a very good script (so far, it can be difficult to keep up as the plot and character develop), great acting and the locations were spot on. The twins were good.
The first discordant bit was the hardened, old style, do-it-his-way DS against the SIO. It was hardly breaking the mould. That said, I doubt there’s a bobby in the world who can’t put a name to the detective constable (DC) who just sort of hangs around awaiting being pointed somewhere.
The casual nature of actions at the scene seem to me to be all but impossible. Mistakes were made, any number of them, but the type and frequency seemed well over the top. The SIO was experienced and would have done things better, even if he was trying to deal with the matter speedily (unknown if true of course). If it had been the daughter who’d gone on a rampage, then the coroner would have wanted evidence of it at his hearing.
I’m not sure any female police officer would give multiple death messages to the NoK on a doorstep. Whilst the scene was highly emotional, and great TV, it would not have happened. In any case, if they were going to collapse, my experience is that they do it before you’ve said anything.
I get the feeling that I can predict the nature of the rest of the series, with the DS valiantly battling corporate indifference.
At the time, and certainly since, I’ve been convinced of Bramber’s guilt. Firstly, the jury found him so, albeit with a majority, helpfully explained on Wiki as: 10:2, only one more person to say not guilty and he’d be free. Secondly, there was lots of evidence to support the method he used.
Thirdly, and both unreasonably and illogically, the nature of those who call for his release because he’s obviously innocent. Pretty boy Galloway for one. The PR released by the defence team has been pretty crude at times.
A poor showing by Essex, for which they were heavily criticised, and quite rightly. The progress of such a major incident should have been supervised closely. However, they got their man in the end.
I’m looking forward to the next and subsequent episodes with interest.
Welshbeef said:
Is it factually true all the windows locked and on the latches and the doors locked from the inside with the keys still in the doors (on the inside).
If so how could someone escape ie another killer escape?
From memory, Bamber returned to the locked farmhouse a little while later without keys. He climbed in through a window (ground floor toilet?) and let himself out another way.If so how could someone escape ie another killer escape?
Remember that this was planned. It's easy enough to secure windows from the outside.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There were significant and far-reaching changes to the way major enquiries were conducted after that. The HOLMES system was brought in and was a revolution. All forces in England/Wales use it, or rather HOLMES2 now, and it has improved policing to a tremendous extent. Stable door and all that, but better late than never. I say late, but we were in the vanguard of computerisation of major incidents.The good thing about it is that it still allows for initiatives and intelligent policing on the enquiry.
Not only that, in some enquires that appear to have bogged down, or there are concerns about, another team is brought in to review the way the case is developing and to make suggestions. Forces from all over Europe came to view HOLMES when it started.
A self-indulgence is watching the cold-case programmes on TV. I've given up watching American productions as they appear so amateur. Whilst you might, for very valid reasons, grimace at some of the mistakes made in the White House case, the possibility of such a thing happening again has been drastically, and significantly, reduced.
HOLMES can be/is used for other applications as well, such as when there are a high number of casualties. In addition, the number of people who phone in, saying that their husband/wife/child/significant other is missing and was definitely in the area, is remarkably high. Many people who have mislaid someone, sometimes decades before, get their names on the list 'just in case'. Run them through HOLMES and you have a truer number of the actual missing and their identities.
Welshbeef said:
nonsequitur said:
One of the relatives discovered that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. The latch could be engaged after exit.
Was that a relative who stood the chance of inheriting more with Bamber out of the way? If she knew about it how many others - could it have been her?
Blue62 said:
Just stated watching on catch up to avoid the interminable adverts. I know there’s poetic licence, but were the coppers really so incompetent? I thought Essex was highly regarded as a regional force, so are they being short changed by this drama, which I think is excellent by the way. Nice period cars, decent acting and well produced.
Essex, of that period, were a mixed ability force. Some of their specialities were class of the field. For instance, firearms. We went to them to learn a thing or two. Their training department was well regarded and I'm told their traffic unit was as good as Kent's, but without the arrogance. A big improvement. However, their CID was much the same as any other at the time. There was little supervision and checking, so much depended on the senior investigating officer. Get a good one, and you had a good enquiry.
A team used to be a reflection of the SIO, but, at least to an extent, it changed in the late 80s, some suggest generated by this case. Many forces must have felt, there but for the grace of the Lodge goes us.
The two enquiries into the Russell Bishop murders and attempt were poles apart, and not only in results.
There's oversight now, and with the technical aids, such as HOLMES, there's a sort of safety net.
With regards the silencer, in the normal event of a mass murder, a search team would have been sent in once the initial scene investigation was over. There's little that they miss.
The scene was not preserved. That was appalling. Even if it was murder/suicide, an enquiry needs to be run properly. The coroner was upset. Also, I remember scenes of crimes ten years before this having a PC stuck on the door to log anyone coming in and to stop them until the OIC of the scene gave permission to enter.
There are some negatives to the current system, but they are minor.
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.
Welshbeef said:
But the local public only have what the press feed them - there is no factual evidence (as the police destroyed anything which might have been useful).
No witnesses
Only 1 persons word about statements he had made to her
Also generally history is written by the victors.
It’s also very unusual that the lady who lives now in the farm the one who flagged concerns go that copper has apparently been tight lipped about it from the end of the court case to date /ongoing. She benefitted hugely £ wise she lost distant relatives and she flagged a few things ie the window latch - that she clearly knew about. What was her alibi?
Firstly, we've only seen the TV series. There is no requirement for it to be factual. There is no requirement for the alibi of all suspects to be recounted. The intent is to entertain, and I think they hit that button.No witnesses
Only 1 persons word about statements he had made to her
Also generally history is written by the victors.
It’s also very unusual that the lady who lives now in the farm the one who flagged concerns go that copper has apparently been tight lipped about it from the end of the court case to date /ongoing. She benefitted hugely £ wise she lost distant relatives and she flagged a few things ie the window latch - that she clearly knew about. What was her alibi?
To take up a point raised by a number of posters; there is nothing poor or bad about circumstantial evidence. It's how cases were proved before the use of scientists became the norm.
Witnesses to planned murders are infrequent.
There was lots of corroborative evidence produced in the trial so it wasn’t just on person’s word against another’s.
What the case revolved around was that Bamber's story was full of holes. There were a number of facts that could not be explained in his version.
nikaiyo2 said:
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?
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.
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.
Flumpo said:
Jeremys defence team didn’t use it as evidence at the time as they were not aware of it. But they now claim (not me) that the dad phoned the police station first. They have a log from the police station recorded before the Jeremy call.
It says daughter going mad shooting everyone and gives the dads name and address. The records apparently show a car was dispatched based on that call, according to team Jeremy.
The records then show a call 10 mins later from Jeremy, giving his address and saying SISTER is going mad father has phoned him. The records then apparently show a different car is dispatched.
Where this is on dodgy ground, is that two records definitely exist one saying daughter, one sister and two cars dispatched. The police didn’t share this info, team Jeremy claim for obvious reasons.
The team Jeremy cry is this is clear evidence, the police put it down to a mix up over recording of the original call and the wrong time being recorded and a follow up call from the officers.
I believe team Jeremy are claiming they have some new method of proving the dad call took place. At the time local calls apparently weren’t recorded by BT.
The Bramber brief's job is to cast doubt on the conviction and everything they say should be viewed with that in mind. They say that the father phoned the police. Perhaps the police did receive a phone call, but there's no evidence to show who called. I'm not sure what this new method is to identify where the call came from, so one wonders why it hasn't been disclosed.It says daughter going mad shooting everyone and gives the dads name and address. The records apparently show a car was dispatched based on that call, according to team Jeremy.
The records then show a call 10 mins later from Jeremy, giving his address and saying SISTER is going mad father has phoned him. The records then apparently show a different car is dispatched.
Where this is on dodgy ground, is that two records definitely exist one saying daughter, one sister and two cars dispatched. The police didn’t share this info, team Jeremy claim for obvious reasons.
The team Jeremy cry is this is clear evidence, the police put it down to a mix up over recording of the original call and the wrong time being recorded and a follow up call from the officers.
I believe team Jeremy are claiming they have some new method of proving the dad call took place. At the time local calls apparently weren’t recorded by BT.
Edited by Flumpo on Monday 17th February 22:06
Current record keeping and electronic mapping is a far cry from the night station PC with his occurrence booklet and phone book.
Not a dig at Essex of course. Rural nicks across the country were very, well, rural at the time.
Quarterly said:
From what I've read the evidence against JB was very thin at best and wouldn't stand up in court by today's standards. Just one example, the 'sound monitor' (silencer) had a spot of shelia's blood on it, its later been proved that it's not and could have come from an animal.
What really convinced the jury was the testimony from JBs recently jilted girlfriend. It was her word against his. She was an unreliable witness imo because firstly she had a history of petty crime including claiming her cheque book had been stolen while cashing cheques.. Secondly as you saw at the end of the film she had a deal with the News of the World to sell her story for 25k. Question is, did she get that deal before she gave evidence? What do you think? If she had then her evidence should have been ruled inadmissible due to her profiting from her story. Without her 'evidence ' JB would almost certainly have been acquitted.
I think he's probably guilty, but I'm amazed at the lack of evidence.
The prosecution's case was not, as it suggested in the series, just his word against that of his ex. There would never be a prosecution based solely on that. There's much online with regards the appeals. There was little forensic evidence it is true, but that hardly negates a prosecution. What really convinced the jury was the testimony from JBs recently jilted girlfriend. It was her word against his. She was an unreliable witness imo because firstly she had a history of petty crime including claiming her cheque book had been stolen while cashing cheques.. Secondly as you saw at the end of the film she had a deal with the News of the World to sell her story for 25k. Question is, did she get that deal before she gave evidence? What do you think? If she had then her evidence should have been ruled inadmissible due to her profiting from her story. Without her 'evidence ' JB would almost certainly have been acquitted.
I think he's probably guilty, but I'm amazed at the lack of evidence.
One significant part of the prosecution was inconsistencies in Bamber's stories.
The police handling of the scene was, quite rightly, criticised post trial by the judge, and others, but that does not negate a prosecution.
Welshbeef said:
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's no possibility that a 3rd person did.
So, any evidence that Sheila didn't do it is by default evidence that Jeremy did.
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
Before DNA, and other scientific evidence that has come to the fore over recent years, all evidence was circumstantial, with the exception of fingerprints and vague blood typing.DNA evidence is great, although not without its problems in the way it is presented to the court.
I'm not sure what you mean by cast iron proof. The requirement is for it to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read up on circumstantial evidence and you will see there's absolutely no reason to prefix circumstantial with just.
DickyC said:
Off Topic - when I came across an interesting story about an English racing driver from the 50s who ended up living in a cave in Spain I edited his entry in Wikipedia. Within a day I had a very amiable email from someone at Wikipedia saying my entry had been removed as the information was heresay. It was true; I have a letter from another racing driver relating the story after he had spoken to the chap's ex-wife. Much as I would have liked the story to stand, it is an anecdote and Wikipedia were right to exclude it. A journalist might include it prefaced with, "It is understood that..."
On the off-topic, I have quite a library of history books. While I taken a lot of my read books on other subjects to a local charity, I can't bring myself to part with history books I've enjoyed and which have entertained and enlightened me. However, the older the book, the more likely it is that the content has been challenged and proved incorrect. Some books have an added frisson for being wrong from start to finish. The problem with history books is that there is no system for updating.
Further, I'd love to hear this story of the racing driver living in a cave. Any chance?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff