White House Farm - The Bamber Murders. Jan 8th ITV 9pm

[Dogleg]

Is anyone else planning to watch this six part series? I vaguely remembered the killings and on seeing this advertised have now lost hours to reading up about it online and have also downloaded a book about the case. I’m really looking forward to this one!

www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-12-25/itv-drama-white-house-farm/

Sorry I can't say more Venus! Really should refrain from commenting on threads like these but reading comments defending certain people winds me right up!

Oulu a phone call from him saying that everything is going as planned? And then keeping that a secret when questioned?

Maybe accompanying him whilst he committed a theft and failing to report that?

No-one can be convicted of "maybe" committing a crime. By definition that isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Look at the definition of perverting the course of justice, @whitesoxx.

I don't need to thanks 😂

The "maybe" was for you. Not the crime committed

Am feeling that even if JB was innocent, he would be the least sympathetic victim of MoJ of all time.

OK, don't look it up, but don't be surprised that the definition doesn't cover what JM is alleged to have done.

@whitesoxx different angle then-what do u think of the campaign to free JB & his supporters like Trudi Benjamin?

@whitesoxx I work in the CJS (have never had anything to do with JB though) & and yes I agree JB is guilty as can be.

In relation to JM there is a suggestion (the pillow scene) that their relationship was mutually dark and she could have encouraged JB to murder and lied later to save herself.

Certainly morally wrong but criminally? Can we be guilty of 'telling' someone to do a crime? Gut feeling says yes but hard to know what the charge would be.

An interesting case is that of Michelle Carter in America who was on the phone to her boyfriend while he committed suicide (both were depressed teenagers)

The court argued she told him over the phone to get back into his truck (he was using the exhaust fume method) and that she had a duty to call the police instead. They gave her a prison sentence.

I don't know anything factual about his girlfriend, obviously I wasn't there. But what the tv programme suggests she did is indeed the very definition of perverting the course of justice. Conspiring with him afterwards, putting the suggestion in there that his sister had been "behaving strangely all week", failing to report what she knew had happened.

Fifteen just had to look up Trudi Benjamin

She's ridiculous 😂 armchair detective, no valid points whatsoever

AppleJane in your scenarios of encouraging JB would that fall under conspiracy to commit murder? I don't know the exact definition so genuine question.

I would have thought any prior actual knowledge of might potentially fall under conspiracy to commit X but of course if JM version is accurate she didn't actually know as she didn't believe him to be serious.

@AppleJane

"Certainly morally wrong but criminally? Can we be guilty of 'telling' someone to do a crime? Gut feeling says yes but hard to know what the charge would be."

Incitement is the offence you're thinking of. Although in his case I doubt she was guilty of that. Who knows?

Sheila was acting strangely because of her medication ie spaced out, exhausted.

JB must be very unhappy about the programme. Not only has it brought more people to the case and the CAL book but it's also shown his campaign team to be bullies and liars.

@whitesoxx bonkers isn't she 🤪 the website for his campaign eradicates any shred of credibility for the campaign IMO. Wish him Happy Birthday? Donate money? Bamber Bake Off? Madness!

With reference to JM's evidence firstly I'd expect she had immunity from prosecution in exchange for her evidence. Occurs quite often where someone is implicated in a criminal offence but has evidence supporting a more serious criminal offence.

Secondly, I think some of her evidence has been subject to Public Interest Immunity procedures, meaning judge would have had sight of it but the defence/open court wouldn't.

Yeah I'd say so fifteen, never paid much attention to the girlfriend really until the tv series but that will likely be the case.

Bamber bake off, give me strength 😂

I feel pretty sure that JB is guilty but the police certainly made a mess of everything didn't they?

I find the silencer the most strange thing. It wasn't there when the police searched the house but then suddenly turned up. I wouldn't be surprised if Ann and her husband planted it there.

Not sure how much the real Ann is like the character as played on tv but she comes across as not a very nice person. I find it very odd that she is living in a house where 5 people were murdered and they were her family not just strangers. I would never want to live anywhere someone was murdered.

It’s doubtful the family planted the silencer:

• how would they have got hold of it in the first place? the house was searched by police and silencer not found - they family didn’t go to WHF until after the murders
• if they did get hold of it, where did they get the blood (believed to be from either sheila, Neville or June) from?
• there were several witnesses present when they found the silencer, including a solicitor and neville’s secretary - they had gone round to get all the valuables from the house together

I’ve said it before and il say it again regarding JM not being prosecuted - she was the star witness - they needed her, why would they prosecute her for something that would’ve been hard to prove when her statements were the evidence needed to convict JB? Without her there probably wouldn’t have been a case against him - there wasn’t enough evidence.

CAL describes the process by which Ann Eaton ended up living in the farmhouse, which I think makes it easier to understand. They didn't move in for 5 years.
From 1985 to 1990 her husband was employed by the trust that owned it as farm manager. During that time Ann went in every day to look after the property, opening and shutting curtains, turning lights on etc (presumably to give the impression that it was occupied and prevent it being broken into by burglars, armchair detectives or thrill seekers - you can imagine the sort of people an isolated house with that history might attract).
In 1990 the tenancy of the farm came up for renewal. 20 people applied for it but it was awarded (understandably considering they were already running it) to the Eatons. At that point they moved in.
I think it might have been a bit weird if they had moved in a few weeks after the murders but I honestly don't see anything odd about them doing so much later when they were running the farm in any case.

I can totally understand why they would want to keep it within the family - nothing weird about it.
There’s no such thing as ghosts!

There are so many plausible theories (and some less plausible) surrounding the sound moderator that someone could probably fill a book with them alone.

Some suggesting the extended family had a hand in it, some the police and some a collaboration between the two (for those familiar with the Avery case similar to the theory that the police asked the ex bf to move the victim's car with the spare key)

I'm firmly leaning now towards JB's guilt but if we accept that he knew how to enter and leave the locked farm house then it's surely fair to believe that other members of the family could have had this knowledge too.

The general theory is that JB pretending to be Sheila carried out the murders. You could also theorise that someone pretending to be JB, pretending to be Sheila could have carried them out. In that scenario a sleepy JB answering the phone would need to not question the male voice pretending to be NB. Too far fetched for me but let's throw it in there.

If it is true that AE and JB both wanted to some day end up living in the Grandmother's house I guess there was never going to be a happy ending for someone.

I can't accept as remotely realistic a scenario where some kind e else carries out the murders pretending to be Sheila and that the family didn't recognise their own daughter.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant.

Sorry perhaps I haven't explained it well. The 'call' would not be NB calling JB. In that scenario NB would have already been murdered and the other male (wanting to make the crime look like it was commited by JB) would make the call to JB putting on a distressed male voice claiming to be NB.

If you answered your phone at 3am and heard a voice saying 'it's me your 'relative' come help me' you wouldn't necessarily question the voice because you're half awake.

Like I said, a stretch, but for those who think other people had a vested interest in JB being responsible it is not totally impossible. Just not very probable!

Ok I understand what your saying, sorry .

Yes, I see how technically another relative could have done the shooting and called JB pretending to be Neville but that seems much more of a stretch than it simply having been JB.