Author Topic: The White House Farm Murders / Jeremy Bamber  (Read 342 times)

Offline Vice Admiral

Last night I watched a C5 documentary about the White House Farm murders of 1986, of which Jeremy Bamber was convicted, and for which he remains in prison; and I have just read the Guardian's investigation, published in the paper on 27 February:
External Link/Members Only

As I often say when responding to claims of a miscarriage of justice, I was not a fly on the wall either during the events or in the courtroom.  All any of us has is the evidence presented in an investigation, together with our own instincts in the matter – the latter of course being a shaky premise for establishing guilt or innocence.

There is, however, much here that is troubling, the overwhelming fact that points towards Bamber’s innocence being the simplest.  The silencer for the gun used in the murders was afterwards found – in slightly suspicious circumstances – in the downstairs cupboard where it was usually kept.  If Bamber was the killer and had used it, it would have made no sense whatsoever to put it back there rather than dispose of it.

The Guardian article explains this puzzling matter in detail, as well as giving the rest of the case for Bamber's having been wrongly convicted.  The evidence of Bamber's ex-girlfriend and the role of the relations who inherited White House Farm following Bamber's conviction each give serious cause for concern.

Finally, surely no rational person would plan murders like these and believe that he – the obvious suspect, since he stood to inherit – would get away with trying to pin the crime on his sister?

This appeal jury of one joins the Guardian and C5 in finding Bamber not guilty.

Andrew Malkinson served 17 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit.  Bamber has so far been inside for 41.

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,613
  • Likes: 65
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
One good reson for the abolition of the death penalty!..

Offline sadolddeejay


"Finally, surely no rational person would plan murders like these and believe that he – the obvious suspect, since he stood to inherit – would get away with trying to pin the crime on his sister?"

I've seen quite a few crime documentaries where a bloke has killed their wife (and children in one case) so they can be with their lover. In one case (Northern Ireland) the husband killed his wife and his lover's husband and tried to make it look like a suicide pact. He was the obvious beneficiary of the life insurance and got away with it for years. Maybe not " the obvious suspect" but some had their suspicions.

In the U.S. a bloke killed his wife and kids, hid their bodies, claimed she'd left him and moved his new woman in shortly after. He was the obvious suspect - and carnal beneficiary (cops always start there because it's statistically true) but it didn't stop the nutter. Lust is blind?

In another case in the U.S. a bloke killed his wife, tried (badly) to make it look like a botched robbery and took up publicly with his mistress shortly thereafter.

(I might have some of the details wrong as these docs blur together after a while.)

Rational people are often blind, under certain circumstances, to obvious consequences.

Maybe to a lesser degree, many of we happy-go-lucky, otherwise rational punters choose to be partially blind to the consequences of our actions.



Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,277
  • Likes: 339
  •  
  • Reviews: 206
Yep I concur, there's nothing obvious that hasn't been done.

I watch a lot of those true crime programmes, in addition to those referred to by sadolddeejay, I've watched plenty that you wouldn't think could happen between family members.

One in particular, the DNA was traced through familial recognition. They started to narrow down the male family members. The eventual match was through to a father, who then tried to blame the murder on his own son.

The biggest miscarriages of justice are usually those where the evidence relies heavily on eye witness accounts. Eye witness evidence has a high incidence of poor accuracy. In many cases now, eye witness evidence without other proof, is not enough to secure a conviction.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2026, 03:37:58 am by PilotMan »

Offline Pillowtalk

Hasn't this case been reviewed a number of times over the years?