Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent  (Read 905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #120 on: October 09, 2019, 08:37:PM »
I can understand someone new to the case thinking there were two calls - but it doesn't take long to unravel it.

That only applies to someone who has a predominantly skeptical way of thinking.

Most people, unfortunately think like this.

https://streamable.com/j9jy0




Online Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #121 on: October 11, 2019, 01:27:AM »
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
Jeremy didn't say that he timed his call, and didn't say that he was on the phone for 11 minutes.

Nevill's call -03:26
There's no evidence that Nevill's call was at 03:26. That was the time logged by Malcolm Bonnett for when PC 1990 (Pc West) called him.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #122 on: October 11, 2019, 01:41:AM »
Jeremy didn't say that he timed his call, and didn't say that he was on the phone for 11 minutes.
There's no evidence that Nevill's call was at 03:26. That was the time logged by Malcolm Bonnett for when PC 1990 (Pc West) called him.

It is recalled by Ann Eaton from his discussions with police officers on the morning after the murders. If you're going to contradict someone, at least do the research first!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31217

There is no evidence of Nevill's call period!

« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 01:42:AM by Caroline »

Online Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #123 on: October 11, 2019, 01:50:AM »
Even if AE is believed, "timed the police action" is not the same thing as "timed the length of his call to Julie", which is what Jane thought she had read. Also, the police acted as though they were unaware of any such claim by Jeremy. Jeremy doesn't state anything to support it in his formal statements, interviews, or at court (as far as we know).
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 01:57:AM by Reader »

Online Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #124 on: October 11, 2019, 01:50:AM »
A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular.
That doesn't make sense - "invariably" means "without exception", but "psychopaths in particular" implies there are exceptions, though they are not psychopaths.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #125 on: October 11, 2019, 01:56:AM »
Even if AE is believed, "timed the police action" is not the same thing as "timed the length of his call to Julie", which is what Jane thought she had read.

No, actually, you are wrong! She was talking about the earlier call to Julie but noted the number of minutes incorrectly, which is why my post indicated that the called allegedly lasted 17 minutes. You're the one who is confused over which calls were being discussed!

Online Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #126 on: October 11, 2019, 02:04:AM »
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
Why do you refer to that as fact? Ann Eaton doesn't state that Jeremy said he timed his call to Pc West.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #127 on: October 11, 2019, 02:17:AM »
Why do you refer to that as fact? Ann Eaton doesn't state that Jeremy said he timed his call to Pc West.

Well, he certainly timed something, be it the full call or the time that West left him on hold, if the latter, it further scuppers Bill's claims, because that means he was on the phone longer!

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #128 on: October 11, 2019, 02:23:AM »
It is recalled by Ann Eaton from his discussions with police officers on the morning after the murders. If you're going to contradict someone, at least do the research first!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31217

There is no evidence of Nevill's call period!

There is no mention of that in Jeremy's statements to the police. Neither is it in her notes either.

Yet another product of her asymmetrical memory a month or two after the event.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #129 on: October 11, 2019, 02:27:AM »
There is no mention of that in Jeremy's statements to the police. Neither is it in her notes either.

Yet another product of her asymmetrical memory a month or two after the event.

Depends what you believe, I believe he said it.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #130 on: October 11, 2019, 02:34:AM »
Depends what you believe, I believe he said it.

West even mentions that Jeremy mentioned time, so it is likely that he recalled this to police and that Ann told the truth!


Online Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #131 on: October 11, 2019, 02:43:AM »
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.

Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #132 on: October 11, 2019, 02:46:AM »
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.

Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.

If we take your view, it mean the call was even LONGER!

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #133 on: October 11, 2019, 03:06:AM »
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.

Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.

Most of what AE said about Jeremy in that statement is nothing but bullshit. She also claimed that Jeremy told the police that Sheila gave June a black eye. That's not in Jeremy's statement either.

Ann Eaton gathered information and then falsely attributed those details to Jeremy in order to try and incriminate him.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 03:10:AM by David1819 »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24149
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent
« Reply #134 on: October 11, 2019, 03:11:AM »
Most of what AE said about Jeremy in that statement is nothing but bullshit. She also claimed that Jeremy told the police that Sheila gave June a black eye. That's not in Jeremy's statement either.

Ann Eaton gathered information and then falsely attributed those details to Jeremy in order to try and incriminate him.

Yep, that's your opinion. But June did actually have a black eye.  I don't recall her staying that the black eye was supposed to have come from Sheila?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 03:18:AM by Caroline »