Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?  (Read 92098 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #420 on: October 24, 2019, 11:39:AM »
Coming up with a conspiracy theory to justify your position is not going to achieve anything.

PC West writing down one number incorrectly. Is not enough evidence to make the conspiracy theory a plausible one.

Furthermore the log from West to Bonnet that was shown in court is what is now alleged to be Nevills call. How could Ainsley let that one slip!  ::)

I'm not trying to achieve anything.  For me, what is important is to discover what really took place.  If that truth includes malpractice and foul play - you have the right to term that a 'conspiracy'.  Personally I feel it's an umbrella term that's used dismissively. 

West did not accept he wrote down the wrong time.  He disputed that argument.  And Myall's Dickinson interview notes now arguably provide some corroboration.

I don't know how much of the log was shown - my understanding is that it's more complicated than you infer.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #421 on: October 24, 2019, 11:54:AM »
Bill said he posted a reply to one of my posts - but then he couldn't see the reply, so he pm'd me. 

Quote
Personal radios were notoriously unreliable in the 1970/80 period, with a transmission range of between 1-2 miles depending on factors such as the weather and obstructions in the path of the signal. It is 8.5 miles from Chelmsford to Witham and in my view, impossible for a personal radio to transmit over that distance.

Another question is, if there really was a radio contact with PC Saxby at 03:30 why would West not have asked Saxby to call him back by phone, or answer the phone if West called?  A radio conversation only works in one direction – it's not like talking on the telephone. A transmission is one-directional and does not facilitate easy conversation; only one person can speak, the other is forced to listen and cannot interject or ask questions.  PC West’s witness statement of 13 September implies that he spoke to PC Saxby for at least one minute, possibly two – that is a very long time to be holding a radio conversation, as radio is prone to breaks in transmission and is also not private (in those days the public could listen in).  It would be far easier to explain the situation by telephone than via a radio link that is liable to fail.

So the question is, Why did Saxby lie about this?  Simply, because he was asked to help the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber by creating a false timeline of events when PC West seemingly insisted on telling the truth about the time of Jeremy’s phone call at 03:36.



« Last Edit: October 24, 2019, 12:18:PM by Roch »

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #422 on: October 24, 2019, 12:07:PM »
David, how about this...

After taking over the case from a previous standpoint where Sheila Caffell was implicated - and a casefile of evidence had been assembled supporting this conclusion

In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:

[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?

[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking.  Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?

1 = conspiracy

2 = ?

« Last Edit: October 24, 2019, 12:09:PM by Roch »

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #423 on: October 24, 2019, 12:30:PM »
Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.
Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.
Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.

That's more of a reason to stick with their original theory - that Sheila had done it.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #424 on: October 24, 2019, 12:51:PM »
That's more of a reason to stick with their original theory - that Sheila had done it.

It's impossible to pinpoint why police would sacrifice a person they either knew to be innocent or suspected was likely innocent.  Some police officers clearly favoured the relatives and empathised with their pleas, regarding their perceived 'plight'.  It's possible that the patriarch of the relatives had got wind of some info via an informal channel.  For example, things not stacking up in relation the TFG op, the positioning of bodies, 'informatives' coming in to carry out training - who knows.

But once the deputy head ordered that the attention should be turned on to JB, the culture at that time was for subordinates to be expected to fall in line and follow suit.  in these circs... if those officers now 'on the up' happened to be the same officers who had a cosy relationship with the relatives...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #425 on: October 24, 2019, 01:49:PM »
It's impossible to pinpoint why police would sacrifice a person they either knew to be innocent or suspected was likely innocent.  Some police officers clearly favoured the relatives and empathised with their pleas, regarding their perceived 'plight'.  It's possible that the patriarch of the relatives had got wind of some info via an informal channel.  For example, things not stacking up in relation the TFG op, the positioning of bodies, 'informatives' coming in to carry out training - who knows.

But once the deputy head ordered that the attention should be turned on to JB, the culture at that time was for subordinates to be expected to fall in line and follow suit.  in these circs... if those officers now 'on the up' happened to be the same officers who had a cosy relationship with the relatives...

I don't know why anyone would empathise with the "plight" of the relatives, other than to be sorry they lost part of their family.  I'm not going to say much because they wouldn't like what I said.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #426 on: October 24, 2019, 03:11:PM »
Unless I misunderstanding either you or the CT, is this not what Myall references in his Dickinson interview?

Have you got the reference?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #427 on: October 24, 2019, 03:13:PM »
Bill said he posted a reply to one of my posts - but then he couldn't see the reply, so he pm'd me.

Police used radio's all of the time and West had no reason to lie.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #428 on: October 24, 2019, 03:16:PM »
Blimey, give the man a break. He's lost all his family yet is expected to remember every detail that's asked of him. I've said this before that if he had remembered details clearly, I'd have been bothered !

It's a big event in his life, of course he would remember! He gave times in his first W/S - if he didn't remember, he'd have said so. Also, during interview he asked police to refer to his original statement for details.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #429 on: October 24, 2019, 03:21:PM »
In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.
Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.

Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.

You're doing what the CT and those who seek to apply a conspiracy - the use of the word 'call' simply indicates that a 'communication' was made. It amazes me how people try and twist one word in order to make a new and different situation. 
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #430 on: October 24, 2019, 03:23:PM »
We cant answer that without being castigated by David for 'conspiracy theories'.  He forgets that the police originally compiled a case file of evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible.

Of course you can answer it - what reason did they have?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #431 on: October 24, 2019, 03:26:PM »
Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.
Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.
Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.

How do you know how long it took to relay the message and what else was being said at the time? No reason to lie!

I guess it you were giving the statement, you could choose what to put in or leave out but deciding what other people should do is a little odd.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #432 on: October 24, 2019, 03:43:PM »
I'm not trying to achieve anything.  For me, what is important is to discover what really took place.  If that truth includes malpractice and foul play - you have the right to term that a 'conspiracy'.  Personally I feel it's an umbrella term that's used dismissively. 

West did not accept he wrote down the wrong time.  He disputed that argument.  And Myall's Dickinson interview notes now arguably provide some corroboration.

I don't know how much of the log was shown - my understanding is that it's more complicated than you infer.

He didn't dispute it, he indicated that it was possible!

All of the log was shown, the CT aren't denying that and if they are, then that's a new one!

Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #433 on: October 24, 2019, 03:46:PM »
David, how about this...

After taking over the case from a previous standpoint where Sheila Caffell was implicated - and a casefile of evidence had been assembled supporting this conclusion

In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:

[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?

[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking.  Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?

1 = conspiracy

2 = ?

Not sure what the point if your post is Roch? Obviously further information would be required from witness's - like the Raid team and those that had interaction with Bamber.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #434 on: October 24, 2019, 03:56:PM »
Police used radio's all of the time and West had no reason to lie.

I think he means that Saxby 'went along' with there being radio communication, as a result of the predicament that  Ainsley was placed in, by West stubbornly refusing to change the time of Jeremy's call.