Author Topic: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?  (Read 495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2019, 09:13:PM »
Huh? Isn't that a photo of the window of the main bedroom and the window of the landing?

Yes. the same one David is talking about (and posted) where the light is visible.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2019, 09:15:PM »
"We then moved to an
adjoining field to our
right. and moved to
view the side of
the house"


As depicted, I've always thought of that as being the 'front' of the house.

It is Bews isn't very good at explaining himself.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5473
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2019, 09:16:PM »
Yes. the same one David is talking about (and posted) where the light is visible.

Sorry - I get it now. I was confused when you said "box room" because I thought the box room was elsewhere. However, there were two box rooms.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2019, 09:19:PM »
Sorry - I get it now. I was confused when you said "box room" because I thought the box room was elsewhere. However, there were two box rooms.

I think the front box room is sometimes referred to as the sewing room.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10651
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2019, 09:29:PM »
It is Bews isn't very good at explaining himself.

Yeah.  I wonder whether he will feature in any way or form, if Newby & co hit lucky with the CCRC.

I know. I think the confusion happens because the front - ie the "posh" bit of the house with the big white door - doesn't face Pages Lane.

Yes I agree.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2019, 09:36:PM »
Yeah.  I wonder whether he will feature in any way or form, if Newby & co hit lucky with the CCRC.

Yes I agree.

They don't have a cat in hells chance so I very much doubt it.  ;D

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2019, 09:37:PM »
A few of the raid team mention that he box room light being on. There were officers on all sides of the house so if lights were going on and off, they would have seen it.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2019, 09:56:PM »
Why would there be any lights on at all ?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2019, 10:11:PM »
Why would there be any lights on at all ?

Bit difficult to shoot everyone in the dark. Bamber is hardly stupid enough to turn out all of the lights - unless he wanted everyone to believe that although Sheila was a 'nutter' - she was also energy efficient?  ;D

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2019, 10:18:PM »
Bit difficult to shoot everyone in the dark. Bamber is hardly stupid enough to turn out all of the lights - unless he wanted everyone to believe that although Sheila was a 'nutter' - she was also energy efficient?  ;D



Not when you know the place, it's not difficult for someone who's dab-hand at shooting ?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2019, 10:20:PM »


Not when you know the place, it's not difficult for someone who's dab-hand at shooting ?

OK Lookout - remember, Jeremy knew the place and was a lot sturdier on his feet. But we digress.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2019, 10:21:PM »
OK Lookout - remember, Jeremy knew the place and was a lot sturdier on his feet. But we digress.




Not digressing, I'm talking about the lighting the same as everyone else is. There was a moon too.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5473
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2019, 07:48:AM »
A few of the raid team mention that he box room light being on. There were officers on all sides of the house so if lights were going on and off, they would have seen it.

Yes. There are different stories about which lights were on, but nobody specifically saw a light going on or off. If they had, that would have made a big difference.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7391
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2019, 10:56:AM »
The theory of the defence is rather simple. Once Bews, Myall and Jeremy had returned to CA07. Sheila had switched the main bedroom light on (as you do when its dark).

What would the theory of the prosecution be if this was brought up at trial?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7391
Re: [Seriously] Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2019, 11:44:AM »
"We then moved to an
adjoining field to our
right. and moved to
view the side of
the house"


As depicted, I've always thought of that as being the 'front' of the house.

It is the front. But Bews thought they where going from the back of the house. Hence he thought the front was the side.