Author Topic: Nevills burns revisited.  (Read 28638 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #555 on: July 26, 2018, 07:29:PM »
I believe Caroline is the only poster who believes Bamber exited out of the bathroom window. Using a piece of string in the dark. This is a brand new theory which has only been suggested recently.

The evidence , witnesses & prosecution claim is that Bamber exited through the kitchen window. But nothing wrong with Bamber having two options.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #556 on: July 26, 2018, 09:46:PM »
I have just viewed the video made by Caroline.  It does demonstrate that a sash catch of the type shown in Caroline's previous post can be closed using a piece of string.  I think it would require that the window was not a very tight fit in its frame.  There needs to be sufficient space for the string to be retrieved, although the space required would not be a lot.
Do we know this was the case at White House Farm?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #557 on: July 26, 2018, 10:35:PM »
The fingerprint dust is mentioned in Julie's statement here (Sheet 14). http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.0.html

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #558 on: July 26, 2018, 10:37:PM »
I have just viewed the video made by Caroline.  It does demonstrate that a sash catch of the type shown in Caroline's previous post can be closed using a piece of string.  I think it would require that the window was not a very tight fit in its frame.  There needs to be sufficient space for the string to be retrieved, although the space required would not be a lot.


Does the video show the string fastening the latch into position to secure the window once the window is closed?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #559 on: July 26, 2018, 11:05:PM »

Does the video show the string fastening the latch into position to secure the window once the window is closed?

Yes it does! I didn't use a window - you don't need to - it's the principle of how you work the catch. Of course I could find window and still prove you wrong. Or you can go find your own and try a find  way to NOT make it work  ::). I knew you would look for an excuse  ;D ;D
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 11:11:PM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #560 on: July 26, 2018, 11:50:PM »
Yes it does! I didn't use a window - you don't need to - it's the principle of how you work the catch. Of course I could find window and still prove you wrong. Or you can go find your own and try a find  way to NOT make it work  ::). I knew you would look for an excuse  ;D ;D


You didn't even use a window? Then you have not proved anything. What excuses do I need  ???

Of course I could find window and still prove you wrong. Or you can go find your own and try a find  way to NOT make it work  ::). I knew you would look for an excuse  ;D ;D

The burden of proof is on you not me.

You have moved a catch that's in a position that allows you to fasten the string around it and pull it in the required direction. If this catch is situated behind a closed window you have no such liberties.

From Jeremy's police interview, we know that the catch needed to be forced upwards to be unsecured. Thus to be secured it needs downward force applied instead of up. This is what has baffled me about your claim.

How can you get a string to apply downward force on the catch inside from the outside while the windows are closed? You can only secure the window onced its closed and once the window is closed you would not even be able to move the string let alone toggle the catch with it.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 11:53:PM by David1819 »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #561 on: July 26, 2018, 11:56:PM »
Julie said Jeremy could bang the window shut. It's not something you'd ordinarily make up unless someone told you.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #562 on: July 27, 2018, 12:12:AM »
Julie said Jeremy could bang the window shut. It's not something you'd ordinarily make up unless someone told you.

Banging the window shut was AEs idea. So you work out where she got it from.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #563 on: July 27, 2018, 12:14:AM »
so the question is who actually did tell her.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #564 on: July 27, 2018, 12:37:AM »
Banging the window shut was AEs idea. So you work out where she got it from.
Julie was the academic, not Ann Eaton.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #565 on: July 27, 2018, 12:59:AM »
Julie was the academic, not Ann Eaton.

how is that relvant.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #566 on: July 27, 2018, 01:27:AM »

You didn't even use a window? Then you have not proved anything. What excuses do I need  ???

The burden of proof is on you not me.

You have moved a catch that's in a position that allows you to fasten the string around it and pull it in the required direction. If this catch is situated behind a closed window you have no such liberties.

From Jeremy's police interview, we know that the catch needed to be forced upwards to be unsecured. Thus to be secured it needs downward force applied instead of up. This is what has baffled me about your claim.

How can you get a string to apply downward force on the catch inside from the outside while the windows are closed? You can only secure the window onced its closed and once the window is closed you would not even be able to move the string let alone toggle the catch with it.

You haven't seen the video, you don't need a piece of glass to prove the point. It can be both opened and closed. I have no idea what you're on about, you simply WRAP the string around the catch a couple of times. Of course you would be able to move the string when the window is closed. You use ordinary string, not rope for gods sake! If you don't have the capacity to be able to visualise, that's not my problem - nevertheless, a sash window can be closed and secured with a simple piece of string!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #567 on: July 27, 2018, 01:32:AM »
We have modern windows in this house and I was still able to pull the string free even when the window was locked. The window in question at WHF was not modern. I would like to know exactly what kind of catch it had but I a 100% certain that it could be locked from the outside - no problem.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #568 on: July 27, 2018, 01:38:AM »
Banging the window shut was AEs idea. So you work out where she got it from.

Julie got it from Bamber. Who she spent 18 months with. Before & after the massacre.

So sorry AE did not ring up Julie.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: Nevills burns revisited.
« Reply #569 on: July 27, 2018, 02:03:AM »
You haven't seen the video, you don't need a piece of glass to prove the point. It can be both opened and closed. I have no idea what you're on about, you simply WRAP the string around the catch a couple of times. Of course you would be able to move the string when the window is closed. You use ordinary string, not rope for gods sake! If you don't have the capacity to be able to visualise, that's not my problem - nevertheless, a sash window can be closed and secured with a simple piece of string!

You cannot pull a piece of string through a sealed window. Once the window is shut the string is squashed and jammed in the frame. If you want to create a fictional event that's in the realm of possibility you probably could do it if you lubricated the window frame then used a threat of monofilament string. You could also drill a small diagonal hole under the catch and push a tooth pick through to move the latch. You could even cut the entire window out the frame and stick it back on from the outside with the latch secured.

But what good are these ideas? Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions with no evidence to support them do not prove anything.