Author Topic: mathew hamlen  (Read 1026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2019, 09:04:AM »
Ah, I see. Sorry you think I'm "harping on" about something you, yourself raised and to which I made a single response.

I'm glad we have agreement on this, though - I've seen way too many family members suffer because of the conviction of a loved one.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2019, 09:22:AM »
am i right in thinking that this allged buglery happend in daylight.

According to the official story, yes. But the more I think about the whole scenario, the less sense it makes. First of all,  to the left of the wide driveway onto the estate, there's a public footpath. From there, the driveway (and anyone on it) are in clear view. Secondly, in order to get to Fig Tree Cottage via the driveway, a person would have to walk right in front of Kingfisher Lodge - the front door and several windows are facing the driveway on the right. Also, Fig Tree Cottage sits at the end of the driveway, the front door and lounge windows facing any oncoming pedestrians or cars.

But, here's the thing. The front door to Fig Tree was never used and the lounge was "rarely used." This was one lucky burglar that approached the cottage from the most visible approach possible - anyone in Kingfisher Lodge could have seen him, anyone in Fig Tree could have seen him and anyone on the public footpath could have seen him but, by pure chance, on that particular day, there was not another soul on the estate other than Mrs E. The hairdresser and postman had been there earlier, but this lucky burglar chose a time after they'd gone.

If he approached by that route, his next obstacle would have been getting into the cottage. If he'd gone to the (obvious) front door - the one that was right in front of him at the end of the drive, he couldn't have gained entry - the door was never used and was barred from the inside.  So he'd have to go along to his right and turn left along the side of the cottage kitchen door that "everybody" knew was used as the main door.  It's the next bit that completely baffles me.

Attached to the kitchen, where Mrs Edmonds was found, was a conservatory - it was an open plan layout from kitchen to conservatory. The external door to the conservatory opened to the back of the cottage, completely hidden from the view of anyone in Kingfisher Lodge, on the driveway, or on the public footpath. Why on earth didn't the intruder make his escape via that door? Instead, we're asked to believe, he left through the kitchen door at the side, in full view of Kingfisher Lodge, stopped to lock the door behind him (increasing his chances of being seen), then made his escape back down the wide open driveway, again passing the frontage of KingFisher Lodge and in full view of the footpath, onto a fairly busy road leading to a garden centre just a short distance away. Not content at that, he then stopped in the wooded area at the side of that road (again in full view) to have a personal moment with himself. And all of it in broad daylight?

Utter nonsense, in my opinion.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • 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: mathew hamlen
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2019, 11:59:AM »
and there also seems to be no sighn of forced entry meaning mrs edmounds would of had to have let this burglr in.

the other thig is unless mrs edmounds knows this burglr he has no reason to kill her the only reson a theif would is if you could identify then and if u dont know  them you couldent.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 01:34:PM by nugnug »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2019, 08:28:PM »
There were two unlocked doors and an unlocked groundfloor window - the killer could have let himself in through any of them. I'd imagine, though, he wouldn't have expected to find an unlocked property empty of people, in which case, you'd imagine he would at least attempt to cover his face. In fact, the prosecution case tried to suggest that ATM man was wearing a balaclava under his hood.

Since their case was that he was the killer, it would seem more than a little odd that he'd not worn a balaclava in the cottage, but had donned one to hide his face when he tried to use the ATM? But if he had worn a balaclava in the cottage, Mrs Emonds could not possibly have identified him, so what was the reason for killing her?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • 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: mathew hamlen
« Reply #64 on: March 11, 2019, 08:40:PM »
There were two unlocked doors and an unlocked groundfloor window - the killer could have let himself in through any of them. I'd imagine, though, he wouldn't have expected to find an unlocked property empty of people, in which case, you'd imagine he would at least attempt to cover his face. In fact, the prosecution case tried to suggest that ATM man was wearing a balaclava under his hood.

Since their case was that he was the killer, it would seem more than a little odd that he'd not worn a balaclava in the cottage, but had donned one to hide his face when he tried to use the ATM? But if he had worn a balaclava in the cottage, Mrs Emonds could not possibly have identified him, so what was the reason for killing her?

seems rather odd that yu would take an atm card without knowing the pin number

especaily when theres cash lying about.


also seems od that he would have one go at entring the pin then throw the card away.

I mean if you've killed to killed to get the card you are not going to give up after one go.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 09:01:PM by nugnug »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • 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: mathew hamlen
« Reply #65 on: March 11, 2019, 09:40:PM »
There were two unlocked doors and an unlocked groundfloor window - the killer could have let himself in through any of them. I'd imagine, though, he wouldn't have expected to find an unlocked property empty of people, in which case, you'd imagine he would at least attempt to cover his face. In fact, the prosecution case tried to suggest that ATM man was wearing a balaclava under his hood.

Since their case was that he was the killer, it would seem more than a little odd that he'd not worn a balaclava in the cottage, but had donned one to hide his face when he tried to use the ATM? But if he had worn a balaclava in the cottage, Mrs Emonds could not possibly have identified him, so what was the reason for killing her?

and if your so keen not to be seen at the cahpoint why wear a hi viz jacket.