Author Topic: The Bathroom Window Revisited  (Read 13320 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

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: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2019, 01:42:AM »
i doubt if the raid team were fingprinted as fingerprints were not really a big issue in the case.

correct me if im wrong but  they wouldent of seen any need to.

there were only 2 suspects in the case one was living there and one worked there so there fingerprints wouldent prove anything.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 11:13:AM by nugnug »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #61 on: July 28, 2019, 10:54:AM »
Well, yes, the brains of the Essex police only stretched to two suspects so why indeed would the area need to be fingerprinted.? Saying that, there was an afterthought a month or so later when the whole place was seemingly fingerprinted  ::) So why, when they " had their man ", wasn't he imprisoned there and then ?

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: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #62 on: July 28, 2019, 11:15:AM »
and if the did do anything they shouldnt of done in the house i doubt if they would want there prints on record to prove it.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #63 on: July 28, 2019, 05:24:PM »
Mike Ainsley does in fact mention a possible reason for opening the window, the smell and the flies which were gathering. The most likely explanation for the catch not being secure is that somebody opened the window which had been locked and that it was closed again afterwards, but not locked. The fact that there is no proof of that does not suggest that Taff Jones made an error.

It seems unlikely that a policeman would unlock the window without intending to open it.

That was the reason given for the kitchen window being opened. You haven't given a reason for missing off the end of the sentence in your previous post? The part where Ainsely states  "There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened" so HOW can he have been referring to the bathroom window when he mentioned the smell given the above comment?

Turing your own sentence on it's head and bringing it in line with Ainsley's comment above (the one you keep ignoring);

Yes, it does seem unlikely to unlock it without opening it, so likely that Jones didn't check it properly and it was unlocked all along.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2019, 01:34:AM »
That was the reason given for the kitchen window being opened. You haven't given a reason for missing off the end of the sentence in your previous post? The part where Ainsely states  "There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened" so HOW can he have been referring to the bathroom window when he mentioned the smell given the above comment?

Turing your own sentence on it's head and bringing it in line with Ainsley's comment above (the one you keep ignoring);

Yes, it does seem unlikely to unlock it without opening it, so likely that Jones didn't check it properly and it was unlocked all along.

There is no evidence that DCI Jones did not check the windows properly. Ainsley's comment that there was no reason to believe that the bathroom window had been opened does not conflict with Jones's evidence. He did not mean to say that it couldn't have been opened, but only that there was no definite indication that it had been. He certainly didn't mean to imply that Jones made an error.

It's easy to see the purpose behind questioning Jones's evidence. The prosecution  recognised that Taff Jones's evidence gives Bamber an alibi. It is a classic locked room alibi, so the prosecution needed a theory which gets around the problem.

The received view that Bamber exited via the kitchen window and closed it by banging it has recently been discredited. Photographs obtained by the defence show that the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down to the Six O' Clock position, which could only be achieved by someone on the inside. A proposed alternative is that he got out through the bathroom window. But Taff Jones's evidence stands in the way. So the claim is made that Taff didn't check properly. But there is no evidence of that.

From the standpoint of probability it's far more likely that somebody opened the window after Jones made his examination and closed it again afterwards, a very ordinary thing to happen. On the other hand, DCI Jones would have had a lot of experience when it comes to making checks at the scene of a crime and is not likely to have made such a silly mistake.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 02:14:AM by Harry »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2019, 08:56:AM »
There is no evidence that DCI Jones did not check the windows properly. Ainsley's comment that there was no reason to believe that the bathroom window had been opened does not conflict with Jones's evidence. He did not mean to say that it couldn't have been opened, but only that there was no definite indication that it had been. He certainly didn't mean to imply that Jones made an error.

It's easy to see the purpose behind questioning Jones's evidence. The prosecution  recognised that Taff Jones's evidence gives Bamber an alibi. It is a classic locked room alibi, so the prosecution needed a theory which gets around the problem.

The received view that Bamber exited via the kitchen window and closed it by banging it has recently been discredited. Photographs obtained by the defence show that the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down to the Six O' Clock position, which could only be achieved by someone on the inside. A proposed alternative is that he got out through the bathroom window. But Taff Jones's evidence stands in the way. So the claim is made that Taff didn't check properly. But there is no evidence of that.

From the standpoint of probability it's far more likely that somebody opened the window after Jones made his examination and closed it again afterwards, a very ordinary thing to happen. On the other hand, DCI Jones would have had a lot of experience when it comes to making checks at the scene of a crime and is not likely to have made such a silly mistake.

I don't think you speak for Ainsley and it is clear that you are trying to fire fight and know fine well that it is possible that Bamber used the bathroom window as he had done pre and post murders. You purposely missed out the last sentence from Ainsley's quote which stated that there was no reason to open the bathroom window and then tried to suggest he meant that it had been opened because of the smell and flies when he was actually referring to the kitchen window.

The kitchen window may have been debunked (at least according to the CT), but that won't make any difference given that he COULD easily have used the bathroom window. You may not like it but the possibility is real and if you read back, you will find that I have always suggested he used the bathroom window, long before recent claims from the CT.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 08:57:AM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #66 on: July 29, 2019, 10:06:AM »
I don't think you speak for Ainsley and it is clear that you are trying to fire fight and know fine well that it is possible that Bamber used the bathroom window as he had done pre and post murders. You purposely missed out the last sentence from Ainsley's quote which stated that there was no reason to open the bathroom window and then tried to suggest he meant that it had been opened because of the smell and flies when he was actually referring to the kitchen window.

The kitchen window may have been debunked (at least according to the CT), but that won't make any difference given that he COULD easily have used the bathroom window. You may not like it but the possibility is real and if you read back, you will find that I have always suggested he used the bathroom window, long before recent claims from the CT.


The possibility is not real if the window was found to be locked from the inside.
 
Taff Jones said that all of the windows were secured from the inside. Your whole theory depends upon saying that Taff made a mistake, but there is no evidence of that. Mike  Ainsley did not say that and neither did the Court of Appeal in 2002. The judges' point was purely technical. They argued that the jury had heard both the evidence of PS Golding and that of DCI Jones, so Jones's evidence could not be used again.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 10:15:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #67 on: July 29, 2019, 10:27:AM »

Here is the passage from Mike Ainsley's report. You can see that he did not think DCI Jones had made an error, but assumed that adjustments had been made by another officer after Jones's examination.

"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #68 on: July 29, 2019, 12:34:PM »
Here is the passage from Mike Ainsley's report. You can see that he did not think DCI Jones had made an error, but assumed that adjustments had been made by another officer after Jones's examination.

"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."

I have read the quote and of course he is going to defend his officers so they don't look like even bigger numpties than they already did. The catch was open on the window but Ainsley saw no reason for the window to have been opened - if there was no reason to open the window, there was no reason to open the catch. Jones couldn't have checked the window properly, he made no comment about this specific window to defend his checking of it and Bamber could have used the bathroom window as he had done pre and post murders.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #69 on: July 29, 2019, 02:59:PM »

It's easy to see the purpose behind questioning Jones's evidence. The prosecution  recognised that Taff Jones's evidence gives Bamber an alibi. It is a classic locked room alibi, so the prosecution needed a theory which gets around the problem.

The received view that Bamber exited via the kitchen window and closed it by banging it has recently been discredited. Photographs obtained by the defence show that the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down to the Six O' Clock position, which could only be achieved by someone on the inside. A proposed alternative is that he got out through the bathroom window. But Taff Jones's evidence stands in the way. So the claim is made that Taff didn't check properly. But there is no evidence of that.


The prosecution still maintain he exited via the kitchen window. Photographs that show the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down have not yet been presented to the COA.

In 2001 the windows debated all around entry and not exit. The COA in 2001 used Jeremy's own words against him that he could enter the via the windows being secured. In the same interview he denies being able secure windows from the outside. So it would be interesting to see how the prosecution would get round this one when the time eventually comes.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #70 on: July 29, 2019, 04:27:PM »
The prosecution still maintain he exited via the kitchen window. Photographs that show the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down have not yet been presented to the COA.

In 2001 the windows debated all around entry and not exit. The COA in 2001 used Jeremy's own words against him that he could enter the via the windows being secured. In the same interview he denies being able secure windows from the outside. So it would be interesting to see how the prosecution would get round this one when the time eventually comes.

The time won't come and the bathroom window wasn't secured from the outside - doesn't take a genius!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #71 on: July 30, 2019, 06:36:AM »
The prosecution still maintain he exited via the kitchen window. Photographs that show the catch on the kitchen window has been pushed down have not yet been presented to the COA.

In 2001 the windows debated all around entry and not exit. The COA in 2001 used Jeremy's own words against him that he could enter the via the windows being secured. In the same interview he denies being able secure windows from the outside. So it would be interesting to see how the prosecution would get round this one when the time eventually comes.

They won't need to oppose the evidence that the house was secured from the inside, because the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of Justice Drake that Bamber's admission he could enter and exit the house was enough to dismiss the evidence that the House was secured from the inside.

Of course, Drake's judgment was intellectually indefensible . There are clearly two separate questions involved. Evidence  that Bamber could enter and exit the house is not evidence that he was able to fake the appearance of the doors and windows being secured from the inside.

But once the Court of Appeal in 2002 gave their support to the trial judge, a technical ruling is established that Bamber's defence can't use the evidence of the locked room in any future submissions.

Here is the passage from the Court of Appeal in 2002.

286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.


The last sentence quoted is false. Bamber has always steadfastly denied being able to lock the windows from outside. The judges evidently mean his alleged admission to Julie Mugford that he could do such a thing. This is a bad case of intellectual dishonesty on their part. Even a first year law student would be expected to distinguish clearly between hearsay and the direct testimony of the defendant.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 08:06:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #72 on: July 30, 2019, 07:16:AM »
I have read the quote and of course he is going to defend his officers so they don't look like even bigger numpties than they already did. The catch was open on the window but Ainsley saw no reason for the window to have been opened - if there was no reason to open the window, there was no reason to open the catch. Jones couldn't have checked the window properly, he made no comment about this specific window to defend his checking of it and Bamber could have used the bathroom window as he had done pre and post murders.

You keep saying that DCI Jones didn't check the window properly, but you can't produce any evidence in support of that claim. It is simply being asserted as dogma.

To suggest that Mike Ainsley really thought that Jones was a numpty who didn't make proper checks is entirely gratuitous and has no basis in fact.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 07:20:AM by Harry »

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #73 on: July 30, 2019, 09:45:AM »
They won't need to oppose the evidence that the house was secured from the inside, because the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of Justice Drake that Bamber's admission he could enter and exit the house was enough to dismiss the evidence that the House was secured from the inside.


That's incorrect. The evidence that the house was secured from the inside was dealt with by Ann Eaton's idea of banging the latch down on the kitchen window from the outside and Barlow witnessing her do it. And the lower latch by the sink was conveniently never brought into the equation.

Bamber's admission he could enter via secure windows cannot be used to explain securing windows from the outside. Because the admission does not involve him claiming to be able to do such a thing.

The ground raised at the Court of Appeal in 2001 was purely on the basis of entry via the bathroom window due to scratch marks being absent on the 7th of August. Whats going to the CCRC now is the high resolution photos of the kitchen window showing the lower latch down and that the window could not be secured from the outside (contrary to what AE and Barlow stated).

Simply entering and exiting windows is one thing, securing them from the outside is another.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
« Reply #74 on: July 30, 2019, 12:36:PM »
They won't need to oppose the evidence that the house was secured from the inside, because the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of Justice Drake that Bamber's admission he could enter and exit the house was enough to dismiss the evidence that the House was secured from the inside.

Of course, Drake's judgment was intellectually indefensible . There are clearly two separate questions involved. Evidence  that Bamber could enter and exit the house is not evidence that he was able to fake the appearance of the doors and windows being secured from the inside.

But once the Court of Appeal in 2002 gave their support to the trial judge, a technical ruling is established that Bamber's defence can't use the evidence of the locked room in any future submissions.

Here is the passage from the Court of Appeal in 2002.

286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.


The last sentence quoted is false. Bamber has always steadfastly denied being able to lock the windows from outside. The judges evidently mean his alleged admission to Julie Mugford that he could do such a thing. This is a bad case of intellectual dishonesty on their part. Even a first year law student would be expected to distinguish clearly between hearsay and the direct testimony of the defendant.

The fact is that the window was NOT secured, no reason for it not to be, no one admitted to opening it and Jones did not confirm he checked it after it was discovered unlocked. Evidence of it being unlocked is that it was unlocked - with no reason for being so. I'm pretty confident that Bamber used the bathroom window and nothing you have said has altered that. In fact, the notion was strengthened when you neglected to post the FULL quote from Ainsley and you still haven't given a reason for that.
Few people have the imagination for reality