The Bathroom Window Revisited

[Caroline]

It's screamingly obvious that Bamber used this window post murders and after he had been interviewed about it in order to bolster the notion that he could enter via this window but that he couldn't secure the catch - hence the note to BW. However, with no explanation of why the catch was not secured on this window, with no reason to open it and no one specifically claiming it was definitely locked or that it was open and they closed it - you can only assume it was unlocked all along and Mr Jones just didn't check.

Funny how those who believe Bamber to be innocent are willing to believe that Jones lied about everything else, but find it hard to believe that me might just have missed checking this window properly and not come clean. He framed an innocent man but wouldn't ever not admit to the window? Hmmmmm - dubious behaviour!

[Harry]

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.

Of course I agree with what you're saying on principle. They should acknowledge that Bamber's admission that he could enter and exit the house does not not amount to an admission that he could fake the appearance of the house being secured from the inside, but the authorities have demonstrated clearly that they won't give in to that reasoning.

What is involved here is the use of the compound question by lawyers.

There is an evident intention to blur the distinction between the two questions, so that they both must have the same answer. Why do you think that such scoundrels will have a change of heart at this stage and decide to do the right thing?

Paul Harrison, in Deviant, actually argues that the two questions are really just the same and criticizes Bamber and his supporters for trying to separate them. He can't really be that stupid. What he was doing, it seems, was to defend the judgement of the Court of Appeal in 2002, which gave its full support to what Justice Drake said on the matter.

[Harry]

It's screamingly obvious that Bamber used this window post murders and after he had been interviewed about it in order to bolster the notion that he could enter via this window but that he couldn't secure the catch - hence the note to BW. However, with no explanation of why the catch was not secured on this window, with no reason to open it and no one specifically claiming it was definitely locked or that it was open and they closed it - you can only assume it was unlocked all along and Mr Jones just didn't check.

Funny how those who believe Bamber to be innocent are willing to believe that Jones lied about everything else, but find it hard to believe that me might just have missed checking this window properly and not come clean. He framed an innocent man but wouldn't ever not admit to the window? Hmmmmm - dubious behaviour!

I find it surprising that you should confuse Taff Jones with DS Stan Jones. It was DCI "Taff" Jones who said he found all the windows to be secured from the inside.

Taff told his wife and family that he thought Bamber was innocent, before he was killed in an unfortunate accident before Bamber's trial.

Paul Harrison, however, said that ACC Peter Simpson, before his death, told him in an interview that Taff Jones had told him he thought that Bamber was guilty. But Harrison has recently been exposed as a fraud who made up accounts of interviews with people which never really happened.

[lookout]

I imagine that windows and doors are at the forefront of any such investigation such as this one to rule out forced entry's etc and obviously would have been the first examination done by " Taff " Jones where he's not likely to make a mistake over because to him at that time it marked the beginning of the end to what he'd stated as a murder/suicide or " domestic " which was more likely when the tragedy was contained in a sealed property.
Had there been an unlocked/open window then the investigation would have taken on a more in-depth and entirely different angle. Also, a partially open window would have halted the need for the destruction of a door to gain entry.

[Caroline]

I find it surprising that you should confuse Taff Jones with DS Stan Jones. It was DCI "Taff" Jones who said he found all the windows to be secured from the inside.

Taff told his wife and family that he thought Bamber was innocent, before he was killed in an unfortunate accident before Bamber's trial.

Paul Harrison, however, said that ACC Peter Simpson, before his death, told him in an interview that Taff Jones had told him he thought that Bamber was guilty. But Harrison has recently been exposed as a fraud who made up accounts of interviews with people which never really happened.

Whoever checked the windows, didn't check the bathroom window properly. Not really bothered what PH said about Simpson or anyone else for that matter. People have a way of presenting things to confirm their own thoughts, a little like yourself when you left out an important part of Ainsley's quote. You still haven't explained why you did that. Possibly because it didn't fully give the impact you were after?

[Caroline]

I imagine that windows and doors are at the forefront of any such investigation such as this one to rule out forced entry's etc and obviously would have been the first examination done by " Taff " Jones where he's not likely to make a mistake over because to him at that time it marked the beginning of the end to what he'd stated as a murder/suicide or " domestic " which was more likely when the tragedy was contained in a sealed property.
Had there been an unlocked/open window then the investigation would have taken on a more in-depth and entirely different angle. Also, a partially open window would have halted the need for the destruction of a door to gain entry.

Initially, TJ thought the whole thing was cut and dried, he went off to play golf!

[lookout]

Initially, TJ thought the whole thing was cut and dried, he went off to play golf!

He was right. It was/would have been cut and dried after reporting murder/suicide. That window was opened after he'd left to play golf, whether purposely or not. 

[Caroline]

He was right. It was/would have been cut and dried after reporting murder/suicide. That window was opened after he'd left to play golf, whether purposely or not.

Why would someone open the catch and not the window? Who opened it? Why haven't they admitted to it? None of the questions make sense, the ONLY one that does, is that it wasn't checked properly. This along with Bambers admission that he used this window to gain entry pre and post murders is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this was the window used to leave WHF!

[David1819]

Funny how those who believe Bamber to be innocent are willing to believe that Jones lied about everything else, but find it hard to believe that me might just have missed checking this window properly and not come clean. He framed an innocent man but wouldn't ever not admit to the window? Hmmmmm - dubious behaviour!

Since when have those who believe Bamber to be innocent believed Taff Jones to have lied about anything? And since when has anyone believed that he of all people framed Jeremy? 

[lookout]

Nobody's going to admit to opening the window, even if it had been a sudden afterthought during the second investigation which mainly relied on circumstantial and hearsay anyway with the added fact that JB had already admitted using this as a means of entry before and after the tragedy, but certainly not during .
Why would anyone volunteer information like that if they thought it was going to implicate them ?

It was up to SJ to have proved that at the time, surely ? Even the removal of the lock hadn't proved anything one way or the other. Along with many other contradictions along the way that EP tried to put right but made matters worse in their attempt.   

[David1819]

Why would someone open the catch and not the window? Who opened it? Why haven't they admitted to it? None of the questions make sense, the ONLY one that does, is that it wasn't checked properly. This along with Bambers admission that he used this window to gain entry pre and post murders is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this was the window used to leave WHF!

Nobody is saying someone just opened the catch and not open the window. Taff Jones seeing the catch secured at 9:15 am then Golding seeing the catch unsecure 5 hours later. Is pretty conclusive evidence that someone opened and shut the window in that five hour time frame. (probably for the same reason they opened kitchen window)

Besides I though you believed Jeremy secured the catch from the outside with a piece a string and that is why Taff found it secure?

[Caroline]

Nobody is saying someone just opened the catch and not open the window. Taff Jones seeing the catch secured at 9:15 am then Golding seeing the catch unsecure 5 hours later. Is pretty conclusive evidence that someone opened and shut the window in that five hour time frame. (probably for the same reason they opened kitchen window)

Besides I though you believed Jeremy secured the catch from the outside with a piece a string and that is why Taff found it secure?

In the interests of forum harmony, I won't be debating anything with you. Wind your neck in, you're getting too overwrought as usual. Feel free to join the discussion, just make sure you reply to someone else's post.

[Caroline]

Nobody's going to admit to opening the window, even if it had been a sudden afterthought during the second investigation which mainly relied on circumstantial and hearsay anyway with the added fact that JB had already admitted using this as a means of entry before and after the tragedy, but certainly not during .
Why would anyone volunteer information like that if they thought it was going to implicate them ?

It was up to SJ to have proved that at the time, surely ? Even the removal of the lock hadn't proved anything one way or the other. Along with many other contradictions along the way that EP tried to put right but made matters worse in their attempt.

Why wouldn't they admit to opening the window? But as far as DCI Jones's statement goes, he said he entered EVERY room in the house for a security check - Jones was only at WHF for 15 minutes and he also spent some time viewing the bodies. That is some quick security check! It's clear he thought the case was cut and dried and I don't believe for one moment that he check all of the windows to the degree being suggested here. There was no reason for it to be opened and this was confirmed by Ainsley who was quite specific that it was the KITCHEN window that was opened due to flies etc.

[lookout]

EP had so much to hide that they were meeting themselves coming back. I think most people will admit that they made an unholy mess of their investigation-----the right hand never knew what the left hand was doing half the time especially during the " exercises " that took place involving hordes of officers.

[David1819]

Of course I agree with what you're saying on principle. They should acknowledge that Bamber's admission that he could enter and exit the house does not not amount to an admission that he could fake the appearance of the house being secured from the inside, but the authorities have demonstrated clearly that they won't give in to that reasoning.

What is involved here is the use of the compound question by lawyers.

There is an evident intention to blur the distinction between the two questions, so that they both must have the same answer. Why do you think that such scoundrels will have a change of heart at this stage and decide to do the right thing?

Securing the window from the outside has never been raised as a ground of appeal before. The bathroom window catch was only mentioned in the 2001 appeal because it was brought up in Ainsley's report on the officers disturbing the kitchen and became a key issue on ground 2 "disturbance of the crime scene"

During an appeal hearing three judges will hear from both Jeremys' QC and from the QC representing the prosecution.

The defence will show the lower kitchen latch is undeniably shut and that the appellant cannot have left as the prosecution presented at trial. The QC representing the prosecution will then have to counter this. And citing JBs admission of being able to leave the window does not counter the problem and its not even a valid answer. They would have to try and persuade the Judges to dismiss the issue on technical grounds.

The only scoundrels here are the CCRC who realise that a fresh appeal stands a good chance of succeeding. Jeremy is their longest active case on record and the ramifications of them letting him down for 25 years are grave. And don't think they done him any favours in 2001. They referred the case on the grounds of the silencer blood being a mixture of June's and Nevill's and they did not think things through (Albeit their intentions were good).  The Judges were correct in that the CCRC should not have refered the case on the reasons given.

The CCRC cannot wait for Jeremy to die.