Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 02:42:AM

Title: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 02:42:AM
Hi Mike

We spoke yesterday about my thoughts on the Bamber case.

I will document it here so you can publish it.


Firstly let me make it clear that Bamber did shoot Sheila, that was the first shot. He was either telling her to kill herself with maybe the promise he would do that once she had and they could all be together in heaven, only Bamber knows that.


The second shot I believe was accidental and administered from a police office.

We know the police log states “There are the bodies of one male and one female in and on the kitchen floor”. That was noted before the officers entered the kitchen area and were making their observations from outside of the building, through a window.


We all know that Sheila’s body is shown to be upstairs in the police photographs, so we have to ask ourselves “ How has that happened?


Hers a few ideas I have thought about.


Firstly Bamber did believe Sheila was dead when he left the farmhouse after everyone had been murdered. He either shot her and the others and was satisfied it was safe to leave because on his return he felt everyone inside the farmhouse was dead. What he didn’t bank on was maybe Sheila was just rendered unconscious, and at what point I’m not sure, maybe after the police had entered the farmhouse and were searching it at the time, she gained consciousness. She made her way upstairs for some reason and because of the situation, heightened senses by the police, she was accidentally shot again. Or she made her way upstairs and then passed out on the bedroom floor again. At some point the police were checking to see if she could have shot herself and laid the gun, which they thought she had used to kill the others, on her and the trigger was pulled by accident and that shot killed her. Again I don’t think the police should be made accountable if that happened because again the police were in a very distressing situation and they were still looking at every possibility that the murder was still some where in the farm house.


Either way , the second shot killed her and that’s why I believe there is pooling of blood upon Sheila where it is and the blooded fingerprint upon her neck because I think the police put her into the recovery position after she had been shot the second time.


Yes I understand why people think Bambers case should be overturned because of what the judge told the jury, “ if you find him guilty of Sheila’s death then you must find him guilty of the other four deaths”.


This seems to be the point everyone refers to however, we all know that any judge has the discretion to make any ruling he wants and he obviously took that stance when the guilty verdict came back from the jury.


In my opinion, and that’s all it is, Bamber got into Sheila’s head and convinced her to kill the whole family. He either was there when all the killings took place or when Sheila was shot , Definitely, he had to be.


I believe he was there more so because of the way Neville was positioned on the kitchen floor. He was placed in that position to humiliate him because someone thought he deserved to be humiliated for something, but I really don’t think Sheila could have done that.


If a hit man had been hired to commit these anus crimes there is no way he would have hung around to place Neville in that position. We all see programmes of true crimes and hit men don’t work that way. It was someone who was confident they wouldn’t be disturbed and I’m my opinion it was Bamber.


My opinion, Bamber should never be released, regardless of whether someone comes up with the notion that the judge wasn’t entitled to make a decision at his discretion in this case.


Under no circumstances should the ex-girlfriend have been listened to either in this case, other than her saying Bamber had told her he was going to commit this terrible crime what proof was there? Is there? No way should her evidence have been allowed in.


If one day this case is resolved and any of the above proves to be right, I still don’t think any police officer should be prosecuted in these circumstances because of the nature of the search and the carnage they found inside that farmhouse.


Anyway let me know what your readers think.


We will speak again one day about this matter.


Thanks


Nanny Pumpkin.

Xx

Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 02:53:AM
Thank  you for your honest opinion  - so, I have been telling the truth, all along....
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 02:58:AM
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot dead his sister upstairs on the parents bedroom floor..
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:07:AM
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot dead his sister upstairs on the parents bedroom floor..

You know, because you have seen the crime scene image of Sheila's body laid on top of the parents bed, with only one bullet entry wound to her neck, with no gun on her body, or any additional blood on her face, her neck, or for that matter, additional blood  on her nightdress..

We are closer to the actual truth, thanks to your open and honest contribution..
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:13:AM
Jeremy can try to deny it all he wants too - home office have a recording (Christmas, 1989) where he asked me about my opinion on his case. 'What's your opinion regarding my case?
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:15:AM
Sheila had an accomplice!
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:18:AM
'You think, that Sheila had an accomplice'?
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:20:AM
'You think, that Sheila had an accomplice'?

Yes, of course'
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:21:AM
'Who'?
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on September 30, 2020, 03:26:AM
'It was 'YOU', Jeremy, 'you were Sheila"s accomplice'...
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 30, 2020, 03:29:AM
'You think, that Sheila had an accomplice'?
I think it was someone else other than Jeremy.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Adam on September 30, 2020, 08:24:AM
I think it was someone else other than Jeremy.

There have been several suggestions of third party involvement. On the forum & by Bamber himself -


Crispy fired the second shot into Sheila.

Nevill may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone.

A hit man team carried out the massacre.

One of the relatives carried out the massacre.

Sheila and Bamber committed the massacre together.

The massacre was committed by a hunched figure seen in the area.

Sheila shot herself once downstairs and was then shot again upstairs by the police.

Someone had a grudge against Nevill, who was a part time magistrate.

Bamber couldn't have committed the massacre alone. So had an accomplice. Who this could have been has never been suggested.

A man called Jeff Blake committed the massacre.

Jamie Bell committed the massacre.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 30, 2020, 11:00:AM
There have been several suggestions of third party involvement. On the forum & by Bamber himself -


Crispy fired the second shot into Sheila.

Nevill may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone.

A hit man team carried out the massacre.

One of the relatives carried out the massacre.

Sheila and Bamber committed the massacre together.

The massacre was committed by a hunched figure seen in the area.

Sheila shot herself once downstairs and was then shot again upstairs by the police.

Someone had a grudge against Nevill, who was a part time magistrate.

Bamber couldn't have committed the massacre alone. So had an accomplice. Who this could have been has never been suggested.

A man called Jeff Blake committed the massacre.

Jamie Bell committed the massacre.
If it was a multichoice question  I'd choose "One of the relatives carried out the massacre".  But only in the sense that the relative finished off what Sheila had started.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Adam on September 30, 2020, 11:26:AM
If it was a multichoice question  I'd choose "One of the relatives carried out the massacre".  But only in the sense that the relative finished off what Sheila had started.

Do you believe the relative and Sheila pre planned it. Or that Sheila rang the relative mid massacre?
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 11:59:AM
If it was a multichoice question  I'd choose "One of the relatives carried out the massacre".  But only in the sense that the relative finished off what Sheila had started.


To make such a claim viable it would be helpful to indicate how "one of the relatives" A) knew Sheila was staying there -the news of her visit hadn't been shared round the family, B) journeyed to WHF, C) made their escape, D) what their motive might have been.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 06:15:PM
Pam and RWB knew that Sheila and the children were there. AP possibly knew via JB when AP paid a visit the weekend before.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 06:35:PM
Pam and RWB knew that Sheila and the children were there. AP possibly knew via JB when AP paid a visit the weekend before.


Are you sure? I didn't think Pam knew until June told her during the phone call. Ann -unless we're going to insist she's lying, and can't be proved- certainly didn't know. Any knowledge of her impending visit would most likely have come from Jeremy.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 30, 2020, 06:49:PM
Do you believe the relative and Sheila pre planned it. Or that Sheila rang the relative mid massacre?
It could be more than that too.  Premassacre there was June, Nevill, and Sheila who could have asked someone for advice.  There seemed reports of people ringing the farm earlier and around 10:00 PM.

Jeremy also could have been setting/preparing the scene.  He had already left the gun out and ammunition nearby.  All you'd need to do is to discuss the custody argument with someone who would be sympathetic towards  Sheila's situation.  Someone must have been keen to take over where Collin left off.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 07:03:PM
It could be more than that too.  Premassacre there was June, Nevill, and Sheila who could have asked someone for advice.  There seemed reports of people ringing the farm earlier and around 10:00 PM.

Jeremy also could have been setting/preparing the scene.  He had already left the gun out and ammunition nearby.  All you'd need to do is to discuss the custody argument with someone who would be sympathetic towards  Sheila's situation.  Someone must have been keen to take over where Collin left off.


The farm secretary rang earlier in the evening. Later on, June's sister, Pam, rang. It was during this call that June expressed concern for Sheila, but no more, I think, than asking Pam "See what you think". There is no proof that any sort of custody argument happened.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 07:53:PM

Are you sure? I didn't think Pam knew until June told her during the phone call. Ann -unless we're going to insist she's lying, and can't be proved- certainly didn't know. Any knowledge of her impending visit would most likely have come from Jeremy.




There'd been a pre-arranged visit, a sort of meeting arranged with June and Pam next day as June wanted to tell Pam how worried she was with Sheila's behaviour. I'd go as far as to say that Sheila had listened in to that call and heard part of the conversation.
As I'd said, JB could well have told AP when he stayed there.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 08:21:PM



There'd been a pre-arranged visit, a sort of meeting arranged with June and Pam next day as June wanted to tell Pam how worried she was with Sheila's behaviour. I'd go as far as to say that Sheila had listened in to that call and heard part of the conversation.
As I'd said, JB could well have told AP when he stayed there.

Lookout, I got the impression it was all rather ad hoc. as in, had Pam not phoned, June wouldn't have called her. That why I suggested her concern regarding Sheila's behaviour was on a "See what you think" basis. I'm not certain what June thought could transpire as Sheila was due to go home on the Thursday, the day after the meeting with Pam.
I agree that Jeremy could have told AP, in passing, that Sheila would be visiting, but it begs the question why would AP turn up to finish what he didn't know Sheila was going to start, and what was his motive?
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Steve_uk on September 30, 2020, 09:28:PM
Hi Mike

We spoke yesterday about my thoughts on the Bamber case.

I will document it here so you can publish it.


Firstly let me make it clear that Bamber did shoot Sheila, that was the first shot. He was either telling her to kill herself with maybe the promise he would do that once she had and they could all be together in heaven, only Bamber knows that.


The second shot I believe was accidental and administered from a police office.

We know the police log states “There are the bodies of one male and one female in and on the kitchen floor”. That was noted before the officers entered the kitchen area and were making their observations from outside of the building, through a window.


We all know that Sheila’s body is shown to be upstairs in the police photographs, so we have to ask ourselves “ How has that happened?


Hers a few ideas I have thought about.


Firstly Bamber did believe Sheila was dead when he left the farmhouse after everyone had been murdered. He either shot her and the others and was satisfied it was safe to leave because on his return he felt everyone inside the farmhouse was dead. What he didn’t bank on was maybe Sheila was just rendered unconscious, and at what point I’m not sure, maybe after the police had entered the farmhouse and were searching it at the time, she gained consciousness. She made her way upstairs for some reason and because of the situation, heightened senses by the police, she was accidentally shot again. Or she made her way upstairs and then passed out on the bedroom floor again. At some point the police were checking to see if she could have shot herself and laid the gun, which they thought she had used to kill the others, on her and the trigger was pulled by accident and that shot killed her. Again I don’t think the police should be made accountable if that happened because again the police were in a very distressing situation and they were still looking at every possibility that the murder was still some where in the farm house.


Either way , the second shot killed her and that’s why I believe there is pooling of blood upon Sheila where it is and the blooded fingerprint upon her neck because I think the police put her into the recovery position after she had been shot the second time.


Yes I understand why people think Bambers case should be overturned because of what the judge told the jury, “ if you find him guilty of Sheila’s death then you must find him guilty of the other four deaths”.


This seems to be the point everyone refers to however, we all know that any judge has the discretion to make any ruling he wants and he obviously took that stance when the guilty verdict came back from the jury.


In my opinion, and that’s all it is, Bamber got into Sheila’s head and convinced her to kill the whole family. He either was there when all the killings took place or when Sheila was shot , Definitely, he had to be.


I believe he was there more so because of the way Neville was positioned on the kitchen floor. He was placed in that position to humiliate him because someone thought he deserved to be humiliated for something, but I really don’t think Sheila could have done that.


If a hit man had been hired to commit these anus crimes there is no way he would have hung around to place Neville in that position. We all see programmes of true crimes and hit men don’t work that way. It was someone who was confident they wouldn’t be disturbed and I’m my opinion it was Bamber.


My opinion, Bamber should never be released, regardless of whether someone comes up with the notion that the judge wasn’t entitled to make a decision at his discretion in this case.


Under no circumstances should the ex-girlfriend have been listened to either in this case, other than her saying Bamber had told her he was going to commit this terrible crime what proof was there? Is there? No way should her evidence have been allowed in.


If one day this case is resolved and any of the above proves to be right, I still don’t think any police officer should be prosecuted in these circumstances because of the nature of the search and the carnage they found inside that farmhouse.


Anyway let me know what your readers think.


We will speak again one day about this matter.


Thanks


Nanny Pumpkin.

Xx
Yes heinous crimes indeed.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 09:41:PM
Yes heinous crimes indeed.


Steve, I thought "anus crimes" was a suitably base description.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 09:48:PM
Lookout, I got the impression it was all rather ad hoc. as in, had Pam not phoned, June wouldn't have called her. That why I suggested her concern regarding Sheila's behaviour was on a "See what you think" basis. I'm not certain what June thought could transpire as Sheila was due to go home on the Thursday, the day after the meeting with Pam.
I agree that Jeremy could have told AP, in passing, that Sheila would be visiting, but it begs the question why would AP turn up to finish what he didn't know Sheila was going to start, and what was his motive?






Unbeknown to anyone something could have happened at the farmhouse during the day that prompted June to speak to Pam and to want to see each other next day. In fact the invitation was to go to Pam's for tea with Sheila and the twins.
AP wouldn't have had a motive, especially as he'd left his rifle with prints at WHF, literally a smoking gun, so it wouldn't have been him.

 
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 10:03:PM





Unbeknown to anyone something could have happened at the farmhouse during the day that prompted June to speak to Pam and to want to see each other next day. In fact the invitation was to go to Pam's for tea with Sheila and the twins.
AP wouldn't have had a motive, especially as he'd left his rifle with prints at WHF, literally a smoking gun, so it wouldn't have been him.

 


But for the wording of the conversation, such could be feasible, but Pam rang June and there was nothing in their conversation to indicate an earlier call from June to Pam -and SURELY Pam would have said had that been the case- even the fact of the invitation being to tea, rather than to lunch, suggests a more ad hoc call. If a third person was involved, I'm afraid it takes us back to the information regarding Sheila's visit coming from Jeremy.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 10:12:PM

Steve, I thought "anus crimes" was a suitably base description.





I couldn't help laughing at that, oh dear. Then I thought, yes, the case itself was all my backside.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2020, 10:27:PM




I couldn't help laughing at that, oh dear. Then I thought, yes, the case itself was all my backside.

  :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 01:32:AM

But for the wording of the conversation, such could be feasible, but Pam rang June and there was nothing in their conversation to indicate an earlier call from June to Pam -and SURELY Pam would have said had that been the case- even the fact of the invitation being to tea, rather than to lunch, suggests a more ad hoc call. If a third person was involved, I'm afraid it takes us back to the information regarding Sheila's visit coming from Jeremy.
There are so many possibilities and so few people left to tell what happened that night.  Jane when you say "and SURELY Pam would have said had that been the case", it just goes to show you don't really know.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on October 01, 2020, 08:38:AM
There are so many possibilities and so few people left to tell what happened that night.  Jane when you say "and SURELY Pam would have said had that been the case", it just goes to show you don't really know.


You're correct. I can't possibly 'know', as none of us can ever 'know' what was the real relationship between the two sisters. However, there are clues in what she said to June and what June said to her, and perhaps more in what she/they didn't say. I'm not going off at wild tangents, creating impossible scenarios, many of which are just opportunities to say the family were all liars.

It was accepted, at least momentarily, that Sheila had been the culprit. So why would Pam have failed to mention an earlier phone call in which June expressed fears about Sheila's mental state. Had such occurred, it could only have served to support the belief in her culpability.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 09:08:AM

You're correct. I can't possibly 'know', as none of us can ever 'know' what was the real relationship between the two sisters. However, there are clues in what she said to June and what June said to her, and perhaps more in what she/they didn't say. I'm not going off at wild tangents, creating impossible scenarios, many of which are just opportunities to say the family were all liars.

It was accepted, at least momentarily, that Sheila had been the culprit. So why would Pam have failed to mention an earlier phone call in which June expressed fears about Sheila's mental state. Had such occurred, it could only have served to support the belief in her culpability.
I'm no expert, and I knew that when you said Pam and June were sisters.   
So there was blood shared between then, well, who knows what secrets would be hidden behind the thickness of blood.
"So why would Pam have failed to mention an earlier phone call in which June expressed fears about Sheila's mental state."  Well that would take June to first see the fragility of 'Sheila's mental state'.

From the little bit I know about June is that she was a bit over the top, in her ways.  Was it her way or the no-way highway?
This song expresses what I was trying to say: https://youtu.be/dG5xv6h-mpw
"Gabriela Gun?íková - MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY - Original Song by Ken Tamplin"
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on October 01, 2020, 09:34:AM
I'm no expert, and I knew that when you said Pam and June were sisters.   
So there was blood shared between then, well, who knows what secrets would be hidden behind the thickness of blood.
"So why would Pam have failed to mention an earlier phone call in which June expressed fears about Sheila's mental state."  Well that would take June to first see the fragility of 'Sheila's mental state'.

From the little bit I know about June is that she was a bit over the top, in her ways.  Was it her way or the no-way highway?


I had believed this discussion to be about what June and Pam may, or not, have discussed during the phone call Pam made to June, and the suggestion that there may have been an earlier call. Your own comment that it "would take June to first see the fragility of Sheila's mental state" rather rules out the  chances of her having made an earlier call, regarding such, to Pam. We can gather this from the tone of the conversation we KNOW they had.

Your assessment of June's personality is interesting. Perhaps there's a difference in our understanding of "over the top"? I see it as being flamboyant, which in no way describes June. I'm inclined to see her as being anxious, but keeping her feelings very much to herself. That being so, it follows that she may have relegated any fears she had about Sheila's mental state to "See what you think" when she mentioned them to Pam. As far as her child-rearing habits go, I suspect it may have been very much a case of" her way or no way".
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 12:44:PM

I had believed this discussion to be about what June and Pam may, or not, have discussed during the phone call Pam made to June, and the suggestion that there may have been an earlier call. Your own comment that it "would take June to first see the fragility of Sheila's mental state" rather rules out the  chances of her having made an earlier call, regarding such, to Pam. We can gather this from the tone of the conversation we KNOW they had.

Your assessment of June's personality is interesting. Perhaps there's a difference in our understanding of "over the top"? I see it as being flamboyant, which in no way describes June. I'm inclined to see her as being anxious, but keeping her feelings very much to herself. That being so, it follows that she may have relegated any fears she had about Sheila's mental state to "See what you think" when she mentioned them to Pam. As far as her child-rearing habits go, I suspect it may have been very much a case of" her way or no way".
It was June's insistence that the twins say their prayers at night, and that Colin was going to have words to her about it, was the reason I said she was a "bit over the top". 
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: Jane on October 01, 2020, 01:02:PM
It was June's insistence that the twins say their prayers at night, and that Colin was going to have words to her about it, was the reason I said she was a "bit over the top".


That would come under her child-rearing habits. Perhaps here, an element of having failed with her children, she sure as hell wasn't going to let the same thing happen with her grandchildren?

We can't know, of course, HOW insistent she was that the boys said prayers, but I think, as far as the boys were concerned, once would have been once too many times. I think we can understand, too, that Colin, who was never into established religion, would have taken their part.
Title: Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
Post by: mike tesko on October 01, 2020, 02:23:PM
From memory after reading through the Bamber case files in my possession, I seem to recall that there were a number of separate occasions in the build up to the time of the shootings where Sheila's behavior was called into question. These incidents occurred during two or three days on 4th, 5th and 6th August 1985. In addition, its highly probable that Sheila was involved in some sort of an argument at the last supper table, and apparently according to Jeremy this concerned Sheila Caffells inability to provide proper or adequate care for the twin boys, and the parents, either one or both, told Sheila that the best course of action was for her to receive help from social services. We have to remember also, that on the next day post the tragedy, that Sheila was returning back to her flat at Maide Vale, without knowing whether or not her boys would be returned to the care of their father (Colin Caffell)  who had got custody of them until Sheila and the boys visited the farmhouse. Sheila, ran from a nearby monastery screaming her head off and swearing, behaviour which almost scared a local man to death, and the experience frightened him so badly that he hid himself from view by hiding behind a tree trunk near the footpath. There had been another outburst from Sheila who challenged a meter reader, she was shouting at him to get off her land  An incident which June took control of and calmed the situation down, by explaining to the meter reader that Sheila wasn't very well and that she had not been taking her medication

On the day before the shootings June, and Sheila and the two boys went shopping locally. The Shopkeepers later commented on how quiet and withdrawn Sheila was behaving.

Lastly, when Neville Bamber telephoned Jeremy and he mentioned that Sheila had got the gun, and that she was going crazy. According to Jeremy, the phone call from his dad was only a very brief one, It appeared as if someone had tapped the phones cradle to end the call he was receiving. Oddly enough, Jeremy Bamber said that on one of the last attempts to reestablish contact with his dad that the telephone line had become mysteriously engaged, as though his dad was now talking to somebody else. We know that police have phone records, and that two calls were made to police in regards to the unfolding incident at the farmhouse. The one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed at 3.36am. It is also significant to mention that after his dad's aborted telephone call, that Jeremy telephoned Julie Mugford to inform her that there was something wrong back at whf, without him actually saying what if anything was wrong!

When Mugford originally spoke to police on 7th or 8th August 1985, she told them that she had received that mornings call from Jeremy at around 3.30am, which I ask you all to bear in mind, because its a very important event in the grand scheme of things. Another thing to keep in mind, is that Jeremy Bamber attempted to call the police. INITIALLY,  he had tried phoning Witham police station but couldn't get any response. This was because the uniformed officers who were manning that police station, were absent between the time Jeremy had tried to call them in relation to what his dad had managed to tell him, and 3.35am (which was the exacted time that the occupants of patrol car CA07 returned back to Witham police station. Jeremy's second attempt to call the police did not occur until 3.36am at which time he contacted Chelmsford police control. It was somewhere In between  Jeremy trying to establish contact to Witham police station, and failing to do so because police were out doing a tour of duty at some nearby Industrial site at the time. Jeremy could never be sure of the exact timings when he received the call from his dad, only the sequence with which those events happened. Well we know that the occupants of CA07 did not receive the message from Chelmsford control room, until after the uniformed officers had got back to Witham police station at 3.35am, and we know that the Witham officers did not receive the missed call from Jeremy some time earlier..

We now come back to the original timing regarding when Julie Mugford first mentioned the timing of Jeremy's call to her, and which she originally said occurred at 3.30am. However, since that time, the timing of the call from Jeremy has been rumoured and touted as having occurred at 3.15am, and 3.00am. What this tells us is that if the sequence of events as recollected by Jeremy is true, then the events must have occurred in the following sequence...

Sheila had control of the gun and live ammunition. She had gone crazy.

Neville Bamber alerted Jeremy by telephone call at around 3.25am, or thereabouts, and then cut the line, and Jeremy attempted to reestablish contact with his dad back at the farmhouse, but he only ended up getting an 'engaged signal'

Jeremy attempted to contact Witham police station, but got no response because the uniformed officers who were manning the police station went out on a tour of duty.

Jeremy then called Julie at 3.30am

The occupants of CA07 did not return to Witham
 police station until about 3.35am, and only then did they receive a message from police control room at that time.

Jeremy looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station,  and eventually spoke to somebody at 3.36am. Jeremy was kept on the phone for a maximum of 9 minutes (3.36am -  3.42am)...

Now., there's a possibility, that Jeremy could have been Sheila Caffells accomplice in the planning and execution of the other four murders. I now have constructed a timeline which allows Jeremy to make the 3.26am call from whf (or
in the vicinity of, or en route back to his cottage at 9 Head Street to Chelmsford police station)  with reliance upon a previously overlooked and unrelied upon piece of equipment, to which I shall respond in due course.

For now, it was a 7(9) minute journey to drive by car from the farm house (whf)  as checked by me the route captured on video footage. Let's start with the recorded time of the first telephone call to the police (3.26am), now add 7(9) minutes onto that time,

1 minute + = 3.26am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.27am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.28am, 1(4)+ = 3.29am, 1(5) minutes+ = 3.30am, 1(6) minutes+ = 3.31 minutes, 1(7) minutes + = 3.32am, 1(8) minutes+ = 3.33am, 1(9) minutes + = 3.34am.

1 minute + = 3.35am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.36am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.37am, 1(4) minutes + = 3.38am, 1(5) minutes + = 3.39am, 1(6) minutes + = 3.40am, and 1(7) minutes + = 3.41am.

1 minute + = 3.42am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.43am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.44am, 1(4) minutes + = 3.45am, 1(6) minutes + = 3.46am, 1(7) minutes + = 3.47am, 1(8) minutes + = 3.49am, 1(9) minutes + = 3.50am, 1(10) minutes + = 3.51am, 1(11) minutes + = 3.52am..