Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on April 06, 2019, 09:02:PM

Title: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on April 06, 2019, 09:02:PM
As there is little movement on the case I thought I would try and spark debate (debate not an argument!).

I am still convinced that Bamber left WHF via the bathroom window because of his description of how he could use a hacksaw blade to open the catch and enter and bang the window closed to make it look as though it was locked. Many old sash windows use the type of catch below and as you can see, it's simply a screw which fits in a slot. You can easily use something like a hacksaw blade to push the catch out of the slot housing and open the window and banging it shut will cause the pivoted screw to fall forward back into the housing. This is why Jones thought the windows were all locked however, when Sergeant Stephen Golding checked the shower room window, he found it closed but not secured, to secure it, you have to tighten the screw or the window remains unlocked.

(https://www.gjohns.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/960x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/r/product21640_l.jpg)
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on April 07, 2019, 08:10:PM
if he had used a hacksaw blade surely they wuld be able to tell.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on April 08, 2019, 03:19:PM
if he had used a hacksaw blade surely they wuld be able to tell.

Why? It's simply a tool that is thin enough to fit between the two panes. They found a hacksaw blade and he admitted to using one on other occasions. It wasn't used to saw anything. However, he doesn't have to have used a HSB, he could have used anything.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2019, 04:10:PM
you will find all sorts of things laying around a farm yard

wouldent there be a danger of being heard if you opened a window like that.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on April 09, 2019, 05:19:PM
you will find all sorts of things laying around a farm yard

wouldent there be a danger of being heard if you opened a window like that.


Indeed you will, but hadn't he described it as a method he'd previously used? Of course, there are many who are determined to to call it a coincidence. A danger of being heard? With the residents upstairs, asleep? It was a very solid Georgian family house with thick walls. I imagine it was a chance worth taking.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2019, 06:21:PM

Indeed you will, but hadn't he described it as a method he'd previously used? Of course, there are many who are determined to to call it a coincidence. A danger of being heard? With the residents upstairs, asleep? It was a very solid Georgian family house with thick walls. I imagine it was a chance worth taking.

maybe there determined to call it a coincidence because that's what it is.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on April 09, 2019, 07:16:PM
maybe there determined to call it a coincidence because that's what it is.

I imagine that 'coincidences' can be attached to every crime that's ever been committed. They form a part of a defence counsel's 'bag of tricks' which they use to try to get their client off. If you watch "Murder, Mystery and My Family -Case Closed" you'll see that the majority were convicted on coincidences. A present day judge has only -of the cases I've watched- ruled one as being an unsafe conviction.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on April 09, 2019, 09:33:PM
you will find all sorts of things laying around a farm yard

wouldent there be a danger of being heard if you opened a window like that.

I didn't say he entered through that window, I said that's how he left! He doesn't have to have used a hacksaw, but from his own words ..... "You can flick the catch with any thin metal object"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5815
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on April 10, 2019, 01:35:AM
I didn't say he entered through that window, I said that's how he left! He doesn't have to have used a hacksaw, but from his own words ..... "You can flick the catch with any thin metal object"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5815

surely he could of left any way he wanted to he wouldent of needed to.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on April 10, 2019, 07:52:AM
surely he could of left any way he wanted to he wouldent of needed to.


Well now. If you're trying to rule out windows, I'll hazard a guess that all that's left are doors. But if you're a murderer who's trying to paint a picture of the murders being carried out by someone within the house, unless you have a door key, it's going to look a bit suspicious, when the police arrive to find an unlocked door
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on April 10, 2019, 01:19:PM

Well now. If you're trying to rule out windows, I'll hazard a guess that all that's left are doors. But if you're a murderer who's trying to paint a picture of the murders being carried out by someone within the house, unless you have a door key, it's going to look a bit suspicious, when the police arrive to find an unlocked door

Exactly.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on April 10, 2019, 06:37:PM

Well now. If you're trying to rule out windows, I'll hazard a guess that all that's left are doors. But if you're a murderer who's trying to paint a picture of the murders being carried out by someone within the house, unless you have a door key, it's going to look a bit suspicious, when the police arrive to find an unlocked door

he could of got the door key if he wanted to.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on April 10, 2019, 06:54:PM
he could of got the door key if he wanted to.

How would he lock the door and maintain the illusion that no one left? The keys had to be in the door and you can't lock a door with a key if a key is in the opposing lock!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on April 10, 2019, 08:01:PM
he could of got the door key if he wanted to.


Or even gone up the chimney -Georgian houses have enormous chimneys-  that way the key would have remained in the lock.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Reader on May 04, 2019, 12:39:PM
. . . because of his description of how he could use a hacksaw blade to open the catch and enter and bang the window closed to make it look as though it was locked.
Where exactly can we read such a detailed description? I thought he had said he couldn't have fully secured a window shut from outside (or words to that effect).

This is why Jones thought the windows were all locked however, when Sergeant Stephen Golding checked the shower room window, he found it closed but not secured, to secure it, you have to tighten the screw or the window remains unlocked.
You can't conclude that's the reason unless you know that the particular window catch used for the window concerned is of the type you've mentioned (or similar). Did Sergeant Golding specifically state that the catch concerned had a screw that needed to be tightened to secure the window, as distinct from a catch that just required a quarter or half turn (approximately) to secure the window?

You can easily use something like a hacksaw blade to push the catch out of the slot housing
You stated you believed that Jeremy left via the bathroom window, which wouldn't require dislodging the catch from outside. Do you also believe he entered via the same window and relied on prising it open from outside instead of just leaving it unlocked in advance? If a hacksaw blade had ever been used to open that window's catch from outside, there would be noticeable scratches on the catch caused by the hacksaw blade (or similar instrument).
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Adam on May 04, 2019, 01:03:PM
It would make sense for Bamber to leave the bathroom window ajar when he went for supper. To ensure a quiet entrance later. Nothing to lose in doing this. 

Nevill, June & Sheila may not have entered that room before going to bed. If they did go into that room, they may not have noticed the window was ajar. It was summer so the room would not be cold.

If in the unlikely event, the ajar bathroom window had been shut by Nevill, June or Sheila, that was not a problem for Bamber. He knew how to get into the closed window.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on May 05, 2019, 07:16:PM
Where exactly can we read such a detailed description? I thought he had said he couldn't have fully secured a window shut from outside (or words to that effect).
You can't conclude that's the reason unless you know that the particular window catch used for the window concerned is of the type you've mentioned (or similar). Did Sergeant Golding specifically state that the catch concerned had a screw that needed to be tightened to secure the window, as distinct from a catch that just required a quarter or half turn (approximately) to secure the window?
You stated you believed that Jeremy left via the bathroom window, which wouldn't require dislodging the catch from outside. Do you also believe he entered via the same window and relied on prising it open from outside instead of just leaving it unlocked in advance? If a hacksaw blade had ever been used to open that window's catch from outside, there would be noticeable scratches on the catch caused by the hacksaw blade (or similar instrument).


He actually said 'thin metal object' but a hacksaw blade was found near to the b/room window. -No, it wouldn't leave scratches if he used the flat edge and not the serrated edge. Sash windows get loosed over time and the gap between the two frames gets wider. It's easy to slip a metal tool between the panes and push the catch open. The screw type would be easy to close from the outside by banging it as described. He didn't mention to the police that he could close it and make it looked locked - he told this to Julie.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5815
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 07:53:PM
why would he try to get through a locked window when theres a window allready open.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on June 05, 2019, 09:50:PM
why would he try to get through a locked window when theres a window allready open.
He may have left a window ajar but couldn't be certain Nevill or June wouldn't close it before retiring. Don't forget his remark under interrogation: "Secure windows..insecure windows..it makes no difference."
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on June 08, 2019, 04:07:PM
He may have left a window ajar but couldn't be certain Nevill or June wouldn't close it before retiring. Don't forget his remark under interrogation: "Secure windows..insecure windows..it makes no difference."

He didn't need to leave the bathroom window ajar.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 22, 2019, 12:08:PM
I don't think any windows would have been left open/ajar owing to the phone-call that Nevill had presumably received regarding alleged threats, which BW had been aware of, along with Mr Smith at the time Nevill received the call.

Besides that, the illustration of the locking system of the windows has to be secured from the inside and not with just a " bang shut " from the outside. 
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 01:27:PM
I don't think any windows would have been left open/ajar owing to the phone-call that Nevill had presumably received regarding alleged threats, which BW had been aware of, along with Mr Smith at the time Nevill received the call.

Besides that, the illustration of the locking system of the windows has to be secured from the inside and not with just a " bang shut " from the outside.

The bathroom window could be opened  even if locked - and that's according to Bamber himself. Sergeant Stephen Golding found the shower room window closed but not secured.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 22, 2019, 07:00:PM
There's no proof that JB left it unlocked/insecure ? Even if JB himself had said it could be opened.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 07:38:PM
There's no proof that JB left it unlocked/insecure ? Even if JB himself had said it could be opened.

There doesn't have to be, it just needed to be shown that he could enter and exit the premises.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 22, 2019, 08:23:PM
Which still wouldn't prove anything one way or another ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 09:09:PM
Which still wouldn't prove anything one way or another ?

Well, yes it does, it PROVES he could enter through the bathroom window (by even his own admission) and that the bathroom window was found to be closed but not secured so he could easily have left that way
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 23, 2019, 12:35:PM
There's no proof he entered/exited in that way though, regardless of him saying it could be done. It could have been anyone ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 01:08:PM
There's no proof he entered/exited in that way though, regardless of him saying it could be done. It could have been anyone ?

No Lookout, the killer could only have been Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. He said he could enter via a window (locked or otherwise). I'm not sure what more evidence you want? Like I sad, they didn't need to prove he entered, just that it was possible and by his own admission, it could be done and had been done by him!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on July 23, 2019, 01:08:PM
Are we talking about the downstairs cloakroom and shower room where Nevill used to wash after the day's work in the fields and where the odd gun was propped up? There have never been any photographs released of this room.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 01:10:PM
Are we talking about the downstairs cloakroom and shower room where Nevill used to wash after the day's work in the fields and where the odd gun was propped up? There have never been any photographs released of this room.

There have and yes, we're talking about that room - this is the window Jeremy used after the murders to gain entry.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 23, 2019, 01:26:PM
Are we talking about the downstairs cloakroom and shower room where Nevill used to wash after the day's work in the fields and where the odd gun was propped up? There have never been any photographs released of this room.


(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40872)
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on July 23, 2019, 01:30:PM
I still don't see the window.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on July 23, 2019, 01:35:PM
I still don't see the window.


From memory I believe it's beside the loo.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 23, 2019, 05:01:PM
No Lookout, the killer could only have been Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. He said he could enter via a window (locked or otherwise). I'm not sure what more evidence you want? Like I sad, they didn't need to prove he entered, just that it was possible and by his own admission, it could be done and had been done by him!




Not according to any evidence found, ie, fingerprints ? I think another relative mentioned that it was a way to gain entry but it doesn't mean to say that the relative was involved either----AP ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on July 23, 2019, 07:38:PM



Not according to any evidence found, ie, fingerprints ? I think another relative mentioned that it was a way to gain entry but it doesn't mean to say that the relative was involved either----AP ?



It wasn't something that the judge gave any credence to..................Ooops! Nearly forgot!! Good evening, Lookout. Good to see you posting again.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 07:40:PM



Not according to any evidence found, ie, fingerprints ? I think another relative mentioned that it was a way to gain entry but it doesn't mean to say that the relative was involved either----AP ?

That was just something said on here - someone made a silly comment about how everyone entered through the windows. Lookout, you don't need any other evidence when Jeremy has admitted to entering the house that way previously.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 07:40:PM
I still don't see the window.

There is a picture of the window some where, I'll try and find it.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 23, 2019, 07:56:PM
That was just something said on here - someone made a silly comment about how everyone entered through the windows. Lookout, you don't need any other evidence when Jeremy has admitted to entering the house that way previously.




It still doesn't make JB a murderer just because he knew how/where to enter the farmhouse ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on July 23, 2019, 08:22:PM


It wasn't something that the judge gave any credence to..................Ooops! Nearly forgot!! Good evening, Lookout. Good to see you posting again.
Yes it's always good to see Lookout posting again, especially in the summer months so I don't need to worry about another Brian Blackwell scenario. For newcomers to the site we've all had our ups and downs but really we're one big happy family.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 23, 2019, 08:36:PM
Julie knew how to get in as did the relatives.
The actual catch was listed as exhibit RWC/8. This was documented after removal on the 27th September.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on July 23, 2019, 08:47:PM
Julie knew how to get in as did the relatives.
The actual catch was listed as exhibit RWC/8. This was documented after removal on the 27th September.
Julie was alibied, fortunately for her at that point, though her nightmare was about to continue. I haven't seen the catch, only the kitchen photographs.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 08:48:PM
Julie knew how to get in as did the relatives.
The actual catch was listed as exhibit RWC/8. This was documented after removal on the 27th September.

The relatives didn't know how to get in - hence why they concentrated on the kitchen window and Julie was miles away at the time of the murders.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Steve_uk on July 23, 2019, 08:51:PM
The relatives didn't know how to get in - hence why they concentrated on the kitchen window and Julie was miles away at the time of the murders.
That's an interesting point. They did go to town on that kitchen window.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 23, 2019, 09:00:PM
That's an interesting point. They did go to town on that kitchen window.

Had they known Jeremy could enter via the bathroom window, they would have said so immediately.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 24, 2019, 10:24:AM
First of all thankyou for the welcome, I do appreciate that and as Steve said I just feel part of this " family " as it's been a long time and let's face it lots of families have their " moments ".


Anyway, back to this exhibit, where is it and what was the outcome of the examination of it ? PII ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 24, 2019, 11:14:AM
That's an interesting point. They did go to town on that kitchen window.

At around 9:15am DCI Jones found all the downstairs windows "securely fastened" (As stated in the Dickenson enquiry)

PC Barlow who inspected the windows with Ann Eaton, Found the sash windows could not be secured from the outside.

The kitchen window was their only option.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 24, 2019, 11:28:AM
How would all the objects on the kitchen windowsill be replaced after exiting that way ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 24, 2019, 11:29:AM
How would all the objects on the kitchen windowsill be replaced after exiting that way ?



It seemed a bit of a clutterance didn't it ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 24, 2019, 11:34:AM
How would all the objects on the kitchen windowsill be replaced after exiting that way ?

Once outside you would have to lean through and put them all back.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 24, 2019, 12:53:PM
Once outside you would have to lean through and put them all back.




Do you imagine that someone who'd just murdered 5 people that they'd bother replacing items as near to where they were ? Fingerprints on all items ? Outerwear brushed against the sides of the windows in doing so ( fibres )
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 24, 2019, 01:32:PM
At around 9:15am DCI Jones found all the downstairs windows "securely fastened" (As stated in the Dickenson enquiry)

PC Barlow who inspected the windows with Ann Eaton, Found the sash windows could not be secured from the outside.

The kitchen window was their only option.

I don't care what he said, he obviously didn't check properly because it was closed but not secured.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 24, 2019, 01:39:PM
AE didn't miss a thing and would have been the first one to point out if the window had been insecure. Never forgetting that the relatives did more work than the police ( tongue-in-cheek ) 
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 24, 2019, 07:19:PM
AE didn't miss a thing and would have been the first one to point out if the window had been insecure. Never forgetting that the relatives did more work than the police ( tongue-in-cheek )

Ann Eaton wasn't there on the morning after the murders.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 24, 2019, 07:32:PM
That's an interesting point. They did go to town on that kitchen window.

Ha, ha! just noticed, the window is on the picture, just pull the bar across.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on July 26, 2019, 03:09:AM
I don't care what he said, he obviously didn't check properly because it was closed but not secured.

There is no evidence that DCI Jones made an error when he reported that all the windows were secured from the inside. DCS Mike Ainsley's said the following in his Final Report.

"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."

Ainsley does not suggest that Jones made an error, but merely assumed that the bathroom window had been unlocked by somebody after Jones made his examination. If some person had opened it, but afterwards closed it without locking it, that would explain the report of PS Stephen Golding that the window was closed but unlocked.

The  Court of Appeal in 2002 did not make the claim that Golding was right and that Jones was wrong as you are doing here, with no apparent justification. Of course, they could both have been right and that was Mike Ainsley's assumption. They dismissed the complaint of the defence that the prosecution had withheld Ainsley's report on a technicality.

266. We reject the complaint that this portion of the police report should have been disclosed. It is no more than a commentary on evidence, which had been reduced to statement form and served upon the Defence. The conflict between the two versions was there to be seen on the face of the statements (Golding p. 102) and (Jones p.987/8). This point was plainly not lost on the Defence who read the statement of Jones as part of their case and commented upon the conflict in their closing speech.

Their reasoning is based upon inventing a false conflict between the accounts given by DCI Jones and PS Golding. They were saying the jury had heard both "conflicting" views. But that avoids the point of the defences complaint about the withholding of evidence. The point is that Ainsley's report shows that there was no "conflict" at all, so that the locked room alibi was never really opposed with any evidence.

The prosecution mislead the Court by inventing a conflict between the evidence of Jones and Golding. The compliant was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on a spurious technicality.

It is another deplorable example of judicial dishonesty in the Bamber case. They fell back on that old standby "Well the jury heard both conflicting views, so you can't use it again."


Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 26, 2019, 06:13:PM
There is no evidence that DCI Jones made an error when he reported that all the windows were secured from the inside. DCS Mike Ainsley's said the following in his Final Report.

"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."

Ainsley does not suggest that Jones made an error, but merely assumed that the bathroom window had been unlocked by somebody after Jones made his examination. If some person had opened it, but afterwards closed it without locking it, that would explain the report of PS Stephen Golding that the window was closed but unlocked.

The  Court of Appeal in 2002 did not make the claim that Golding was right and that Jones was wrong as you are doing here, with no apparent justification. Of course, they could both have been right and that was Mike Ainsley's assumption. They dismissed the complaint of the defence that the prosecution had withheld Ainsley's report on a technicality.

266. We reject the complaint that this portion of the police report should have been disclosed. It is no more than a commentary on evidence, which had been reduced to statement form and served upon the Defence. The conflict between the two versions was there to be seen on the face of the statements (Golding p. 102) and (Jones p.987/8). This point was plainly not lost on the Defence who read the statement of Jones as part of their case and commented upon the conflict in their closing speech.

Their reasoning is based upon inventing a false conflict between the accounts given by DCI Jones and PS Golding. They were saying the jury had heard both "conflicting" views. But that avoids the point of the defences complaint about the withholding of evidence. The point is that Ainsley's report shows that there was no "conflict" at all, so that the locked room alibi was never really opposed with any evidence.

The prosecution mislead the Court by inventing a conflict between the evidence of Jones and Golding. The compliant was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on a spurious technicality.

It is another deplorable example of judicial dishonesty in the Bamber case. They fell back on that old standby "Well the jury heard both conflicting views, so you can't use it again."

By the same token, there is no evidence that 'someone' else opened the window catch given that no one admitted to doing so. Jones made no specific comment about the shower room window in relation to Golding's claim - so it IS possible that Jones didn't check it properly.

Why did you miss this portion from Ainsley's quote?
"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."

If there is no reason to open the window, there is no reason to open the catch!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on July 27, 2019, 07:50:AM
By the same token, there is no evidence that 'someone' else opened the window catch given that no one admitted to doing so. Jones made no specific comment about the shower room window in relation to Golding's claim - so it IS possible that Jones didn't check it properly.

Why did you miss this portion from Ainsley's quote?
"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."

If there is no reason to open the window, there is no reason to open the catch!

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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug on July 27, 2019, 11:26:AM
yes it seems unlikely yo would unlock it if you wernt going to open it what would be the point.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 27, 2019, 12:14:PM
Fingerprints on the said catch/window ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 28, 2019, 12:39:AM
Fingerprints on the said catch/window ?

Why  would that help? They didn't initially take fingerprints. Bit you aren't guaranteed to get finger prints from any surface.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug 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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout 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 ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: nugnug 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry 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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry 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."

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry 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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry 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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 30, 2019, 01:36:PM
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!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2019, 07:27:AM
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.

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2019, 08:05:AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 09:11:AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 11:30:AM
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?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 11:32:AM
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!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 12:00:PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 02:16:PM



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!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 31, 2019, 02:41:PM

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? 

???
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 02:52:PM
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.   
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 31, 2019, 03:19:PM
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?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 03:31:PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 04:02:PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 04:11:PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on July 31, 2019, 04:22:PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 04:23:PM
The kitchen window would quite possibly have been opened by one of the officers as it was easier to open from the inside considering all the items which were on the sill, but one which would have proved difficult to secure from the outside.
As for " Taff " doing his check, in order for him to give his verdict of murder/suicide it wouldn't have taken him long to have worked out that it was purely an inside job after having been satisfied that there were no signs of an entry. Which is obviously how he reached his conclusion and that he wasn't looking for anyone else involved. 
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 04:27:PM
David it won't be just the CCRC who are waiting for Jeremy to die !
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on July 31, 2019, 04:33:PM
David, among other things, do you think or believe that the second silencer will clinch it ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 07:48:PM
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.

Yes, I agree and many of the mistakes were down to DCI Jones. When he arrived at the scene he should have taken charge and made sure the CS was secured, instead there were too many people trampling over the scene. This makes it even more likely that he didn't check of the windows properly - he wasn't there long enough to have done a thorough enough job.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on July 31, 2019, 07:49:PM
The kitchen window would quite possibly have been opened by one of the officers as it was easier to open from the inside considering all the items which were on the sill, but one which would have proved difficult to secure from the outside.
As for " Taff " doing his check, in order for him to give his verdict of murder/suicide it wouldn't have taken him long to have worked out that it was purely an inside job after having been satisfied that there were no signs of an entry. Which is obviously how he reached his conclusion and that he wasn't looking for anyone else involved.

He wasn't there long enough to have made such a decision and there was a window unlocked - the shower room.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on August 01, 2019, 07:34:AM
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.

The quote below is from the final report of DCS Mike Ainsley as quoted at the Court of Appeal.

"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."

The sentence you  keep going on a about does not prove anything. Ainsley may have just added it for "balance". It seems at odds with what he had written just before.  He HAD  in fact, given reasons for thinking the window  probably had been opened. He may have not wanted go on record as holding the view that the bathroom window had been opened for reasons best known to himself. Being a police detective, he would have made that fairly obvious  inference. In fact, anybody not stupid, would easily figure it out.

And since we're dishing it out.

Everyone has the right to edit a quote to make a point more succinctly. You, however, have in the past taken it upon yourself to edit other peoples posts to suit your own agenda. That, it seems to me, is an abuse of administrative privilege.

You have deleted many posts from your pro innocent time at the forum and as the rules stand, everyone is entitled to do that. But you have also taken it upon yourself to remove the quote of your own post in other people's posts.

About four years after your introduction in 2012, you have not only deleted your own original posts, but also removed the quotations of them in the replies of other members.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751


Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 11:27:AM
Ooops.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 01:06:PM
The quote below is from the final report of DCS Mike Ainsley as quoted at the Court of Appeal.

"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."

The sentence you  keep going on a about does not prove anything. Ainsley may have just added it for "balance". It seems at odds with what he had written just before.  He HAD  in fact, given reasons for thinking the window  probably had been opened. He may have not wanted go on record as holding the view that the bathroom window had been opened for reasons best known to himself. Being a police detective, he would have made that fairly obvious  inference. In fact, anybody not stupid, would easily figure it out.

And since we're dishing it out.

Everyone has the right to edit a quote to make a point more succinctly. You, however, have in the past taken it upon yourself to edit other peoples posts to suit your own agenda. That, it seems to me, is an abuse of administrative privilege.

You have deleted many posts from your pro innocent time at the forum and as the rules stand, everyone is entitled to do that. But you have also taken it upon yourself to remove the quote of your own post in other people's posts.

About four years after your introduction in 2012, you have not only deleted your own original posts, but also removed the quotations of them in the replies of other members.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751

OMG! I have taken my own quotes out of 'some' posts. I am allowed to remove my own comments as they belong to me! I am also entitled to have said quotes removed from posts that have quoted MY words. You may not be able to do the same as you don't have the same permissions but you ARE entitled to ask for them to be removed! Where have I edited other people's posts to suit my own agenda? Another one trying to cause trouble because they have been caught out in an attempt to pull the wool. Unbelievable!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 01:07:PM
Ooops.

Oops what?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 01:14:PM
By the way Harry, I am ashamed to have ever thought Bamber innocent and if it was possible, I would delete every post I made during that time. I have removed posts where they have been used to goad from members who once also held a different stance and as such, have posted from the other point of view. Removing my own posts and quotes is not against the rules but goading is and removng the posts nips that in the bud. I will remove more in the future should posters use them to goad! It's no secret I changed my mind!

You STILL haven't given a reason for leaving off the last part of Ainsley's quote? All you have done is try and turn the tables on me - oops!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 01, 2019, 02:16:PM
David, among other things, do you think or believe that the second silencer will clinch it ?

No I don't believe it will.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 02:39:PM
Oops what?




I thought it would account for a number of searches that I've been trying to make re. the Pargeters. Or will this set up some sort of a libel action----just in case ?
I used to be able to get quite a lot of info but can't now, it just comes up with page no.1 when I do searches and no info. where it used to be.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 02:43:PM
The search is there and registers as such but with no info. Has that been removed ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 03:01:PM



I thought it would account for a number of searches that I've been trying to make re. the Pargeters. Or will this set up some sort of a libel action----just in case ?
I used to be able to get quite a lot of info but can't now, it just comes up with page no.1 when I do searches and no info. where it used to be.

Why would it account for that? I removed my OWN posts/quotes and don't think I have ever posted about Pargeter in any detail so no. Nowt to do with it. Harry just can't explain why he left out an important part of Ainsely's comment and is now trying to deflect so the 'oops' belongs to him.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 03:33:PM
Unfortunately I'm not internet savvy so I'd have assumed that because some posts had been removed that certain threads would also have been removed too-----I'm not to know, am I ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 05:04:PM
Unfortunately I'm not internet savvy so I'd have assumed that because some posts had been removed that certain threads would also have been removed too-----I'm not to know, am I ?

Posts get removed all of the time for one reason or another but that doesn't affect the thread. Editing a post to remove a comment doesn't even remove the post.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 05:26:PM
There should be an edit facility which would then remove any doubt over how a post was written so avoiding those which are either misconstrued or misinterpreted.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 05:27:PM
Otherwise there's no going back for the rest of us.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 07:50:PM
There should be an edit facility which would then remove any doubt over how a post was written so avoiding those which are either misconstrued or misinterpreted.

There is (and always has been) the 'Modify' option.

I'm not really sure what your issue is Lookout? Editing or deleting a post only affects the post in question - however, it has distracted from original question as to why Harry left off the end of Ainsley's quote so his distraction has been 'somewhere' successful!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 08:34:PM
There is (and always has been) the 'Modify' option.

I'm not really sure what your issue is Lookout? Editing or deleting a post only affects the post in question - however, it has distracted from original question as to why Harry left off the end of Ainsley's quote so his distraction has been 'somewhere' successful!




I didn't read all of Harry's post so wasn't aware of what Ainsley's quote was all about, my only interest being the window and how JB came to leave a note after having entered to get his passport in the September, asking/telling someone to lock it------which meant that it couldn't be locked from the outside. The police knew this at the time as he was being watched.

" Taff " wasn't on his own when he examined all the locks, was he ? Meaning that at least two were satisfied that the farmhouse was secure from the inside after the tragedy. Then a team of forensics entered and they too were satisfied that nobody had entered or exited. This wasn't their only search and they still found nothing out of the ordinary.
Who was it who accompanied " Taff " on his inspection ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: ngb1066 on August 01, 2019, 09:28:PM
I am really disappointed by what I have read in the last few posts on this thread.  I will say no more because I do not want to make things worse.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 10:05:PM
I didn't read all of Harry's post so wasn't aware of what Ainsley's quote was all about, my only interest being the window and how JB came to leave a note after having entered to get his passport in the September, asking/telling someone to lock it------which meant that it couldn't be locked from the outside. The police knew this at the time as he was being watched.

" Taff " wasn't on his own when he examined all the locks, was he ? Meaning that at least two were satisfied that the farmhouse was secure from the inside after the tragedy. Then a team of forensics entered and they too were satisfied that nobody had entered or exited. This wasn't their only search and they still found nothing out of the ordinary.
Who was it who accompanied " Taff " on his inspection ?

No one has mentioned anything about anyone accompanying TJ on 'an inspection' and no one has a reason why the shower room window was unlocked. TJ was only at the scene for 15 minutes, he didn't have time to make the kind of inspection you are implying. 
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 10:35:PM
Maybe there was only one injury in Sheila's neck at the point when " Taff " entered ??
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 01, 2019, 10:45:PM
Hence why it would only have taken 15 minutes to reach the conclusion that he did----murder/suicide.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 01, 2019, 10:46:PM
Hence why it would only have taken 15 minutes to reach the conclusion that he did----murder/suicide.

This is going too far off piste for me.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on August 02, 2019, 07:20:AM
By the way Harry, I am ashamed to have ever thought Bamber innocent and if it was possible, I would delete every post I made during that time. I have removed posts where they have been used to goad from members who once also held a different stance and as such, have posted from the other point of view. Removing my own posts and quotes is not against the rules but goading is and removng the posts nips that in the bud. I will remove more in the future should posters use them to goad! It's no secret I changed my mind!

You STILL haven't given a reason for leaving off the last part of Ainsley's quote? All you have done is try and turn the tables on me - oops!

I'll put it like this. It was my quote from Ainsley's report. Since when does anybody have to provide exactly the same quotes as somebody else.

I quoted what I thought was the important part and not the comment afterwards, which seemed to me strangely illogical in relation to it. He gave reasons which strongly suggest that the bathroom window had been opened, after DCI Jones made his examination. Then he said that there was no reason to think that it had been.

From DCS Ainsley's Final Report

"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."
 


Your suggestion that Ainsley really thought that Taff Jones had failed to check the windows properly has no basis in fact.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Adam on August 02, 2019, 08:54:AM
The bathroom window would have been shut/secured when the police arrived. As Bamber excited from the kitchen window.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 02, 2019, 11:31:AM
How could the window have been secured after JB left ??
 Shut---yes. Secured ( which it was ) No.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 02, 2019, 11:55:AM
The bathroom window would have been shut/secured when the police arrived. As Bamber excited from the kitchen window.

The lower horizontal latch is secured Adam.

(https://i.ibb.co/7K9WYcZ/window.png)

Ann Eaton only mentioned the upper vertical latch (because she couldn't secure the lower one)
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 02, 2019, 05:12:PM
I'll put it like this. It was my quote from Ainsley's report. Since when does anybody have to provide exactly the same quotes as somebody else.

I quoted what I thought was the important part and not the comment afterwards, which seemed to me strangely illogical in relation to it. He gave reasons which strongly suggest that the bathroom window had been opened, after DCI Jones made his examination. Then he said that there was no reason to think that it had been.

From DCS Ainsley's Final Report

"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."
 


Your suggestion that Ainsley really thought that Taff Jones had failed to check the windows properly has no basis in fact.

This is what you initially quoted;

"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."

The only part you left out was the part where he stated he had no reason to believe that the bathroom window had been opened. Without this sentence, it gives the impression that he thought it had been opened due to the smell. However, when you read what he actually said, it's clear he was referring to the kitchen window in relation to the smell and flies. This is the reason for posting the FULL quote because when you don't, the post can be misleading and gives an entirely different impression. It's up to the reader to determine what he meant not forcing your own impression to hammer 'your' interpretation home.

Ainsley might have thought the windows were checked properly, but that doesn't mean they were. However, he had no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened - he must have inquired if said window had been opened to make that statement, clearly no one admitted to either opening it or seeing it open. TJ was at WHF for all of about 15 minutes, he spent some time looking at the bodies so had little time to check every room in the house never mind checking all windows were secure! He may have thought the window was secure - however, with no reason to open it and no one seeing it open, the latch was most likely open all of the time!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 02, 2019, 07:42:PM
Wasn't Ainsley's report withheld at the time of the trial ?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 02, 2019, 10:48:PM
Wasn't Ainsley's report withheld at the time of the trial ?

No.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Harry on August 03, 2019, 06:38:AM
Wasn't Ainsley's report withheld at the time of the trial ?

Hi Lookout.

The part which is here under discussion was withheld.

From the Appeal Court 2002

265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:

"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."

266. We reject the complaint that this portion of the police report should have been disclosed. It is no more than a commentary on evidence, which had been reduced to statement form and served upon the Defence. The conflict between the two versions was there to be seen on the face of the statements (Golding p. 102) and (Jones p.987/8). This point was plainly not lost on the Defence who read the statement of Jones as part of their case and commented upon the conflict in their closing speech.


The use of the word "conflict" by the judges is deceptive. Their reasoning was that the jury had already heard the conflicting accounts of DS Jones and PS Golding.

But this part of Ainsley's report shows there was no conflict at all and that the jury, it would seem, were mislead into thinking they had to believe either Jones or Golding. But Mike Ainsley showed that the two accounts were perfectly consistent.

To argue that PS Golding's finding proves or even that it suggests that DCI Jones did not check the windows properly is basically illogical, since Golding made his checks several hours after Jones. It's rather like arguing that the half time score of a football match must have been misreported, because the full time score was different.

Suppose the score at Half time was 0-0, but the full time score was 3-0. That does not imply that the half time score was misreported, but only that goals must have been scored in the second half. 


Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Jane on August 03, 2019, 10:06:AM
Re "The conflict between the two versions.............." Here we see the nuances at work of our wonderful language. In these times most of us read "conflict" as meaning fight, struggle, dispute, or, in a nutshell, tension. The judge's/judges' use of the word is only deceptive if one wishes to believe there to have been such between opposing factions. "Conflict" in this case, means no more than 'difference'.

I'd like to pick up on the bathroom window and Ainsley's belief that there was no reason for it to have been opened. It could/MIGHT? mean -amongst other things- that if such was the general view the window was A) never tested B) treated as an afterthought. Indeed, that the sentence comes towards the end of the report, implies this MAY be the case. It certainly provided a perfect spot for an omission from a quote.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 03, 2019, 10:08:AM
Yes I understand Harry as DCI Jones report was at 09.15 and Goldings at about 2.30. Bit of a difference.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 03, 2019, 04:51:PM
Hi Lookout.

The part which is here under discussion was withheld.

From the Appeal Court 2002

265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:

"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."

266. We reject the complaint that this portion of the police report should have been disclosed. It is no more than a commentary on evidence, which had been reduced to statement form and served upon the Defence. The conflict between the two versions was there to be seen on the face of the statements (Golding p. 102) and (Jones p.987/8). This point was plainly not lost on the Defence who read the statement of Jones as part of their case and commented upon the conflict in their closing speech.


The use of the word "conflict" by the judges is deceptive. Their reasoning was that the jury had already heard the conflicting accounts of DS Jones and PS Golding.

But this part of Ainsley's report shows there was no conflict at all and that the jury it would seem were mislead into thinking they had to believe either Jones or Golding. But Mike Ainsley showed that the two accounts were perfectly consistent.

To argue that PS Golding's finding proves or even that it suggests that DCI Jones did not check the windows properly is basically illogical, since Golding made his checks several hours after Jones. It's rather like arguing that the half time score of a football match must have been misreported, because the full time score was different.

Suppose the score at Half time was 0-0, but the full time score was 3-0. That does not imply that the half time score was misreported, but only that goals must have been scored in the second half.

Ironic that you should choose not to disclose the FULL quote in your initial post!
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 04, 2019, 02:08:PM
Taff Jones checked all the downstairs windows at 9:15am for the sole purpose of seeing if a 3rd party had entered and left the building. A rather serious event had taken place With five dead bodies in the house, there is no reason why he would not check the windows properly.

Both DCI Ainsley and DCI Jones went looking for the person responsible for opening the window between 9:15am and 2:00pm. But nobody would own up to it. This can be read in the short hand appeal transcript.

I have come to the conclusion that the person or persons responcible, denied doing it because of the demeanour of Ainsley and Taff asking the question made them think they would be in trouble if they admitted to it. (that's a situation we can all relate to) The same is probably true for whoever messed around in the kitchen.

For those needing Jeremy to have left the building with all ground floor windows and doors secured. There is actually a plausible way to achieve this. One that does not involve strings, ladders or Sheila helping him. So there's a little brain teaser for your Sunday afternoon.  :)
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: lookout on August 04, 2019, 03:14:PM
The front door.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 04, 2019, 04:43:PM
No proof that the latch wasn't open all along.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 04, 2019, 04:59:PM
No proof that the latch wasn't open all along.

DCI Jones observed it being shut. No proof he lied or did not check it. Hence you contrived a scenario whereby it was secured from the outside with a piece of string.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 04, 2019, 05:14:PM
DCI Jones observed it being shut. No proof he lied or did not check it. Hence you contrived a scenario whereby it was secured from the outside with a piece of string.

The string was a possibility and still is, unlike your period blood scenario. No one said he lied, but for the time he was at the scene, he didn't have time to check all of the rooms fully and do the various other things he mentioned, he perhaps did check it but not fully and it is my belief that it was open all of the time.

I have asked you not to respond to me but as you have, perhaps you would like to name ALL of those people who believe the blood in the silencer came from the soiled underwear?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Caroline on August 04, 2019, 05:16:PM
Taff Jones checked all the downstairs windows at 9:15am for the sole purpose of seeing if a 3rd party had entered and left the building. A rather serious event had taken place With five dead bodies in the house, there is no reason why he would not check the windows properly.

Both DCI Ainsley and DCI Jones went looking for the person responsible for opening the window between 9:15am and 2:00pm. But nobody would own up to it. This can be read in the short hand appeal transcript.

I have come to the conclusion that the person or persons responcible, denied doing it because of the demeanour of Ainsley and Taff asking the question made them think they would be in trouble if they admitted to it. (that's a situation we can all relate to) The same is probably true for whoever messed around in the kitchen.

For those needing Jeremy to have left the building with all ground floor windows and doors secured. There is actually a plausible way to achieve this. One that does not involve strings, ladders or Sheila helping him. So there's a little brain teaser for your Sunday afternoon.  :)

Have you now?  ::)

Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Reader on August 08, 2019, 02:31:PM
No I don't believe it will.
Do you think it will be a significant part of the next appeal? If not, why not?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 08, 2019, 03:00:PM
Do you think it will be a significant part of the next appeal? If not, why not?

It doesn’t in itself refute the blood and paint on the silencer that convicted him.
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: Reader on August 09, 2019, 04:46:PM
Is there something else (related to the silencers) that would do so?
Title: Re: The Bathroom Window Revisited
Post by: David1819 on August 09, 2019, 05:55:PM
Is there something else (related to the silencers) that would do so?

For argument sake. If it could be proven that APs rifle and silencer was at WHF on 6th of August. It would undermine the credibility of all the relatives. Since they never reported finding when they would have done and AP would of course also be lying.

Apart from that I cant think of anything else.