Podcast by Bamber's support group containing information about 03/21 submission

[ngb1066]

And if you had access to the review commissions statement of reasons for not referring Bamber's last submission, which Bamber refuses to disclose, you might feel very differently about aspects of the case!

Having read the document I very much doubt that.

[lookout]

One thing for sure, the sun wouldn't have been that high at the time of the morning EP were there. It would have only been about 05.20 before the sun would even show itself at that time of the year, so no doubt it was an electric light. As for any other area which appeared to be illuminated, it only needs one light on to reflect into an adjoining room before daylight begins.

To my mind, not even a moon was mentioned at the time.

[lookout]

Perhaps you could explain why Bamber overlooked mentioning this in his statement of 7th August 1985.

There's a thread-" Bamber v Bews, year 2011 which is worth a read.

[David1819]

If the glow in the bedroom window is a light bulb can someone please tell me what the exact same glow is around the door handle on the main door.  Thanks.

Its another light bulb. The one photographed below.

[JackieD]

Having read the document I very much doubt that.

I now have two members in the ignore list because they add literally nothing to this forum

[David1819]

I now have two members in the ignore list because they add literally nothing to this forum

I have Seven.

[lookout]

I have Seven.

David can you possibly bring the thread I mentioned, to here please. It's the " Bamber v Bews one from May 2011, which contains part of a blog of JB's mentioning the " movement " in the window as seen by Bews.

[Roch]

I have Seven.

That seems excessive. I doubt 7 current posters currently exist who would warrant being placed on ignore.

[killingeve]

Having read the document I very much doubt that.

Which begs the question why Bamber chooses not to disclose it especially when he is being hampered in pursuing his case as a result of non-disclosure.

[killingeve]

Its another light bulb. The one photographed below.

I'm not convinced that such a light would form a glow that far away. 

[killingeve]

David can you possibly bring the thread I mentioned, to here please. It's the " Bamber v Bews one from May 2011, which contains part of a blog of JB's mentioning the " movement " in the window as seen by Bews.

No one is doubting the 'trick of the light' but if Bamber thought it was evidence someone was alive at the time why didn't he mention it in his witness statement on the 7th Aug?

[killingeve]

I've checked his statement and its very detailed.  If he thought he saw someone alive in the house, lights on/off, curtains open/closing there's no reason for him not to have mentioned it.  And he certainly would have mentioned it during his police interviews or trial but he didn't probably because they were non-events.
As I said simply scraping the barrel. 

[Adam]

No one is doubting the 'trick of the light' but if Bamber thought it was evidence someone was alive at the time why didn't he mention it in his witness statement on the 7th Aug?

It was very trivial at the time. Bamber knew this & didn't bring it up in his police interviews.

If Bews/Saxby had spotted it, he knew it was a 'trick of the light' as he had killed everyone.

If he had spotted it, it was part of his insinuation & he knew Bews/Saxby had seen nothing.

[Adam]

If Bamber had spotted the 'trick of the light', it was better he did not mention it again after his arrest.

The prosecution would say it was part of his insinuation.

[Adam]

If Bews/Saxby had spotted the 'trick of the light', it was not worth mentioning it after his arrest.

He knew it was 'a trick of the light' & Bews/Saxby would confirm it.