Bamber is being flippant when he refers to the windows. To take what he says at face value is gross stupidity. It implies being able to unlock windows which are on catches from the outside. Experiments would need to be carried out to prove his claim, where it a serious proposition. Obviously, the experiments would fail.
283. In interview the following passage appeared:
"Appellant: There are many ways to get into the house i.e. windows"
Question: "What do you mean, insecure windows?
Appellant: "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference".
284. On the 12 September, 2 days later he was asked:
"Question: Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife, to move the catch so you could slide the window open?
Answer: "Yes".
Question: Which window?
Answer: Downstairs toilet and lounge window".
From Bamber's interviews and the Court of Appeal doc.