Julie does not sound to sure?

[killingeve]

I knew he admitted Steve that he could get in, but thought he said he could not get out and leave the windows fully secure?

I just look at the case as honestly as I can.

You're correct he said he did not know of a way he could exit leaving windows/doors secured behind.

[Steve_uk]

You're correct he said he did not know of a way he could exit leaving windows/doors secured behind.

I wonder why he says "I don't think so" rather than "No" or "No comment.."

[killingeve]

I wonder why he says "I don't think so" rather than "No" or "No comment.."

He goes on to say its another way of saying no 

[Roch]

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.

Not windows pegged shut from the inside. Neither could he have locked the windows from the outside, as they were found by police.

If he can access one or two windows that were not pegged shut by reaching the catch then that is just being honest regarding familiarity with a building he had lived in.

The police told Robert Boutfour that sophisticated equipment had not detected tampering with the windows.

So did the police lie about this?

[Steve_uk]

He goes on to say its another way of saying no 

He does, but if you read further he does not deny outright the allegation that Julie was not making up a story.

[killingeve]

Not windows pegged shut from the inside. Neither could he have locked the windows from the outside, as they were found by police.

If he can access one or two windows that were not pegged shut by reaching the catch then that is just being honest regarding familiarity with a building he had lived in.

The police told Robert Boutfour that sophisticated equipment had not detected tampering with the windows.

So did the police lie about this?

May I suggest you read his statements that I've gone to the trouble of uploading.

I have no idea about any sophisticated equipment to detect tampering with windows. 

[killingeve]

He does, but if you read further he does not deny outright the allegation that Julie was not making up a story.

That's not the way I interpret it.

[Roch]

May I suggest you read his statements that I've gone to the trouble of uploading.

I have no idea about any sophisticated equipment to detect tampering with windows.

You're not posting up anything new. The fact of the matter is, if he can't lock windows behind him, it's somewhat of a moot point.

You've learned something new from me, regarding the 'sophisticated equipment'. Maybe you should be grateful.

[killingeve]

You're not posting up anything new. The fact of the matter is, if he can't lock windows behind him, it's somewhat of a moot point.

You've learned something new from me, regarding the 'sophisticated equipment'. Maybe you should be grateful.

Did I say I was posting anything new?  I posted it for Rob's benefit. Much of the material I can instantly lay my hands on as unlike you and others here I spend more time reading than posting!

I would be grateful if you could provide a source of the 'sophisticated equipment'. 

[Roch]

Did I say I was posting anything new?  I posted it for Rob's benefit. Much of the material I can instantly lay my hands on as unlike you and others here I spend more time reading than posting!

I would be grateful if you could provide a source of the 'sophisticated equipment'.

I already have twice before. The police either lied or told the truth? Which is it? If they told the truth, then they concealed it.

[Steve_uk]

Wednesday 21st August 1985 was Jeremy's trip to Amsterdam. He would surely need his passport for that trip.

Friday 13 September 1985 Jeremy needs documents for the South of France trip, so breaks in to White House Farm (Paragraph 141) https://ceadstorage.blob.core.windows.net/cead-images/Bamber.PDF

I mean, am I missing something here..

[Steve_uk]

DC Michael Barlow witness statement 21 November 1985:

He visited White House Farm that Wednesday morning (21 August 1985) to examine the windows, paying particular attention to the kitchen window whose metal catch was "slightly stiff and when fully opened, stuck in the open position." This enabled the window to be closed from the outside of the premises and by tapping the frame in the area of the catch, I found that the catch dropped into the locked position, giving the appearance that the window had been locked from inside." He was able to remove items from the sill, climb out over the sink, and replace everything before locking the window from outside.

[Roch]

DC Michael Barlow witness statement 21 November 1985:

He visited White House Farm that Wednesday morning (21 August 1985) to examine the windows, paying particular attention to the kitchen window whose metal catch was "slightly stiff and when fully opened, stuck in the open position." This enabled the window to be closed from the outside of the premises and by tapping the frame in the area of the catch, I found that the catch dropped into the locked position, giving the appearance that the window had been locked from inside." He was able to remove items from the sill, climb out over the sink, and replace everything before locking the window from outside.

This is dealt with in the windows video Steve.

[killingeve]

DC Michael Barlow witness statement 21 November 1985:

He visited White House Farm that Wednesday morning (21 August 1985) to examine the windows, paying particular attention to the kitchen window whose metal catch was "slightly stiff and when fully opened, stuck in the open position." This enabled the window to be closed from the outside of the premises and by tapping the frame in the area of the catch, I found that the catch dropped into the locked position, giving the appearance that the window had been locked from inside." He was able to remove items from the sill, climb out over the sink, and replace everything before locking the window from outside.

Was the above presented at trial?

273. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:

"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"

There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window. 274. In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:

"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"

He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:

"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".

This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window. 276. It is never easy for officers engaged in major enquiries to know to what extent they should include negative findings, which may be very numerous in their statements. In the case of DC Barlow we conclude that he should have included the fact that he examined all the windows on the 22 August. We find no evidence to indicate that he deliberately omitted this negative finding. Again this information should have been disclosed prior to trial.

[killingeve]

I already have twice before. The police either lied or told the truth? Which is it? If they told the truth, then they concealed it.

To the best of my knowledge no such equipment exists and I have never seen it mentioned anywhere other than what you've quoted.  Excluding the scratches I have only seen fingerprint tests mentioned but haven't seen evidence of such. Maybe the comment re sophisticated equipment was a facetious one relating to fingerprint tests.    

Depending on your overall case take no one will ever be satisfied with the windows as they are numerous and too many conflicting accounts exist.  Bottom line is trial judge told jury the following so now redundant.

Point 286 Court of Appeal

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"

288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.