My Challenge To The Supporters

[guest7363]

Well if Myall said 3.40 approx I would agree with you, but he recorded 3.39 this is not approx he has read the time from his watch.

I think it’s the 4.18am call to Harris that says a lot Rob, he’s the one that authorises the use of firearms.  If you think about it, if a call has gone out earlier he would have been contacted earlier I would have thought? 

[killingeve]

At which point did he know the family were plotting against him? At which point did he know the police were gunning for him. And if the police were gunning for him, why would they admit to any sighting any way? His family wanted him guilty full stop.

What has any of the above got to do with the fact he never mentioned the 'movement' at the window to anyone: police, judiciary, family, Colin, Julie etc.  You're a Northern numpty and don't deserve the HS2 rail link to the South!!!!!!!!!!

[killingeve]

The way Rivlin questioned Bews on this and suggested it was a trick of the light does suggest it was a spur of the moment thing?

How would you suggest he pursued the  incident given all agreed it was a 'trick of the light'?  If Bamber thought otherwise then why didn't he mention to his family, Colin, Julie, Brett et al?  Why not mention in his police interviews, trial testimony, appeal hearings, review commission hearings etc?

[Roch]

What has any of the above got to do with the fact he never mentioned the 'movement' at the window to anyone: police, judiciary, family, Colin, Julie etc.

How could he have not mentioned it to judiciary, if it was brought up by Rivlin?

[guest7363]

How could he have not mentioned it to judiciary, if it was brought up by Rivlin?

It was either in Myall’s notes Roch, or Bamber passed it off with Rivlin.  I don’t think for one minute you would have made it up about a note, you’ve heard it of someone, I don’t think it was Bill because he didn’t know why Bamber never mentioned it and I’ve not heard Mike mention it before.  Rivlin couldn’t gain any mileage in it because Bamber had never mentioned it in his interviews and I don’t think Bews or Myall had mentioned it in their statements.

If you look at the first paragraph it’s someone describing it and had to be there at the time or  could it be Wilkes describing it in his book?  Its not Bamber describing it, to me it looks like it’s Myall.  So Rivlin challenges Bews about it because Bews had never mentioned it in his statements or notes?   If that’s the case,  it proves that Bews and Myall hadn’t been in Cohort together making up their statements/notes?

[guest7363]

The opportunity wasn't there for the jury to challenge it, simple as that.

Obviously the jury heard about it, but there couldn’t be any mileage in it because Bamber hadn’t mentioned it in his statements.  He had every opportunity to bring it up himself when he was on the stand, he would have took the stand after Prosecution the witnesses I would have thought?

[guest7363]

The only mention of this I can find is below. It would be good if Mike can upload all of Bews testimony

Did you get this out of Wilkes Book David?  It just sounds like an Author describing the first paragraph?

[guest7363]

It's just that 3.39 ties up with West's log of JB's call, so this worries me.

It also explains that Bamber did phone Julie before phoning the Police just like he said he did Rob?

[guest7363]

What has any of the above got to do with the fact he never mentioned the 'movement' at the window to anyone: police, judiciary, family, Colin, Julie etc.  You're a Northern numpty and don't deserve the HS2 rail link to the South!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t want it at least we keep our wildlife, the countryside and our homes 😛.

[lookout]

What has any of the above got to do with the fact he never mentioned the 'movement' at the window to anyone: police, judiciary, family, Colin, Julie etc.  You're a Northern numpty and don't deserve the HS2 rail link to the South!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing wrong with the Northern " numpties ". We're a friendlier bunch !

[killingeve]

Do you mean that one of the officers recorded a false alarm re a sighting?

Rivlin would have had extensive meetings with Bamber pre trial.  He might well have said something like 'I want every little detail from the moment you claim you received the phone call'.  So Bamber then recounts the 'trick of the light' and Rivlin uses it at trial to sow seeds in jurors' minds, but it can never be more than a 'trick of the light' at trial because there was nothing to suggest otherwise. 

[killingeve]

I don’t want it at least we keep our wildlife, the countryside and our homes 😛.

Nice one 

I thought the time savings were going to be dramatic but not really. 

[Jane]

Nice one 

I thought the time savings were going to be dramatic but not really.

Can't remember what were the time savings but given the cost, they appeared rather small.

[Adam]

The only mention of this I can find is below. It would be good if Mike can upload all of Bews testimony

So it was brought up at trial.

Bamber must have asked his defence lawyers to bring it up. Although it is not in his WS or mentioned in his police interviews.

Do not believe it is in Bews or Myall's WS's either.

[Adam]

It is mentioned in Wilkes's book. Although he does not say who saw it.

Being mentioned at trial & dismissed by the jury means it can't be a ground for appeal. However it will be included in the overall package which claims Sheila was still alive inside WHF.