Short video on goldhanger, sea wall chequers 1981

[ILB]

The Sea Wall was 1.2 miles from WHF.

So he may have gone for a stroll or cycle ride. He attended WHF from time to time.

Or may have attended WHF with a work collegue & told him to visit The Sea Wall while he was at WHF.

Both the journey and window would be comprehensively checked by the defence.

16 years later at the COA Bamber had the window as a ground.

If he accepted the window at trial why would he be pursing it some 16 years later?

[Hardy Boy]

So why was he going to WHF?

My view is he would have checked it.

He could have asked someone from EP to show him. But not hard to work it out himself.

Seems he bought up the fact he entered WHF in Sept for his keys, the first time he mentioned this was at Trial?  Coincidence or what?

268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the FIRST TIME AT TRIAL, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

[ILB]

Seems he bought up the fact he entered WHF in Sept for his keys, the first time he mentioned this was at Trial?  Coincidence or what?

268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the FIRST TIME AT TRIAL, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

He entered the farmhouse after being released on bail charged with the burglary, this was after five days of questioning about the murders. ( September 8th) arrest.

On re arrest on September 29th. He was charged with all five murders and not interviewed further by police.

So at trial was only the really place it could be brought up.

[Adam]

16 years later at the COA Bamber had the window as a ground.

If he accepted the window at trial why would he be pursing it some 16 years later?

Quantity over quality. The COA did have a lot of grounds.

The COA dismissed it.

[Hardy Boy]

He entered the farmhouse after being released on bail charged with the burglary, this was after five days of questioning about the murders. ( September 8th) arrest.

On re arrest on September 29th. He was charged with all five murders and not interviewed further by police.

So at trial was only the really place it could be brought up.

I agree now you’ve put it like that? 

[ILB]

I agree now you’ve put it like that?

He could I suppose have made a pre trial admission before proceedings got underway.

[Cambridgecutie]

Seems he bought up the fact he entered WHF in Sept for his keys, the first time he mentioned this was at Trial?  Coincidence or what?

268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the FIRST TIME AT TRIAL, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

I only got as far as your first sentence.  JB did not enter for his keys.  He had forgotten his keys so entered via a window for car docs because he wanted to use his car whilst travelling abroad:

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

There's nothing remotely suspicious about this:

- We know he went abroad
- We know his car was in effect a company car
- We know when travelling abroad it is a legal requirement to take car insurance etc docs
- We know the company was run from NB's office within WHF
- We know it is usual for car related docs pertaining to company vehicles to be stored at the company's premises ie WHF.

[Adam]

EP had the WHF keys after the massacre.

SJ gave AE the keys a few days later to do a tidy up. Bamber was not around.

Assume the keys were then returned to EP.

[Steve_uk]

I only got as far as your first sentence.  JB did not enter for his keys.  He had forgotten his keys so entered via a window for car docs because he wanted to use his car whilst travelling abroad:

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

There's nothing remotely suspicious about this:

- We know he went abroad
- We know his car was in effect a company car
- We know when travelling abroad it is a legal requirement to take car insurance etc docs
- We know the company was run from NB's office within WHF
- We know it is usual for car related docs pertaining to company vehicles to be stored at the company's premises ie WHF.

..and just a coincidence that if any future Prosecution counsel mentioned any window being forced with intent to murder all within Jeremy had covered himself for that eventuality thereby.

[ILB]

I only got as far as your first sentence.  JB did not enter for his keys.  He had forgotten his keys so entered via a window for car docs because he wanted to use his car whilst travelling abroad:

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

There's nothing remotely suspicious about this:

- We know he went abroad
- We know his car was in effect a company car
- We know when travelling abroad it is a legal requirement to take car insurance etc docs
- We know the company was run from NB's office within WHF
- We know it is usual for car related docs pertaining to company vehicles to be stored at the company's premises ie WHF.

It was termed as " too much of a coincidence to be credible" by the Judge.

[Cambridgecutie]

..and just a coincidence that if any future Prosecution counsel mentioned any window being forced with intent to murder all within Jeremy had covered himself for that eventuality thereby.

Erm no because there was no holiday abroad arranged around 7th Aug 1985.

[Steve_uk]

Erm no because there was no holiday abroad arranged around 7th Aug 1985.

Irrelevant.

[Cambridgecutie]

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant, how?

I recall in the 70's as a family we went abroad during the summer driving around Europe and my dad talking about getting all his car docs to take with him along with the AA stuff.  Its par for the course.

[Cambridgecutie]

Irrelevant, how?

I recall in the 70's as a family we went abroad during the summer driving around Europe and my dad talking about getting all his car docs to take with him along with the AA stuff.  Its par for the course.

Did anyone dispute the car docs were retained at WHF?

[ILB]

Did anyone dispute the car docs were retained at WHF?

No, he is telling the truth that they were.

I think suspicion is cast on his means of entry.

And why he didn't borrow a key off Jean Boutell for example.