element of suprise eliminated by dogs in house and outbuilldings

[smiffy]

Can hartley stop making claims that are not supported by evidence.
Such as dogs (plural) heard barking on the phone...only one dog heard.
Such as the relatives finding a shotgun in the den on the 10th....RWB fails to mention it being found, DB says it was in its case in the gun cupboard but he cant say where in the gun cupboard as his memory failed him. Ann says nothing about that shotgun being found on the 10th.
Ann and Peter saw that shotgun on the 9th and Peter handled it..or claims to have done but does not say he put it in a gun cover or put it into the gun cupboard.

Obviously there are problems with this shotgun evidence as far as the relatives are concerned.

Such misinformation is wrong and misleading.

[mike tesko]

What everyone also seems to be ignoring, is that there is no physical or scientific evidence to prove that any person other than the five victims who died were present inside the farmhouse at the time of the shootings. Now, iof no such evidence exists or existed, how can anyone say or suggest that someone other than Sheila carried out the shootings? It is one thing people saying, ah but access to the farmhouse could have been done through this unsecured window or that unsecured window, and that afterwards that [person left or fled the scene via another window, but there is no evidence whatsoever that anybody moved around inside any of the rooms that were saturated with bloodstains, and I am talking about the main bedroom, and the kitchen, where most of the activity involving movement of bodies occurred or took place. What I don't get, and I can't for the life of me understand, is how anybody could have stage managed Ralph's body in the kitchen, and Sheila and June's bodies in the bedroom without leaving any clues that some other person had been responsible for doing so?

I suspect that any evidence which was capable of showing the bodies had been moved by the police, was either edited out or the negatives and photographs which show this evidence have not been disclosed at all...

[mike tesko]

I would also like to point out that the operator patched the line and link to the telephone inside whf to Essex police control room, who in turn relayed the link to firearms officers at the scene, and that references to a dog barking inside the house by officers at the scene whilst making challenges to the occupants of the farmhouse at about 5:25am, and onwards, would almost certainly have been heard via the link up provided by the operator to the police.

(1) phone at scene in kitchen off its cradle, providing an open line which operator patched up to police control, who in turn relayed it to officers at the scene...

(2) Dog inside farmhouse barking, noise picked up via telephone eavesdrop and relayed to police control, as above...

(3) no evidence that any police officer who was positioned at any part of the building during the siege, heard a dog barking from either in the kitchen, or a bedroom, or any other part of the farmhouse. Therefore, once firearms officers arrived, any mention of a dog barking would almost certainly have been as a result of the telephone eavesdrop that the operator patched through to the officers at the scene...

[mike tesko]

Althoughy there was supposed to be a log being kept of what was taking place at the scene, once the firearms team arrived from 5am, onwards, there is absolutely no record of any occasion when the firearms team used a loud hailer to try and communicate with the occupants of the house, no record of what was shouted on those occasions, and no record of every response that was received which and if such comments were made?

According to information I received some years ago, police did receive responses but these were in the form of screaming obscenities and rantings made by Sheila...

[mertol22]

So really then Mike if it was not for the silencer been located lets say shortly after and not on the day after the house was filled with the law, it seems it would have remained 4 murders and a suicide, thats how i see it.

[mike tesko]

So really then Mike if it was not for the silencer been located lets say shortly after and not on the day after the house was filled with the law, it seems it would have remained 4 murders and a suicide, thats how i see it.

Exactly, and most of the raid team and firearms team who attended the scene, told the COLP investigation (1991) that they saw nothing at the scene to suggest that this was anything other than a case of four murders and a suicide? This information was never relayed to the court of appeal in 2002, and I think it should have been, because these were important accounts made by police officers who put their lives on the line when they forced entry into the farmhouse. These were the officers who had to deal with it in a live situation, I do not think any of these officers had anything at all to do with the stage managing of the bodies, all that came later when most of them (with the exception of PS Woodcock and PI Montgomery) left the scene and returned to base)...

[vidvic]

What everyone also seems to be ignoring, is that there is no physical or scientific evidence to prove that any person other than the five victims who died were present inside the farmhouse at the time of the shootings. Now, iof no such evidence exists or existed, how can anyone say or suggest that someone other than Sheila carried out the shootings? It is one thing people saying, ah but access to the farmhouse could have been done through this unsecured window or that unsecured window, and that afterwards that [person left or fled the scene via another window, but there is no evidence whatsoever that anybody moved around inside any of the rooms that were saturated with bloodstains, and I am talking about the main bedroom, and the kitchen, where most of the activity involving movement of bodies occurred or took place. What I don't get, and I can't for the life of me understand, is how anybody could have stage managed Ralph's body in the kitchen, and Sheila and June's bodies in the bedroom without leaving any clues that some other person had been responsible for doing so?

I suspect that any evidence which was capable of showing the bodies had been moved by the police, was either edited out or the negatives and photographs which show this evidence have not been disclosed at all...

So who was the man at the window that you claim was seen by Police and JB?

A man that was seen so clearly that JB had to be told, by you yourself, (A year into his sentence?) that this provided him with an alibi.

[ngb1066]

So who was the man at the window that you claim was seen by Police and JB?

A man that was seen so clearly that JB had to be told, by you yourself, (A year into his sentence?) that this provided him with an alibi.

I do not believe they said it was a man - it could have been but it could equally have been a woman.

[Hartley]

So who was the man at the window that you claim was seen by Police and JB?

A man that was seen so clearly that JB had to be told, by you yourself, (A year into his sentence?) that this provided him with an alibi.

And why didn't it form a ground of appeal in 1989?

[vidvic]

I do not believe they said it was a man - it could have been but it could equally have been a woman.

Hi Neil,

I am sure that Mike has made the point before now that at least one of the police officers claimed it to be a man and that this was a reason for believing that it wasn't just a trick of the light.

Obviously any theories involving anyone else being in the building can now be ruled out as Mike has posted above?

We can't have conflicting theories.....

[ngb1066]

Hi Neil,

I am sure that Mike has made the point before now that at least one of the police officers claimed it to be a man and that this was a reason for believing that it wasn't just a trick of the light.

Obviously any theories involving anyone else being in the building can now be ruled out as Mike has posted above?

We can't have conflicting theories.....

Why not?  There are many puzzling aspects of the case.  The defence have a firm view about what happened at WHF and they may be right, but I still have an open mind in relation to the precise sequence of events.

[vidvic]

Actually you have a point! lol...

Ok, you can't have conflicting theories, presented as fact,.........

[Hartley]

Okay, here is some more food for thought.

It is alleged that any mention of this sighting was removed and edited out of statements etc, and that Jeremy was in too much shock apparently to realise the importance of this alleged sighting until some years later when Mike pointed it out to him.

Have I got that right? Please somebody correct me if I am wrong.

_________________________________________________________________________

Now this is an extract taken from Jeremys official website, how does that fit in with the stories being presented on this forum? Take particular notice that the incident is brought up at trial!!!
Link to full page: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1

Bews, Myall & Jeremy see movement in the window (after 3.45am)

When Jeremy and the police arrived at White House Farm they saw movement in the master bedroom. Below is an extract from PS Bews trial transcript:

Rivlin: "Do you remember at some stage early on, this happened that one of you Police Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"

Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it."

Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"

Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"

It has been stated in a recent interview by Sgt Bews that the movement was just 'the moon' Howver, Saxby's police statement maintains that PS Bews along with PC Myall and Jeremy "came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report" Did Sgt Bews really call the firearms team out as a result of seeing a reflection of the moon? During the 80's firearms teams would only have come out if the police were seriously threatened by armed persons. If this was a trick of the light - what light source caused it? It was still dark at this time and the moon was on the other side of the house. This was a lone house in a rural area there was no light from external sources. In addition Geoffrey Rivlin QC clearly did not question the witness properly, in this extract the Defence barrister is actually making the suggestion that the witness didn't see a shadow at all but a trick of the light. One of the key features of miscarriages of justice is often poor legal representation.

[Hartley]

Note that Bews statements or trial transcript are ominously missing from this forum. 

Sorry, just being cynical again. 

[Newbury1]

Okay, here is some more food for thought.

It is alleged that any mention of this sighting was removed and edited out of statements etc, and that Jeremy was in too much shock apparently to realise the importance of this alleged sighting until some years later when Mike pointed it out to him.

Have I got that right? Please somebody correct me if I am wrong.

_________________________________________________________________________

Now this is an extract taken from Jeremys official website, how does that fit in with the stories being presented on this forum? Take particular notice that the incident is brought up at trial!!!
Link to full page: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1

Bews, Myall & Jeremy see movement in the window (after 3.45am)

When Jeremy and the police arrived at White House Farm they saw movement in the master bedroom. Below is an extract from PS Bews trial transcript:

Rivlin: "Do you remember at some stage early on, this happened that one of you Police Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"

Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it."

Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"

Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"

It has been stated in a recent interview by Sgt Bews that the movement was just 'the moon' However, Saxby's police statement maintains that PS Bews along with PC Myall and Jeremy "came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report" Did Sgt Bews really call the firearms team out as a result of seeing a reflection of the moon? During the 80's firearms teams would only have come out if the police were seriously threatened by armed persons. If this was a trick of the light - what light source caused it? It was still dark at this time and the moon was on the other side of the house. This was a lone house in a rural area there was no light from external sources. In addition Geoffrey Rivlin QC clearly did not question the witness properly, in this extract the Defence barrister is actually making the suggestion that the witness didn't see a shadow at all but a trick of the light. One of the key features of miscarriages of justice is often poor legal representation.

Is the above (bold / green) original court transcript of what was actually said at trial?

If so I find it amazing again of Rivlin (as defence) as he actually puts it to Bews that it could have been a trick of the light?, giving Bews the ability to simply agree. As if Bews was going to say "but it could have been a person" 

Surely Rivlin should have asked Bews (with the benefit of hindsight) "Could what you saw have been a person moving in the house? even if Bews answered "No" the thought of a person moving in the house would have at least been put to the Jury. Rivlin might have even got a "maybe" from Bews 

JB could then have followed this up with what he saw with Bews and Myall was someone moving in the house.

If I am correct, non of this happenned - why? IMO it must have been a non-point to the defence.