Police did not set out to frame Jeremy for the murders...

[mike tesko]

How many officers were there in the teams that entered at 09.00 and 10.25? If they didn't need to be fingerprinted for elimination purposes, is that because they all wore gloves?

-------------------------------------

But that is the problem, their names do appear on a list of armed police officers who fingerprints were required for elimination purposes - I have only previously posted one page of such details but the second page containing the details of all these other armed police officers who went into whf, is in the possession of Jeremy, and he is dealing with that...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

So the 3 bodies upstairs were Daniel, Nicholas and June - but Sheila was on the bed in June's room - how could they miss her?

Er ... she was on the floor on the other side of the bed.

She was on the floor, yes, but right behind the bedroom door. Impossible to open the door and not see her (see the photos)

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Could somebody pinpoint the log that claims 3 further bodies were found upstairs?

I see a lot of references to it without the ACTUAL reference being stated.

It would be much more helpful if each item of evidence was placed in a single thread (without the option for comments) and then all references related to that thread and post number.

Even if this log does exists, there are a number of witness statements making it clear only one body was in the kitchen (Nevill's).
It's also fairly well documented that one officer misidentified Nevill as a woman (Or really did see a woman).
From thereon in, the problem lies:

Either

a) The officer genuinely saw two bodies.
b) The officer saw one body from different angles and counted them as two, identifying one as female and one as male (I find this unlikely, since to clearly differentiate two bodies of different gender suggest a fairly clear view).
c) The initial identification of 'female' came over the radio at some point, followed by a subsequent 'male' (which was a correction of the female identification), but radio listeners misinterpreted this as an additional male. Once this happened, the majority of people believed there were two people.

a) Entirely plausible (notwithstanding subsequent statements that only one person was in the kitchen)
b) Seems highly unlikely, since it's like saying "I saw a red car and a blue car" - In the dark you might mistake red for blue or vice versa, but to see the same car twice AND have different colours etc is far less likely) - it's still possible that he say Nevill's from one angle and it readily be male, but then see from another angle and he looked to be female, but it just seems unlikely
c) Seems plausible, although careless. Given the enormity of the situation, I can believe this happened, but still, it's remiss of the police not to be more careful.

[Kaldin]

Could somebody pinpoint the log that claims 3 further bodies were found upstairs?

I see a lot of references to it without the ACTUAL reference being stated.

It would be much more helpful if each item of evidence was placed in a single thread (without the option for comments) and then all references related to that thread and post number.

Even if this log does exists, there are a number of witness statements making it clear only one body was in the kitchen (Nevill's).
It's also fairly well documented that one officer misidentified Nevill as a woman (Or really did see a woman).
From thereon in, the problem lies:

Either

a) The officer genuinely saw two bodies.
b) The officer saw one body from different angles and counted them as two, identifying one as female and one as male (I find this unlikely, since to clearly differentiate two bodies of different gender suggest a fairly clear view).
c) The initial identification of 'female' came over the radio at some point, followed by a subsequent 'male' (which was a correction of the female identification), but radio listeners misinterpreted this as an additional male. Once this happened, the majority of people believed there were two people.

a) Entirely plausible (notwithstanding subsequent statements that only one person was in the kitchen)
b) Seems highly unlikely, since it's like saying "I saw a red car and a blue car" - In the dark you might mistake red for blue or vice versa, but to see the same car twice AND have different colours etc is far less likely) - it's still possible that he say Nevill's from one angle and it readily be male, but then see from another angle and he looked to be female, but it just seems unlikely
c) Seems plausible, although careless. Given the enormity of the situation, I can believe this happened, but still, it's remiss of the police not to be more careful.

It's in this log. I don't know who wrote that log though.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Apologies regarding the comment about evidence references, I see Kaldin set up precisely such a thread :-)

Now, onto the log referring to '3 further bodies':
It should be noted that this entry states the info was received from Duty (insp?) HQIR, which arguably means 'second hand info'.
It IS a very interesting log entry and worthy of scrutiny, but I think it's perfectly plausible that in the confusion of 5 bodies found and a (false) belief that two were initially in the kitchen, that someone would write 'further 3'.

There's a real danger in picking out single entries in logs during a fairly 'dynamic' period of time when officers are taking notes remotely and there's a fair amount of confusion / delay / chinese whispers. BUT this is the police and you'd like to think they'd take care to be unambiguous in their statements.

That said, they are just desk coppers taking logs, and many may never have worked on a murder case in their lives. We're not talking C.S.I. guys here. We are talking sleepy coppers in a sleepy town dealing with the biggest incident of their lives. I'm sure some were very experienced, but I would wager the majority would never have been in such a situation before.

Imagine the scenario:

"Two bodies in the kitchen, one male, one female"
"Entering the premises"
"one body found, male"
"moving upstairs"
"house clear, 5 bodies found"

all this coming over the radio, it's not impossible that the logs count two in the kitchen, and assume the total of 5 means '3 more found'.

If I were a judge, I could believe this happened, BUT I'd also want to have a serious word with those documenting / logging about the systems in place to ensure accurate reporting.
Ambiguity is BAD BAD BAD.

[Kaldin]

I agree with everything you've said.

[Reader]

That said, they are just desk coppers taking logs, and many may never have worked on a murder case in their lives. We are talking sleepy coppers in a sleepy town dealing with the biggest incident of their lives.

You're referring to officers working about two hours into the morning shift at the information room in Essex Police Headquarters. They deal with 999 calls every day and have been trained how to record information. Note that there was nothing noted for over twenty minutes. It's pretty far-fetched to suppose that the officer indulged in body-count arithmetic in such circumstances.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I think you're missing the point...

No 999 call was ever made. The initial incident was made to a local police station.

The situation at the SOC wasn't exactly clear, let alone at the HQIR.
For a number of hours isn't wasn't even known how many people were in the building, let alone alive or dead. It was supposed that there would be 5, but not known.

It was also unclear if there was a hostage situation or not.

It was also unclear if entry could be gained easily or not.

It was also unclear if Sheila was efficient in weapons handling.

It was also unclear if the Police could safely overpower Sheila without subsequent injury or loss of life.

Over time, more and more became apparent, but this took over 4 hours to ascertain.

During this period a number of conflicting reports were made (I believe quite genuinely), and were logged. The process of logging would also log 'mistakes' as were reported. e.g. Two bodies in the kitchen, one male, one female.

IF (and it's a huge IF), HQIR were told 2 people in the kitchen (at some stage), then told (one male found on entry), then told '5 people total found' then SOMEONE at HQIR DID do some maths - that is irrefutable - it's right there in black and white as '3 further bodies'.

My point is:

Either nobody at HQIR asked for clarification, or they missed / misunderstood 'one (male) body found in kitchen' or they simply knew of two bodies already, were told of the final (5) count and wrote the entry '3 further bodies found'.

Now, according to virtually all other evidence, the entry team distinctly counted 1 body in the kitchen and TWO in the Bamber's bedroom (Sheila and June), followed by two kids in their shared bedroom.

So you tell me, either the entry team lied. Or the entry team got all confused, or the HQIR team got all confused.

Whichever it was, none support your assertion that the police were capable. At least one element wasn't.

The only way '3 further' can be counted is based on the 3 in the kitchen. Since all others were reported in pairs, so '2 further' or '4 further' would work, but '3' can ONLY work if one believed two were in the kitchen. HQIR got it wrong, or the policeman reporting what HQIR had said got it wrong. - same result, wrong.
I personally believe it's an entirely plausible human error and not highly significant, but in writing ambiguous log entries one creates difficulty for people coming along later trying to interpret what happened.

How can '3 futher bodies' NOT be interpret as finding 2, then 3 further (which didn't happen according to conventional wisdom)?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Also, if nothing was noted for a full 20 minutes during a fairly dramatic scene, it begs the question - what COULD be happening for a full 20 minutes that didn't warrant a commentary?

The only scenario I can imagine is the first 20 minutes of entry when it MIGHT be inappropriate for communications to take place, in which case you'd expect a note be made explaining radio silence was observed whilst officers were attempting to secure the house.

Had the police made much clearer log entries at all stages of this event, we would have far less ambiguity to ponder over. Nevill/Jeremy's initial call log being a case in point. 'Two bodies found upon entry' being another. Sure 'Two bodies assumed prior to entry, one body actual post entry" would have been much better.

The truth is, the police assumed a domestic, didn't make great notes, got the TIMES wrong by their own admission, then started to realise the situation was far more serious, by which time, the initial notes were poor.
Even having appreciated the escalating seriousness of the incident, note taking wasn't particularly exemplary.
This is partly what caused an investigation into the entire handling of the case.

The fact the police didn't do the best possible job doesn't make JB innocent though. It just makes proving his innocence or guilt harder. This didn't go unnoticed at trial, and remains a fact today.

[mike tesko]

Re this police re-enactment thing, wouldn't it have been easier just to say that the first firearms team had been mistaken about a second body in the kitchen?

They could have just said they moved Sheila's body because they thought they could help her. There was no need for such a huge cover up.

I don't believe that a second team could have got there by 9 if Sheila had killed herself at 8.30. There simply wasn't time, and I don't think the first priority would have been some kind of training exercise.

------------------------------------

Second team was already there, led by DCI Clarke...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Re this police re-enactment thing, wouldn't it have been easier just to say that the first firearms team had been mistaken about a second body in the kitchen?

They could have just said they moved Sheila's body because they thought they could help her. There was no need for such a huge cover up.

I don't believe that a second team could have got there by 9 if Sheila had killed herself at 8.30. There simply wasn't time, and I don't think the first priority would have been some kind of training exercise.

------------------------------------

Second team was already there, led by DCI Clarke...

My understanding is that the presence of the second team was due to anticipated difficulty in securing the house. Since all the doors were expected to be rather secure, plus Sheila on the loose with a gun (potentially) it was felt the existing team were 'not strong enough' to be certain of securing the house. The additional team was therefore called upon to support and provide containment.

The way I read all this was that they were quite nervous of going in - it's a big house, tricky to enter without being heard, and if Sheila panicked, anything could happen. I'm sure they thought they could eventually 'take' Sheila, but couldn't guarantee nobody would get injured or killed in the process. (although it's still hard to see how a second team would improve that situation!). The moment they tried to gain access - anything could have happened.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

What doesn't help me either is the fact that the crucial entries in the log from 8.10 to 8.27 appear to be in a different hand writting style to the entries prior to 8.10 and after 8.27 

I don't know if this is significant or not.