PS Saxby - the unanswered question:-

[lookout]

Didn't the prosecution / police cause the confusion with their selective use of evidence ?

Selective is right,Gringo.

[gringo]

I think that's a disingenuous approach.  Firstly, we do not know what was discussed behind the scenes pre-trial and during trial.  Could Rivlin have got wind of the likelihood that he would meet with a brick wall of denial if he pursued it? The defence had no documentary evidence of the sighting (according to the Hunter manuscript, it was only many years later and after the logs had came to light, with subsequent official requests made by the defence for the corresponding page of the logs relevant to this period, that the official response received from EP was that it has been 'misplaced').

Also, what has Bews done since trial, to deny or rectify a mistaken claim that he had indeed seen a trick of the light?  Has Bews tried to describe the incident in terms that would contradict the trick of the light scenario?

Regarding Bews testimony.  I'm not sure that it's fair to describe him as not the sharpest tool in the box.  However I think it's stretching it a bit to consider that he might have coughed up to a sighting of a person at the window.  He would have effectively been contradicting the entire thrust of the second investigation, its' aims and its' orchestration by powers considerably senior to him self. 

Wasn't that the very danger that DCI Taff Jones represented?

Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .

[Caroline R]

Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .

To say the least! 

[mike tesko]

Whether or not a person was seen in the bedroom by Bews, Myall and Jeremy, helps to determi e Jeremys culpability, so Bews is obviously not going to have to admit a person who was alive in the bedroom was seen moving around after the arrival of the police and Jeremy...

If there was someone alive in the bedroom, Bamber has the perfect alibi which disproves the prosecutions case...

[vidvic]

Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .

Bews inconsistent = dirty liar

Bamber and defence inconsistent = understandable confusion

[-Harters-]

Two things of major importance leap out and grab your attention, yet no-one grasps its importance...

(1) - Police were sent to the scene, in the knowledge that Jeremy had recieved a telephone call during the early hours from his father who informed him that his sister (Sheila) had gone crazy and that she had got hold of one of his guns, and for Jeremy to come to the farm quickly. So with this in mind police must have known that at least Ralph had still alive at that stage. PC Saxby, therefore, would know that there was someone alive inside whf at the time of Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy. This belief would have been reinforced as a result of the information recieved when Bews, Myall and Jeremy all came running back with the tale of having seen a person inside the house. Saxby would also be privy to information contained in radio messages passed between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, since CA07 was used for that purpose between what was taking place at the scene relayed back to the control room. This would have included information about the discovery of two bodies upon entry by the raid team at 7;37am, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder and a suicide, and how one of those bodies migrated upstairs to the bedroom. Saxby took Jeremys complaint about him believing that police had shot and killed his family...

Bearing in mind the post below, which contains an extract from one of Jeremys sites in which it is claimed that Saxby's statement contains the information about Bews, etc, returning from their walk about.

Do have the statement from Saxby that they are referring to?

 

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.

[mike tesko]

The police and Jeremy were in no doubt at all, upon returning to the patrol car (CA07) manned by PS Saxby, that at least one occupant inside whf was still very much alive, which was why PS Bews himself passed a situation report back to the control room via the police radio, requesting that firearms team be deployed immediately to the scene...

The proof of the pudding is in the eating - so why don't Essex police relrase a transcript of what Bews said at that time, and why does'nt Bews hinself say what he said at that time, and why doesn't PS Saxby say what Bews said at that time, and why doesn't the person who took the situation report passed by Bews to the control room identify themselves and say what Bews said, and tell us what was done with that information?

All that is required to resolve this matter is for the police to disclose it all...

Simple...

[-Harters-]

I only asked to see the statements which are being used to support these theories.

1. Saxbys statement containing details of Bews, Mayall and Jeremys return.
2. Bews statement dated 16/8/85 detailing the same.

I think I can speak for the majority of people on here that we would like to see them, for purposes of transparency.

As it stands, the clearest information about the reason for calling backup, is from Myall who says it was due to Jeremy telling them that Sheila was capable of using all of the guns in the house.

[mike tesko]

I only asked to see the statements which are being used to support these theories.

1. Saxbys statement containing details of Bews, Mayall and Jeremys return.
2. Bews statement dated 16/8/85 detailing the same.

I think I can speak for the majority of people on here that we would like to see them, for purposes of transparency.

As it stands, the clearest information about the reason for calling backup, is from Myall who says it was due to Jeremy telling them that Sheila was capable of using all of the guns in the house.

what a load of bollocks...

Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...

[-Harters-]

what a load of bollocks...

Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...

Erm, why do you need to be so rude?

Read my previous post, then see the page from Myalls statement.

If an alternative explaination is indicated elsewhere, then let's see it please. I can only base an opinion on what is put in front of us.

[gringo]

Bews inconsistent = dirty liar

Bamber and defence inconsistent = understandable confusion

Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
  The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
  I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
  There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii  so why should their version of events need to shift .
  It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
  It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .

[Bridget]

Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
  The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
  I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
  There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii  so why should their version of events need to shift .
  It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
  It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .

When you say the prosecution position has shifted, what are you referring to?

[Roch]

Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
  The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
  I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
  There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii  so why should their version of events need to shift .
  It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
  It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .

Are you me in disguise? 

[mertol22]

what a load of bollocks...

Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...

Mike ive feltmore recoil on a air soft pistol, sometimes some posts get a little silly , as you say its simple to use this rifle , you load point and fire what the hell else does a rifle do please im all ears .

[gringo]

When you say the prosecution position has shifted, what are you referring to?

The changing times / conflicting logs as one example . The prosecution had to accommodate newly disclosed logs, which cast doubt on their initial position, for the 2002 appeal .
 Do you believe that the prosecution as presented in 1986 would convict now ? If the defence had all information they now have in 1986, the prosecution would be laughed out of court .