The Dogs

[Lugg]

Who was Chelmsley??



         69 ITEMS                  MAJOR INCIDENT REPORT                                      PAGE 1 OF 2

ITEM              SU                                      FO                                                AD

       1.           0345  S11 MYALL               UNIDENT MALE 0001                      WHITE HSE FM
       2.           2011  N94                         UNIDENT MALE 0029                       PAGES LN
       3.           2015  N94                         UNIDENT MALE 0038                       PAGES LN



This is all that the photograph of the report shows unfortunately.Underneath photo it says -: The beginning of the Major Incident Report in the White House Farm Case,which records that PC MYALL claimed he saw the figure of a person inside White House Farm at 03:45 whilst Bamber was stood outside the building.

Called herself lady chelmsley. She used to post on the forum when I first came on here.

[Patti]

Called herself lady chelmsley. She used to post on the forum when I first came on here.

Thank you Lugg.   

[tyler]

With respect Caroline,I haven't distorted anything. There is a photograph in Scotts book of the document in question. Top of page 1 of 2 clearly states Major Incident Project,although Lomax refers to it as a report.

[maggie]

With respect Caroline,I haven't distorted anything. There is a photograph in Scotts book of the document in question. Top of page 1 of 2 clearly states Major Incident Project,although Lomax refers to it as a report.

Whats the difference is it a project because Myall requested fingerprinting.   rather than just a report of what he saw?

[tyler]

Maggie,I don't know,but this document intrigues me. Myall and co could have reached the farm in time to record a sighting of a man that couldn't possibly have been Jeremy as he couldn't have arrived by then.Some have speculated whether Sheila may have let somebody into the house that night...somebody that she knew?

[lookout]

Maggie,I don't know,but this document intrigues me. Myall and co could have reached the farm in time to record a sighting of a man that couldn't possibly have been Jeremy as he couldn't have arrived by then.Some have speculated whether Sheila may have let somebody into the house that night...somebody that she knew?

Tyler,,,this is what I suggested early in my posts last year. Latterly,and unfortunately Sheila had got in with some " unsavoury " characters,,,probably from the drug scene,,,and June was highly objective of them,to which you can't blame her for being so,,also Neville would have possibly seen the type calling on Sheila,particularly at the farmhouse. We don't know if threats came from that direction,do we.?

[Caroline R]

With respect Caroline,I haven't distorted anything. There is a photograph in Scotts book of the document in question. Top of page 1 of 2 clearly states Major Incident Project,although Lomax refers to it as a report.

Hi Tyler, I wasn't referring to you - I'm talking in general. Things always get confused and the whole point becomes twisted and before long, it's just dismissed.

[maggie]

Maggie,I don't know,but this document intrigues me. Myall and co could have reached the farm in time to record a sighting of a man that couldn't possibly have been Jeremy as he couldn't have arrived by then.Some have speculated whether Sheila may have let somebody into the house that night...somebody that she knew?

Hi tyler, yes I agree it is a possibilty Sheila let someone into the farm that night but they still had to leave the building locked and bolted from the inside.
The log reports are so confused and contradictory on timings that its hard to understand what happened when. There were 2 police cars so could the arrival times etc have been muddled, did they arrive together? 

[Caroline R]

With respect Caroline,I haven't distorted anything. There is a photograph in Scotts book of the document in question. Top of page 1 of 2 clearly states Major Incident Project,although Lomax refers to it as a report.

Lomax also refers to Myall as Hyall!! All I'm saying is that we need to find something that 'actually' reports him saying he saw 'someone'. Lomax's book does indeed indicate that there was an unidentified male at 03:45 at WHF but not where he was seen. This is hardly on a different day and highly unlikely to be JB. I doubt this particular document will shed any more light on the subject but pocket book entries and early statements by Myall and Bews most definitely would. It seems odd that no one has been able to locate these statements and pocket book entries but as usual - when there is something that will corroborate a defence claim, it's lost, destroyed or simply vanished. If there was nothing suspicious why aren't the documents available? 

[lookout]

Hi tyler, yes I agree it is a possibilty Sheila let someone into the farm that night but they still had to leave the building locked and bolted from the inside.
The log reports are so confused and contradictory on timings that its hard to understand what happened when. There were 2 police cars so could the arrival times etc have been muddled, did they arrive together?

Hi Maggie,,,I believe one of the cars arrived a minute or so earlier.

[maggie]

Lomax also refers to Myall as Hyall!! All I'm saying is that we need to find something that 'actually' reports him saying he saw 'someone'. Lomax's book does indeed indicate that there was an unidentified male at 03:45 at WHF but not where he was seen. This is hardly on a different day and highly unlikely to be JB. I doubt this particular document will shed any more light on the subject but pocket book entries and early statements by Myall and Bews most definitely would. It seems odd that no one has been able to locate these statements and pocket book entries but as usual - when there is something that will corroborate a defence claim, it's lost, destroyed or simply vanished. If there was nothing suspicious why aren't the documents available?

They refused to make statements about it alledgedly and as you say the pocket books were not made available to the defence at trial or since. Myall wasnt called as a witness......usual stuff. As you say Caroline all we would like is something concrete either way but anything which could be decisive either way is missing....lost...stolen.

[Caroline R]

They refused to make statements about it alledgedly and as you say the pocket books were not made available to the defence at trial or since. Myall wasnt called as a witness......usual stuff. As you say Caroline all we would like is something concrete either way but anything which could be decisive either way is missing....lost...stolen.

Exactly Maggie, if it turned out that the pocket books either didn't mention it or said it was something like 'a trick of the light' then fair comment. However, you have to question something that wasn't made available. You can't blame JB for not making more of it at his trial! How could he know how his trail would go? It was in the hands of people who he 'thought' were best placed to defend him and bring the relevant fact to the court. If they failed to do so then it's their fault. JB must have mentioned it because his defence questioned Bews about it and 'stupidly' (IMO) gave him the 'trick of light' get out clause. AND as we have all seen, Bews relays this excuse whenever they drag him out for a docu - funny he can never remember who it was who first noticed the phenomenon - sometimes it's JB and other times it's Myall and the guy sweats like a rapist whenever he is asked about it!!!!!

[-Harters-]

Exactly Maggie, if it turned out that the pocket books either didn't mention it or said it was something like 'a trick of the light' then fair comment. However, you have to question something that wasn't made available. You can't blame JB for not making more of it at his trial! How could he know how his trail would go? It was in the hands of people who he 'thought' were best placed to defend him and bring the relevant fact to the court. If they failed to do so then it's their fault. JB must have mentioned it because his defence questioned Bews about it and 'stupidly' (IMO) gave him the 'trick of light' get out clause. AND as we have all seen, Bews relays this excuse whenever they drag him out for a docu - funny he can never remember who it was who first noticed the phenomenon - sometimes it's JB and other times it's Myall and the guy sweats like a rapist whenever he is asked about it!!!!!

It must be mentioned somewhere, either in pocket books, statements or discussions between JB & Rivlin, because they brought it up at the trial.

[-Harters-]

They refused to make statements about it alledgedly and as you say the pocket books were not made available to the defence at trial or since. Myall wasnt called as a witness......usual stuff. As you say Caroline all we would like is something concrete either way but anything which could be decisive either way is missing....lost...stolen.

Yes Myall was called as a witness, his trial transcript is in my achive library thread.

Where are you getting all of this from? Just making it up or repeating what others have said? 

[-Harters-]

Lomax also refers to Myall as Hyall!! All I'm saying is that we need to find something that 'actually' reports him saying he saw 'someone'. Lomax's book does indeed indicate that there was an unidentified male at 03:45 at WHF but not where he was seen. This is hardly on a different day and highly unlikely to be JB. I doubt this particular document will shed any more light on the subject but pocket book entries and early statements by Myall and Bews most definitely would. It seems odd that no one has been able to locate these statements and pocket book entries but as usual - when there is something that will corroborate a defence claim, it's lost, destroyed or simply vanished. If there was nothing suspicious why aren't the documents available?

It could also be simply that the documents don't help the defence theory and therefore haven't been put on the forum.

I'm sorry to keep going on, but Mike has said he has the first witness statements from Saxby, Myall and Bews but won't post them, I don't know why.
I would have thought that the witness statements of the first people on the scene would have been essential to anybody learning about this case.