"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"

[Patti]

Exactly Patti, nothing should be ruled out and I agree, your scenario is quite possible.

Hi Maggie/Lugg

Just a quickie with you both as I am busy on and off....

Maggie anything is possible with in reason. The only damming evidence has been the silencer and its still a bone of contention today. I just wonder how a jury of today would react to it if there was a re-trial.

Lugg, I have always thought the windows to be a crucial point in this case.  We know the windows had a through examination on between the 8th and 10th August where nothing was found.

We have Jeremy gaining access to WHF  via the bathroom window on the 16th of September. He admitted this to police when questioned.  He might have known at that time he was being followed, so he had no choice but to admit it, but on saying that he did enter WHF through the window. 

Then on the 27th of September we have Cook going to WHF and he takes the window catch from the bathroom window RWC/8. 

Then on the 1st of October Elliot and his forensic team go to WHF again and do another forensic test on the windows and he states quite clearly that he discovers a scratched catch on the bathroom window....Well, he can't have done because that catch was not there, Cook had taken it on the 27th of September....

The forensic knew Jeremy had got in on the 16th this is why they did the the forensic search....My conclusion is that during the first forensic search they found nothing and had no forensic evidence to support the windows being used....until it was noted that Jeremy had gained entry on the 16th of September. 

In court it was said that he had exited through the kitchen window, there was no evidence to support that at all....Have you seen the little window he was supposed to have got out of? Only a child or someone of small build would, like a cat would have been able to have gotten through.  

[Daniel_day]

Thanks for the lecture on the case. Daniel   I'm not stupid Daniel and I have read the archives.  The evidence was used in a court of law but that evidence could very well have been flawed.  It just depends whether you are a sheep in mentality or a thinker.  I am aware that Jeremy Bamber has to prove his innocence.
As for statistics, well they can be made to support any theory and as I said I don't need a lecture from you thanks.  I really think you should improve your inter personal skills because in the world of work you will struggle for success if you speak to your colleagues etc. in the same manner as you have addressed me.

Maggie good luck in your PhD in hypocrisy,
I am staggered by it.  If memory serves me correct you were NONE too pleasant to me when I first come on here. You were condescending, rude and haughty. You are truly unbelievable. Does it not dawn on you that what you seem to often accuse others of you have done yourself? That in my book is gross hypocrisy.
Incidently you want to 'think' your way into believing and 'proving' Bamber is innocent - be my guest.

[maggie]

Maggie good luck in your PhD in hypocrisy,
I am staggered by it.  If memory serves me correct you were NONE too pleasant to me when I first come on here. You were condescending, rude and haughty. You are truly unbelievable. Does it not dawn on you that what you seem to often accuse others of you have done yourself? That in my book is gross hypocrisy.
Incidently you want to 'think' your way into believing and 'proving' Bamber is innocent - be my guest.

Frankly Daniel Idon't believe I deserve that response, I am only reacting to your arrogant post to me.  I've seen your like before.

[Lugg]

Hi Maggie/Lugg

Just a quickie with you both as I am busy on and off....

Maggie anything is possible with in reason. The only damming evidence has been the silencer and its still a bone of contention today. I just wonder how a jury of today would react to it if there was a re-trial.

Lugg, I have always thought the windows to be a crucial point in this case.  We know the windows had a through examination on between the 8th and 10th August where nothing was found.

We have Jeremy gaining access to WHF  via the bathroom window on the 16th of September. He admitted this to police when questioned.  He might have known at that time he was being followed, so he had no choice but to admit it, but on saying that he did enter WHF through the window. 

Then on the 27th of September we have Cook going to WHF and he takes the window catch from the bathroom window RWC/8. 

Then on the 1st of October Elliot and his forensic team go to WHF again and do another forensic test on the windows and he states quite clearly that he discovers a scratched catch on the bathroom window....Well, he can't have done because that catch was not there, Cook had taken it on the 27th of September....

The forensic knew Jeremy had got in on the 16th this is why they did the the forensic search....My conclusion is that during the first forensic search they found nothing and had no forensic evidence to support the windows being used....until it was noted that Jeremy had gained entry on the 16th of September. 

In court it was said that he had exited through the kitchen window, there was no evidence to support that at all....Have you seen the little window he was supposed to have got out of? Only a child or someone of small build would, like a cat would have been able to have gotten through.  

Well I'll tell you where the suggestion that it was a window that Bamber entered into first came to light, although this was changed into something more sensible, was when Colin Caffell said that a robin indicated to them that it was the window when it sat on the window ledge. You can read it in his own book. That is where it came from.

[Daniel_day]

Hi Maggie/Lugg

Just a quickie with you both as I am busy on and off....

Maggie anything is possible with in reason. The only damming evidence has been the silencer and its still a bone of contention today. I just wonder how a jury of today would react to it if there was a re-trial.

Lugg, I have always thought the windows to be a crucial point in this case.  We know the windows had a through examination on between the 8th and 10th August where nothing was found.

We have Jeremy gaining access to WHF  via the bathroom window on the 16th of September. He admitted this to police when questioned.  He might have known at that time he was being followed, so he had no choice but to admit it, but on saying that he did enter WHF through the window. 

Then on the 27th of September we have Cook going to WHF and he takes the window catch from the bathroom window RWC/8. 

Then on the 1st of October Elliot and his forensic team go to WHF again and do another forensic test on the windows and he states quite clearly that he discovers a scratched catch on the bathroom window....Well, he can't have done because that catch was not there, Cook had taken it on the 27th of September....

The forensic knew Jeremy had got in on the 16th this is why they did the the forensic search....My conclusion is that during the first forensic search they found nothing and had no forensic evidence to support the windows being used....until it was noted that Jeremy had gained entry on the 16th of September. 

In court it was said that he had exited through the kitchen window, there was no evidence to support that at all....Have you seen the little window he was supposed to have got out of? Only a child or someone of small build would, like a cat would have been able to have gotten through.  

Patti a quick question,
The catch is in two parts. Did they or did they not take BOTH parts of the catch?
Incidently Patti, my house has a similar window I used to get in and out of it no problem when I used to be out a little late that was the way I used to get it. I am similar size to Bamber. Head and Body were first through it, then legs. Easy, especially if it's a tried and tested route :-)

[Daniel_day]

Frankly Daniel Idon't believe I deserve that response, I am only reacting to your arrogant post to me.  I've seen your like before.

Hmm.. and I was reacting to yours. I think you now get my point..

[Daniel_day]

Well I'll tell you where the suggestion that it was a window that Bamber entered into first came to light, although this was changed into something more sensible, was when Colin Caffell said that a robin indicated to them that it was the window when it sat on the window ledge. You can read it in his own book. That is where it came from.

Lugg, wasn't it Julie Mugford who first mentioned to police that Jeremy told her he knew an easy way to get into the house?

[maggie]

Hi Maggie/Lugg

Just a quickie with you both as I am busy on and off....

Maggie anything is possible with in reason. The only damming evidence has been the silencer and its still a bone of contention today. I just wonder how a jury of today would react to it if there was a re-trial.

Lugg, I have always thought the windows to be a crucial point in this case.  We know the windows had a through examination on between the 8th and 10th August where nothing was found.

We have Jeremy gaining access to WHF  via the bathroom window on the 16th of September. He admitted this to police when questioned.  He might have known at that time he was being followed, so he had no choice but to admit it, but on saying that he did enter WHF through the window. 

Then on the 27th of September we have Cook going to WHF and he takes the window catch from the bathroom window RWC/8. 

Then on the 1st of October Elliot and his forensic team go to WHF again and do another forensic test on the windows and he states quite clearly that he discovers a scratched catch on the bathroom window....Well, he can't have done because that catch was not there, Cook had taken it on the 27th of September....

The forensic knew Jeremy had got in on the 16th this is why they did the the forensic search....My conclusion is that during the first forensic search they found nothing and had no forensic evidence to support the windows being used....until it was noted that Jeremy had gained entry on the 16th of September. 

In court it was said that he had exited through the kitchen window, there was no evidence to support that at all....Have you seen the little window he was supposed to have got out of? Only a child or someone of small build would, like a cat would have been able to have gotten through.  

Hi Patti, it was well known by the family that a couple of windows were usually open.  I think one of the sitting room windows and the kitchen window were both used by members of the family to gain access when June and Neville had locked up and gone out.  I'm not saying that Pamela Boutflour or Granny Speakman climbed through the window but the likes of Anthony Pargeter etc all knew about and used that window at various times. So nothing special about Jeremy using it imo. 

As far as I have been able to discover, the police found it impossible to lock the window once they'd climbed out of it therefore no doubt they had to find another means of exit for JB from a locked house.  The idea that he used the tiny little fanlight and didn't fall to his death on the path outside even if he didn't get stuck in the window is ludicrous but apparently acceptable to the judge as a possibility.

[Lugg]

Patti a quick question,
The catch is in two parts. Did they or did they not take BOTH parts of the catch?
Incidently Patti, my house has a similar window I used to get in and out of it no problem when I used to be out a little late that was the way I used to get it. I am similar size to Bamber. Head and Body were first through it, then legs. Easy, especially if it's a tried and tested route :-)

My house did as well. I suppose many houses did and still do have such loose catches. I remember getting into our council house when I was a lad. The part that I found funny is where this officer said he found a distinct scratch on the catch of a certain window. I would think that most window catches have scratches on them through constant use? There was still no forensic evidence to say that anyone entered into the property by that means. Of course it doesn't mean that nobody did. Just that there is no evidence that they did. It was only first suggested like I said because Colin Caffel said that a robin told them so.

[maggie]

Hmm.. and I was reacting to yours. I think you now get my point..

Hmmm Daniel I have never missed your point.

[Lugg]

Lugg, wasn't it Julie Mugford who first mentioned to police that Jeremy told her he knew an easy way to get into the house?

Yes I think he did. He also entered the property through a bedroom window when it was unoccupied.

[maggie]

Yes I think he did. He also entered the property through a bedroom window when it was unoccupied.

Hi Lugg, I would imagine loads of young people enter their houses, or their parents house through a window when they don't have a key or have lost it.  We know there was only one key to the new back door which had been fitted at WHF and I can't see why anyone would find it suspicious that this was a common entrance for him and others.

[Lugg]

Hi Lugg, I would imagine loads of young people enter their houses, or their parents house through a window when they don't have a key or have lost it.  We know there was only one key to the new back door which had been fitted at WHF and I can't see why anyone would find it suspicious that this was a common entrance for him and others.

That is correct Maggie. Also remember that it was not proved at the trial that this is how he entered the building. The jury felt satisfied at the meer suggestion that it was so. That is all the prosecution had to do in fact. To put the suggestion that it was so into the jury member's minds.

[Patti]

Patti a quick question,
The catch is in two parts. Did they or did they not take BOTH parts of the catch?
Incidently Patti, my house has a similar window I used to get in and out of it no problem when I used to be out a little late that was the way I used to get it. I am similar size to Bamber. Head and Body were first through it, then legs. Easy, especially if it's a tried and tested route :-)

As far as I am aware they took a catch. I lived in a house with sash windows when I first got married in Rotherham so I know it has two parts, but this has never been defined in this case, but I say that baring in mind the limited resources we have on here and the internet into the case..The catch was presented under the exhibit RWC/8

The fact is that Elliot was wrong to tell the court of appeal that he found the catch on the 1st of October, was he not? Because it was not his team of forensics that found it, it was Cook.

Daniel a word of advise, its not nice to read personal posts, especially towards a Moderator.....can we debate the post, rather than the poster please.   :D :D :D :D

[Patti]

As far as I am aware they took a catch. I lived in a house with sash windows when I first got married in Rotherham so I know it has two parts, but this has never been defined in this case, but I say that baring in mind the limited resources we have on here and the internet into the case..The catch was presented under the exhibit RWC/8

The fact is that Elliot was wrong to tell the court of appeal that he found the catch on the 1st of October, was he not? Because it was not his team of forensics that found it, it was Cook.

Daniel a word of advise, its not nice to read personal posts, especially towards a Moderator.....can we debate the post, rather than the poster please.   :D :D :D :D

Hi Maggie...

I might be wrong on this because I haven't got the time to check. Normally a key was left outside in the barn...But, Nevill had a new door fitted, so there was no spare. It was common like you say for any of the family to gain entry through the windows.....if the house was locked, because there was no spare key anymore.   I think this door had Jones in a tither when he interviewed Jeremy for he could not grasp the concept the difference of the new door....for a new door was put in place after the murders and the new door was placed in the shed....which had replaced the old one.  Jeremy was also confused by his questions about the new door, because Jeremy thought he was talking about the new door that his father had put in...but Jones was talking about the new door after that and on and on it went...lol  :D :D :D