The 'Master File'...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

• Obviously,Sarah Jane Eaton isn't the daughter of Pamela, but is presumably the daughter of Peter and Ann (wikipedia needs to be updated).

Yes that's correct, she is Ann & Peters daughter.

I picked that up from a website and thought it a remakable coincidence in surname! - then I chuckled to myself having seen some of the photos and thought to myself 'perhaps not THAT remarkable' ;-)

[Newbury1]

"Late afternoon - Jeremy fully loads (10 bullets) an Anshutz .22 rifle with silencer and scope fitted to shoot rabbits. No rabbits were killed (but it's not known if he actually fired bullets or not)"

I believe JB stated that he left the rifle without scope fitted, and also, possibly without the sound moderator?
 

[Hartley]

TBM - When editing or replying have a look at the tool buttons, the one furthest to the right (an arrow in red brackets) is a toggle for wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) editing if that is of any help?

Also Ann's first name is Christine I thought (Ann is middle name) ?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Think I've already got HQIR explained.
Regarding the 25 vs Z5... I'm 95% sure it's 25, having seen additional notes where the '2' is clearer.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

"Late afternoon - Jeremy fully loads (10 bullets) an Anshutz .22 rifle with silencer and scope fitted to shoot rabbits. No rabbits were killed (but it's not known if he actually fired bullets or not)"

I believe JB stated that he left the rifle without scope fitted, and also, possibly without the sound moderator?

Can we get clarification on this? plus, I'll add in the 'left in kitchen' part too.
Some say "on the table" others don't...
Not sure if I should go as far as saying on the table, or just add that to the notes.

[curiousessex]

Something appears to have disappeared from this site.......

On 28th February, just before I went off line for a few weeks, I made a post which is number 444 on the sequences of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August thread.


This post was with specific reference to the timing of the telephone call Jeremy had received from Nevill.

My post read……

If 3.26 am is a precise time why does this forum website include summary details of the case synopsis, attributed to Scott Lomax, under Jeremy Bamber Archive, which details the following -

"An Alibi
 
If Jeremy was the murderer he must have committed his crimes between midnight and 03:00 on the morning of 7 August 1985. This is a fact as agreed at trial.

From 03:15 onwards Jeremy was speaking to the police on his phone at his cottage in Goldhanger (three and a half miles from White House Farm), driving to White House Farm and then he was in the company of police officers until long after the bodies were discovered."

Unfortunately the case synopsis under the Jeremy Bamber Archive, attributed to Scott Lomax, who appears on the Jeremybamber.co.uk website, no longer exists.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Interestingly I'd always had two (guilty) scenarios in my mind...

He took the phone off the hook
He killed them
Went home and cleaned up and composed himself
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion

OR

He killed them
Took the phone off the hook at the last possible moment
Went home
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion
Cleaned himself up in preparation to meet the police (using the drive to compose himself)


One of the issues I have is with the call... Option 1 would be the BEST course of action IF he knew with 100% certainty that BT couldn't give accurate reporting on call information

Option 2 would be be necessary IF he feared BT could give accurate reporting on call information. Not only that, IF he feared such, he'd need an answering machine at the other end in order to ensure the call was logged as having occurred.

Option 1 gives him time to get clean, but increases call detection problems
Option 2 gives him less time to clean, but removes call detection problems, but he also needs to get home as fast as possible in order to avoid leaving a long gap between WHF to Goldhanger call, and Goldhanger to Police call.

IF he chose option 2, there is also another minor risk... that in calling the police, they just happen to be close to Goldhanger and say "we'll pick you up and take you there" - if THAT happened, he's got to get clean VERY rapidly indeed.

[Hartley]

Also Sarah Jane Eaton's surname is now Robinson. Not that it makes any difference.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Also Sarah Jane Eaton's surname is now Robinson. Not that it makes any difference.

I might consider doing 'where are they now' section later... she probably shouldn't even be listed, since she's not relevant really.

I must admit, I'm finding this actually helps my own thinking... nobody's produced a decent timeline so far, so I think this concerted effort is a good thing for all.

The actions of the police inside the house should be quite simple - but it's going to have a lot of holes!

I may have to insert a 'The killings' section two, and this will be a total nightmare - nothing will be blue, it'll all be red and clear as mud

[Hartley]

- nothing will be blue, it'll all be red and clear as mud

Maybe so, but it can't hurt, ten out of ten for your efforts TBM :beer:.

[Reader]

Something appears to have disappeared from this site.......

On 28th February, just before I went off line for a few weeks, I made a post which is number 444 on the sequences of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August thread.

Yes, that post is still there (in this topic).

Unfortunately the case synopsis under the Jeremy Bamber Archive, attributed to Scott Lomax, who appears on the Jeremybamber.co.uk website, no longer exists.

That exists also; see this topic. I can post an earlier version of it (from the old website) if you want, but I don't see what purpose that would serve.

[VORTEX]

Interestingly I'd always had two (guilty) scenarios in my mind...

He took the phone off the hook
He killed them
Went home and cleaned up and composed himself
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion

OR

He killed them
Took the phone off the hook at the last possible moment
Went home
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion
Cleaned himself up in preparation to meet the police (using the drive to compose himself)


One of the issues I have is with the call... Option 1 would be the BEST course of action IF he knew with 100% certainty that BT couldn't give accurate reporting on call information

Option 2 would be be necessary IF he feared BT could give accurate reporting on call information. Not only that, IF he feared such, he'd need an answering machine at the other end in order to ensure the call was logged as having occurred.

Option 1 gives him time to get clean, but increases call detection problems
Option 2 gives him less time to clean, but removes call detection problems, but he also needs to get home as fast as possible in order to avoid leaving a long gap between WHF to Goldhanger call, and Goldhanger to Police call.

IF he chose option 2, there is also another minor risk... that in calling the police, they just happen to be close to Goldhanger and say "we'll pick you up and take you there" - if THAT happened, he's got to get clean VERY rapidly indeed.

TBM - over the years I have read a few times that Jeremy requested the "Police pick him up on the way" in his original call to them. Not sure why he would want that?  Read this in other forums and discussions with no evidence that it is fact (just to clarify!). Apparently the police urged him to make his way there himself and meet them outside which is obviously what happened.

[Kaldin]

Interestingly I'd always had two (guilty) scenarios in my mind...

He took the phone off the hook
He killed them
Went home and cleaned up and composed himself
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion

OR

He killed them
Took the phone off the hook at the last possible moment
Went home
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion
Cleaned himself up in preparation to meet the police (using the drive to compose himself)


One of the issues I have is with the call... Option 1 would be the BEST course of action IF he knew with 100% certainty that BT couldn't give accurate reporting on call information

Option 2 would be be necessary IF he feared BT could give accurate reporting on call information. Not only that, IF he feared such, he'd need an answering machine at the other end in order to ensure the call was logged as having occurred.

Option 1 gives him time to get clean, but increases call detection problems
Option 2 gives him less time to clean, but removes call detection problems, but he also needs to get home as fast as possible in order to avoid leaving a long gap between WHF to Goldhanger call, and Goldhanger to Police call.

IF he chose option 2, there is also another minor risk... that in calling the police, they just happen to be close to Goldhanger and say "we'll pick you up and take you there" - if THAT happened, he's got to get clean VERY rapidly indeed.

TBM - over the years I have read a few times that Jeremy requested the "Police pick him up on the way" in his original call to them. Not sure why he would want that?  Read this in other forums and discussions with no evidence that it is fact (just to clarify!). Apparently the police urged him to make his way there himself and meet them outside which is obviously what happened.

That seems natural to me if he was innocent - who would want to go on their own to a dark place in the early hours of the morning not knowing what they might find when they get there? I'm actually surprised the police told him to go there on his own - after all, there was a risk that he might get injured or killed.

[VORTEX]

Interestingly I'd always had two (guilty) scenarios in my mind...

He took the phone off the hook
He killed them
Went home and cleaned up and composed himself
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion

OR

He killed them
Took the phone off the hook at the last possible moment
Went home
He then called the police and set the wheels in motion
Cleaned himself up in preparation to meet the police (using the drive to compose himself)


One of the issues I have is with the call... Option 1 would be the BEST course of action IF he knew with 100%
 certainty that BT couldn't give accurate reporting on call information

Option 2 would be be necessary IF he feared BT could give accurate reporting on call information. Not only that, IF he feared such, he'd need an answering machine at the other end in order to ensure the call was logged as having occurred.

Option 1 gives him time to get clean, but increases call detection problems
Option 2 gives him less time to clean, but removes call detection problems, but he also needs to get home as fast as possible in order to avoid leaving a long gap between WHF to Goldhanger call, and Goldhanger to Police call

IF he chose option 2, there is also another minor risk... that in calling the police, they just happen to be close to Goldhanger and say "we'll pick you up and take you there" - if THAT happened, he's got to get clean VERY rapidly indeed.

TBM - over the years I have read a few times that Jeremy requested the "Police pick him up on the way" in his original call to them. Not sure why he would want that?  Read this in other forums and discussions with no evidence that it is fact (just to clarify!). Apparently the police urged him to make his way there himself and
meet them outside which is obviously what happened.

That seems natural to me if he was innocent - who would want to go on their own to a dark place in the early hours of the morning not knowing what they might find when they get there? I'm actually surprised the police told him to go there on his own - after all, there was a risk that he might get injured or killed.

+1

Agreed Kaldin. Good point... my personal get there and deal with it way of thinking made it impossible to see the logical explanation you put forward. It just shows how differently we all think! 

[Kaldin]

+1

Agreed Kaldin. Good point... my personal get there and deal with it way of thinking made it impossible to see the logical explanation you put forward. It just shows how differently we all think!

Thank you - that's very kind of you.