A shooting incident at White House farm

[susan]

Grahame I want to be Caroline as she is better looking than me, younger than me and got the most gorgeous doggie you have ever seen and he could share my bed any night

[maggie]

He's been a little sh*t today 

Find that hard to believe, Caroline??

[Caroline]

Grahame I want to be Caroline as she is better looking than me, younger than me and got the most gorgeous doggie you have ever seen and he could share my bed any night

Awwww!!  XX

[Martin]

I kind of agree with this.  I'm sure there are noble minded police officers but I think the point Bill is making about the heavy politicking within this case is valid.  How many police officers break ranks and whistle blow external to their force? Of those who disagree internally, how many will go against an ACC?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.msg243389.html#msg243389

"So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!"

Roch

I would not dispute a person’s right to change his or her view, but it is worth noting that Caroline was, formerly, strongly opposed to the position she represents now. Ironically, a pro guilt poster from the red forum called big-goolies held the opinion Caroline has recently taken up. Here is Caroline’s reply and it’s not without a tone of impatience and sarcasm.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3961.msg164033.html#msg164033

"Then why are you asking the question again? It's not about 'sway'. IF (and I do say IF) Sheila had been killed by one of the police officers, they couldn't afford to have that revealed. The relatives (or RWB) went above the investigating officers heads - it was obvious they weren't going to drop the idea about Jeremy, so it would have been only a matter of time before the whole mess was uncovered.”

The use of slogans.

If have a criticism to make of Caroline, it’s that, since her change of position, she has shown an inclination to misrepresent her opponent’s point of view in a way which tends to make it sound ridiculous. It’s a habit I associate with Steve_uk.

“They framed him because they thought he was guilty, not because they thought he was innocent.”

That is a propaganda slogan which she has used on a few occasions and not a fair representation of the position she formerly held with but now rejects.

DS Jones did not know Bamber was innocent.
 
It is important to remember that the policemen who are alleged to have fabricated evidence against Bamber are not the same ones who would have known he is innocent. The raid team members had nothing to do with the silencer evidence, so she should really stop coming out with rubbish which she knows full well is just a distraction.

Nobody needs to say that Stan Jones  knew that Bamber was innocent. It appears that he did not. In the simplest terms, the people who allegedly did the framing were not the same group who knew he was innocent.

On the other hand the framing may have been authorised by a person who knew that Bamber was innocent. It is false to mock the notion of such a possibility, as Caroline does. Such things are known to have happened.

[Jan]

Can someone clarify something for me .

As far as I can see the OP is saying that the situation as far as the police were concerned could have changed between the times of  Jeremys call and the time the final arrival at the house . He did not say there were necessarily shots fired whilst they were outside ( although I think there are many differing opinions about whether or not the shots would be heard from outside)

What i need to clarify is I saw a court transcript where the police stated that when Jeremy called the police called back to check the line was engaged - but they  did not clarify whether it was or not.

Was the phone at this point engaged - or off the hook?

I guess it could have been engaged when JB called back and if Neville was making another call it then got cut off ? But I just wondered because in court they police did not seem to make it clear?

[lookout]

 I would have said it was definitely engaged.

[Caroline]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.msg243389.html#msg243389

"So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!"

Roch

I would not dispute a person’s right to change his or her view, but it is worth noting that Caroline was, formerly, strongly opposed to the position she represents now. Ironically, a pro guilt poster from the red forum called big-goolies held the opinion Caroline has recently taken up. Here is Caroline’s reply and it’s not without a tone of impatience and sarcasm.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3961.msg164033.html#msg164033

"Then why are you asking the question again? It's not about 'sway'. IF (and I do say IF) Sheila had been killed by one of the police officers, they couldn't afford to have that revealed. The relatives (or RWB) went above the investigating officers heads - it was obvious they weren't going to drop the idea about Jeremy, so it would have been only a matter of time before the whole mess was uncovered.”

The use of slogans.

If have a criticism to make of Caroline, it’s that, since her change of position, she has shown an inclination to misrepresent her opponent’s point of view in a way which tends to make it sound ridiculous. It’s a habit I associate with Steve_uk.

“They framed him because they thought he was guilty, not because they thought he was innocent.”

That is a propaganda slogan which she has used on a few occasions and not a fair representation of the position she formerly held with but now rejects.

DS Jones did not know Bamber was innocent.
 
It is important to remember that the policemen who are alleged to have fabricated evidence against Bamber are not the same ones who would have known he is innocent. The raid team members had nothing to do with the silencer evidence, so she should really stop coming out with rubbish which she knows full well is just a distraction.

Nobody needs to say that Stan Jones  knew that Bamber was innocent. It appears that he did not. In the simplest terms, the people who allegedly did the framing were not the same group who knew he was innocent.

On the other hand the framing may have been authorised by a person who knew that Bamber was innocent. It is false to mock the notion of such a possibility, as Caroline does. Such things are known to have happened.

Oh you're back again with your conspiracy theories  . It doesn't matter whether Jones knew or not, senior police officers WOULD have known so why would they simply fall in line with a DS and a bunch of relatives. It's ridiculous to even suggest it!  . Also, you're post is deliberately misrepresenting my position - I have NEVER thought that Jeremy was framed in the full knowledge that Sheila was guilty!! NEVER!!

[Caroline]

Can someone clarify something for me .

As far as I can see the OP is saying that the situation as far as the police were concerned could have changed between the times of  Jeremys call and the time the final arrival at the house . He did not say there were necessarily shots fired whilst they were outside ( although I think there are many differing opinions about whether or not the shots would be heard from outside)

What i need to clarify is I saw a court transcript where the police stated that when Jeremy called the police called back to check the line was engaged - but they  did not clarify whether it was or not.

Was the phone at this point engaged - or off the hook?

I guess it could have been engaged when JB called back and if Neville was making another call it then got cut off ? But I just wondered because in court they police did not seem to make it clear?

Off the hook but the tone is the same so I guess that's why they said engaged.

[lookout]

Off the hook tone is/was a long drawn-out tone.  An engaged tone was/is a series of bleeps.
So it's down to the dozy officer what tone it was.

[Caroline]

Off the hook tone is/was a long drawn-out tone.  An engaged tone was/is a series of bleeps.
So it's down to the dozy officer what tone it was.

That would depend on whether it had been disconnected at the exchange and as the small exchanges weren't manned the tone would have been the same. I asked an engineer, perhaps Grahame could ask the guy he knows just to clarify.

[lookout]

I would imagine if it was disconnected from the exchange it could quite possibly have given out the same,or similar tone to " number unobtainable ",another long hollow tone until it shuts/clicks off.

There could very well have been a difference of phone operations depending on areas of the country,Essex being " out in the sticks " in comparison to a city or large town. Telephone systems there seemed to differ from mine at that time.

[Jan]

Which officer would have checked the line? - its just that when I saw the court transcript they said they were checking the line to see if the phone was engaged or off the hook - so I would imagine the tones would have been different . I am only asking because it annoyed me at the time that it was not clarified what they found when they tested the line. And if perhaps they heard shots later then presumably the line was not engaged?

I know its annoying because we have been over the phone thing so often.

[lookout]

 I agree,Jansus,it's not good enough. Saying that,it's how the investigation went from start to finish,a bloody shambles.
First we had the silencer debacle,then two bodies that changed into one,the figure at the window-----or was it ? The list goes on.

[Jane]

Surely a phone has to be removed from the cradle in order for a call to be made from it. Whether it's simply off cradle, being used to make an out going call, OR somewhere in between the two, it would amount to the same thing.

[lookout]

 That's right,April,,then the number dialled in order to activate it.