The lockable from outside window. A time for closure ?

[Jan]

I have just been reading the 2002 appeal - where again the only sources are the family /Julie ( who could have discussed it with the family anyway)


It quite clearly states that there were no police witnesses to the alleged "fact" that the windows can be locked from outside - none of them .


Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of windows whether they were secure or insecure - ok we all know that . But he never said that a window could be locked from the outside .

So as the police confirmed all the windows were locked  then why could the court of appeal say this?


"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise. "


Am I the only one who does not get this judgement?

[Jane]

I have provided ten sources. If you as an 'undecided' poster is not going to accept it, then you are as bad as Jan.

Me as a guilter accepts things. Such as Taff believing Bamber was innocent and the relatives  finding the silencer. Self denial is unhealthy.

Adam, all the time you persist in deliberate(?) displays of ignorance, people will be inclined to believe you are. ie. Your persistence in blaming poor Susan Battersby for the cheque book fraud when EVERYONE but you is aware that Julie committed the fraud using SB's cheque book. Not satisfied with that, it seems you're still persisting in using the term SELF denial -you MAY be practicing it- which isn't necessary for one to deny facts outside of oneself...................but you're not good on allowing that others are right, are you?

[Mr. Gee]

Adam, all the time you persist in deliberate(?) displays of ignorance, people will be inclined to believe you are. ie. Your persistence in blaming poor Susan Battersby for the cheque book fraud when EVERYONE but you is aware that Julie committed the fraud using SB's cheque book. Not satisfied with that, it seems you're still persisting in using the term SELF denial -you MAY be practicing it- which isn't necessary for one to deny facts outside of oneself...................but you're not good on allowing that others are right, are you?

If police thought that it was Battersby's cheque book fraud then they would not have charged Mugford as well.

[Caroline]

I have just been reading the 2002 appeal - where again the only sources are the family /Julie ( who could have discussed it with the family anyway)


It quite clearly states that there were no police witnesses to the alleged "fact" that the windows can be locked from outside - none of them .


Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of windows whether they were secure or insecure - ok we all know that . But he never said that a window could be locked from the outside .

So as the police confirmed all the windows were locked  then why could the court of appeal say this?


"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise. "


Am I the only one who does not get this judgement?

Hi Jan, do we know whether or not that he categorically stated that they couldn't be locked from the outside? The message he left for BW (to lock the window after he used it to gain entry into WHF to look for his passport) suggests that they couldn't, but did he actually state that?

[Jan]

Prosecution opening statement - Wilkes's book.

Julie Mugford. 

Ann Eaton. 

2002 appeal. - that refers to Anne eaton - it is not the source Anne eaton is
 
Wikipedia. see above referring to original source

Crimes & Criminals - Youtube. - they are referring to the original source

Inheritance Killers - Youtube. they are not the source  - they are referring to the above

Murder UK - Jeremy Bamber. They are not the source - they are referring to the above

'St Tropez and more suspicions'  thread. see above.



As I said before the only sources were AE/RB - together and Julie - who could have been talking to them .   

the police did not see it happen and neither did the authors or film makers - they are only relaying the information again .

[Jan]

Hi Jan, do we know whether or not that he categorically stated that they couldn't be locked from the outside? The message he left for BW (to lock the window after he used it to gain entry into WHF to look for his passport) suggests that they couldn't, but did he actually state that?

He did in his original statement. He said he could get in and out of the windows whether they were secure or insecure - but that they could not be locked from the outside.

[Caroline]

If police thought that it was Battersby's cheque book fraud then they would not have charged Mugford as well.

I guess they both committed the fraud but Julie admitted it was HER idea.

[Adam]

I have just been reading the 2002 appeal - where again the only sources are the family /Julie ( who could have discussed it with the family anyway)


It quite clearly states that there were no police witnesses to the alleged "fact" that the windows can be locked from outside - none of them .


Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of windows whether they were secure or insecure - ok we all know that . But he never said that a window could be locked from the outside .

So as the police confirmed all the windows were locked  then why could the court of appeal say this?


"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise. "


Am I the only one who does not get this judgement?

No police witnesses. You think when Julie and AE told them about this, and Peter Simpson re opened the investigation, not one policeman checked the kitchen window ? If so, the prosecution lied in court in their opening statement.

It is not a big deal being able to lock a window from outside. Especially in a big house. Bamber knew the house inside out, so found a way.

I have never known anyone to dispute something where there are ten sources. Until now.

[Caroline]

He did in his original statement. He said he could get in and out of the windows whether they were secure or insecure - but that they could not be locked from the outside.

It is possible that he got out from one of the upstairs windows - I guess it just has to be possible for him to do so. He admitted he could get in - he could have used a ladder to get out. If he couldn't get in, then he couldn't get out - but if he could get in, it's highly possible that he knew how to get out. If you know what I mean? 

[Adam]

Prosecution opening statement - Wilkes's book.

Julie Mugford. 

Ann Eaton. 

2002 appeal. - that refers to Anne eaton - it is not the source Anne eaton is
 
Wikipedia. see above referring to original source

Crimes & Criminals - Youtube. - they are referring to the original source

Inheritance Killers - Youtube. they are not the source  - they are referring to the above

Murder UK - Jeremy Bamber. They are not the source - they are referring to the above

'St Tropez and more suspicions'  thread. see above.



As I said before the only sources were AE/RB - together and Julie - who could have been talking to them .   

the police did not see it happen and neither did the authors or film makers - they are only relaying the information again .

It is up to you to dismiss sources and say the police did not check. I could find another ten sources on internet articles. You will dismiss them.

What has Bamber said on the subject ? Nothing that I have read.

What did his defence at trial say ? Nothing that I have read.

Let it go and focus on something like Sheila's medical condition, a thread has been created for you.

[Jan]

It is possible that he got out from one of the upstairs windows - I guess it just has to be possible for him to do so. He admitted he could get in - he could have used a ladder to get out. If he couldn't get in, then he couldn't get out - but if he could get in, it's highly possible that he knew how to get out. If you know what I mean? 

I know that is why there was the judgement  - however the family were saying he got out of a specific window because all the downstairs windows and doors were secure - so to me one the defence should have checked could Jeremy physically get out of that window and lock it from the outside - because that was the argument used in court.


what I am saying is that it was relevant that all the windows were locked if you are going to accuse him of getting out and leaving the house secure as confirmed by the police. Even if they had proved the window could be locked from the outside it did not mean he did that on the night , but for the police not to confirm that fact seems pretty ludicrous to me .


He also said other family members used to get in and out of the house late at night he was not the only one . So I don't think he ever needed to use a ladder.

[Mr. Gee]

No police witnesses. You think when Julie and AE told them about this, and Peter Simpson re opened the investigation, not one policeman checked the kitchen window ? If so, the prosecution lied in court in their opening statement.

It is not a big deal being able to lock a window from outside. Especially in a big house. Bamber knew the house inside out, so found a way.

I have never known anyone to dispute something where there are ten sources. Until now.

So where is the evidence that any police officer looked at the window?

[Adam]

In his police interview he said the kitchen window was one of the windows he knew how to get in/out of.

So it really was just a case of banging it shut. Simple.

[Jan]

It is up to you to dismiss sources and say the police did not check. I could find another ten sources on internet articles. You will dismiss them.

What has Bamber said on the subject ? Nothing that I have read.

What did his defence at trial say ? Nothing that I have read.

Let it go and focus on something like Sheila's medical condition, a thread has been created for you.

Adam - don't "chicken " out on me .

I am still discussing this thread. Feel free to join in.

I have just referred above to what the 2002 appeal says - and it basically dismisses the argument - legally I sort of get the drift - but personally if I had been his defence I still would have objected to a statement that windows could be "locked" from the outside not being independently verified by the police or the court. Also the scratch marks not being discovered in original inspections of the windows.

BTW I hope you have not created another thread - there is already one running that is current as I just posted FE statements.

[Caroline]

I know that is why there was the judgement  - however the family were saying he got out of a specific window because all the downstairs windows and doors were secure - so to me one the defence should have checked could Jeremy physically get out of that window and lock it from the outside - because that was the argument used in court.


what I am saying is that it was relevant that all the windows were locked if you are going to accuse him of getting out and leaving the house secure as confirmed by the police. Even if they had proved the window could be locked from the outside it did not mean he did that on the night , but for the police not to confirm that fact seems pretty ludicrous to me .


He also said other family members used to get in and out of the house late at night he was not the only one . So I don't think he ever needed to use a ladder.

The family couldn't know which window he used, it was simply their 'opinion' but by Jeremy's admission - he could definitely get in.

Were all the upstairs windows locked?  On previous occasions he wouldn't need a ladder because it didn't matter if the downstairs windows were locked or not but to make it look as though the house was secure, he wouldn't have been able to leave any of them unlatched.