The lockable from outside window. A time for closure ?

[Jan]

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.

the police said it was LOCKED - not shut

[Adam]

the police said it was LOCKED - not shut

Ok banging it locked. Ten sources supplied.

[Mr. Gee]

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.

Perhaps his counsel didn't think it was relevant? After all there was no proof that he did enter the building on the night of the murders, so perhaps they thought it to their advantage to remain silent?

[Adam]

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.

I am happy to discuss in a thread I created.

The thread was saying 'it was time for closure' on the subject.

I gave you ten sources but you refuse to close the issue. Which I have never seen before.

Banging one window in a big house locked from outside, by a former resident, seems quite normal to me.

He said he knew how to get in and out through the discussed window. And has not brought this important issue up at trial or in the 29 years since.

If I was a supporter I would accept.

[Jan]

Perhaps his counsel didn't think it was relevant? After all there was no proof that he did enter the building on the night of the murders, so perhaps they thought it to their advantage to remain silent?

I think they gave up after the 2002 appeal - which basically said that nothing had to be proved . That's a good point of law. Have to remember that one.

Jeremy was an idiot to go in the house and get his passport like he did , although I guess he thought that he had been honest about getting in the house like that before and thought it did not matter . I guess he and other young family members used to do it so they did not get the religious lectures when they came in late . Or sometimes sneaked out late when they were told not to. I expect the parents knew about it anyway.

[Jan]

I am happy to discuss in a thread I created.

The thread was saying 'it was time for closure' on the subject.

I gave you ten sources but you refuse to close the issue. Which I have never seen before.

Banging one window in a big house locked from outside, by a former resident, seems quite normal to me.

He said he knew how to get in and out through the discussed window. And has not brought this important issue up at trial or in the 29 years since.

If I was a supporter I would accept.

Not true - it was bought up at trial - they asked Jones and barlow about whether the windows could be locked from the outside and it was also I the 2002 appeal which is where my quote was from . As I said I still don't get the judgement . But that is just my opinion.

[Adam]

If I was Bamber I would not commit the crime unless I could leave WHF with all windows locked.

If there were no windows that could be banged locked, I would do some adjusting beforehand. Not hard to do.

[Jan]

If I was Bamber I would not commit the crime unless I could leave WHF with all windows locked.

If there were no windows that could be banged locked, I would do some adjusting beforehand. Not hard to do.

So in that case it would have been easy to show that to the police or the jury.

Neither of which was done.

The police were also admonished because later on in the day some windows were found unlocked and no-one would admit to doing it ( source Dickinson report) .

[Jane]

 

If I was a supporter I would accept.

How curious that you refuse to accept anything said by others.

[Jan]

Remind me - why did the judge say it could only be Sheila or Jeremy?

[lookout]

And because Sheila was in no position to defend herself,it naturally fell on Jeremy because all and sundry wanted what he was going to acquire and that wasn't going to happen. The end.Or is it ??

[Jan]

And because Sheila was in no position to defend herself,it naturally fell on Jeremy because all and sundry wanted what he was going to acquire and that wasn't going to happen. The end.Or is it ??

I thought it was something to do with the house being secured? But actually I think it was because of the call from NB to Jeremy.

Just thinking out loud , as you do 

[Caroline]

Remind me - why did the judge say it could only be Sheila or Jeremy?

Because of the phone call he said he received from Nevill. If Jeremy did it, he made the phone call up. He couldn't have received a call if he killed the family - he put himself in the mix with the phone call.

[lookout]

 Looking  at the other aspect that the judge was known to have stated was that " because the moderator was attached to the rifle at the time of the shooting it would have been impossible for Sheila to have killed herself because her arms wouldn't have been long enough ", which would have been utter rubbish if true because anyone aiming to shoot themselves would always find a way,regardless. So that comment was misleading right away.

[Adam]

I forgot all about what Barlow said.

Barlow said banging the window,  locked/closed it.

That is 11 sources.