The lockable from outside window. A time for closure ?

[Adam]

I have also noticed the judge mentioned the kitchen window in his summing up. Together with the bathroom window.

The judge saying it was just one example of there being just too many 'curious coincidences' to be true.

Thirteen.

[Mr. Gee]

I have also noticed the judge mentioned the kitchen window in his summing up. Together with the bathroom window.

The judge saying it was just one example of there being just too many 'curious coincidences' to be true.

Thirteen.

That's not a source. It is an opinion. The judge was a man just like anyone else. Why should he mention those two windows? There was no proof whatsoever that Bamber entered or exited from them on the night of the murders. Not a source, only an opinion from a man in a wig.

[Adam]

Finally this issue can be closed.

Some of my 13 sources are 'Primary' sources according to other posters on the 'Primary Sources' thread. 

When there are 13 good sources, it is amazing that people still refuse to accept something.

Fire fighting something so conclusive is wasting time. Surely supporters should focus on the new evidence proving Bamber's innocence. Opps, there isn't any. 

[Jane]

I have previously focused on the "arm," running horizontally along the bottom of the window, being difficult to place into the closed position from outside. I had omitted to mention the handle, in the mid-way position of the window, which is the usual means of undoing and pushing the window open, thus providing a double locking/fastening facility. I don't believe it would be possible to put ONE of these requirements into action from outside, let alone both.

[Adam]

I have suggested closure on several other basic things. And even created a thread on why supporters should not be afraid of closures. Especially when it does not confirm guilt or innocence.

My suggestions on closures were based on a mountain of evidence and common sense.

However the three remaining regular posters/supporters waste time kicking and screaming. Surely they should be discussing facts showing Bamber's innocence. Opps. 

[Adam]

The exception to my last post is of course closure on Neville's mysterious call to Bamber.

Supporters will have to kick and scream. But surprisingly only one poster addressed my 40 reasons/facts why Neville would not call Bamber.

[Jane]

I have suggested closure on several other basic things. And even created a thread on why supporters should not be afraid of closures. Especially when it does not confirm guilt or innocence.

My suggestions on closures were based on a mountain of evidence and common sense.

However the three remaining regular posters/supporters waste time kicking and screaming. Surely they should be discussing facts showing Bamber's innocence. Opps. 

As many of us have suggested closure for you. THUS far, that wish hasn't been granted, either. I gave up belief in fairies long ago.

[Jane]

The exception to my last post is of course closure on Neville's mysterious 3.36am call to Bamber.

Supporters will have to kick and scream. But surprisingly only one poster addressed my 40 reasons/facts why Neville would not call Bamber.

I believe this is a thread about windows, NOT phone calls.

[Adam]

As many of us have suggested closure for you. THUS far, that wish hasn't been granted, either. I gave up belief in fairies long ago.

Now now Boring April.

I told you that it is time to discuss the case. Not just post about me.

You discussed the case when I joined. Fiercely defending Bamber.

Just because you now believe him guilty, does not mean you can't discuss the case. I manage it.

An adult just posting about another poster is boring.

[Caroline]

The exception to my last post is of course closure on Neville's mysterious 3.36am call to Bamber.

Supporters will have to kick and scream. But surprisingly only one poster addressed my 40 reasons/facts why Neville would not call Bamber.

It isn't claimed anywhere that Nevill called Jeremy at 03:36.

[Jane]

Now now Boring April.

I told you that it is time to discuss the case. Not just post about me.

You discussed the case when I joined. Fiercely defending Bamber.

Just because you now believe him guilty, does not mean you can't discuss the case. I manage it.

An adult just posting about another poster is boring.

That's the problem, Adam. YOU DON'T. You PREACH. You can be likened to a child who continually interrupts adult conversation with irrelevancies, making it difficult for them to conduct it without being sidetracked.

[Adam]

It isn't claimed anywhere that Nevill called Jeremy at 03:36.

Well the OS says he called Chelmsford at 3.36am. So must have received Neville's call around 3.30am.

[Caroline]

Well the OS says he called Chelmsford at 3.36am. So must have received Neville's call around 3.30am.

Jeremy said he received the call from Nevill at 03:10, really not sure what you are trying to do here Adam  but simply making stuff up is a bit silly. It's claimed (now) that he called the police at 03:36 and that Nevill called police at 03:26. This has all been discussed in more accurate terms previously, so if you are going to try and ride high on the coat tails of someone else's argument, then do try and get the facts right or you just end up making yourself sound silly and goading.

[Adam]

Jeremy said he received the call from Nevill at 03:10, really not sure what you are trying to do here Adam  but simply making stuff up is a bit silly. It's claimed (now) that he called the police at 03:36 and that Nevill called police at 03:26. This has all been discussed in more accurate terms previously, so if you are going to try and ride high on the coat tails of someone else's argument, then do try and get the facts right or you just end up making yourself sound silly and goading.

I know his WS says 3.10am. Is Bamber still saying it is 3.10am ?

Anyway I will amend post 230.

[Caroline]

I know his WS says 3.10am. Is Bamber still saying it is 3.10am ?

Anyway I will amend post 230.

He hasn't changed the time of his fathers call to him  JUST the time he called the police.