The lockable from outside window. A time for closure ?

[scipio_usmc]

It was established that Jeremy could unlock the windows from the outside to enter and exit

Maybe so,but not on the night of the 7th of August.

He did so before the murders and after the murders.  At the time of the murders his hands, arms and legs weren't broken so he had the same ability on the night of the murders that he possessed before and after.

[Jan]

It was established that Jeremy could unlock the windows from the outside to enter and exit




Maybe so,but not on the night of the 7th of August.

that's not the point - it was LOCKING the window from the outside .

Adam does not even understand the difference between locking or closing or what a source is .

[Adam]

that's not the point - it was LOCKING the window from the outside .

Adam does not even understand the difference between locking or closing or what a source is .

I do know what a source is thanks.

And I praised you for bringing up 'Primary' sources as you were amazingly still trying to claim the window could not be 'closed' from outside.

You brought up 'primary' sources after I gave you the requested 10 sources. I created a thread on 'primary sources'  for clarification. You then said you were 'taking a break from the site'.

A lot of the 18 sources are 'primary'. The secondary sources are good as well.

The kitchen window could be bang closed from outside.

Once again, a time for closure ?

[lookout]

Closure because YOU want it that way having lost the argument.

[Adam]

Closure because YOU want it that way having lost the argument.

18 Primary and secondary sources saying the kitchen window could be closed from outside.

Please provide one source saying it could not.

[Jan]

18 Primary and secondary sources saying the kitchen window could be closed from outside.

Please provide one source saying it could not.

Adam

one question - who witnessed the window being locked from the outside ?

Name the 18 people because that is what a source means .

If not read what the appeal said - "it did not have to be proven" and for once use whatever xxxxx xxxxx you have.

[maggie]

Adam
 one question - who witnessed the window being locked from the outside ?

Name the 18 people because that is what a source means .

If not read what the appeal said - "it did not have to be proven" and for once use whatever brain cells you have.

Good post Jan

[scipio_usmc]

Adam

one question - who witnessed the window being locked from the outside ?

Name the 18 people because that is what a source means .

If not read what the appeal said - "it did not have to be proven" and for once use whatever brain cells you have.

The appeal said how he got in was not an essential element that had to be proven but noted they did provide evidence establishing Jeremy had the knowledge and ability to use the windows to enter and egress.

[Steve_uk]

The appeal said how he got in was not an essential element that had to be proven but noted they did provide evidence establishing Jeremy had the knowledge and ability to use the windows to enter and egress.

There's more here from the 2002 Appeal(paragraphs 267-288). http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Adam]

Adam

one question - who witnessed the window being locked from the outside ?

Name the 18 people because that is what a source means .

If not read what the appeal said - "it did not have to be proven" and for once use whatever brain cells you have.

Very well done Jan.

You asked for ten sources rather than one. I gave you ten. And have spoiled you by giving you another eight.

You then brought up the 'Primary' sources claim. Although a lot of the ten, now 18 were 'Primary' sources.

Now you are asking for 18 'people' who said the kitchen window could be closed from outside !

You also quoted but ignored my request for 'one' source saying the window could not be closed from outside.

[Adam]

Good post Jan

And well done Maggie.

It seems you post 'good post' whenever Lookout or Jan post. Although do not elaborate.

Jan knows there are not 18 people I can quote. So I do not know what is 'good' about an impossible request.

Encouraging posters to be abusive is also wrong.

[Adam]

Adam

one question - who witnessed the window being locked from the outside ?

Name the 18 people because that is what a source means .

If not read what the appeal said - "it did not have to be proven" and for once use whatever xxxxx xxxxx you have.

I have also reported you to the moderators again.

[scipio_usmc]

There's more here from the 2002 Appeal(paragraphs 267-288). http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

The most important part is this:

286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

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.

[maggie]

And well done Maggie.

It seems you post 'good post' whenever Lookout or Jan post. Although do not t.

Jan knows there are not 18 people I can quote. So I do not know what is 'good' about an impossible request.

Encouraging posters to be abusive is also wrong.

Thanks for the lecture, Adam. I encourage posters from either 'side' if I agree with their post. I don't believe I have ever seen Jan be abusive or have ever encouraged anyone to be abusive.
I think today I said good post lookout and Jan, possibly the first time I have done that, think I said the same to both Caroline and April a few days ago.
Why do we have to take sides? I have no animosity against anyone because of their stance, do you feel the same?

[Steve_uk]

The most important part is this:

286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

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.

But why would Jeremy admit under interrogation that he could access the farm by means of opening windows? It's almost as if he has to have acknowledgement from others that he can achieve something, however little. How his self-esteem must have suffered over the years as he was outwitted at Gresham's by his smarter peers with their boasts of academic and commercial superiority and upon returning to the White House ignored by his ailing mother,whose social engagements seemingly came first. For the first time in his life he was the centre of attention, albeit under such grisly circumstances and apparently unaware as to the perils in which he had become embroiled.