Jeremy explains visit to farmhouse with PC Myall and PS Bews...

[mike tesko]

...

[Jan]

Hi Mike

was Jeremy questioned about this during the trial ? So it was just his words against EP about what they saw?

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike

was Jeremy questioned about this during the trial ? So it was just his words against EP about what they saw?

No, he was never asked about these events either by the prosecutor, or his own QC - so, the jury never got to consider it...

[Mr. Gee]

No, he was never asked about these events either by the prosecutor, or his own QC - so, the jury never got to consider it...

I believe Jeremy on this one. A trick of light does not show up as a  silhouette.

[lookout]

 This is all wrong you know. The case,from the start was a battle of wits to see who could outdo each other between the police and Jeremy. Because Jeremy outsmarted EP,they didn't like it.NOT because the man was guilty,but because he was more intelligent than they were and answered their questions in an unruffled,and calm way,whereas they were trying to get him " to break ".A tactic used by the police in order to trip them up into a confession. Much to their annoyance,Jeremy wasn't having any and told his story as it was without faultering.
It was EP who twisted whatever was said by Jeremy,altering/editing their statements and generally fabricating evidence.  As in the shadow/silhouette/" trick of the light ! That being the case,why did Bews run as though his arse was on fire at just " a trick of the light ?" Girl !!
Then promptly rang for a backup team of firearm officers ? Tsk.!

[Reader]

Jeremy is saying they ducked out of view, the person had gone when they next looked, and they returned to the car about a minute later. So where did the suggestion that they all ran back to the car come from? Also, where did the suggestion that they saw the person cross the window come from?

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy is saying they ducked out of view, the person had gone when they next looked, and they returned to the car about a minute later. So where did the suggestion that they all ran back to the car come from? Also, where did the suggestion that they saw the person cross the window come from?

Apparently it came from Jeremy. Allegedly he told Mike when they were in prison together?

[Jan]

Apparently it came from Jeremy. Allegedly he told Mike when they were in prison together?

this is the incident where Bews changed his story on the video is it not?

[Jan]

found this

"PC Myall in his statement of 8th Aug 85 states that on arrival a short conversation occurred with Jeremy Bamber who stated what his father had said in a phone call to him, also what guns were in the house and that his sister had a history of psychological illness. He then states that himself, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber went to investigate the house. Oddly PC Myalls makes no mention of the incident in this statement of his seeing someone in the master bedroom walking in front of the window. It was the only incident of note that occurred during the investigation of the house. PC Myall, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber all ducked down behind a hedge. It is odd that this is not included in his statement nor that the light was on in the master bedroom yet PC Myall in the Major Incident Project document asks for that unidentified male to be looked for using finger print elimination. It could be that prior to this 8th August 1985 witness statement was given to the defence that this sighting of someone in the window was edited out. No prosecution could go ahead against Jeremy Bamber if the police in their very own statements were admitting someone was alive in the house when they arrived. Interestingly the pocket books of PC Myall, Sgt Bews and PC Saxby have never been made available to the defence for inspection of their entries on 8th Aug 85. It may be the case that no mention was made of the sighting of someone in the bedroom window, however when Sgt Bews was cross examined about this incident at trial he agreed that they all ducked down behind the hedge but claims that the movement was only a shadow or trick of light but it was significant enough for him to recall that it had happened. If this sighting had been included in the witness statements then the case against Jeremy Bamber would have collapsed."

[lookout]

 I remember reading that on a link some time ago and was quite surprised that Jeremy didn't speak up about it,unless he thought that someone else would. He thought wrong, as when the judge reiterated the question to one of the officers that it was only " a trick of the light,then ? ". Possibly at that point Jeremy was expecting the officer to elaborate.

Defence must have nodded off !

[Jan]

What I don't quite understand is why PC myall made a statement on 15th August?

You would have thought all the officers directly involved would have made statements the day after the event.

Did he make this when they started to realise the moderator might be relevant?

And did this statement tie up with his notebook?

[lookout]

 I would very much doubt that what notes were made,matched up with their statements.