The killlers

[susan]

Thank you Scipio you explain it so much better than Adam.  I understand now.   

[scipio_usmc]

Scott Lomax was either lying or totally incompetent in his researching when he wrote the following:

"As a consequence, on 22 August 1985 Barlow inspected the kitchen window and found nothing unusual with it.  The window was secure on its latch. He examined all the downstairs windows and recorded nothing that corroborates the prosecution's argument."

In a 1985 statement he indicated the kitchen window was able to be locked from the outside by tapping on it.  In 1991 in a COLP statement he indicated the sash windows could be unlocked from the outside but not locked while the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.

Was he unaware of these documents thus evidence of his poor research skills or did he intentionally ignore them?  Since the Dickinson report and 2002 appeal reference the statements she should have been aware of them and the Dickinson Report even notes what it said.

[scipio_usmc]

Thank you Scipio you explain it so much better than Adam.  I understand now.

You mean him telling you that closed and shut are synonyms wasn't very helpful? 

[susan]

You mean him telling you that closed and shut are synonyms wasn't very helpful? 

  EXACTLY

[Jan]

No he didn't say anything in court about the kitchen window not being able to be locked from the outside.

that's  not what I asked

 did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?

You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?

[Jan]

Scott Lomax was either lying or totally incompetent in his researching when he wrote the following:

"As a consequence, on 22 August 1985 Barlow inspected the kitchen window and found nothing unusual with it.  The window was secure on its latch. He examined all the downstairs windows and recorded nothing that corroborates the prosecution's argument."

In a 1985 statement he indicated the kitchen window was able to be locked from the outside by tapping on it.  In 1991 in a COLP statement he indicated the sash windows could be unlocked from the outside but not locked while the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.


Can you show me where it says locked from the outside in the COLP statement - I can only see closed?


LOTS of windows can be closed from the outside - hardly any windows can be locked from the outside.


Was he unaware of these documents thus evidence of his poor research skills or did he intentionally ignore them?  Since the Dickinson report and 2002 appeal reference the statements she should have been aware of them and the Dickinson Report even notes what it said.

[guest2181]

that's  not what I asked

 did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?

You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?

The window could be locked by banging the latch from the outside. There is no 'proof' that is what happened,  only that it 'could' have happened.

Which allowed the prosecution to consider other possible culprits.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand.   

[Jan]

The window could be locked by banging the latch from the outside. There is no 'proof' that is what happened,  only that it 'could' have happened.

Which allowed the prosecution to consider other possible culprits.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand.   

Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.

That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.

All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.

If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.

[scipio_usmc]

that's  not what I asked

 did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?

You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?

I said he witnessed it by going there in person and personally seeing it could be locked from the outside.

He documented this in his written statements. I have not seen any evidence that establishes he testified in court.  Not all those police who are involved in the case testify in court.  Whether he testified or not doesn't change what he personally witnessed.

He clearly didn't testify in court that he found no evidence of the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside which is what was suggested. 

[scipio_usmc]

Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.

You are not looking for the truth you just keep making bogus claims. Produce evidence that, "when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window." 

Produce a source that recounts his testimony and proves your claim to be true.  If you can't do so then  produce your basis for making this assertion.  You don't even know for sure he testified so obviously have no business claiming he testified to that.

That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.

All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.

If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.

I have already established Barlow is an independent witness who said the window can be locked from the outside.  He wrote such in a statement in 1985 which the Dickinson Report referenced (I even posted the screenshot of the exact paragraph that addressed such) and he also said it in a COLP statement which you posted.



It doesn't matter if he said it in court or not he said it in the documents in question so is an independent witness. 

The only reason we are going round and round is because you and other Jeremy supporters don't want to face the fact the window could be locked from the outside.

[guest154]

Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.

That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.

All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.

If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.

Hi, Jan. Where are you getting that from? Where have you seen that trial testimony?

[guest2181]

Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.

That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.

All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.

If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.

[guest2181]

To further confuse matters, I understand that the side hung casement window over the kitchen sink could be used for egress, you then put your arm through the fanlight to lock the casement.
It is then the fanlight which could be locked from the outside.

[Adam]

I thought all the police at the crime scene said all the windows appeared closed.

Barlow may have said he saw nothing unusual about the windows on the night. However the Dickenson report says that he later visited WHF and saw it could be 'closed' from the outside.

The only people going around in circles are supporters. I suggested a time for closure on this issue a few months ago. There are 16 primary and secondary sources. Even Jeremy has not mentioned this in the last 30 years and there is nothing on the OS.

[Patti]

The bathroom window and the kitchen window.

The kitchen window looks very small for a man to climb through...not saying it could not be done., but what I am saying is there is no forensic evidence to support anyone going out of that window, nor is there any evidence to support the bathroom window had been used on the night.