The killlers

[nugnug]

No he didn't.  On August 20 he recorded that the family explained how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and he told them they might have to show him so he wrote in a report that he visited WHF with Ann Eaton on 8/22 and she showed him how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and wrote up a statement about it.  His statements are not here on this site.  The Dickinson report though notes this as does his pocketbook which is posted here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3185.0.html




ive read the appeal documents he doesnt say that.
Furthermore the COA decision references it:

"Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:

"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window.

In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:

"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window.

It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:

"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".

This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

[nugnug]

ive had a read of appeal documents he doesnt say that he says the windows could be closed from the outside but not locked.

[scipio_usmc]

ive had a read of appeal documents he doesnt say that he says the windows could be closed from the outside but not locked.

You read what appeals documents?

The Appeal Court decision doesn't address what he said about the kitchen window.

The document Jan posted was attached to his COLP statement and he used the term closed to mean could be locked and opened to mean could be unlocked.

His 1985 statement that the Dickinson Report summarizes is not on this site so you never saw it.  You have nothing to contradict the Dickinspon Report's characterization of his statement.

Your record of being wrong 100% of the time is still safe.

[guest154]

You read what appeals documents?

The Appeal Court decision doesn't address what he said about the kitchen window.

The document Jan posted was attached to his COLP statement and he used the term closed to mean could be locked and opened to mean could be unlocked.

His 1985 statement that the Dickinson Report summarizes is not on this site so you never saw it.  You have nothing to contradict the Dickinspon Report's characterization of his statement.

Your record of being 100% is still safe.

He's too busy taking shots at you to understand what is being talked about, sadly. Yesterday he said that you lied about what is in the Dickinson report and said that he can never find what you claim to be there....which meant he had to ignore that you'd actually posted the quotes from the Dickinson reports in the same topic he was in.

[scipio_usmc]

He's too busy taking shots at you to understand what is being talked about, sadly. Yesterday he said that you lied about what is in the Dickinson report and said that he can never find what you claim to be there....which meant he had to ignore that you'd actually posted the quotes from the Dickinson reports in the same topic he was in.

It is neither complex nor difficult to comprehend IF one actually wants to do so. Some Jeremy supporters seem to lack the desire to do so though.

The revision of the of the moderator prefix is not complex either.  After they collected all items from the Eatons that had been taken from WHF it was realized the person who found all these items had been Boutflour.  At that point police decided to attribute all the items to him and revised the items to DB/1-4.  Since that prefix was already in use they later changed a third time to DRB/1-4.  If one WANTS to understand it then one can readily do so.  But many have no interest in doing so any would rather pretend that there were different moderators ignoring the other changes so not being consistent because being consistent would require claiming there were 3 different scopes, 3 different sets of rifle ammo, 3 different sets of shotgun ammo and if they were consistent the ridiculousness of their claims would be all too apparent.



   

[Adam]

Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.

Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.

[Adam]

Supporters also contradict themselves when supporting Jeremy.

Highlighting that two shot suicides do happen. Then contradicting themselves by saying Jeremy would never stage a two shot suicide. Preferring to leave Sheila alive with one shot Or shoot her twice and radically change plans at the last minute to something more implausible.   

Guilters agree two shot suicides may happen. Especially with a weak rifle. But believe Jeremy fired the gun. With the silencer on.

[Adam]

I have quite a good memory and I am sure I saw an exert of Barlows testimony - but I have to admit defeat I cant find it - from memory he did NOT answer the question directly.

I just found the testimony from Jones. He was there while the window was being tested ( could have been a different day) there were photographers there as well.- banged several times- he said he did not see it locked from the outside.

Jones's testimony does not say whether the other people bang locked/shut the window or not. Just that other people were carrying out the experiment.

The experiment must have worked otherwise the prosecution would not have used it in their case.

Seventeen.

[Jan]

Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.

Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.

That is ridiculous - if I shut you in a room with no windows and close the door - can you get out?

If I lock the door from the outside - can you get out?

simple question

[maggie]

Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.

Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.

Hi Adam, there is a great deal of difference between shut, closed and locked am surprised you don't know this.  I suggest you look the meanings up and maybe check out the meaning of the word 'debate', while you're are at it.

[scipio_usmc]

That is ridiculous - if I shut you in a room with no windows and close the door - can you get out?

If I lock the door from the outside - can you get out?

simple question

Your attacks on Adam are for naught.  You got everything wrong and continue to do so out of bias. 

The Dickinson report clearly states that Barlow signed a statement indicating he went to the scene with the family and that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.  You tried to challenge this with the false claim that Barlow testified the windows could not be locked from the outside so the Dickinson Report claim is untrustworthy.  You ended up being wrong there was no such testimony.  In addition he noted in a COLP statement that he was able to lock the kitchen window from the outside. He used the word open in placed of unlock and close in place of lock. You intentionally try to pretend he just meant open and close not lock and unlock though the meaning of his words are clear. 

You also tried to pretend that Jones was there at the time Barlow tested the kitchen window and even after the relevant excerpts of the testimony were posted here and it was shown that he was referring to an earlier occasion with people hired by the defense you would not acknowledge that for sure he was talking about a different incident than Barlow was.

All you are doing is demonstrating dishonesty and bias operating hand in hand.  That doesn't help you in harms you and does so tremendously you should just come clean on the issue and stop trying to play games unless you want to end up with a reputation like Mike has.   

[nugnug]

well its up to posters to judge where the dishonesty is coming from.

[scipio_usmc]

well its up to posters to judge where the dishonesty is coming from.

Objective ones will admit it comes mainly from Jeremy's hardcore supporters and on this window issue has come from Jeremy supporters.

How can anyone try to pretend that in the following he was not talking about the windows being locked and unlocked but simply opened and closed without regard to the lock issue:

"examined all the windows most are sash type, and could be opened from the outside but could not be closed. One window in particular in the kitchen could be closed from the outside (by banging the window.)

The notion the sash windows which open up and down could not be closed from the outside by pulling the window down is absurd.  Quite clearly he meant these windows could not be locked from the outside.  His claim these windows could be opened from the outside quite clearly means unlocked from the outside.

His comment about banging on the kitchen window means to get it to lock.  That is crystal clear in light of his 1985 statement.  The Dickinson report notes what he said in that 1985 statement:



Jeremy supporters are playing games for naught.

 

[nugnug]

i think the reason jan is scepitcal is the fact you would expect the apeal court to mention but they dont in fact they say somthing completly diffrent.

[scipio_usmc]

i think the reason jan is scepitcal is the fact you would expect the apeal court to mention but they dont in fact they say somthing completly diffrent.

Would expect an appeal court to mention what?  The appeal court addresses the arguments made by the moving party (the party that is appealing) and to a lesser degree the claims by the other party.

The window issue revolved around the bathroom window not the kitchen window.  The defense knew they had no argument to make with respect to the kitchen window so didn't make one.