New video on the bike:

[Jan]

Unless BW,  the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.

The bedroom phone was either in the bedroom and disabled by Bamber upon entrance. Who then took it downstairs. Or it was already downstairs in the kitchen. 

Either way, it is a reason why Neville headed to the kitchen.

But the new video says the phone was not hidden under the magazines - which was used against Jeremy by the prosecution - so why would Ainsley change his story ? Its quite a vital part of the case because it was used against Jeremy in court.

[Adam]

But the new video says the phone was not hidden under the magazines - which was used against Jeremy by the prosecution - so why would Ainsley change his story ? Its quite a vital part of the case because it was used against Jeremy in court.

Under magazines or not is not important. You can't really hide something as big as a 1980's house phone under magazines.

What's more important is that the kitchen phone was working. So why was the bedroom phone plugged in the kitchen socket ? And the kitchen phone unplugged ?

[Adam]

Just watched some of the video.

It claims Ainsley said the kitchen phone was wrapped up and on a shelf upstairs. Although no WS was shown from Ainsley in the video supporting this. Why a working kitchen phone would be put away upstairs I don't know.

The video did show a WS from Ainsley saying the kitchen phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.

[lookout]

Unless BW,  the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.





So why do you persist in saying that Jeremy hid it ?

[Adam]

The video then suggests AE moved the working kitchen phone from upstairs, into the kitchen underneath a pile of magazines.

Why ? The police had carried out their searches. Was she psychic and would realise doing this would help frame Bamber ?

[Jan]

Just watched some of the video.

It claims Ainsley said the kitchen phone was wrapped up and on a shelf upstairs. Although no WS was shown from Ainsley in the video supporting this. Why a working kitchen phone would be put away upstairs I don't know.

The video did show a WS from Ainsley saying the kitchen phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.

They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .

[Jan]

The video then suggests AE moved the working kitchen phone from upstairs, into the kitchen underneath a pile of magazines.

Why ? The police had carried out their searches. Was she psychic and would realise doing this would help frame Bamber ?

They were saying only certain people had access to the house -but to be honest it is about the same level of assumption as saying Jermemy hid it. But it was a lot more damaging to him .

[Caroline]

They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .

Or Ainsley just made a mistake and mixed up the phones.

[Adam]

Unless BW,  the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.





So why do you persist in saying that Jeremy hid it ?

Jan brought it up.

I am sure you will agree it is very very suspicious where how the phones were found.

[Adam]

They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .

If the video had posted two different WS from Ainsley, then that would mean something.

Ainsley is only allowed to submit one WS. Which says the phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.

[lookout]

Nearly everyone involved has reneged on evidence when you go through everything,as what they've said initially doesn't tally with what was received at trial.
When you read about " Bambers Application for Prerogative Pardon 2005 " ( Home Office ) it's not something that you can turn a blind eye to.

[Adam]

The video then says a policeman dialled Simpson from the kitchen using the cream bedroom phone. Again there is no proof of this.

I assume this was after photographs were taken which showed no blood on the phone.

Fingerprint tests not being carried out on that phone were not an issue. I assume Neville's and Jeremy's prints were on it. And Junes, and Sheila's, and...

[Adam]

Nearly everyone involved has reneged on evidence when you go through everything,as what they've said initially doesn't tally with what was received at trial.
When you read about " Bambers Application for Prerogative Pardon 2005 " ( Home Office ) it's not something that you can turn a blind eye to.

I didn't know he did this. He was being optimistic.

[lookout]

I didn't know he did this. He was being optimistic.

Pity you hadn't read it then as it was/is on the forum in February.

[guest154]

Mat - are they telling lies about the phone then?


Just to show I am still trying to look at things in detail and asking questions.

Or are you saying the words they are attributing to Ainsley  are not true - it is a very clear statement?

I haven't seen their video about the phones? It must be a new one? But I am suspicious whenever the official site makes a claim because of the little tricks that they have pulled in the past so if they are posting a discrepancy in something Ainsley said I hope they post both his statements that show the discrepancy and that they don't just SAY there is one.

The phone situation in WHF that night is alarming.

Are you saying you don't think the official site lies?  Or posts misleading information?    There was no love lost between the last defence team and OCT - got to be a reason for that.

I am on holiday for 2 weeks soon - so after tonight when I don't reply, don't think I've ran off!!