The 3am telephone call. What was said ?

[lookout]

Nothig was scrutinised in the beginning because Jeremy's set-up allowed crucial evidence to be destroyed. They didn't have to prove he left by a particular window, just demonstrate that it was possible.

EP were definite about his " escape " via the window,or  how else would he have got out of a place which was locked from the inside ?
It was EP who'd destroyed evidence,not Jeremy. Forensic should have bagged-up every article they could find,but instead,it was held somewhere then incinerated,whereas DNA could well have been tested on all items.

[Caroline]

EP were definite about his " escape " via the window,or  how else would he have got out of a place which was locked from the inside ?
It was EP who'd destroyed evidence,not Jeremy. Forensic should have bagged-up every article they could find,but instead,it was held somewhere then incinerated,whereas DNA could well have been tested on all items.

What is the point of collecting evidence from a crime scene over a month after the event? In effect Jeremy did destroy evidence because he staged the scene and led police down the wrong path. It's his fault that the scene wasn't scrutinised but he didn't want it to be. Most of the evidence would have been destroyed anyway - the house was cleaned so how do you expect police to find evidence on a window over a month later? What DNA do you imagine would be found? Early DNA testing needed a lot of DNA to get a result and if they didn't find Jeremy's DNA on any of the articles, that wouldn't mean he was innocent.

[lookout]

What is the point of collecting evidence from a crime scene over a month after the event? In effect Jeremy did destroy evidence because he staged the scene and led police down the wrong path. It's his fault that the scene wasn't scrutinised but he didn't want it to be. Most of the evidence would have been destroyed anyway - the house was cleaned so how do you expect police to find evidence on a window over a month later? What DNA do you imagine would be found? Early DNA testing needed a lot of DNA to get a result and if they didn't find Jeremy's DNA on any of the articles, that wouldn't mean he was innocent.

Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.

[Caroline]

Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.

I'm not saying it should have been dismissed and of course EP SHOULD have done a better job - on that we agree. However, Jeremy did influence their behaviour indirectly.

Most of what was incinerated was blood evidence, I doubt that there would have been any of Jeremy's DNA on the victims but if there was, probably not enough. I do agree that such evidence should never have been incinerated and you might be right, the answer may have been destroyed but we'll never know.

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.

Heaps of DNA is not likely. DNA that would be extremely useful would not be found anyway.  The victims didn't scratch the attacker and thus get the attacker's DNA under their nails.  The attacker didn't get cut and bleed thus the killers blood based DNA would not be found.  No semen based DNA would be found either.   

DNA evidence would not be particularly useful in a case like this with the exception of the blood on/in the weapon/moderator or victim blood found on the perp/perp's clothing

Sheila's clothing and body didn't have any signs of spatter from the other victims so there was no blood to test for DNA so as to suggest she was present when anyone else was shot.  If they had found signs of such spatter they would have type tested it which would have prevented it from being saved for DNA testing down the road anyway.

They didn't immediately seize Jeremy's clothing he was wearing or to immediately search his house for clothing that might have had blood stains.  Even if they did immediately seize and tested any clothing found it would have left nothing to DNA test later.

Jeremy's jacket had been washed. It had red drops that they could not determine what they were. If those drops came back as DNA of the victims it would be evident it was spatter and he would have been damning.  But they didn't have DNA testing at the time and expended the samples by testing them to try to figure to what they were. Even if they didn't test it and save it though the fact they were washed and further passage of time means they probably would not have gotten a DNA profile even if they were blood spatter.
 
DNA in general is not a problem for Jeremy because he interacted with the victims so his DNA had the ability to get around the house and on the victims as theirs had the ability to get on him.   The defining feature is that the spots resembled spatter and getting tiny drops of DNA of the victims all over his jacket would not be likely to happen any other way. If they just found one bit of DNA of a victim on Jeremy's clothing that is worthless it needs to be spatter to have any significance for the murders.

DNA evidence is much more significant when strangers are involved because such strangers have no valid excuses for their DNA being found period.

If they didn't destroy the bedding then there might have been evidence to prove some of Nevill's blood got on the bedding. That's the main significance in the destruction of the bedding. 

[nugnug]

Jeremy:

'There is something wrong at the farm, I haven't slept all night. Everything is going well. Love you lots'.

Julie:

'Go back to bed'.


From memory this is what Julie has testified Bamber said to her and what she said to him.

It all sounds credible. Bamber had rang her so would be the one doing the talking. He obviously wanted to tell her something. Julie was asleep and woken so is likely to not want to speak and want to go back to bed. 

The police asked Bamber what he said to Julie in this phone call. He said 'no comment'.

At trial he also refused to say in detail exactly what he said. Just saying he rang Julie to 'hear a friendly voice'.

Since conviction I do not recall Bamber ever bringing up this telephone call. It is not on the OS.

The 2002 appeal found it unacceptable that Bamber phoned Julie. Whether before or after phoning the forth furthest away police station.

It's really a damaging thing Jeremy can't dispute or put a gloss on. Ringing Julie for advice or to hear a friendly voice just won't wash.

Do other people agree that what Julie testified was said, is correct ?

so why would he say that to her if he had already told her what the trouble was as she cliamed.

[Jane]

so why would he say that to her if he had already told her what the trouble was as he cliamed.

Not certain what you mean here, Nugs. Why would he say WHAT to her?

The first call was to tell her it had to be done that night. I imagine the second would have been about confirming it had been done, otherwise how would she have known? I don't believe it was quite that simple though. He was probably proud of his achievement and excited like a hyped up child longing to be told how clever it had been.

[nugnug]

when was the first phonecall suposed to have happend did she ever say.

[nugnug]

Not certain what you mean here, Nugs. Why would he say WHAT to her?

The first call was to tell her it had to be done that night. I imagine the second would have been about confirming it had been done, otherwise how would she have known? I don't believe it was quite that simple though. He was probably proud of his achievement and excited like a hyped up child longing to be told how clever it had been.

im just respounding to what adam cliamed.

[Jane]

when was the first phonecall suposed to have happend did she ever say.

10 pm. It lasted approx. 17 minutes. She said she went to bed at 11 pm and slept until the phone woke her 3.15(ish)

[Reader]

Except he confirmed that what he said in his first statement was correct and made a big thing about saying so in his interrogation.

That's incorrect. You know that his confirmation related to a specific question and that he was badgered into it. He didn't say he knew his first statement was correct from its content - he was saying that it would have been correct because it was made shortly after the events described. During the same interrogation, he confirmed that some details in his first statement were incorrect. For example, he confirmed he looked up the number for Chelmsford police station, but his first statement said he called that station immediately, making no mention of looking up its number.

[Adam]

im just respounding to what adam cliamed.

Nugs, what do you think Bamber said to Julie in his 3am telephone call ?

[Reader]

Why is he saying that the initial times are now correct if he didn't pay too much attention at the time?

That doesn't make sense. When and where does he state "the initial times are now correct" or anything remotely like that?

[vidvic]

That doesn't make sense. When and where does he state "the initial times are now correct" or anything remotely like that?

Hi reader, I do not want to argue but I do want to debate this. Would that be possible without taking offence?

[Reader]

2) Jeremy intentionally decided what he would claim.  It wasn't some accident that he claimed he called police immediately and he stuck by that.  He sticks by it to this day.

He doesn't, and didn't during his interviews. He stated he looked up the police number, which is inconsistent with calling the police immediately.

. . . making up that Jeremy said he called Witham then Julie then Chelmsford.

That was mike tesko's notion, not mine. There's nothing in his initial statements or interviews about trying to call Witham.