Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[lookout]

It all depends on what information has been withheld.
It's obvious that those on different sides of the argument will have their own views,that won't change,but the original files will I'm sure,answer a lot of the questions.
NONE of us knows the full truth of what went on and it's only been those with the " strongest " views that have followed others with the same mindset.

[Roch]

I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.

Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.

It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.

I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.

Yes I wasn't trying to have a pop.  I'm just not in agreement with your statement of fact.  And that's not down to me 'wanting' anything to be the case.  The example I gave is in black and white from the logs -   I've chosen not to write it off as an 'error'.  I could be wrong - but at this moment in time I am not convinced I am wrong.  If that makes sense 

[guest2181]

Yes I wasn't trying to have a pop.  I'm just not in agreement with your statement of fact.  And that's not down to me 'wanting' anything to be the case.  The example I gave is in black and white from the logs -   I've chosen not to write it off as an 'error'.  I could be wrong - but at this moment in time I am not convinced I am wrong.  If that makes sense 

I guess it's not something that you need to agree with but it simply is a fact. There is no evidence 'available' that shows any sign of life in the house during the time that the police were at the scene.

You mention that the logs refers to 'conversation with the house met with no reply' and choose to interpret that in a particular way, you then try to reinforce your interpretation by saying the log was withheld from the defence, which simply isn't true.

I respect that we all have our different opinions (wouldn't it be boring if we didn't), but I do find it odd that you are choosing to believe some things on face value to the extent that you use them to reinforce an argument, or rather a position.

Like your belief that the logs were withheld, yet the documents now available on the forum indicates that is not true. West's log was handed to him in court whilst being questioned by the defence and Bonnett's log has a court sticker and appears on a list of exhibits as item 29.

I'm not having a pop either but there does seem to be a relaxation of soundness and logic when you are choosing to accept something that may assist a view of JB being innocent. Yet something which suggests a guilty JB is dismissed out of hand.

[Adam]

Not sure why a document saying 'conversation attempts in the farm house met with no response' would be withheld at trial by the prosecution. It supports their case.

[guest2181]

Not sure why a document saying 'conversation attempts in the farm house met with no response' would be withheld at trial by the prosecution. It supports their case.

It wasn't withheld,  It is also often presented with the 5:25 and 5:29 entries in isolation, rather than showing the next page.

[Adam]

Why did Bamber bring it up decades later and claim there were conversations with Sheila ?

[lookout]

Why did Bamber bring it up decades later and claim there were conversations with Sheila ?

Would YOU remember EVERY detail in a crisis ? Or are you super-human ?

[Roch]

I guess it's not something that you need to agree with but it simply is a fact. There is no evidence 'available' that shows any sign of life in the house during the time that the police were at the scene.

Hartley, I don’t want to get in to some belligerent ‘post-off’ with you. The log entry is available.  Interpreted literally, it is evidence that somebody was still alive in the house. I have not detailed other concerns such as lights in the house or physiological concerns regarding Sheila. Then there's Christopher Bews' changing versions of events with what became known as 'trick of the light'.  We also don't know what was in the Keneally report - which was a review of the case evidence, concluded approximately one month after the event, that confirmed Sheila was responsible.  Essex Constabulary obviously don't want the defence to know what was in his report.  In order for Keneally to reach that conclusion, he may or may not have had access to information which suggested Sheila or others where still alive after 3.48am.   

You mention that the logs refers to 'conversation with the house met with no reply' and choose to interpret that in a particular way, you then try to reinforce your interpretation by saying the log was withheld from the defence, which simply isn't true.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from regarding the logs not being withheld.  The defence took that matter to court - because Essex Police insisted that exhibit 29 was the communications document in its entirety – whereas the defence suspected it was merely the first page of a larger document.   Nowhere in the logs does it say 'conversation with the house met with no reply'.

I respect that we all have our different opinions (wouldn't it be boring if we didn't), but I do find it odd that you are choosing to believe some things on face value to the extent that you use them to reinforce an argument, or rather a position.

I am interpreting the entry literally.  If I am wrong on the following point then I don’t mind being corrected: I believe the police have stated that it was Jeremy Bamber they were in conversation with.  For reasons already stated, I do not believe this is the case – therefore I view this particular claim as subterfuge on the part of Essex Constabulary.

Like your belief that the logs were withheld, yet the documents now available on the forum indicates that is not true. West's log was handed to him in court whilst being questioned by the defence and Bonnett's log has a court sticker and appears on a list of exhibits as item 29.

I've tried to deal with this point above.

I'm not having a pop either but there does seem to be a relaxation of soundness and logic when you are choosing to accept something that may assist a view of JB being innocent. Yet something which suggests a guilty JB is dismissed out of hand.

I think that’s a bit unfair.  I have moderated my opinion on the case and am more open to possibility of Jeremy Bamber having some involvement or foreknowledge* of the events about to unfold.  I have also asked questions on here accordingly.  Here’s another one for you off the top of my head… *was the whole gun / rabbit incident merely to facilitate Sheila’s plans?  If Jeremy Bamber apparently showed no real remorse after the killings and was known to have viewed his immediate family as being in the way of his own plans (‘better off dead’) – then having a suicidal sister ready to carry-out sending her-self and her children to their rest…

[Roch]

I have asked the same question 4 times. You have failed to give an answer.

You say Sheila could have continued carrying out the massacre after the police arrived.  Then refuse to say what you believe she could have done.

Adam, I haven't actually said that.  I'm just open to the possibility of somebody still being alive in the house after 3.48.

A lot of the 14 things on my list, Sheila may not have done. Such as shower, write a suicide note, change clothes, read the bible and put the silencer away. These are all things supporters have made up and claimed Sheila did. You had the option to discard any of these so she had more chance of completing the massacre in the time scale before the police arrived.

I doubt 'supporters' would have made-up that Sheila put the silencer away.  Is this the exhibit flying back and forth between relatives and Essex Police?  If it's Sheila's palm print on the bible, then she may have reached for it as part of what was going on in her mind: it was after all, a grave situation of extraordinary magnitude.  Similarly, June may have held the bible.  Some might say Jeremy Bamber placed Shelia's hand on the bible (though obviously not after 3.48).

You also had the option of discarding the made up claim that Neville called the fifth furthest away police station. Which even Bamber does not believe happened. This would have given Sheila 38 minutes to complete everything. Rather than 22 minutes.

Adam, it's Nevill not Neville.  Again, I do not know how 3.48 represents an arbitrary cut-off time for events inside the farmhouse.  How do we know that Sheila (or anyone else who may have still been alive) knew that police were outside?

Just like all supporters you discarded nothing. To be fair, unlike other supporters you then attempted to justify this and said Sheila continued after the police arrived. Which is a new theory. But then didn't say what you believe she could have done and tried to deflect attention onto me.

It's not a new theory.  I think a lot of people are open to the possibility a series of events, that falls outside of the version where Jeremy Bamber has already left everyone for dead considerably prior to 3.48am.

[lookout]

I digress here Roch,I'm sorry but I'm the worst offender for putting an " e " on the end of Nevill,simply because I have a cousin Neville,with an " e " ( he was tour manager/roadie to Jimi Hendrix,among others. )

[Roch]

I digress here Roch,I'm sorry but I'm the worst offender for putting an " e " on the end of Nevill,simply because I have a cousin Neville,with an " e " ( he was tour manager/roadie to Jimi Hendrix,among others. )

I can remember Vic bringing it to people's attention.  Many of us have committed the same error as Adam.

[maggie]

I can remember Vic bringing it to people's attention.  Many of us have committed the same error as Adam.

Think spell checker doesn't help either, my lappy is determined to spell Nevill with an 'e' no matter how many times I correct it.

[guest2181]

The log entry is available.  Interpreted literally, it is evidence that somebody was still alive in the house.

I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.

Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.

We also don't know what was in the Keneally report - which was a review of the case evidence, concluded approximately one month after the event, that confirmed Sheila was responsible.

This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.

The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.

Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.

Essex Constabulary obviously don't want the defence to know what was in his report.  In order for Keneally to reach that conclusion, he may or may not have had access to information which suggested Sheila or others where still alive after 3.48am.

This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
 

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from regarding the logs not being withheld.  The defence took that matter to court - because Essex Police insisted that exhibit 29 was the communications document in its entirety – whereas the defence suspected it was merely the first page of a larger document.

I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.

It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence

The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.

I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754

I think that’s a bit unfair.

I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. 

[David1819]

I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.

Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.

This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.

The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.

Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.


This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
 
I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.

It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence

The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.

I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754


I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. 

If you take the police log literally it does show someone was alive.

4.09am - 'All lights on in premises' -  Later when police entered the building several lights were off. Thus someone had to be alive inside to switch them off.

Just for the record I don't take the log literally

[guest2181]

If you take the police log literally it does show someone was alive.

4.09am - 'All lights on in premises' -  Later when police entered the building several lights were off. Thus someone had to be alive inside to switch them off.

Just for the record I don't take the log literally

Reminds me of Dustin Hoffman and the "WALK" & "DON'T WALK" lights in the film Rainman.