outlandish Theory's

[lookout]

OH! Now Nevill left a message?  . You do realise if there was a message and EP are sitting on it, that means he was framed and you don't believe he was framed - or do you? 

Not framed,just the sheer incompetence of EP.Afterall,their leading man was only a blooming sergeant so what can you expect ?

[maggie]

Apart from when someone is out, the most obvious time to have an answering machine on is when when going to bed.

There is a strong chance of not hearing a phone when asleep. Or not waking and getting to the phone in time. So what better time to have the answering machine on ?

It is likely that the answering machine would be permanently on. For obvious reasons. People don't turn their fridge off when it's empty.

The problem Bamber has with the answering machine being on, is that it badly incriminates him. He said himself he was upstairs 'sleeping like a log'. So would not have got to the phone before Neville had left a message.

I know plenty of people who turned their answer machines off at night if they could be heard from the bedroom.  The old fashioned answer machine would answer the phone, then you would hear the message you had recorded and then if someone wanted to leave a message you would hear that as well.  Much more disturbing than the phone ringing imo.

[mike tesko]

But of course, the absence of a recorded call from WHF to Goldhanger proves only that A) no call was made or B) the answer machine was turned off. It doesn't prove Jeremy didn't kill his family.

It doesn't prove that he killed anyone at all, and that's the point...

[mike tesko]

If there was a call, he made it.

Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...

The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...

[mike tesko]

If there was a call, he made it.

That's just speculation...

[Jane]

Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...

The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...

NO. Polygraph tests simply say his stress levels didn't rise when he was asked the questions. Perhaps Jeremy knew that because certain things couldn't be proved they wouldn't convict him but it doesn't make him innocent.

[mike tesko]

NO. Polygraph tests simply say his stress levels didn't rise when he was asked the questions. Perhaps Jeremy knew that because certain things couldn't be proved they wouldn't convict him but it doesn't make him innocent.

the expert who conducted the tests was left in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber was telling the truth, and that he had answered all the questions promptly and honestly. The Home Office now use polygraph tests to help monitor sex offenders out on parole license,  so the authorities recognise the usefulness of the test. Bamber had no idea nor was he forwarned about the nature of any of the questions that were put to him. He answered all questions spontaneously. If he had failed the test, all the guilters would have been shouting from the roof tops that this proved Bambers  guilt...

[Caroline]

Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...

The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...

No they don't, they simply prove he wasn't stressed when he took the test. Why would he be? He's already been convicted and had nothing to loose by taking the test.

Jeremy and the defence can't prove he received the call, if he could they would have mentioned it at trial 29 years ago. However, his account is about as believable as Katie Price becoming the next Prime Minister   

[Caroline]

the expert who conducted the tests was left in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber was telling the truth, and that he had answered all the questions promptly and honestly. The Home Office now use polygraph tests to help monitor sex offenders out on parole license,  so the authorities recognise the usefulness of the test. Bamber had no idea nor was he forwarned about the nature of any of the questions that were put to him. He answered all questions spontaneously. If he had failed the test, all the guilters would have been shouting from the roof tops that this proved Bambers  guilt...

As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test.

I think Jeremy could probably guess the type of questions he'd be asked! And yes, the test is useful in detecting 'stress'. You are more likely to be stressed at the thought of retuning to prison as a sex offender - especially if you have re-offended. Taking the test AFTER conviction when you have nothing to lose - the stress is much reduced.

[mike tesko]

As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test.

Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings differently...

[Caroline]

Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings...

Witness where? Jeremy took the test after his conviction and this guy hasn't been a witness. However, it's a FACT that the test measures STRESS levels and is incorrectly referred to as a 'Lie Detector Test' so I am not incorrect in stating that HE is incorrect if he is claiming it PROVES Jeremy isn't lying.

[mike tesko]

As far as I am aware, no alternative expert has claimed that the results of Jeremy Bambers polygraph test was interpreted incorrectly. If anyone knows any differently, I would be pleased to stand corrected...

[Jane]

Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings differently...

And was this particular expert witness called to give evidence?

[mike tesko]

Witness where? Jeremy took the test after his conviction and this guy hasn't been a witness. However, it's a FACT that the test measures STRESS levels and is incorrectly referred to as a 'Lie Detector Test' so I am not incorrect in stating that HE is incorrect if he is claiming it PROVES Jeremy isn't lying.

Yes, you are incorrect...

It is irrelevant that he took the polygraph test after he was convicted, and the person who asked the questions and who recorded Jeremy's answers was and is an expert in his own right. He is what they call 'an expert witness', who can testify in criminal proceedings of his findings which arose out of the testing of Jeremy Bamber. His findings are admissible, and as a matter of law, must be accepted, unless a different expert who specialises in that field of expertise provides a conflicting interpretation from the same set of questions, answers and recording captured on various equipment. There is nothing to stop someone who is due to stand trial, from taking a polygraph test before the trial begins, and the results being tendered in as part of the defendants case. In much the same way that the results of a breatholiser or a drugs test can be tended and relied upon...

[mike tesko]

As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. I disagree, since based upon the results of such a test, the expert can offer his opinion on the results obtained during the tests. Since, he be an "expert", his opinion carries a great deal of weight, in comparison to just an ordinary persons opinion, and the reason it does is because he is "An Expert Witness",..The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test. If Jeremy had 'lied", he would not have passed the test...

I think Jeremy could probably guess the type of questions he'd be asked! And yes, the test is useful in detecting 'stress'. You are more likely to be stressed at the thought of retuning to prison as a sex offender - especially if you have re-offended. Taking the test AFTER conviction when you have nothing to lose - the stress is much reduced. that is pure speculation, there is no empirical evidence to remotely support such a scenario. Since, if you take the test, you either pass, or fail, you are either telling the truth, or you are lying. There can never be a situation whereby if you were telling the truth, you could be a liar, or if you passed the test, you could not possibly be telling the truth......