What makes Bamber innocent?

[Caroline]

One robbery doesn't constitute a mass murder carried out by the same man. Arson now too ??
If JB hadn't robbed the office ( then admitted it was him ) what pedigree would he have had leading up to the murders ?

He didn't admit it was him, Julie admitted it so he couldn't deny it!

[John]

One robbery doesn't constitute a mass murder carried out by the same man. Arson now too ??
If JB hadn't robbed the office ( then admitted it was him ) what pedigree would he have had leading up to the murders ?

He didn't admit it though until Julie squealed on him.

[lookout]

Customary? I don't think so Lookout. He first 'rattled' off his story on the morning of the murders. Are you suggesting he should have asked for a solicitor to be present when he spoke to police? If so, he might as well have put the handcuffs on himself!!

Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk. 

[lookout]

He didn't admit it though until Julie squealed on him.

It was in JM's interest to open up about the robbery,or she wouldn't have cracked on either. Soft lad had already told his father previously.

[lookout]

Only one call received by police despite the myths.  Jeremy didn't know that the time of his call from the farm to his own house wouldn't be recorded by BT.  He had to leave the handset off to make it appear that Nevill made the call and was interrupted and also to ensure that the phone rang long enough so that he could nip home and answer it.  Since the phone was then disabled Jerry had to wait for a while before phoning Julie.  Not a very imaginative plan.

The myth lies in the fact that the jury were told that there was only one phone-call when there were two.
The " nipping home " bit creases me. Speeding over rough terrain on a sit-up and beg ladies bicycle. Never !

[John]

Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk.

Its generally the guilty or those with prior convictions who refuse to answer.

[John]

The myth lies in the fact that the jury were told that there was only one phone-call when there were two.
The " nipping home " bit creases me. Speeding over rough terrain on a sit-up and beg ladies bicycle. Never !

Why do you persist with that nonsense lookout, had there been two calls made to police they would have been recorded as such and spoken to by witnesses at the trial.

[lookout]

Its generally the guilty or those with prior convictions who refuse to answer.

So in actual fact when JB was first arrested,he was telling the truth. Second arrest he'd been advised to engage a solicitor. If I'm not wrong,JB had refused the services of a solicitor when first arrested---------until the penny dropped that his words could/WOULD get misconstrued ( putting it politely ) and were.

[lookout]

Why do you persist with that nonsense lookout, had there been two calls made to police they would have been recorded as such and spoken to by witnesses at the trial.

Because there was a general cock-up of everything else,to admit to there being two phone-calls would have been the end of the trial and a few jobs to boot.
Two Mr Bambers,separate addresses ( or was it, in the minds of officers ?) which is how it would have appeared to those not expecting a call-out for a murder or an attempted one/s.

My " nonsense " is every bit as nutty as yours.

[Caroline]

It was in JM's interest to open up about the robbery,or she wouldn't have cracked on either. Soft lad had already told his father previously.

And you know this because?

[Caroline]

Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk.

Perhaps John could confirm if answering no comment is 'customary'?

[Steve_uk]

I'm not sure Jeremy told his parents as such-probably more of a nudge nudge wink wink. Didn't Nevill tell the Eatons that they weren't looking for anyone in connection with the robbery..

[lookout]

And you know this because?

I read books,don't you ? Oh,you don't have Lomax's do you ?

[Caroline]

Because there was a general cock-up of everything else,to admit to there being two phone-calls would have been the end of the trial and a few jobs to boot.
Two Mr Bambers,separate addresses ( or was it, in the minds of officers ?) which is how it would have appeared to those not expecting a call-out for a murder or an attempted one/s.

My " nonsense " is every bit as nutty as yours.

So you don't think West would bother to ask for the address of the caller and the address of the possible victim? Perhaps you can answer WHY West wouldn't have told Jeremy that his father had already called not 10 minutes previously?

[lookout]

So you don't think West would bother to ask for the address of the caller and the address of the possible victim? Perhaps you can answer WHY West wouldn't have told Jeremy that his father had already called not 10 minutes previously?

Because the idiot was getting confused with there being two Mr Bambers so it was easier to just mention one. Perhaps you haven't realised that JB wasn't the only one with no gumption.