What makes Bamber innocent?

[lookout]

Well, you probably heard the same interview as I and I have no recall of it being said that "an unknown person was seen moving around in the bedroom".

That's what you think,but we'll leave it at that,shall we ?

[sami]

How was the " trick of the light " at the front of the premises established, when the moon was at the backend of the farmhouse ? It wasn't only JB who'd seen it !!
Because the fact of the matter is that there WAS movement at the front bedroom window soon after JB had arrived at the farmhouse and whoever the person was must have seen JB outside with the police.

i will like to add my opinion the only thing alive and moving about that house while jb was outside with police is the DOG.no person could have left whf while police were outside case closed.

[mike tesko]

I say 'there was no unidentified male'. IF there had been, he's have been approached and questioned AND on finding 5 dead bodies - arrested and charged.

No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...

[mike tesko]

No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...

So, with the very first entry in 'that' Register stating - 001, 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall, at 3.45am?, it becomes clear that by the 7th September, 1985, that PC Myall still hadn't identified the person he had seen on that occasion. It can't have been a reference to 'Jeremy' because, by the 7th September, he already knew who J was. You can't describe somebody that you know, and spent time at the scene with for several hours a month to the day earlier, as an 'unidentified male'. So, the person that PC Myall saw, was clearly someone he had never met before, and whom he did not know the identity of...

[sami]

No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...

ep are fools and at first were fooled by jb.how can you identify things after the event .the vehicles at the farm were accounted for and there were no unidentified males or females

[Jane]

No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...

However, that doesn't explain why the alleged "unidentified person (who you have since named as being Ralph Nevill) moving around in  the bedroom" was allowed to do such, unapprehended.  Further more, it fails to explain why this alleged, still "unidentified person" was seen to be leaving from the vicinity of the farmhouse without being apprehended. Isn't there something here about closing the stable door after JP took the horses for a gallop?

[Jane]

So, with the very first entry in 'that' Register stating - 001, 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall, at 3.45am?, it becomes clear that by the 7th September, 1985, that PC Myall still hadn't identified the person he had seen on that occasion. It can't have been a reference to 'Jeremy' because, by the 7th September, he already knew who J was. You can't describe somebody that you know, and spent time at the scene with for several hours a month to the day earlier, as an 'unidentified male'. So, the person that PC Myall saw, was clearly someone he had never met before, and whom he did not know the identity of...

Well,he only had to ask.

[sami]

Well,he only had to ask.

witty jane but true he only needed to ask who are you

[mike tesko]

ep are fools and at first were fooled by jb.the truth is, that they weren't fooled by J in the first instance. Nobody fooled the cops into thinking, or doing anything at all. Cops knew exactly what they were doing, and they took the approach they took because in the overall circumstances of how the police operation panned out inside the farmhouse, cops thought it was the best way to proceed with the handling of any investigation. The fact that the operation had seemingly 'ended' and been completed by 8.10am, that morning, with all five bodies accounted for, only for the 'search' for 'a body' to have been ressurected at 8.15am, until around 8.30am, give or take a few seconds, determined how the five deaths were investigated during 'that' first month, between 7th August and 7th September, 1985, which as we all know was one of the cops treating the five deaths, as ' four murders, and a suicide' (SC/688/85). But for the tenacity of the relatives, nobody would have blinked an eye with the manner with which cops investigated the five deaths during that first month. It was 'convenient' for cops to pin the responsibility for the other four deaths upon her, and for the cops to simply explain away Sheila's death, as a suicide...how can you identify things after the event . I think you may be misunderstanding, the nature of the content of 'that' Register. It was compiled from the 7th September, 1985, onward, so that further investigations might be carried out to try and identify any person not previously identified by name, be it a man, or a woman. The references to 'unidentified vehicles' in the same Register, were vehicles mentioned in witness statements, or officers Reports which had not been individually identified by index Registration No. Plate...the vehicles at the farm were accounted for yes, and one of the vehicles, was Ralph Neville's camper truck...and there were no unidentified males or females I'm afraid in the context of 'that' Register, there clearly were literally hundreds of examples of a male who had not been identified, or a female who had not been identified, or a vehicle which cops had a basic description of but not a registration. These 'unidentified' males, (with the exception of one example) females, and motor vehicles, were not all linked to the scene on the morning of the shootings, some of the enquiries that were listed in 'that' Register, related to sightings of unidentified people on dates before the day of the shootings, and afterwards...

[mike tesko]

However, that doesn't explain why the alleged "unidentified person (who you have since named as being Ralph Nevill) moving around in  the bedroom" was allowed to do such, unapprehended.  maybe, you just don't understand what is being referred to in 'that' Register, at that particular time (3.45am)? How could PC Myall apprehend the ' unidentified' male, he was observing inside the farmhouse, when by that stage, PC Myall was arguably outside in the grounds with PS Bews and Jeremy? Do you know something that I don't?Further more, it fails to explain why this alleged, still "unidentified person" was seen to be leaving from the vicinity of the farmhouse without being apprehended. You are mixing up one sighting, of an ' unidentified' male (3.45am), with another sighting of the same man which took place about an hour later (4.50pm) Isn't there something here about closing the stable door after JP took the horses for a gallop? According to Kim Senguptas news article, the sighting of the 'scruffy looking' hunch shouldered man was seen walking away from the vicinity of the farmhouse about an hour after police first arrived. Sengupta does not mention anything at all about the sighting of an 'unidentified' male seen by PC Myall shortly upon arrival at the scene. My reference to both of these sightings being related to the same man (Ralph Neville) are not to be interpreted as the same sighting, since there were clearly two different sightings, one of the 'unidentified' male inside the bedroom, and the other, of the same ' unidentified' man seen walking away from the farmhouse...

[sami]

whoever it was maybe it could have been lord lucan.anyway its impossible to get the answer now and its not enough to get an appeal

[mike tesko]

What is more, the so called ' unidentified' man, and now I am referring specificly to the sighting of the 'scruffy looking, hunch shouldered man, seen walking away from the farmhouse, about 'an Hour' after cops first arrived upon the scene. This 'Scruufily' described man appeared to be carrying something with him at that time...

Now, what the hell could he have been carrying?

[mike tesko]

whoever it was maybe it could have been lord lucan.anyway its impossible to get the answer now and its not enough to get an appeal

Maybe, not enough on its own - but it seems rather strange that only PS Bews refers to the sighting of that man, as 'a trick of light', since, PC Myall does not, and neither does Jeremy...

[mike tesko]

What I would hope for, is that somebody ought to be checking into the real reasons why Ralph Neville left South Africa in a hurry, which according to what J told me involved a shooting incident which Neville thought cops over there might be wanting to question him about any role he had played in a murder, or a series of murders over there?

[Jane]

My only interest is in the allegation that certain members of the police -the names being irrelevant- "saw" an "unidentified person moving around in the bedroom" and I'm not stupid enough to suggest that any police IN the house was capable of seeing what was seen by those OUT of the house.

IF they saw an "unidentified person ect................" IN the house, surely they didn't think it was a different ect "LEAVING from the vicinity of the house" an hour later. They would have been perfectly within their rights to apprehend such a person.