Bathroom window: Quick Q & A's and a conclusion.

[David1819]

thats nonsense that the jury only found him guilty because of the silencer.have you spoken to the 12 jury members.or are you at it again.'posting without any evidence

No I have not spoken to the Jury and I don't need to. The evidence is in the trial transcripts.

Below I have attached the note the Jury gave the Judge. They could not reach a verdict and asked to go over the silencer evidence again. Only then did they manage to find a majority verdict. Thus the silencer was pivotal to their decision.

Posting without evidence is your area of expertise, such as claiming JB flirted with two Jury members and the location of the bullet shells ect.  That's what you call posting without any evidence 

[Steve_uk]

No I have not spoken to the Jury and I don't need to. The evidence is in the trial transcripts.

Below I have attached the note the Jury gave the Judge. They could not reach a verdict and asked to go over the silencer evidence again. Only then did they manage to find a majority verdict. Thus the silencer was pivotal to their decision.

Posting without evidence is your area of expertise, such as claiming JB flirted with two Jury members and the location of the bullet shells ect.  That's what you call posting without any evidence 

Don't forget that Bamber boasted to Julie of committing the perfect crime, which suggests that there was very little if any evidence. Having blabbed to her he learned his lesson which is why he has been reticent for 30 years.

[David1819]

My 20 points are all facts. But feel free to challenge them.

They are also reasons why the prosecution choose to aledge that Bamber climbed in through the bathroom window. But again feel free to challenge them, rather than just say they can be 'dismantled'

If you are not going to dispute a fact such as 'Bamber knew how to get into WHF through the bathroom window', then feel free to explain why this would not support the prosecutions claim that Bamber did this on the massacre night.

I already have countered this claim with genuine evidence Adam. The police carried out 'thorough' examinations of all the windows looking for evidence of forced entry in early September, They found nothing. Jeremy entered the farm via the toilet window with the hack saw on the 16th of September AFTER the police had examined the windows.

All windows were freshly painted in June and Juy that year, Thus Jeremy had only entered via that window on the 16th of September, The hacksaw and window marks evidence used against him was created by Jeremy on the 16th of September.

This of course does not prove innocence. One could argue that the doors were not always locked from the inside, Jeremy entered via a key and commited the massacre then locking all the doors from the inside and procceded to leaving via the kitchen window. However there is no evidence of this its purley a theory

[David1819]

Don't forget that Bamber boasted to Julie of committing the perfect crime, which suggests that there was very little if any evidence. Having blabbed to her he learned his lesson which is why he has been reticent for 30 years.

What evidence is there of this? The word of Julie Mugford.

Given how her testimony is riddled with flaws, dubious dealings and inconsistencies even you sometimes struggle to defend. The chances of Jeremy having said anything like this to Julie are very close to nil

[Adam]

Adam, it isnt just a case of working out how shiela comitted the murders. She wasnt on trial, jeremy was and the reason he has supporters is because the evidence against him is all circumstantial and at best flimsy at times.i think it was a big mistake for the judge to say it had to be jb or sc. The trial was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if jb was guilty or not and based on the evidence available some people feel there wasnt enough evidence against him


you can run streams of lists as long as your arm but most of it is speculation and opinion, no hard evidence. That is your right and i respect that but supporters have just as much right to disagree without your thoughts and opinions.

It isnt warped at all and you need to get down from that high horse of yours and respect other peoples opinions!

There supporters go again. Falsely claiming all the evidence is circumstantial when there are over a 100 pieces of foremsic evidence showing it was not Sheila.

Anyway since when was the mass of circumstantial evidence against him considered not enough to convict him. This case has the advantage for guilters of having both incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence. 

Of course the judge was right to say it was either Bamber or Sheila. Neville had rang Bamber at 3.00am saying Sheila had gone crazy and got the gun, hadn't he ?

[Adam]

I often wonder how the jury would have voted had they known about JMs criminal activities, and PE concerns
about DS jones drunkenness.

The Jury did know about Julie's crimes. The defence asked her about it enough.

So Jones was a drunk now ? That must be because he drank some whisky PE offerred him.

[Adam]

Don't forget that Bamber boasted to Julie of committing the perfect crime, which suggests that there was very little if any evidence. Having blabbed to her he learned his lesson which is why he has been reticent for 30 years.

Bamber was not a criminologist and wouldn't know a perfect crime if it bit him on the nose.

[Adam]

I already have countered this claim with genuine evidence Adam. The police carried out 'thorough' examinations of all the windows looking for evidence of forced entry in early September, They found nothing. Jeremy entered the farm via the toilet window with the hack saw on the 16th of September AFTER the police had examined the windows.

All windows were freshly painted in June and Juy that year, Thus Jeremy had only entered via that window on the 16th of September, The hacksaw and window marks evidence used against him was created by Jeremy on the 16th of September.

This of course does not prove innocence. One could argue that the doors were not always locked from the inside, Jeremy entered via a key and commited the massacre then locking all the doors from the inside and procceded to leaving via the kitchen window. However there is no evidence of this its purley a theory

You haven't countered my 20 points on this thread, as you claimed you didn't need to in post 65.  So the easy cop out is to claim you countered my 20 points in other threads, which is not contributing to this thread.

The windows being painted before the massacre is nothing to do with the scratch marks.

No one knows when the scratch marks were created. The police wouldn't have noticed them until they found the hack saw. Which was several yards from the window. Bamber had days or weeks to get documents which were apparently at WHF.To suggest he didn't ask for a key, or ask someone to let him in, is not credible.

[Steve_uk]

Bamber was not a criminologist and wouldn't know a perfect crime if it bit him on the nose.

It was the silencer that got him in the end though wasn't it, as sami has said. Would Police have brought the case purely on Julie's evidence? I doubt it.

[Adam]

It was the silencer that got him in the end though wasn't it, as sami has said. Would Police have brought the case purely on Julie's evidence? I doubt it.

There is over 200 other pieces of forensic and circumstantial evidence which incriminates Bamber. The silencer being the one supporters like to discuss.

How many more times do I have to say this ?

[Adam]

Is Bamber saying he found the hacksaw blade by the window. Or that he brought one over ?

He told the police he just needed a penknife to gain entry. However would this have been a quiet entry. A bit of sawing prior to the massacre would have ensured a quiet entry.

Bamber spent months preparing his crime. Preparing the bathroom window with his hacksaw was as vital as everything else.

[Steve_uk]

Is Bamber saying he found the hacksaw blade by the window. Or that he brought one over ?

He told the police he just needed a penknife to gain entry. However would this have been a quiet entry. A bit of sawing prior to the massacre would have ensured a quiet entry.

Bamber spent months preparing his crime. Preparing the bathroom window with his hacksaw was as vital as everything else.

Didn't Julie say there was a window that could be exited which by just banging it to gave the appearance that it was locked? I must say the story about him entering through a window in September to retrieve his passport was suspicious though. Didn't he say he knew Police were watching him? He must have been feeling the heat.

[David1819]

You haven't countered my 20 points on this thread, as you claimed you didn't need to in post 65.  So the easy cop out is to claim you countered my 20 points in other threads, which is not contributing to this thread.

The windows being painted before the massacre is nothing to do with the scratch marks.

No one knows when the scratch marks were created. The police wouldn't have noticed them until they found the hack saw. Which was several yards from the window. Bamber had days or weeks to get documents which were apparently at WHF.To suggest he didn't ask for a key, or ask someone to let him in, is not credible.

Fact - The windows were freshly painted in June and July that same year

Fact - The police conducted thorough investigations of all the windows looking for evidence of forced entry in early September. They found no evidence of any forced entry such as hack saw marks.

Fact - Jeremy entered the farm on the 16th of September via the bathroom window with the hacksaw.

Fact- Police find hacksaw marks in early October.


This is forensic evidnence that shows Jeremy did not enter via the bathroom window until the 16th of September.

[Adam]

Didn't Julie say there was a window that could be exited which by just banging it to gave the appearance that it was locked? I must say the story about him entering through a window in September to retrieve his passport was suspicious though. Didn't he say he knew Police were watching him? He must have been feeling the heat.

There are now 20 sources that say the kitchen window can be banged shut from outside.

One supporter refused to accept it and demanded 10 sources. These were supplied however the supporter deemed them not sufficient as they were not all primary sources. Whatever that means. Anyway there are now 20 sources. Most excellent. 

I believe Julie and the relatives informed the police of this. Bamber under police questioning said he knew how to get into  and out of WHF  through several windows,  but did not know about locking the kitchen window.

Strange how Julie knew the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside, but not Bamber.

[notsure]

It is very much a case of providing evidence of Sheila's guilt. It could only be either Jeremy or Sheila who killed the family because of the phone call. It would be difficult to find any forensic evidence to tie in Jeremy given that if guilty (although to me, there is no 'if'), he staged the scene and framed his sister. The police had no reason initially, to dispute what he told told them - therefore any forensics on his person or in his house etc. were lost. There were no forensics tying Sheila either, and she was present at the crime scene, supposedly massacred the entire family and managed to escape even the smallest spatter of blood from even one of the victims. That's quite a feat so it requires some explanation.

i agree caroline but what if the telephone call really happened and neville did call jb. We still wouldnt be able to clearly identify how shiela comitted the murders as she is not here to tell us.

It seems unfair that sc is innocent as no forensics but jb guilty with no forensics. The police are to blame for this as they didnt do a good enough job in any area.

sorry will have to sign off for today as have painting to do .