The kitchen window

[Adam]

And? Unless he admitted he did that on the night of the murders it does not prove anything. He never tried to hide how he and others got in and out of  whf . But he did dispute the window locking from the outside , and no I am not going to revisit that argument because it just goes round and round in circles.

Buddy asked about the found hacksaw. Which the police found by the bathroom window,  rather than AE.

Bamber said under police questioning he could get into WHF through 3 windows. But denied knowing about the lockable from outside window. Funny that Julie knew.

[Jan]

Buddy asked about the found hacksaw. Which the police found by the bathroom window,  rather than AE.

Bamber said under police questioning he could get into WHF through 3 windows. But denied knowing about the lockable from outside window. Funny that Julie knew.

Or was she fed that by the police because they were the one that found all the windows secured?

[Adam]

Or was she fed that by the police because they were the one that found all the windows secured?

That must be it. The police fed Julie.

[Adam]

The most likely person to know about a lockable from outside window at WHF is Bamber - 

He used to live there. As a boy and a man.

He still worked there.

He said to the police he knew how to enter and exit WHF through windows.

If he was entering and exiting an empty WHF prior to the massacre, he would have to leave all windows shut. To deter burglars and not leave a trace he had been inside.


If he didn't know in advance, he could just check all windows to see if any could be banged shut from outside. There were enough windows there. If there were not any, he could spend a few minutes adjusting a window a few days before the massacre so it was possible.

[Jan]

The most likely person to know about a lockable from outside window at WHF is Bamber - 

He used to live there. As a boy and a man.

He still worked there.

He said to the police he knew how to enter and exit WHF through windows.

If he was entering and exiting an empty WHF prior to the massacre, he would have to leave all windows shut. To deter burglars and not leave a trace he had been inside.


If he didn't know in advance, he could just check all windows to see if any could be banged shut from outside. There were enough windows there. If there were not any, he could spend a few minutes adjusting a window a few days before the massacre so it was possible.

But he said you could not lock the inside of the window from the outside , and even the court of appeal said it was not proven. Let's not go there again. It's so pointless .

[Adam]

Well there are 21 sources. You asked me to supply 10 once.

Bamber said he was not aware of being able to shut a window from outside so the inside latch would fall into place. Which was a surprise as everyone else seemed to know.

[Adam]

Just watching 'Countdown to Murder'. The one about Gordon Park and the body in the lake.

He has never admitted to the crime, decades later.

I suppose if there is no witnesses, there is no point admitting it as it negates the chance of a technicality helping him in the future.

[Jan]

Well there are 21 sources. You asked me to supply 10 once.

Bamber said he was not aware of being able to shut a window from outside so the inside latch would fall into place. Which was a surprise as everyone else seemed to know.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I thought you knew what an original source was? Come on Adam stop wasting your own time by posting things you know are incorrect . You are more intelligent than that.

[Jan]

Just watching 'Countdown to Murder'. The one about Gordon Park and the body in the lake.

He has never admitted to the crime, decades later.

I suppose if there is no witnesses, there is no point admitting it as it negates the chance of a technicality helping him in the future.

Good point Adam . But sure the nature of the technicality should affect whether it deserves the release of the accused ? For example the jury being
Misdirected about vital evidence by the trial judge?

[Adam]

Good point Adam . But sure the nature of the technicality should affect whether it deserves the release of the accused ? For example the jury being
Misdirected about vital evidence by the trial judge?

Bamber has already appealed about the judge.

Steve Wright, the Suffolk strangler also pleaded 'not guilty'. In court he just kept saying 'it would appear so' when presented with incriminating evidence.

I suspect most criminals where there is no witnesses will plead innocence. Then they can appeal and look for a technicality.

[lookout]

Jeremy is NOT looking for a technicality. If he'd been guilty he would be !

[Jan]

Bamber has already appealed about the judge.

Steve Wright, the Suffolk strangler also pleaded 'not guilty'. In court he just kept saying 'it would appear so' when presented with incriminating evidence.

I suspect most criminals where there is no witnesses will plead innocence. Then they can appeal and look for a technicality.

I was talking in general

[Adam]

Lots of convicted famous criminals protested innocence despite mountains of forensic and circumstantial evidence against them -

Steve Wright
Harold Shipman
Tracey Andrews
Levi Belfield
Steve Benson
OJ Simpson
Mick Philpot
John Tanner
James Hanratty
Rose West
Gordon Park
Michael Stone.

I suppose it is in some peoples mindset to refuse to admit guilt. There is nothing to lose.

Bamber was no different. Unlike the criminals just mentioned he also had the financial motive to plead innocence. Being one of many unsuccessful inheritance killers.

[lookout]

Those named had forensic evidence which nailed them------where's JB's ?

[Caroline]

Those named had forensic evidence which nailed them------where's JB's ?

He got rid of it.