The window catch issue

[lookout]

Be very hard to prove from a photograph I would have thought, comparing the two photo's, it doesn't even look as if it's been taken at the same time?

It also depends on which photo was the first to have been taken,without any disturbance of the scene.

[Roch]

I think this sums the window issue up Harry,
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.

I think it was ngb who used to express to me, that the problem for 'the defence' was the 2002 Appeal itself.  It  served to effectively shut down potential lines of enquiry for submissions by any future defence.  In narrowing down the scope of potential future submissions, a very high threshold has been set, making it extremely difficult for the defence to succeed in obtaining a 3rd appeal.

Regarding the above quote, it seems to say 'we are not interested in finding out the truth of what took place'.  For if it was nigh on impossible to to have secured all exits from outside the farmhouse - it surely begs the question as to how Jeremy Bamber could have committed the crime.  The 'high threshold' is therefore not conducive to exposing the truth of what took place.

[notsure]

I think it was ngb who used to express to me, that the problem for 'the defence' was the 2002 Appeal itself.  It  served to effectively shut down potential lines of enquiry for submissions by any future defence.  In narrowing down the scope of potential future submissions, a very high threshold has been set, making it extremely difficult for the defence to succeed in obtaining a 3rd appeal.

Regarding the above quote, it seems to say 'we are not interested in finding out the truth of what took place'.  For if it was nigh on impossible to to have secured all exits from outside the farmhouse - it surely begs the question as to how Jeremy Bamber could have committed the crime.  The 'high threshold' is therefore not conducive to exposing the truth of what took place.

totally agree roch

[Caroline]

I think it was ngb who used to express to me, that the problem for 'the defence' was the 2002 Appeal itself.  It  served to effectively shut down potential lines of enquiry for submissions by any future defence.  In narrowing down the scope of potential future submissions, a very high threshold has been set, making it extremely difficult for the defence to succeed in obtaining a 3rd appeal.

Regarding the above quote, it seems to say 'we are not interested in finding out the truth of what took place'.  For if it was nigh on impossible to to have secured all exits from outside the farmhouse - it surely begs the question as to how Jeremy Bamber could have committed the crime.  The 'high threshold' is therefore not conducive to exposing the truth of what took place.

I would agree had Jeremy NOT admitted he could access by just about every window on the ground floor and Barlow managed to successfully close the kitchen window.

[Adam]

I think it was ngb who used to express to me, that the problem for 'the defence' was the 2002 Appeal itself.  It  served to effectively shut down potential lines of enquiry for submissions by any future defence.  In narrowing down the scope of potential future submissions, a very high threshold has been set, making it extremely difficult for the defence to succeed in obtaining a 3rd appeal.

Regarding the above quote, it seems to say 'we are not interested in finding out the truth of what took place'.  For if it was nigh on impossible to to have secured all exits from outside the farmhouse - it surely begs the question as to how Jeremy Bamber could have committed the crime.  The 'high threshold' is therefore not conducive to exposing the truth of what took place.

Bamber didn't have to secure all exits from outside. He just needed to secure one.

I suspect the 2002 appeal was the big one. An unofficial final attempt to get released. It took several years to get together and got through the CCRC. Much to the dismay of the relatives. There are several points of appeal.

There are many interesting points in the appeal such as - "

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.

A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none".

[Roch]

Bamber didn't have to secure all exits from outside. He just needed to secure one.

Don't quite follow this Adam.  If all exits were found to be secure - and it apparently didn't matter which exit he used for egress...  Then how could he make secure from the outside, whichever exit that he did use?

[Roch]

I would agree had Jeremy NOT admitted he could access by just about every window on the ground floor and Barlow managed to successfully close the kitchen window.

Yeah.. but i thought that the issue here was regarding the windows being secured and on their latches?

[Adam]

Don't quite follow this Adam.  If all exits were found to be secure - and it apparently didn't matter which exit he used for egress...  Then how could he make secure from the outside, whichever exit that he did use?

Perhaps he made all the windows secure while he was inside WHF.

[lookout]

Perhaps he made all the windows secure while he was inside WHF.

 How did he get out ?

[Roch]

Perhaps he made all the windows secure while he was inside WHF.

That would simply mean he was inside the farmhouse - with all exits secured from the inside?

[Adam]

 How did he get out ?

Well there was a suggestion 31 years ago he exited out of the kitchen window. Then banged shut the vertical catch from outside.

[lookout]

Well there was a suggestion 31 years ago he exited out of the kitchen window. Then banged shut the vertical catch from outside.

Whatever window with whatever catch cannot just be banged shut,securing itself. Unless you know these kind of windows they have to be physically secured from the inside. Just by banging them shut doesn't give the desired effect of them being made secure as the catch has to sit firmly for this to happen.

[maggie]

Whatever window with whatever catch cannot just be banged shut,securing itself. Unless you know these kind of windows they have to be physically secured from the inside. Just by banging them shut doesn't give the desired effect of them being made secure as the catch has to sit firmly for this to happen.

Very true Lookout.

[lookout]

Very true Lookout.

Hi Maggie,having lived in one or two old houses you get to know these things,along with the sometimes dangers of sash windows when the rope wears thin and breaks 

[maggie]

Hi Maggie,having lived in one or two old houses you get to know these things,along with the sometimes dangers of sash windows when the rope wears thin and breaks 

I grew up in a house with casement windows Lookout.  I know they cannot be 'banged shut' and secured from the outside.