The window catch issue

[lookout]

Well yes, of course you are going to say that, given your point of view, however:

The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure.

I don't think JB did himself any favours by admitting that he could get in and out of the house with ease ("Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference") ; or indeed entering through a window after being released on bail.

It's generally thought that the entrance following bail was so that he could attribute any signs of access to that occasion rather than the 6/7th August.

Nobody else came forward to admit that they also used the window as an entry/exit point,at least JB was truthful.

[lookout]

One thing for sure in my books was that he hadn't used that means of entry/exit on the night of the murders----or any other entry/exit because he was nowhere near the place. 

[Jane]

Nobody else came forward to admit that they also used the window as an entry/exit point,at least JB was truthful.

If they hadn't used it THAT night, why would it matter?

[lookout]

If they hadn't used it THAT night, why would it matter?

It mattered a lot when only JB owned up.

[Jane]

It mattered a lot when only JB owned up.

But didn't he say it was important to tell as much of the truth as was possible?

[lookout]

But didn't he say it was important to tell as much of the truth as was possible?

And he did just that.

[Jane]

And he did just that.

Or as much as he believed was necessary.

[Roch]

Well yes, of course you are going to say that, given your point of view, however:

The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure

.

I don't think JB did himself any favours by admitting that he could get in and out of the house with ease ("Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference") ; or indeed entering through a window after being released on bail.

It's generally thought that the entrance following bail was so that he could attribute any signs of access to that occasion rather than the 6/7th August.

Yeah I saw the red quote in the original post.  However, that (and presumably the other JB quote) are somewhat different from making an exit secure from the outside, after egress.  I think anybody genuinely interested in discovering the truth of what took place (if such a thing is possible) would question how a perpetrator made egress from a property which was then found to be totally secure. 

With regard to him later accessing the property. That sounds like something straight out of  'Mammoth Book of Suspicions' C.A. Eaton (1985)  

I mean, had the property not already been photographed by SOCO on the day of the incident?  It's not as if Jeremy Bamber didn't regularly access the farmhouse anyway - he worked on the farm?

[guest2181]

Yeah I saw the red quote in the original post.

That's cool, I wasn't sure.

With regard to him later accessing the property.
I mean, had the property not already been photographed by SOCO on the day of the incident?  It's not as if Jeremy Bamber didn't regularly access the farmhouse anyway - he worked on the farm?

I think it's just a theory that's been previously discussed on this forum and it coincides with one of the grounds of the 2002 appeal.

[David1819]

I really don't think it does David. Whilst they don't need to be specific about particular routes, the kitchen window was up there as one of the favourites. You may think it's silly, but that doesn't really mean a great deal.

Heck, there wasn't that much stuff in front of the window, it's not out of the question that he purposely placed the items there to   make it appear as if obstacles were in the way. Setting the scene, just like he did in other areas (bible, Sheila, phone call).

Or he just left via another unspecified and unknown route.

Sounds like you want to 'shoehorn' JB in to a particular route.

 It's a bit strange really, because if you did actually strengthen the case that he left via that window, then surely you are just reinforcing his guilt?

It is silly because it does not fit with the fundamental factors. Considering the state of Sheila's body in the crime scene photos taken around 9.30am and the autopsy notes taken in the afternoon.

-Lack of rigour mortis at 9.30am
-Lack of post mortem hypostasis at 9.30am
-Developed post mortem hypostasis by the afternoon
-Uncoagulated blood on her wounds at 9.30am
-Undigested food in her stomach

This all points to a time of death between 7.30am to 5.30am. Not to mention its also back ups the reported movement at 4am the discrepancy between the lights being on and off.

Thus he cannot possibly have entered the building, killed Sheila then exited through any window without the police noticing.

When the prosecution start ignoring the elemental areas and zero in on window latches and scratches of paint it indicates there is no substance to the case.

[guest2181]

It is silly because it does not fit with the fundamental factors. Considering the state of Sheila's body in the crime scene photos taken around 9.30am and the autopsy notes taken in the afternoon.

-Lack of rigour mortis at 9.30am
-Lack of post mortem hypostasis at 9.30am
-Developed post mortem hypostasis by the afternoon
-Uncoagulated blood on her wounds at 9.30am
-Undigested food in her stomach

This all points to a time of death between 7.30am to 5.30am. Not to mention its also back ups the reported movement at 4am the discrepancy between the lights being on and off.

Thus he cannot possibly have entered the building, killed Sheila then exited through any window without the police noticing.

When the prosecution start ignoring the elemental areas and zero in on a window latches and paint scratches it indicates there is no substance to the case.

Yeah, but none of your claims are true though are they, no matter how much you try and insist that they are.

[Adam]

Nobody else came forward to admit that they also used the window as an entry/exit point,at least JB was truthful.

Bamber didn't come forward. He was arrested and questioned by police about the windows.

[Adam]

The only issue with the window, is apparent crime scene photos of the catch. Which Bamber is going to pay an alledged expert several thousand pounds to say it shows it was shut internally. This is what supporters need to get behind.

There is no dispute that Bamber could enter/exit at least three windows in WHF. And no dispute the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Supporters are wasting time in disputing facts that are 31 years old.

[notsure]

The only issue with the window, is apparent photos of the catch. Which Bamber is going to pay an alledged expert several thousand pounds to say it shows it was shut internally. This is what supporters need to get behind.

There is no dispute that Bamber could enter/exit at least three windows in WHF. And no dispute the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Supporters are wasting time in disputing facts that are 31 years old.

that's all very well adam but we don't have the trial transcripts on this issue do we to confirm what the ct are saying. But if what they say is true, Barlow said at trial that he had been able to bang this kitchen window shut because the prosecution had said he used this window to get in. Now he didn't say say catches and latches were secure in 6 o'clock position etc as the photo used at trial was taken at an angle which shows it shut. Now if the photo sequence proves photos of windows all secure etc before anyone else had been in then that surely must throw reasonable doubt.

[lookout]

Bamber didn't come forward. He was arrested and questioned by police about the windows.

Stop splitting hairs. JB owned up in court when asked/challenged. I KNOW he " didn't come forward ".