The window catch issue

[notsure]

what are you on about?

He spoils the debate David every time with his sarcasm and innuendos. I would love to blast him but am rising above it.

[Adam]

what are you on about?

You know what I'm on about.

You said a CCRC or COA application may not include the kitchen window or suicide note application. Therefore I want a refund.

[Adam]

The Bamber case is unique. In that any evidence showing it was not Sheila, automatically means it was Bamber. Due to his phone call to the police.

In other cases evidence that shows it was not a person other than the accused, means nothing.  As it rounds down the other potential suspects to the rest of the population who don't have alibis. Which could be millions of people.

The window issues are different. They do not show that Sheila did not committ the massacre. However it does show that Bamber had the opportunity to.

[David1819]

The Bamber case is unique. In that any evidence showing it was not Sheila, automatically means it was Bamber. Due to his phone call to the police.

Good thing Shelia's time of death rules Jeremy out. If can't be Jeremy then it's automatically Sheila.

The case is now just a matter of the state wanting to avoid the ramifications of a wrongful conviction.

[Roch]

The Bamber case is unique. In that any evidence showing it was not Sheila, automatically means it was Bamber. Due to his phone call to the police.

The window issues are different. They do not show that Sheila did not commit the massacre. However it does show that Bamber had the opportunity to.

He didn't have the opportunity to secure them from the outside though.  So, if all exits were secure when checked by police, then somebody either secured them behind him or they were never unsecure in the first place?

[Adam]

Good thing Shelia's time of death rules Jeremy out. If can't be Jeremy then it's automatically Sheila.

The case is now just a matter of the state wanting to avoid the ramifications of a wrongful conviction.

Oh yes. I forgot about that.

[Adam]

He didn't have the opportunity to secure them from the outside though.  So, if all exits were secure when checked by police, then somebody either secured them behind him or they were never unsecure in the first place?

Are you not aware that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside, so the inside latch falls into place. It's been accepted knowledge since 1985.

[guest7363]

He didn't have the opportunity to secure them from the outside though.  So, if all exits were secure when checked by police, then somebody either secured them behind him or they were never unsecure in the first place?

In fairness Roch you know how bad the first initial investigation was and how thorough?  What sticks out in my mind, when Bamber was questioned by the police if he had told Julie of a window that could be opened and locked from the outside his reply was "I don't know"  not a straight no, then when he is asked about this he says  don't know was meant to say no? 

[David1819]

Are you not aware that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside, so the inside latch falls into place. It's been accepted knowledge since 1985.

Once again you forget the facts. You need to get out this habit of 'forgetting' 

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6217.msg314109.html#msg314109

This issue was closed years ago.

To be fair Bamber is the one bringing it up after 31 years. Agreeing he could enter/exit the kitchen window and bang it shut from outside. Supporting the 20 sources. However he is now saying crime scene photos show it wasn't banged shut.

Obviously supporters then get excited and start saying he couldn't enter/exit or bang it shut at all.   

[lookout]

>>>>>>>>>I'm far from excited !!

[LITD]

I am confused is this site not for supporters of jeremy bamber that believe in his innocence and are campaigning to get him a third appeal?

[lookout]

I am confused is this site not for supporters of jeremy bamber that believe in his innocence and are campaigning to get him a third appeal?

Why do you ask ?

[Steve_uk]

I am confused is this site not for supporters of jeremy bamber that believe in his innocence and are campaigning to get him a third appeal?

Not necessarily no; more a quest for the truth.

[Reader]

I don't understand why the window catch issue is being seen as of so much interest. If the window with the "6 o'clock" handle (which I was unaware of until recently) could open sufficiently for a person to get through it, that means that they could easily leave via it after opening the top window as well, reach into the kitchen via the main window to replace any disturbed items, and then set the window's locking bar to fall when the window was shut and banged. Finally, they could reach through the top window to move the handle of the other window to the 6 o'clock position and also set the top window's locking bar to fall when that window was banged shut. In that way, they could leave quite quickly, leaving both windows fully secured, with no signs that they were secured from the outside. I doubt that anyone ever did this, but it's certainly a possibility if the main window could open far enough for a person to step through it.