The window catch issue

[Reader]

Well he said he had in his statement Reader?

That wouldn't be "covered his tracks" as he was referring to unspecified earlier occasions and had just stated that he didn't recall any such occasions since the window was last redecorated. I can change "ever" to "ever (since the kitchen window was last redecorated)" if you wish.

[guest7363]

That wouldn't be "covered his tracks" as he was referring to unspecified earlier occasions and had just stated that he didn't recall any such occasions since the window was last redecorated. I can change "ever" to "ever (since the kitchen window was last redecorated)" if you wish.

Ok whatever

[Jan]

He moved the items in front of the kitchen window before exciting. As confirmed by the housekeeper.

If items by the kitchen window had been knocked over, that would even more strongly show he excited that way.

lets be clear here - you are saying that the house keeper confirmed that JEREMY  moved the items by the kitchen window ?  original source please

[Caroline]

That wouldn't be "covered his tracks" as he was referring to unspecified earlier occasions and had just stated that he didn't recall any such occasions since the window was last redecorated. I can change "ever" to "ever (since the kitchen window was last redecorated)" if you wish.

His actual words were "I cannot remember whether I have done it since it was last decorated" - he's just none committal. Fact is, he admitted to using the kitchen window and so clearly knew how to get in through it. He doesn't say he didn't use it after it was decorated, just that he didn't remember if he did or not.

[Jan]

The fact is there is no evidence of Jeremy entering or leaving the house that night , no foot prints on the sills , no boot prints ,and no proof he moved anything at all to make his exit and it was the police themselves that confirmed windows were  not just SHUT ( note the difference Adam) but secured from the inside.

To me if the prosecution were going to say he used ONE particular window to exit there should have been proof that it could be secured from the outside . Which there was not .

Which is why on appeal it was IMO brushed over , it did not have to be proved because he admitted he could get in an out of the windows . But there was no proof that ANY of the windows could be secured from the outside ? So personally I don't understand why this important fact was dismissed.

Even if the officer involved admitted it could not be secured from the outside ( which he did practically by saying he noticed nothing unusual about the window) then I think the argument about it possibly  being one of the other windows that was exited will be dragged up again.

I think we all know that Jeremy was saying that he ( and other family ) just used to sneak out at night and then sneak back in , in the early hours of the morning so as to hide late night outings from June and Neville and therefore there would be NO need to lock the windows from the outside as they would be returning . Or if they were locked when they came back then they knew how to get in - again NOT locking the windows from the outside .

It amazes me therefore that the window fiasco is not relevant , but if the court of appeal have dismissed it in the past I am not sure the new photos will be enough.
 

[Jan]

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.

No it is not

read the appeal

Shut is different to secure - how would both latches be secure by banging the window?

[guest7363]

His actual words were "I cannot remember whether I have done it since it was last decorated" - he's just none committal. Fact is, he admitted to using the kitchen window and so clearly knew how to get in through it. He doesn't say he didn't use it after it was decorated, just that he didn't remember if he did or not.

Just like he said, he didnt think so, if he had told Julie or not of such a window that could be locked from the outside? 

[Jan]

From 2002 appeal

Can anyone actually explain this to me in legal terms , Because surely as there was no admittanceby Jeremy that windows could be locked from the outside ( as far as I m aware ) the points to me do not make sense?




286. 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 from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… 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"

287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.

288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.

[Reader]

Shut is different to secure - how would both latches be secured by banging the window?

They couldn't, but they didn't need to be. The main window had two latches, but the top window had only one, which means that window could be left open to give access to the upper latch of the main window without any banging. With that latch secured in the 6 o'clock position, the remaining latches (one on each window)  could be caused to drop into their secured positions by banging each window from the outside.

[Reader]

Jan, in Jeremy's second interview, he said "There are many ways to get into the house, i.e. windows."

He was then asked "What do you mean, insecure windows?"

Jeremy replied "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference."

However, Jeremy was shortly afterwards asked to explain, and said "With sash windows you can flick the catch with any thin metal object and open the window, but you can't close them from the outside." Shortly afterwards, he said he couldn't have told Julie of the "banging on the window frame" method of securing a latch from the outside as he didn't know of that method.

Note that the kitchen didn't have a sash window. It's likely that all the other openable windows were sash windows. A sash window wouldn't be fitted above a sink, as it's very awkward to operate a sash window unless you can stand close to it, which the sink would prevent.

If Jeremy's "it makes no difference" comment was regarded as conceding that he could open the secured kitchen window from the outside, or secure it from the outside, it was taken out of context and misinterpreted.

[guest2181]

Note that the kitchen didn't have a sash window. It's likely that all the other openable windows were sash windows. A sash window wouldn't be fitted above a sink, as it's very awkward to operate a sash window unless you can stand close to it, which the sink would prevent.

If Jeremy's "it makes no difference" comment was regarded as conceding that he could open the secured kitchen window from the outside, or secure it from the outside, it was taken out of context and misinterpreted.

With the exception of the downstairs toilet, all windows in the original red brick part of the house are side hung casements. The kitchen window is the only one to have the small tophung fanlight type opening with a fixed pane below.

Jeremy's ability to enter and exit the house was established in court, without any challenge from the defence. Clearly a matter of such importance, if untrue, would have been challenged?

[Harry]

They couldn't, but they didn't need to be. The main window had two latches, but the top window had only one, which means that window could be left open to give access to the upper latch of the main window without any banging. With that latch secured in the 6 o'clock position, the remaining latches (one on each window)  could be caused to drop into their secured positions by banging each window from the outside.

People should read the following article carefully. It should clear up a number of misconceptions.

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/appeal-fund/?utm_source=backer_email&utm_reference=419c9e3a20a1edd0b7075d0b5a4df767&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=below_pledge_amount&utm_campaign=appeal-fund

"DC Barlow (not a forensics officer) had carried out a number of tests in late August 1985 climbing in and out of the window to see if he could close both the vertical and horizontal catches from the outside.  He informed the jury that he was able to bang the window frame from the outside to make the vertical catch fall but it would not close to the 6 o'clock position..."

"DC Barlow also told the court that the horizontal catch could not be deployed back on its pegs after he had climbed out of the window behind him.  This issue was skimmed over and the jury did not see any photographs of the horizontal catch at trial

The main point is a simple one. It was possible for Bamber to enter and to exit the house, but it was not possible for him to lock the window again with the catch in the fully deployed position from the outside. And that's how it is in the photograph, proving that an intruder could not have got out that way.

Where do you get the information that the top window could be locked by banging it?  Barlow found that the horizontal catch on the main window could not be used at all from the outside. That would appear to prove that an intruder could not have got out that way, because that catch also was in the secure position. But this was overlooked!

[guest7363]

People should read the following article carefully. It should clear up a number of misconceptions.

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/appeal-fund/?utm_source=backer_email&utm_reference=419c9e3a20a1edd0b7075d0b5a4df767&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=below_pledge_amount&utm_campaign=appeal-fund

The main point is a simple one. It was possible for Bamber to enter and to exit the house, but it was not possible for him to lock the window again with the catch in the fully deployed position from the outside. And that's how it is in the photograph, proving that an intruder could not have got out that way.

Where do you get the information that the top window could be locked by banging it?  Barlow found that the horizontal catch on the main window could not be used at all from the outside. That would appear to prove that an intruder could not have got out that way, because that catch also was in the secure position. But this was overlooked!

Well these are the notes he made.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3185.0;attach=20325
His was in the Dickinson report.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=6005

[Adam]

If someone from inside was going to shut the kitchen window, they would automatically shut both catches. Not just one. If a window is worth shutting, do it properly.

The fact that only one of the two catches was in the shut position, which was the only one that falls into place when the window is banged shut from outside, just reinforces it was Bamber.

[guest7363]

People should read the following article carefully. It should clear up a number of misconceptions.

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/appeal-fund/?utm_source=backer_email&utm_reference=419c9e3a20a1edd0b7075d0b5a4df767&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=below_pledge_amount&utm_campaign=appeal-fund

The main point is a simple one. It was possible for Bamber to enter and to exit the house, but it was not possible for him to lock the window again with the catch in the fully deployed position from the outside. And that's how it is in the photograph, proving that an intruder could not have got out that way.

Where do you get the information that the top window could be locked by banging it?  Barlow found that the horizontal catch on the main window could not be used at all from the outside. That would appear to prove that an intruder could not have got out that way, because that catch also was in the secure position. But this was overlooked!

He was a master at getting in and out of buildings making it look as though it was secure.  Look how he robbed the office and his family of money and made it all look secure.   Oh I forgot it was to test security