The window catch issue

[Jane]

The trouble here is that where emotions are concerned,whatever it is that you express could be taken either way.
Prisoners who are vocal are usually ignored because I imagine that a lot of them shout " I didn't do it " or words to that effect and nobody believes them anyway. Then you get the quiet ones who are also blamed for being quiet or seemingly void of emotion.

Eddie Gilfoyle was quiet and being in prison ate away at him,so there's no judging what emotion a person is going through,nor can anyone judge how a person feels.

Emotions have nothing to do with what one does. They're about how one feels. Some find being asked to describe their feelings very shocking. Actors will often draw on previous emotions appropriate to the part they're playing. Psychopaths copy how they see others reacting to emotions.

[Roch]

Hi Roch, I agree it is a possibility that JB and Sheila may have colluded at least to some extent with each other as claimed by Paul Harrison.

I've yet to read his book.  I was thinking along the lines of this - if claims are to be believed, then both siblings expressed at some point that people were either 'better off dead' or 'are evil and should be killed'.  In other words, both siblings could have sought or thought about the deaths of family members - but for entirely different reasons.  If Jeremy had foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions, then the rabbit shooting incident could have been a case of Jeremy facilitating and encouraging Sheila's plans.

[lookout]

Emotions have nothing to do with what one does. They're about how one feels. Some find being asked to describe their feelings very shocking. Actors will often draw on previous emotions appropriate to the part they're playing. Psychopaths copy how they see others reacting to emotions.

Psychopaths don't have to look how others behave or react. People who are unsure of unusual/new/alien circumstances/situations find themselves seeing how others react.It's got nothing to do with psychopathy.
An example is when there's a comedian on stage,it's pretty usual for the person sitting next to you to look and see if you're laughing along with others.It's done subconsciously,but watch next time on such programmes as " Live at the Apollo ",it's fascinating------------and bloody annoying !

[lookout]

I've studied people a lot and weighed up different behaviours.You never stop learning.

[Jane]

Psychopaths don't have to look how others behave or react. People who are unsure of unusual/new/alien circumstances/situations find themselves seeing how others react.It's got nothing to do with psychopathy.
An example is when there's a comedian on stage,it's pretty usual for the person sitting next to you to look and see if you're laughing along with others.It's done subconsciously,but watch next time on such programmes as " Live at the Apollo ",it's fascinating------------and bloody annoying !

Tell you what, Lookout. I don't presume to tell you how to nurse. How about you do me the same courtesy when it comes to understanding human psychology.

[lookout]

Tell you what, Lookout. I don't presume to tell you how to nurse. How about you do me the same courtesy when it comes to understanding human psychology.

I'm not telling you how to do anything,it's just my own personal view.What's the matter with you ?

[lookout]

Blimey,you folk are so touchy and quick to accuse as well.

[lookout]

Psychopaths are void of a sense of humour too-----so put that on your list !

[Roch]

The CCRC have on at least two occasions in this case rejected the evidence of expert witnesses without obtaining the support of other experts to oppose them. The state clings onto the conviction in anyway they can, they shape and mould the evidence to fit any excuse they come up with, why? Because they simply cannot afford to back down. The political ramifications of knowing they were wrong is immeasurable.

So called supporters have been accused of inventing convoluted theories, in their efforts to explain what took place.  Though in a situation in which Bamber is actually innocent, it is perfectly understandable that part of the process involves attempts to piece the jigsaw together, as pieces come to light or are disclosed.

The real convoluted explanations, come from those people supporting a guilty view.  They are forced time and again to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the prosecution evidence over Jeremy Bamber - trying to make it fit.  But it never quite fits properly and that's why people are still arguing 30 years later.

All because a certain set of people wouldn't and couldn't accept an answer they didn't want to hear.

[lookout]

Oh well put,Roch.

[Steve_uk]

I've yet to read his book.  I was thinking along the lines of this - if claims are to be believed, then both siblings expressed at some point that people were either 'better off dead' or 'are evil and should be killed'.  In other words, both siblings could have sought or thought about the deaths of family members - but for entirely different reasons.  If Jeremy had foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions, then the rabbit shooting incident could have been a case of Jeremy facilitating and encouraging Sheila's plans.

Assuming that he had given up the idea of burning down the Farm(with or without Julie's cogitation) I think he had become fixated with the gun issue, but must have realized the impossibility of his sister in her state from reloading, discharging(whatever it took this is not my strong point). Is this why he got his story in first with Police with the blatant lie that Sheila had recently indulged in shooting practice? He must have thought he could deal with any obstruction to his tale, which included Julie and the relatives, and was prepared for Police interrogation through eight long years at Gresham's School.

[Steve_uk]

So called supporters have been accused inventing convoluted theories, in their efforts to explain what took place.  Though in a situation in which Bamber is actually innocent, it is perfectly understandable that part of the process involves attempts to piece the jigsaw together, as pieces come to light or are disclosed.

The real convoluted explanations, come from those people supporting a guilty view.  They are forced time and again to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the prosecution evidence over Jeremy Bamber - trying to make it fit.  But it never quite fits properly and that's why people are still arguing 30 years later.

All because a certain set of people wouldn't and couldn't accept an answer they didn't want to hear.

I'm not sure there is such an attempt. It's patently obvious Jeremy had a grudge against his parents for the way he was sent away at eight years old, which only reinforced an alienation incipient since the adoption. He resented the perceived preferential treatment his sister received and wished to hurry along the inheritance process, doing everyone a favour in the process because they were all ailing in some way save himself.

[Reader]

In the 'Crowdjustice' section.

"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".

That's quite different from asserting that the horizontal bar wasn't on its pegs when the police originally checked the windows. We know that it was on its pegs then, as the police would otherwise have said that the kitchen window was only partially secured. However, had Jeremy left via the kitchen window, it would have been easy for him to reach through the fanlight window and use a stick or an umbrella to engage the bar fully on its pegs. He would still have needed to close and secure the fanlight window from the outside, but DC Barlow seems not to have repeated his testing on that window. I used to live in a house with some fanlight windows, and one of them could certainly have been secured from the outside. We have seen no evidence that Jeremy was asked about whether he could do this during his trial. In his interviews by the police, he said he could get in or out, but said the window catches couldn't be secured from outside. The detailed meaning of the "skimmed over" remark hasn't been released.

There is no need to regard use of the main bedroom window as a simpler explanation than use of the kitchen window, as the simplest explanation is that Jeremy wasn't in the house in the first place, as he was asleep at his home.

[Adam]

That's quite different from asserting that the horizontal bar wasn't on its pegs when the police originally checked the windows. We know that it was on its pegs then, as the police would otherwise have said that the kitchen window was only partially secured. However, had Jeremy left via the kitchen window, it would have been easy for him to reach through the fanlight window and use a stick or an umbrella to engage the bar fully on its pegs. He would still have needed to close and secure the fanlight window from the outside, but DC Barlow seems not to have repeated his testing on that window. I used to live in a house with some fanlight windows, and one of them could certainly have been secured from the outside. We have seen no evidence that Jeremy was asked about whether he could do this during his trial. In his interviews by the police, he said he could get in or out, but said the window catches couldn't be secured from outside. The detailed meaning of the "skimmed over" remark hasn't been released.

There is no need to regard use of the main bedroom window as a simpler explanation than use of the kitchen window, as the simplest explanation is that Jeremy wasn't in the house in the first place, as he was asleep at his home.

The horizontal window was off it's pegs at the crime scene. Otherwise the police wouldn't have said Bamber exited the kitchen window. Barlow testified only the vertical catch would fall into place when the kitchen window was banged from outside.

June/Neville would have put the horizontal catch on it's pegs. Where it stayed, until later.

[Adam]

For the " top man/overseer ( Mick Gradwell ) " to have intimated that the investigation stunk,it's only right at this point to see through another referral. Many guilters admit that the case had been mishandled and there's no doubt about that.

Mick Gradwell said 'it is a safe conviction' and 'Jeremy Bamber in a cold and callous way, massacred his family'.

Video available upon request.