The window catch issue

[Adam]

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.

Everything fits like a glove for the prosecution. Which is why Bamber is still in prison. Thread created.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6334.msg280047.html#msg280047

[maggie]

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, if they were the last people to shut the window.

As there was another obvious exit from the house ie. The upstairs window it surely doesn't matter if the window was secure or partially secure, does it?  It was never a game changing issue, the issue was that there were possible exits which allowed the back and front doors to be bolted and locked from the inside with no evidence of a break in or breakout. Relatives knew and Jeremy agreed it was easy to access the house via downstairs Windows, he even demonstrated it to the police before he was arrested.

[lookout]

So in effect all EP had to do was to prove that he entered/exited in this way------and they didn't/couldn't !

[Caroline]

So in effect all EP had to do was to prove that he entered/exited in this way------and they didn't/couldn't !

They didn't need to because he admitted he could.

[lookout]

They didn't need to because he admitted he could.

Wasn't part of their job to investigate/scrutinise the said area ? There'd been too much talking/listening instead of " doing " in this case. EP had been " carried " along to their conclusions.

[lookout]

It's surprising how a new set of brains can demonstrate how the case should have been conducted.

[Reader]

There's nothing in the released evidence to show that the police found the "horizontal" catch off its pegs. That would certainly have been reported if true, but all that's known about that catch is that DC Barlow couldn't fully secure it from outside and the police had already checked the window (along with others) and said it was secure. The police simply accepted Julie's suggestion that Jeremy had used the kitchen window as the most likely explanation, despite not finding good evidence to support that. Jeremy had not demonstrated that he could secure any window from outside, and had stated that that couldn't be done.

[lookout]

Yes,there's a huge difference between banging a window shut and making it secure at its locking position at the same time, as it's something which can only be seen to be done from the inside when making that judgement.
 How can anyone assume that this was the action which was used ? Because it suited everyone at the time !!

[David1819]

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.

The "theory" of collusion comes from an alleged anonymous letter from someone claiming to have been in prison with Jeremy, The unknown person in the alleged letter claims Jeremy confessed and that they were both in on it together. 

Since this is from Paul Harrison, its safe to say the letter is false. Just like his death in Egypt.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7888.msg373952.html#msg373952

[lookout]

I wonder if it's the " same prisoner " who initiated the debacle about PH's death threat, ( supposedly )from JB, when he lived in Scotland ?  He now lives in Essex.
I don't trust this guy at all as he appears to have a motive of some sort.

[maggie]

The "theory" of collusion comes from an alleged anonymous letter from someone claiming to have been in prison with Jeremy, The unknown person in the alleged letter claims Jeremy confessed and that they were both in on it together. 

Since this is from Paul Harrison, its safe to say the letter is false. Just like his death in Egypt.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7888.msg373952.html#msg373952

I have read PH's book David and accept what you say but questioning the validity of clams made i that book doesn't prove there is no possibility something similar may have occurred. 

We all have freedom of thought and there isn't any reason why such a collaboration shouldn't have been considered at various times over the 31 years since the crime was committed nor can we prove such a theory is true or false. 

Imo because there are so few hard facts in this case there is plenty of scope for theories and possibilities which should at least be considered.

[maggie]

Yes,there's a huge difference between banging a window shut and making it secure at its locking position at the same time, as it's something which can only be seen to be done from the inside when making that judgement.
 How can anyone assume that this was the action which was used ? Because it suited everyone at the time !!

Exactly Lookout and I am with you on this, I find it hard to believe that window could have been banged shut and secured.  At the same time why assume that window was used at all?  Maybe because it was the easiest option to prove at the time although it doesn't really convince.  On the other hand I have a bee in my bonnet about the main bedroom window which was left open and could easily have been used as an exit and was barely mentioned.

Seems there are assumptions and dismissals whichever side of the argument you are on.

[Jane]

Exactly Lookout and I am with you on this, I find it hard to believe that window could have been banged shut and secured.  At the same time why assume that window was used at all?  Maybe because it was the easiest option to prove at the time although it doesn't really convince.  On the other hand I have a bee in my bonnet about the main bedroom window which was left open and could easily have been used as an exit and was barely mentioned.

Seems there are assumptions and dismissals whichever side of the argument you are on.

Maybe it's worth looking at the point raised by Justice of why, on release from being questioned, did Jeremy then make a point of gaining entry to WHF through a window.

[guest7363]

Maybe it's worth looking at the point raised by Justice of why, on release from being questioned, did Jeremy then make a point of gaining entry to WHF through a window.

Scipio raised the same point as well Jane, not many people when released from questioning go back and enact part of what they have been accused off.

[Roch]

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.

Exactly.  This is what I meant about trying to stretch the prosecution evidence over Bamber.  As David said, he is not Houdini.