Reasons why Bamber's second call to Julie was at 3am:

[David1819]

DCI Cook - ". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen".

You are misquoting the text. DI Cook's words are in red below.

We have looked at a number of statements taken recently by the prosecution to check that they do not reveal any possible source of this hearsay. In a statement dated 9 May 2000, DI Cook stated that any information he had relating to the subject was "sort of hearsay as far as I was concerned". He said he could not categorically recall any of the officers saying that they knocked the chairs over or the stools or whatever they are, "but certainly I can't recall specifically saying the sugar. I cannot recall who the third party was who may have told me. I don't believe it was the firearms team". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen.


The big point here Adam, This is a factual discrepancy AKA a lie.

I have been asked what I made of what appeared to have been a violent struggle in the kitchen between Mr. Bamber and his assailant. I am aware that by looking at the photographs they might suggest such a struggle, but at the time it did not appear that way to me. I could only see two things broken, one was a lamp shade and the other was a plate or bowl. There was also brown sugar on the floor but it was confined to one small area. I later learnt that the chairs and the brown sugar had been so knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila. Yes Mr Bamber must have put up some resistance but it must have been limited because of she bullet wounds to his neck and the one to, I think his left arm, which caused the hone to be smashed. So at that time it hid appear feasible that Sheila could have killed her father.


What DI Cook says in 1991 is not the same as what he is saying in 2000. The COA judgment is being very selective in how they quote his words. The COA judges also decided not to bring DI Cook forward to testify at the appeal hearing. I wonder why? 

[Adam]

If Bamber was attacking Nevill and Nevill was retreating, that would explain the knocked over stools.

[David1819]

If Bamber was attacking Nevill and Nevill was retreating, that would explain the knocked over stools.

If Sheila was attacking Nevill and Nevill was retreating, that would also explain the knocked over stools. But we know from the evidence that is was the police that knocked them over. End of discussion.

[Adam]

Anyway, if Nevill was just retreating and defending himself, there would still be upturned furniture.

Bamber sure spent a long time attacking a man who didn't fight back. Giving Nevill lacerations, bruises, black eyes, a broken nose, a broken jaw, and a broken watch.

But the raid team must have knocked everything over. They need to do some extra training.

[Adam]

All this has been posted before. But you've now decided Bamber is innocent because there was no kitchen fight & the raid team knocked everything over. And smashed a ceiling light.


239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:

"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".

241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:

"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found.

[David1819]

All this has been posted before. But you've now decided Bamber is innocent because there was no kitchen fight & the raid team knocked everything over. And smashed a ceiling light.

No, my reasons are many. But on the subject of the "kitchen fight" it simply does not mesh with the evidence.

1. Upstairs Neville received three shots. One of those shots made him unable to use his left arm and the other two went into his jaw and lodged into the back of his neck. Thus he could not have put up much of a fight.

2. There are no debris on the carpet that you would find had their been such a fight.

3. No visible marks on Sheila or Jeremy.