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

[Jane]

I should have realised that this would be dragged ceaselessly along knowing that I'm already singled out on the forum. Even Adam had a say about my posts,so the best thing all round is for me to leave the forum altogether,like others have done. I don't fit in do I ??
I'll miss it but I don't need cat-fights or the background gossiping that goes on so I'll leave you to it.

This isn't about you, but it just shows how ready you are to play the victim to get out of saying, at the very least "Thank-you for the explanation".  No one but you has EVER suggested that you don't fit in.

[susan]

I should have realised that this would be dragged ceaselessly along knowing that I'm already singled out on the forum. Even Adam had a say about my posts,so the best thing all round is for me to leave the forum altogether,like others have done. I don't fit in do I ??
I'll miss it but I don't need cat-fights or the background gossiping that goes on so I'll leave you to it.

Hi Lookout

if you leave the forum the guilty supporters will only have each other to post to and that will not be fun stop talking like that and carry on you make some great posts and are quite amusing in your own little way you fit in as much as anyone does X

[maggie]

Hi Lookout

if you leave the forum the guilty supporters will only have each other to post to and that will not be fun stop talking like that and carry on you make some great posts and are quite amusing in your own little way you fit in as much as anyone does X

Hi Lookout. You do fit in here, you have posted on here for the past 4 years or so, other posters have recently said they enjoy debating with you. 

It is a debating forum not a social club and you are very much part of that.

I know it gets a bit personal on both sides at times but that's the nature of the beast and I do try my best to be fair to both sides.

It is tough for you because you are often a loan voice but you can certainly hold your own and good on you for that.

You can't leave Lookout the forum just wouldn't be the same without you.  x

[guest7363]

Hi Lookout. You do fit in here, you have posted on here for the past 4 years or so, other posters have recently said they enjoy debating with you. 

It is a debating forum not a social club and you are very much part of that.

I know it gets a bit personal on both sides at times but that's the nature of the beast and I do try my best to be fair to both sides.

It is tough for you because you are often a loan voice but you can certainly hold your own and good on you for that.

You can't leave Lookout the forum just wouldn't be the same without you.  x

I second that Maggie, well said.

[notsure]

I second that Maggie, well said.

me too lookout.please don't stop posting. You really are one of the good ones. Xx

[notsure]

I second that Maggie, well said.

me too lookout.please don't stop posting. You really are one of the good ones. Xx

[Caroline]

Seems like I missed all of this - I have to say that I wouldn't want Lookout to leave either. However, all this talk of 'loyalty' is a little rich, only defending people you perceive to be on your side isn't loyalty at all. Listening to the viper whispers and repeating their crap leads to this kind of bad feeling. Lookout has known Jane and I for some years now and regardless of what side of the fence we sit, we have both supported her in the past at different times - she chooses to side only with those who defend Bamber no matter what kind of behaviour they adopt here. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour no matter who you support and excusing it, doesn't make you a good person.

[Jane]

Seems like I missed all of this - I have to say that I wouldn't want Lookout to leave either. However, all this talk of 'loyalty' is a little rich, only defending people you perceive to be on your side isn't loyalty at all. Listening to the viper whispers and repeating their crap leads to this kind of bad feeling. Lookout has known Jane and I for some years now and regardless of what side of the fence we sit, we have both supported her in the past at different times - she chooses to side only with those who defend Bamber no matter what kind of behaviour they adopt here. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour no matter who your support and excusing it, doesn't make you a good person.

Thank-you for that, Caroline. I fully expect to be labelled "the bad guy" in all this, but I didn't and never have had any ill feelings towards Lookout, nor did I say anything to provoke her into taking the decision she did. How she chose to interpret my words was entirely her choice. However, I will welcome her return. Which ever side of the fence we sit on, a one sided debate is of no use to anyone.

[Caroline]

Thank-you for that, Caroline. I fully expect to be labelled "the bad guy" in all this, but I didn't and never have had any ill feelings towards Lookout, nor did I say anything to provoke her into taking the decision she did. How she chose to interpret my words was entirely her choice. However, I will welcome her return. Which ever side of the fence we sit on, a one sided debate is of no use to anyone.

An accusation was made and an explanation given - a simple acknowledgement of it would have sufficed. She chose to ignore in favour of the viper whispers.

I hope after a few days she will return and that we can debate without all the personal BS.

[guest7363]

Thank-you for that, Caroline. I fully expect to be labelled "the bad guy" in all this, but I didn't and never have had any ill feelings towards Lookout, nor did I say anything to provoke her into taking the decision she did. How she chose to interpret my words was entirely her choice. However, I will welcome her return. Which ever side of the fence we sit on, a one sided debate is of no use to anyone.

Well said both Jane and Caroline. The forum has always had this stigma of innocent and guilty camp and over years it has caused friction between debate, trust me Jane what you was saying yesterday is nothing to what I have seen on here and you certainly aren't no bad guy. x

[David1819]

It happened on the night. I doubt he would notice. He had other things on his mind. Such as someone shooting and following him to the kitchen.

He did notice, both before and after. Later he was informed by colleagues that the raid team caused the mess. That explains why they destroyed the audio tape gathered from the phone line.

Neville had a comminuted fracture to his upper humerus caused by the shots he received upstairs. So how can he possibly have got into a brawl in the kitchen?.

If your wondering what a comminuted fracture to the upper humerus looks like.

[Reader]

What appears to be the case, was that 'PC West' was in touch with the operator at 3.42am, at a time when Jeremy was on another line with Jeremy

After Jeremy's call had finished, Pc West informed Inspector Targrass (regarding Jeremy's call) and called the operator to have the WHF line checked. Clearly, Jeremy wasn't still on hold when Pc West called the operator.

[Stephanie]

After Jeremy's call had finished, Pc West informed Inspector Targrass (regarding Jeremy's call) and called the operator to have the WHF line checked. Clearly, Jeremy wasn't still on hold when Pc West called the operator.

Exactly Reader

[Adam]

He did notice, both before and after. Later he was informed by colleagues that the raid team caused the mess. That explains why they destroyed the audio tape gathered from the phone line.

Neville had a comminuted fracture to his upper humerus caused by the shots he received upstairs. So how can he possibly have got into a brawl in the kitchen?.

If your wondering what a comminuted fracture to the upper humerus looks like.

41.

Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.

42.

The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.


You're right. There may not have been a big fight. Although the judge said Nevill 'put uo a tremendous fight for life'.

However Nevill had got downstairs and Bamber was not going to hold back.

I suspect Nevill tried to grab the rifle which resulted in the scratch marks and smashed ceiling light.

When Bamber had control of the rifle he hit Nevill with it. Which explains Nevill's arm & wrist bruises & broken watch as he defended attacks to his head.

Once Bamber got through the arms, Nevill's face was next. His face injuries being horrific which would have knocked him out.

Bamber was then free to fire more shots,  position Nevill on the coal scuttle and burn Nevill's back.

[Adam]

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".