After He called police at 3.36am, Jeremy was put on hold immediately for 5 min's

[mike tesko]

Why can Jeremy not recall certain aspects of his timings one minute but can the next. If you read his witness statements Written and paraphrased by DC Clark... along with his police interviews questioned differently by the interviewing officer... and his evidence given his court Questioned differently by prosecution counsel...you will see how it is Jeremy who has purposely mixed up the timings in order to confuse. different circumstances, questioned by different people, in different suroundings...If you look at Jeremys evidence only and put aside all other evidence and any thoughts you have on the other evidence it becomes clear. I don't think it does become clear...

[guest7363]

I agree justice. There's no doubt the police have made errors and it's clear Jeremy has used these errors in an attempt to confuse his original evidence given in his first statement, police interviews and subsequently during his trial.

It's also clear Jeremy has a selective memory when it suits him. I've noticed how he tells his supporters he cannot recall some things but can others. I was reading a blog last night and it's evident he's telling one person one thing and another person something else entirely.

I believe he did mention Witham but because he wasn't questioned on it and as he was figuring out where the police were going with regards to the timings etc, he thought it best to keep his mouth shut.

This is not the behavior of an innocent man.

Excellant post and well put Steph.

[Reader]

He also told West he phoned Witham.

According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.

[Stephanie]

If the police interviewing him had a concern about why Jeremy took so much time, they would have asked him "Why would it have taken you 10 minutes to look up a police telephone number?" (or words to that effect), but they didn't. The fact that they didn't suggests that Jeremy actually gave the much more reasonable reply of "2 minutes at the outside".

They didn't believe him Reader. They weren't interested. What was the point questioning him further if he was going to lie.

It was Jeremy who remained firm that his first statement was exact. He said the words exact. His first statement was the one he was sticking to. He was questioned about the timings several times. He wasn't under pressure as the police allowed Jeremy to call the shots. He had a break when he wanted, he went to the toilet when he wanted. They went along at his pace. They were already on to him. They would have dealt with men like him on a regular basis. They let Jeremy lead the way. The interviews weren't rushed nor was he put under pressure.

If his timings were correct, why didn't he get his defence team to bring them up during the trial? Why didn't he insist his barrister break all the timings down into tiny little pieces in order for the jury to hear. Jeremy couldn't afford to make the same mistakes he had made previously so the less said about them the better.

It wasn't the police who were at fault for having not asked him certain questions. It was Jeremy's fault for choosing to not answer them and choosing to not tell them what he had told the police outside the farmhouse.

He was playing games Reader.

[mike tesko]

I agree justice. There's no doubt the police have made errors try substituting the word 'errors' with the term 'fabricated the evidence' and it's clear Jeremy has used these errors in an attempt to confuse his original evidence given in his first statement Written and paraphrased by DC Clark... , police interviews Interviewed by a different officer, who may not have asked the exact same question, as on the other occasions...and subsequently during his trial. Again, you can't accurately make a comparison between these three events, without setting out the circumstances of the approach in the making his first witness statement, or when interviewed, or as the case may be, whilst testifying, and say 'Look here, he has given different answers'...

It's also clear Jeremy has a selective memory when it suits him. It is not a criminal offence, or at least back in 1985 it was not an offence, indeed, a suspect was encouraged to remain silent by those representing his interests... I've noticed how he tells his supporters he cannot recall some things but can others. nothing abnormal in being like this or that, is there? I was reading a blog last night and it's evident he's telling one person one thing Perfectly normal behaviour in my opinion, since we all know people in our own lives who we might tell something to, but others who we might choose to be guarded against saying anything to... and another person something else entirely. Normal behaviour...

I believe he did mention Witham but because he wasn't questioned on it and as he was figuring out where the police were going with regards to the timings etc, he thought it best to keep his mouth shut.

This is not the behavior of an innocent man. In 1985, it was what suspects, interviewees, and defendants were encouraged to do to help prove their innocence...

[mike tesko]

Excellant post and well put Steph.

Refer to 'Reply No. 109' in this thread...

[lookout]

Re-education on police procedures wouldn't go amiss. I remember Adam saying that all JB answered questions with was----" No Comment ".
That's all I'd say too to avoid words being put into my mouth !!

[Reader]

If you read his witness statements along with his police interviews and his evidence given his court you will see how it is Jeremy who has purposely mixed up the timings in order to confuse. If you look at Jeremy's evidence only and put aside all other evidence and any thoughts you have on the other evidence it becomes clear.

Jeremy explicitly stated during his interviews that it was the police who were confusing him. There is no transcript of Jeremy's evidence in court on this website. It's not clear whether Jeremy now has a copy of this, but his campaign team may have a copy of a transcript of his cross-examination (as the official site has made occasional reference to it).

[Stephanie]

According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.

And here's an even bigger clue Reader. Where and when has Jeremy maintained he was innocent throughout his interviews and throughout his trial? When did he shout out, "I didn't do it! I'm being framed? It wasn't me!

Count how many times he suggested this.

If you were arrested for the murder of 5 of your family members and knew you hadn't done it. Wouldn't you have shouted from the roof tops that you were innocent?

When Simon Hall confessed he wrote in letters that had he been innocent he would have shouted it from the roof tops. Which made me think; when had he ever shouted from the roof tops he was innocent. I thought he had. But he hadn't. He had used others to shout his innocence from the roof tops. Just as Jeremy Bamber has done.

Don't be mistaken by his cool, calm and collected demeanour. This isn't how a truly innocent person behaves. A truly innocent person would be all over the place. They would be suffering from some kind of PTSD.

The cool, calm and collected nature that is Jeremy Bamber is that of a psychopath. He is but an empty vessel. He doesn't have a conscience. He doesn't care what he did to his family and it's why he's found 32 years in prison easy. It has nothing to do with inner strength and everything to do with the fact he is still duping people.

[Stephanie]

Jeremy explicitly stated during his interviews that it was the police who were confusing him. There is no transcript of Jeremy's evidence in court on this website. It's not clear whether Jeremy now has a copy of this, but his campaign team may have a copy of a transcript of his cross-examination (as the official site has made occasional reference to it).

He does say this yes but read back through his interviews. Not now of course  when you have some quiet time. Read from the beginning to end and take a note of when they break for the day or when Jeremy asks to go to the toilet. Also make a mental note of when the police leave the room and return.

Re read his interview from start to finish and keep a copy of his witness statements to hand so that when he refers to them you can look at them to remind yourself.

Jeremy may have said he was confused but he doesn't appear confused. The police aren't confusing him. They are clear with their questions to him. They repeat them and don't introduce things to confuse him.

There are excerpts from the transcripts on here and if you look at the appeal documents they will give you some idea of what evidence Jeremy gave.

[Stephanie]

Excellant post and well put Steph.

Thanks Justice I thought yours was too 

[lookout]

The CA7 car------took 15 minutes to arrive at WHF. Was this Neville's 999 call ??
The CA5 car------took 45 minutes to arrive at WHF. Jeremy's non 999 call ??

[lookout]

CA7 travelled at speed from Chelmsford to WHF. In answer to a distressed call from Neville.

Pity this hadn't been sorted out at the trial.

[Caroline]

According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.

I shall reiterate once again that his first statement was taken BEFORE Jeremy became a suspect and as such, the 'specifics' of what Jeremy said weren't as important as the basics. Once he became a suspect a more detailed account of what he actually said would have been the prime objective. In this case, they aren't 'discrepancies' simply more detailed and specific information in respect to Bamber himself.

[mike tesko]

They didn't believe him Reader. They weren't interested. What was the point questioning him further if he was going to lie.

It was Jeremy who remained firm that his first statement was exact. He said the words exact. His first statement was the one he was sticking to. A witness statement which came into existence by DC Clark adopting the following approach - Clark asked questions (the nature of which are not recorded in the said statyement. Jeremy answered the question put to him by DC Clark. The answer recorded by DC Clark in his own handwriting, was not recorded in the 'exact' way that Jeremy had answered the question. What DC Clark did was to paraphrase his question, and Jeremy's answer, so that what DC Clark recorded flowed as part of an ongoing narrative. For this reason, thats why mistakes crop up under cross examination, because a witness has their statement made for them by a police officer, who at the time a statement is being taken, is of a particular mindset... He was questioned about the timings several times. He wasn't under pressure as the police allowed Jeremy to call the shots. It was his legal right to remain silent back in 1985. Now, your trying to prove him guilty because he chose to exercise his legal right to remain silent...He had a break when he wanted,  How does this make him guilty?  he went to the toilet when he wanted. Oh, he must be guilty then, because he was allowed to go to the toilet when he wanted to?They went along at his pace. Jeremy controlled everything the police did in this case. He fooled them into thinking his sister had killed herself upstairs on the bedroom floor, even though police found Sheila in the kitchen upon entry (7.37am) They were already on to him. They would have dealt with men like him on a regular basis. They let Jeremy lead the way. The interviews weren't rushed nor was he put under pressure.

If his timings were correct, why didn't he get his defence team to bring them up during the trial? Why didn't he insist his barrister break all the timings down into tiny little pieces in order for the jury to hear. Jeremy couldn't afford to make the same mistakes he had made previously so the less said about them the better Jeremy Bamber was framed for these murders by Essex police, the evidence is all there support it...

It wasn't the police who were at fault for having not asked him certain questions. [ Police didn't need to ask any of the questions you say they did not ask, because they knew that Jeremy did not shoot and kill his sister on the main bedroom floor, with use of the rifle from a first floor window, any time after 8.10am, nor did he have anything to do with Sheila being shot in the kitchen around 7.37am...[/i]It was Jeremy's fault for choosing to not answer them and choosing to not tell them what he had told the police outside the farmhouse.

He was playing games Reader.