Is there a budding Sir Patrick Moore or Brian May out there?

[mike tesko]

Sheila saw them, as she looked out of "Box Room" Window into Court yard at 04.01am

Jeremy told me in confident terms that the person they saw was at the front of the farmhouse at his parents first floor window (top left)! He told me that they were behind a hedge at one stage, but that they entered the garden at the front of the farmhouse, and that they all crouched down behind some raised flower beds situated in the front garden, when they saw the figure at his parents bedroom window!

[mike tesko]

Importantly please note at 3min 30 secs https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M former Sgt Chris Bews moves his hand left to right. In a Clockwise fashion.



He was speaking in relation to the FRONT of the house, picture above.

'Trick of The Light" could not have been "replicated" due to location of The Moon.

Also he says: "Weather is good " "Clear Summer night" so clouds would not effect Moons rays.

2mins 45sec

Therefore there must have been movement in the house.

Yes, I believe Jeremy is telling the truth about seeing a living moving person at his parents bedroom window, and I believe that the two police officers also saw that person at the parents bedroom window, and that the use of Bews hand in the video clip, is because he saw the figure at the top left hand first floor window at the front of the farmhouse, but he deliberately made out a false case suggesting that what collectively he, Myall and Jeremy had seen occurred at the top right window (Sheila Caffell's bedroom window)!

[Nigel]

Yes, I believe Jeremy is telling the truth about seeing a living moving person at his parents bedroom window, and I believe that the two police officers also saw that person at the parents bedroom window, and that the use of Bews hand in the video clip, is because he saw the figure at the top left hand first floor window at the front of the farmhouse, but he deliberately made out a false case suggesting that what collectively he, Myall and Jeremy had seen occurred at the top right window (Sheila Caffell's bedroom window)!

"Sheila Caffell's bedroom window"

Which in reality was the Box Room window (court yard/red brick side)

[mike tesko]

Yes, I believe Jeremy is telling the truth about seeing a living moving person at his parents bedroom window, and I believe that the two police officers also saw that person at the parents bedroom window, and that the use of Bews hand in the video clip, is because he saw the figure at the top left hand first floor window at the front of the farmhouse, but he deliberately made out a false case suggesting that what collectively he, Myall and Jeremy had seen occurred at the top right window (Sheila Caffell's bedroom window)!

Once the person moved across the full opening of the parents bedroom window, from right to left (as viewed by Bews, Myall and Jeremys vantage point), they darted out of the grounds and rushed back to the police patrol car parked up in Pages Lane  manned by PS Saxby, and PS Bews passed a situation report to the control room regarding what they had just been observing! He requested that the firearms team should be deployed to the incident!

The contents of this situation report have been deliberately withheld for over 32 years!

The reason for withholding this must be obvious..

What Bews, Myall and Jeremy saw at his parents bedroom window, was a living person who paused to one side of that window, but then who had walked swiftly across the full opening of the parents bedroom window from right to left in a hurried fashion in the general direction of the doorway connecting the main bedroom door to the box room window!

[mike tesko]

"Sheila Caffell's bedroom window"

Which in reality was the Box Room window (court yard/red brick side)

Sheila's bedroom window, is the one top right in the following image, the parents bedroom window is the window, top left in the same image:-

Please note, that the window illustrated in the parents bedroom on the red brick part of the farmhouse, is bricked up, and was bricked in at the time of the incident!

[Nigel]

Sheila's bedroom marked Green arrow.

[Nigel]

Nigel, you have just proved to everybody, including myself, the mistake the jury made regarding this very significant evidence regarding the purported sighting of a living person inside whf at a time when Jeremy was outside in the company of the police! One other thing which needs addressing here, is that Bews, nor Myall, ever set foot inside the farmhouse, so would not have known which bedroom window, was Sheila Caffell's bedroom window, or the parents bedroom window!

You are absolutely spot on though, that the moon was on the other side of the farmhouse (not the court yard side) and therefore could not have played a 'trick of light' on any window on that side of the farmhouse!

Please rest assured that I am very pleased you raised this matter, because it can now be shown how the jury were misled and confused by what Bews referred to as a 'trick of light' - trust me, Bews, Myall and Jeremy were on the other side of the house when Bews referred to movement at the first floor top right hand side window (Sheila Caffell's bedroom window), he didn't know who's bedroom window that was, and that's where he's made a humongous mistake! This constitutes fresh evidence (the video footage of Bews account) which was not available at the time of the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal!

How?...

A photograph?

[mike tesko]

How?

The jury were deceived because the 'trick of light' alluded to by Bews during his testimony, involved a separate first floor window to that which the silhouetted figure was seen (at Parents bedroom window) by himself, Myalls and Jeremy Bamber. The 'trick of light' explanation  may well have applied to Sheila Caffell's bedroom window (top right), but could not be entertained with regard to the parents bedroom window (top left). This 'trick of light' being caused by moonlight shining through branches of a nearby tree casting shadows against Sheila Caffell's bedroom window, apparent movement there caused by the shift in position of an observer in different positions around the perimeter of the farmhouse!

No such 'trick of light' could occur against the parents bedroom window because there were no nearby trees to create the same illusion!

[mike tesko]

How?...

A photograph?

The jury were decieved by Bews agreeing that what at first might have appeared to have been the sighting of a living person moving around at a first floor window, turned out to be a trick of light which could only be observed at one of the three first floor windows on that side (front) of the farmhouse, giving a false impression that the window he was referring to, was the actual window where movement of the person had been observed! The 'trick of light' explanation was not applicable to the parents bedroom window, or the top landing window on that side of the farmhouse, only in relation to Sheila Caffell's bedroom window (top right)!

[Nigel]

The jury were decieved by Bews agreeing that what at first might have appeared to have been the sighting of a living person moving around at a first floor window, turned out to be a trick of light which could only be observed at one of the three first floor windows on that side (front) of the farmhouse, giving a false impression that the window he was referring to, was the actual window where movement of the person had been observed! The 'trick of light' explanation was not applicable to the parents bedroom window, or the top landing window on that side of the farmhouse, only in relation to Sheila Caffell's bedroom window (top right)!

Mike,

I am confused on your reply, plain English please.

"The jury were decieved"

Why?

[mike tesko]

Mike,

I am confused on your reply, plain English please.

"The jury were decieved"

Why?

The jury were deceived into accepting that the sighting of the silhouetted person seen at the bedroom window was explained as nothing but a 'trick of light', when the sighting of 'that' person at the parents bedroom window was not explained at all! In fact, based on Bews response to a sighting or movement at a first floor window as being nothing but a 'trick of light', the jury did not hear about the actual sighting of the person at the parents bedroom window!

Based on what Bews is saying in the latest video footage, his explaining about the 'trick of light' had got nothing ]to do with the person who was seen at the parents bedroom window (top left), but rather when he testified during the 1986 trial, his reference to a 'trick of light' related to Sheila's bedroom window (top right)

The truth relating to the sighting of the person at the parents bedroom window, therefore, which should have been the focal point of Jeremy Bambers defence, was never brought to the attention of the jury at all!

[mike tesko]

That person, was almost certainly Neville Bamber, which if true would have portrayed Jeremy in innocence, it would have served to establish in the minds of the jury that Neville Bamber had made that telephone call to Jeremy alerting him to the fact that Sheila has got the gun, or she has got one of the guns, and that Sheila or she was going crazy! It would also follow, that Neville Bamber had called the police himself at 3.26am, in accordance with the contents of Malcolm Bonnets 3.26am phone log contents (if for example, the male person seen at the parents bedroom window had been and was none other than Neville Bamber himself)! A great deal may rely on the lines of enquiry undertaken by Essex police which they must have carried out to try and identify the 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall at 03.45hrs! If documentation exists which confirms that this first entry in the 'Major Incident Project Register's relates to PC Myalls account of the person at the main bedroom window, it would go along way towards getting Jeremy free, because in these circumstances PC Myall would be confirming that at least one of the victims was still alive inside the farmhouse at a time when Jeremy was outside in the grounds of the farm with two police officers (one of whom has deliberately sought to deceive the court and the general public at large, by claiming there was a simple explanation for what was thought to have been movement at a first floor window ('a trick of light'), by assigning that window as being Sheila Caffell's bedroom window, and not the parents bedroom window!

[Nigel]

The jury were deceived into accepting that the sighting of the silhouetted person seen at the bedroom window was explained as nothing but a 'trick of light', when the sighting of 'that' person at the parents bedroom window was not explained at all! In fact, based on Bews response to a sighting or movement at a first floor window as being nothing but a 'trick of light', the jury did not hear about the actual sighting of the person at the parents bedroom window!

Based on what Bews is saying in the latest video footage, his explaining about the 'trick of light' had got nothing ]to do with the person who was seen at the parents bedroom window (top left), but rather when he testified during the 1986 trial, his reference to a 'trick of light' related to Sheila's bedroom window (top right)

The truth relating to the sighting of the person at the parents bedroom window, therefore, which should have been the focal point of Jeremy Bambers defence, was never brought to the attention of the jury at all!

"when he (BEWS) testified during the 1986 trial, his reference to a 'trick of light' related to Sheila's bedroom window"

Are you 100% certain of this?

Please take your time before replying.

[mike tesko]

"when he (BEWS) testified during the 1986 trial, his reference to a 'trick of light' related to Sheila's bedroom window"

Are you 100% certain of this?

Please take your time before replying.

I have a copy of his trial transcript somewhere, I will have to find it out - but I seem to recollect that it was Rivlin QC who suggested to PS Bews, that the movement at a first floor window was nothing but a 'trick of light'! It may well be that no specific first floor window was identified at all, I will have to check, but going by what Bews is now saying in the video footage he must have been inferring that the apparent movement at a first floor window had been Sheila Caffells bedroom window (top right), why would Bews change the window he had been referring to from the parents bedroom window to Sheila Caffells bedroom window, relying on the 'trick of light' explanation?

What I do know, is that as a result of Rivlin suggesting that the movement at a window may have been a 'trick of light', and he (Bews) agreeing that it was, that it upset Jeremy that the sighting of the person at his parents bedroom window (top left) was never mentioned at all in the presence of the jury, and when Jeremy testified he wasn't asked about 'it'...

[mike tesko]

I have a copy of his trial transcript somewhere, I will have to find it out - but I seem to recollect that it was Rivlin QC who suggested to PS Bews, that the movement at a first floor window was nothing but a 'trick of light'! It may well be that no specific first floor window was identified at all, I will have to check, but going by what Bews is now saying in the video footage he must have been inferring that the apparent movement at a first floor window had been Sheila Caffells bedroom window (top right), why would Bews change the window he had been referring to from the parents bedroom window to Sheila Caffells bedroom window, relying on the 'trick of light' explanation?

What I do know, is that as a result of Rivlin suggesting that the movement at a window may have been a 'trick of light', and he (Bews) agreeing that it was, that it upset Jeremy that the sighting of the person at his parents bedroom window (top left) was never mentioned at all in the presence of the jury, and when Jeremy testified he wasn't asked about 'it'...

This is one of those situations where the CCRC will say that Jeremy had this evidence available to him at the time of his trial, and because he did not rely upon it then, it does not constitute fresh evidence - but...

At the time of Jeremy's trial he and everybody else present at his trial were under an impression that what Rivlin was suggesting in so far as the movement at a first floor window was concerned being a 'trick of light' was a reference to the parents bedroom window! However, now that that matter has been clarified by reference to the video footage where PS Bews explains in more detail, it becomes obvious that Bews was not referring to the movement of the figure at the parents bedroom window (top left), but rather he was referring to the purported movement at Sheila Caffells bedroom window (top right)! Seems to me, therefore, that such was the confusion arising out of this matter, that the jury were not properly availed of the specific first floor window that Jeremy sought to rely upon!

The sighting of the figure at the parents bedroom window, therefore, was not properly aired during the trial through no fault of Jeremy's, and the jury never got an opportunity to reject that evidence! Seems to me to be a somewhat perfectly legal entitlement for Jeremy to be a able to rely upon this feature of evidence, since its existence goes to the heart of the prosecutions case, nullifying it, in more ways than one...