The Jigsaw Puzzle

[Luminous Wanderer]

They simply rest on Jeremy's non-specific admission in a police interview that he could enter the farmhouse via a window.


From an objective point of view, one has to assume a window was allready open before he arrived hence no damage to the window. So to my mind the whole senario is in the realm of speculation before the alleged crime takes place. Whether the Crown contemplated this I do not know.

Thanks.  I think the latter part of your comment captures it - from the point-of-view of an appellate judge, he's admitted that he could have got into the farmhouse, and the window could well have already been open or, certainly I think in the case of a sliding-sash window, could be opened from the outside if unlocked.

For that reason, I don't regard the whole windows issue as terribly relevant.  I think it rests alongside the first three points in my opening post, and I will add it to those rather than the latter points.

[David1819]

Thanks.  I think the latter part of your comment captures it - from the point-of-view of an appellate judge, he's admitted that he could have got into the farmhouse, and the window could well have already been open or, certainly I think in the case of a sliding-sash window, could be opened from the outside if unlocked.

For that reason, I don't regard the whole windows issue as terribly relevant.  I think it rests alongside the first three points in my opening post, and I will add it to those rather than the latter points.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Thanks - but what's the context of that statement?  Could you please link me to the source, so that I can look at it? 

[Steve_uk]

In a nutshell

Late July 1985- Windows freshly painted by decorator

August 6th/7th 1985 - The killings take place.

Late August 1985 - Police investigate windows for evidence of forced entry and find nothing.

Early September 1985 - Police re-investigate the windows after Julie "comes forward" and they find nothing.

Mid September 1985 - Jeremy needs documents from the office in order to go abroad and has no key, Enters via the downstairs bathroom window using a hack saw to unsecure the latch.

Late September 1985 - Police find the hacksaw and damaged window latch.

Trial 1986 - Prosecution use the hacksaw and window damage and argue Jeremy did that on the night of the murders (withholding the evidence that there was no damage to the windows or hacksaw prior to that mid september 1985)

Appeal 2002 - Defence obtain withheld police documents and new witness testimony confirming the evidence used to convince the jury that Jeremy entered the building was created in the month after the murders. And there was no evidence of forced entry prior to mid september 1985

Prosecution counter the claim by using Jeremy's words "Secure windows, insecure windows..it makes no difference."

Oh please..

[David1819]

Thanks - but what's the context of that statement?  Could you please link me to the source, so that I can look at it?

Here

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1168.0.html

[David1819]

Oh please..

Factual Cheese.... 

[Steve_uk]

Factual Cheese.... 

I thought you were the I.T. specialist, so post this in a less unwieldy format.

[David1819]

I thought you were the I.T. specialist, so post this in a less unwieldy format.

Better?

[Luminous Wanderer]

In light of David's posts, I will give further thought to the windows issue and where it fits into the scheme of things in terms of a legal prognosis now.  I don't have time right now and I need to be careful in view of the bias of posters, which affects the information being given.

I have added a further evidence point above, (vi), in reference to it being thought that there was evidence that Nevill was involved in a physical struggle.  However, I may yet move this into the 'Irrelevant' category, as I am not completely convinced that this remains a probative point against Jeremy.  My line of thinking is that even if we accept that Nevill was involved in such a struggle, that can't rule out Sheila.