Who was turning lights on and off inside the farmhouse if everyone was dead?

[Jane]

It should have been proof enough that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse. What a bunch of dozy individuals.

HOW? Unless any WS stated that whilst they stood and watched, a particular light in a particular room was switched on and off -although WHY, unless someone was sending morse code- there's nothing to validate such an occurrence.

[lookout]

HOW? Unless any WS stated that whilst they stood and watched, a particular light in a particular room was switched on and off -although WHY, unless someone was sending morse code- there's nothing to validate such an occurrence.

There will be in the original murder/suicide logs.

[Jane]

There will be in the original murder/suicide logs.

You have frequently asked me why, because I think he's guilty, do I bother to post. Now, I'm asking you why, if your blanket answer to everything is that 'the truth' is in the original logs/in PII, do you bother to debate? It occurs to me that nothing changed as a result of me changing my mind. I simply looked at the same evidence from another perspective -much of what was fact then, remains so now, ie those characters I found so dislikeable then are no more so, now. The difference being in that I understand more about where they were coming from- so it's perfectly possible that the original logs say little that's different.

[lookout]

You have frequently asked me why, because I think he's guilty, do I bother to post. Now, I'm asking you why, if your blanket answer to everything is that 'the truth' is in the original logs/in PII, do you bother to debate? It occurs to me that nothing changed as a result of me changing my mind. I simply looked at the same evidence from another perspective -much of what was fact then, remains so now, ie those characters I found so dislikeable then are no more so, now. The difference being in that I understand more about where they were coming from- so it's perfectly possible that the original logs say little that's different.

How do any of us know what the original logs say when EP are " suspiciously " holding on to them ? I say suspiciously because if they've nothing to hide then show the world. If there was anything to JB's detriment then they obviously wouldn't have been hidden and would have been amalgamated with the paperwork when it had been decided it was murder. So why after 33 years do EP still need any paperwork at all ?

[Jane]

How do any of us know what the original logs say when EP are " suspiciously " holding on to them ? I say suspiciously because if they've nothing to hide then show the world. If there was anything to JB's detriment then they obviously wouldn't have been hidden and would have been amalgamated with the paperwork when it had been decided it was murder. So why after 33 years do EP still need any paperwork at all ?

We're looking at this from entirely different perspectives. If there's as little that differs between the individual investigations as makes no difference, UNLESS the originals were destroyed immediately, there may NOT be a first set and a second set. After all, the scenario for the 'second' set won't be any different from the scenario for the 'first' set.

You go on using the word "suspicious". I see no reason for it because I see no reason why police should have to reveal anything "to the world". It's not "the world's" business, and contrary to what it's being portrayed by some, as being, I don't believe it to be the cover-up that was Hillsborough, therefore, I don't believe there's anything hidden which would benefit Jeremy. To suggest that it would only be revealed if it was to Jeremy's detriment is anon-starter. WHERE, when he's in prison, on a whole life tariff is the necessity? I can think of little more stupid than to employ manpower to search through WS's and logs, nearly 35 years old, that show up, in a bad light, someone convicted of 5 murders.

[mike tesko]

The reason why no police officer says that he or she saw a particular room light being switched on and off, or that a light which was not on, being switched on was because for that to be said by anybody, or written about by anybody, would have resulted in the prosecution being unable to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for the five murders on the footing that he had shot and killed everyone, and staged the scene with one of the guns in his sister's possession, because the lights in the rooms of the farmhouse could not have switched themselves off and on, or as the case may be, on and then off.

It is just as important to note, that there does not exist one statement by any of the two dozen or so police officers who were present at the farmhouse throughout the entire incident that none of the rooms lights were not always off or on, or on or off continuosly...

It seems somewhat obvious to me, that the lighting arrangements inside the farmhouse in every room both downstairs, and upstairs would or should have been a major consideration. In that respect, the police would ordinarily have created a log identifying each window and door on all four sides of the house, on the ground floor and first floor respectively.

So, where is the part of this lighting register?

Withheld?

Destroyed?

Or, are parts of its truth incorporated into witness statements in such a way that no one single person actually says they saw any light in any part of the farmhouse being switched off and on, or on and being switched off, even though lights were being switched off or turned on, or vice versa? It was an operational decision to deal with this issue so as to not Provide Jeremy Bamber with an alibi...

It seems to me that the police at the scene were aware of and that they did see various lights being switched on and off in the farmhouse..

[lookout]

We're looking at this from entirely different perspectives. If there's as little that differs between the individual investigations as makes no difference, UNLESS the originals were destroyed immediately, there may NOT be a first set and a second set. After all, the scenario for the 'second' set won't be any different from the scenario for the 'first' set.

You go on using the word "suspicious". I see no reason for it because I see no reason why police should have to reveal anything "to the world". It's not "the world's" business, and contrary to what it's being portrayed by some, as being, I don't believe it to be the cover-up that was Hillsborough, therefore, I don't believe there's anything hidden which would benefit Jeremy. To suggest that it would only be revealed if it was to Jeremy's detriment is anon-starter. WHERE, when he's in prison, on a whole life tariff is the necessity? I can think of little more stupid than to employ manpower to search through WS's and logs, nearly 35 years old, that show up, in a bad light, someone convicted of 5 murders.

And what if these ancient statements and logs show JB to be innocent ? Would you still feel that it's acceptable for someone to remain incarcerated just because the jury voted the way they did ?
You say that the death sentence is inhumane but isn't keeping someone locked up without having had the full evidence as bad ?
As for telling the world----what do you think the WWW is ? We're on it whether you like it or not.

All I can say is that you must have a very high opinion of yourself to argue against the likes of a QC, a woman who was a magistrate for over 40 years and a team of up to date professionals and not the dinosaurs which were present years ago. I wouldn't like to pit my wits against any of them.

[Jane]

The reason why no police officer says that he or she saw a particular room light being switched on and off, or that a light which was not on, being switched on was because for that to be said by anybody, or written about by anybody, would have resulted in the prosecution being unable to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for the five murders on the footing that he had shot and killed everyone, and staged the scene with one of the guns in his sister's possession, because the lights in the rooms of the farmhouse could not have switched themselves off and on, or as the case may be, on and then off.

It is just as important to note, that there does not exist one statement by any of the two dozen or so police officers who were present at the farmhouse throughout the entire incident that none of the rooms lights were not always off or on, or on or off continuosly...

It seems somewhat obvious to me, that the lighting arrangements inside the farmhouse in every room both downstairs, and upstairs would or should have been a major consideration. In that respect, the police would ordinarily have created a log identifying each window and door on all four sides of the house, on the ground floor and first floor respectively.

So, where is the part of this lighting register?

Withheld?

Destroyed?

Or, are parts of its truth incorporated into witness statements in such a way that no one single person actually says they saw any light in any part of the farmhouse being switched off and on, or on and being switched off, even though lights were being switched off or turned on, or vice versa? It was an operational decision to deal with this issue so as to not Provide Jeremy Bamber with an alibi...

It seems to me that the police at the scene were aware of and that they did see various lights being switched on and off in the farmhouse..

Your first paragraph appears to be suggesting that either police weren't permitted to write their witness statements until the prosecution had worked out which tack they were going to use, OR they conspired to write 'the truth' in a code which only those present could decipher. Stupid to think you'd suggest such,  wouldn't you say?
 I'm going to suggest that the reason "there does not exist one statement.................." is simply, and for NO other reason than there WERE NO lights going on and off, and off and on either continuously or intermittently and the ONLY lights they saw were any that were on when they arrived.
Your foray into creating double negatives therefore appears merely as ploy to confuse. I see NO reason, that being so, for the police to have wasted their time on creating a "lighting register".

[Caroline]

And what if these ancient statements and logs show JB to be innocent ? Would you still feel that it's acceptable for someone to remain incarcerated just because the jury voted the way they did ?
You say that the death sentence is inhumane but isn't keeping someone locked up without having had the full evidence as bad ?
As for telling the world----what do you think the WWW is ? We're on it whether you like it or not.

All I can say is that you must have a very high opinion of yourself to argue against the likes of a QC, a woman who was a magistrate for over 40 years and a team of up to date professionals and not the dinosaurs which were present years ago. I wouldn't like to pit my wits against any of them.

What ancient statements? They ones that are only 'claimed' to exist? I don't believe for one second that there are any other logs. It just allows supporters to claim anything under the sun under the guise of 'it;s all hidden'. If it was hidden, you wouldn't know about it an as for the WWW, EP aren't posting on the WWW - so THEY aren't telling the world anything.

I couldn't give a stuff what the woman does for a living, there are plenty of QC's that believe Bamber guilty - you're arguing against them! 

[Jane]

And what if these ancient statements and logs show JB to be innocent ? Would you still feel that it's acceptable for someone to remain incarcerated just because the jury voted the way they did ?
You say that the death sentence is inhumane but isn't keeping someone locked up without having had the full evidence as bad ?
As for telling the world----what do you think the WWW is ? We're on it whether you like it or not.

All I can say is that you must have a very high opinion of yourself to argue against the likes of a QC, a woman who was a magistrate for over 40 years and a team of up to date professionals and not the dinosaurs which were present years ago. I wouldn't like to pit my wits against any of them.

I don't believe ANYTHING exists which will be proof of his innocence. IF such ever existed, it will be long gone. If I still thought Jeremy was innocent, I'd agree with you. However, I believe him equally as guilty as you believe him innocent and just like you, despite him being convicted, cling to his being innocent, I imagine, IF he ever gets released, I'll cling to his being guilty.

Ok, this is the WWW, but take a good look at how FEW of the WWW log on to this forum. I'd be interested to learn the ratio between those who have heard of JB against those who haven't, balanced against those who think he's innocent with those who believe he's guilty.

So all QC's are right? That's a bit rich from someone who, when it suits YOUR purpose, calls them every sort of corrupt/stupid/unfit for purpose. You have seemed, on other occasions, not to had too high a view of magistrates, either. Both, in my view, have opinions they're entitled to hold and which can be validated by laws they're not responsible for making. I'm certain you'll be delighted to learn that I have  been invited, by a magistrate, to apply to become one. I'd be more than happy to pitch my wits against yours, any day.

[lookout]

What ancient statements? They ones that are only 'claimed' to exist? I don't believe for one second that there are any other logs. It just allows supporters to claim anything under the sun under the guise of 'it;s all hidden'. If it was hidden, you wouldn't know about it an as for the WWW, EP aren't posting on the WWW - so THEY aren't telling the world anything.

I couldn't give a stuff what the woman does for a living, there are plenty of QC's that believe Bamber guilty - you're arguing against them! 

Why not have the courage of your convictions and find out if there are any more documents by contacting someone in the legal team instead of forever crowing that there aren't any ??
EP are there in all their glory on the WWW so far as " dismissed " named and shamed officers are concerned. The world sees that doesn't it ? Of course they wouldn't show ALL their " mistakes " online, there'd be no room for anything else.

Let me remind you too are arguing against a lot of people ! Where are the high-profile pics in your corner ?

[Jane]

Why not have the courage of your convictions and find out if there are any more documents by contacting someone in the legal team instead of forever crowing that there aren't any ??
EP are there in all their glory on the WWW so far as " dismissed " named and shamed officers are concerned. The world sees that doesn't it ? Of course they wouldn't show ALL their " mistakes " online, there'd be no room for anything else.

Let me remind you too are arguing against a lot of people ! Where are the high-profile pics in your corner ?

Why on EARTH would we need 'high-profile' pics or people in "our" corner? Why on EARTH do we need to to "find out if..............." when it's you who's gagging for there to be secret store rooms full of hidden information which will mean immediate release for Jeremy information. It's all in your imagination that "EP are there in all their glory............" Why WOULD the "named and shamed" care? After nearly 35 years? Get real.

[lookout]

Why on EARTH would we need 'high-profile' pics or people in "our" corner? Why on EARTH do we need to to "find out if..............." when it's you who's gagging for there to be secret store rooms full of hidden information which will mean immediate release for Jeremy information. It's all in your imagination that "EP are there in all their glory............" Why WOULD the "named and shamed" care? After nearly 35 years? Get real.

Huh ! I'm not " gagging " for anything, it's you who's arguing that there isn't. Before you fall off your high horse the named and shamed were only in the last couple of years---------I wouldn't have dared go back 30 odd years ! So it's up to you to get real.

[Jane]

Huh ! I'm not " gagging " for anything, it's you who's arguing that there isn't. Before you fall off your high horse the named and shamed were only in the last couple of years---------I wouldn't have dared go back 30 odd years ! So it's up to you to get real.

Oh dear, I must not have been aware of a burgeoning, on the WWW, caused by all the named and shamed connected to just about everywhere in general and to EP in particular. I think it's you who needs to drop the fantasy...................and WHY is my "arguing that there isn't any" remotely different to you arguing that there is?

[mike tesko]

Your first paragraph appears to be suggesting that either police weren't permitted to write their witness statements until the prosecution had worked out which tack they were going to use Which is exactly what they did, they had a whole month to figure out the approach they would need to be taking! Stop pretending that cops don't put people in the frame and that part of this process is making sure that they don't give anything away which will upset the apple cart! You are restricted into thinking that whatever exists proves Bambers guilt, but you and those like you, have got it all wrong! OR they conspired to write 'the truth' in a code which only those present could decipher. if only you and yours had been so unlucky in your lives in the hands of the corrupted Criminal Justice system! You can't see the wood for the trees, that's your problem! But, hey you have got to face your own demons on your judgement day!Stupid to think you'd suggest such,  Well, if I'm stupid, what does that make you, and all those like you?wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't say that I am stupid at all - the trial judge who incarcerated me for what turned out to be a 54 year term of imprisonment, said 'THE PICTURE I HAVE OF YOU, IS OF A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, CUNNING, RESOURCEFUL AND AN ILLUSIVE CROOK', So either he got it right or wrong, or you got it wrong or right!
 I'm going to suggest that the reason "there does not exist one statement.... this.............." is simply, and for NO other reason than there WERE NO lights going on and off, and off and on either continuously or intermittently and the ONLY lights they saw were any that were on when they arrived. well, something that the cops saw or heard, or were being told by someone who must have been alive inside the farmhouse, to keep over 25 police officers at bay for over three and a half hours suggests that you must be totally wrong in what you are saying and believing, five dead bodies inside the farmhouse, and one living dog was surely not responsible for keeping the armed cops at bay until just after 7.30am, that morning!
Your foray into creating double negatives therefore appears merely as ploy to confuse. I don't set out to confuse anyone, the only people responsible for doing that are Essex police and people like yourself who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face!I see NO reason, that being so, for the police to have wasted their time on creating a "lighting register". You simply don't appear to have a clue about what the police would have done, or did do in connection with these events..