Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on October 09, 2019, 06:08:PM
-
3:22am Control room
JB: You’ve got to help me, my father has just phoned me saying ‘please come over, your
sister has gone crazy and has the gun’ then the phone went dead. My father sounded
terrified, I don’t think he was kidding.
West: Where does your father live?
JB: White House farm Tolleshunt D'arcy.
West: Does your sister have access to any guns?
JB: Yes my father has a collection of 12 bores and 4.10s and .22 rifles. Look my sister has a
history of mental illness. You’ve got to help me.
West: Hold the line please, I’ll contact our information room and find out where the nearest
unit is.
3:26am Information room
"I received a telephone call on the internal line. The officer at the other end announced
himself as PC 1990 at Chelmsford.
Mr Bamber was worried about a phone call that he had received from his father at
Tolleshunt D'arcy. I cannot remember the direct speech that was used but I was informed
that the telephone call had been received from Mr Bamber and that Mr Bamber's daughter
had gone berserk and had taken one of his guns and that the line had gone dead.
PC 1990 also informed me that Mr BAMBER Junior had stated that there was a collection of
guns at the house. I recorded these as being Shotguns and 410's."
3:30am Witham Police Station
"About 03:30 am I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36
BEWS and Police Constable 1509 MYALL. when I received a message over my personal radio,
from Chelmsford Police Station to the effect that a telephone call had been received from a
Mr Jeremy BAMBER, who had said that he had received a telephone call from his father Mr
Neville BAMBER of "White House Farm" Tolleshunt D'Arcy, saying that his sister was going
berserk and that she had a gun."
3:34am Control room
West: Hello
JB: Christ. You took a long time
West: I have contacted my Information room and Witham Police Station and a car is on its way
to your father's address at Tolleshunt D'Arcy. What's your father’s telephone number?
JB: Maldon 860204
West: How old is your father?
JB: Sixty two
West: Do you know who’s in the house?
JB: My father obviously , my mother and Sheila. Look, when my father rang me he sounded
terrified, I don’t think he's kidding about. I tried ringing him back and I can't get any reply.
West: Will you go to the house and wait for the Police officers and liaise with them there?
JB: Shall I go now?
West: Yes, the car from Witham won't take long. Can I have your telephone number?
JB: Goldhanger 88645
3:39am (or 3:19am)
JB: There’s something wrong at home. I don’t know what to do
Julie: Go to bed. bye honey
JB: I love you lots
3:35 - CA07 leaves Witham
3:41 - Jeremy leaves his house
3:47 - CA07 drives past Jeremy.
3:48 - CA07 arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 48mph
3:49 - Jeremy arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 31mph
-
3:22am Control room
JB: You’ve got to help me, my father has just phoned me saying ‘please come over, your
sister has gone crazy and has the gun’ then the phone went dead. My father sounded
terrified, I don’t think he was kidding.
West: Where does your father live?
JB: White House farm Tolleshunt D'arcy.
West: Does your sister have access to any guns?
JB: Yes my father has a collection of 12 bores and 4.10s and .22 rifles. Look my sister has a
history of mental illness. You’ve got to help me.
West: Hold the line please, I’ll contact our information room and find out where the nearest
unit is.
3:26am Information room
"I received a telephone call on the internal line. The officer at the other end announced
himself as PC 1990 at Chelmsford.
Mr Bamber was worried about a phone call that he had received from his father at
Tolleshunt D'arcy. I cannot remember the direct speech that was used but I was informed
that the telephone call had been received from Mr Bamber and that Mr Bamber's daughter
had gone berserk and had taken one of his guns and that the line had gone dead.
PC 1990 also informed me that Mr BAMBER Junior had stated that there was a collection of
guns at the house. I recorded these as being Shotguns and 410's."
3:30am Witham Police Station
"About 03:30 am I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36
BEWS and Police Constable 1509 MYALL. when I received a message over my personal radio,
from Chelmsford Police Station to the effect that a telephone call had been received from a
Mr Jeremy BAMBER, who had said that he had received a telephone call from his father Mr
Neville BAMBER of "White House Farm" Tolleshunt D'Arcy, saying that his sister was going
berserk and that she had a gun."
3:34am Control room
West: Hello
JB: Christ. You took a long time
West: I have contacted my Information room and Witham Police Station and a car is on its way
to your father's address at Tolleshunt D'Arcy. What's your father’s telephone number?
JB: Maldon 860204
West: How old is your father?
JB: Sixty two
West: Do you know who’s in the house?
JB: My father obviously , my mother and Sheila. Look, when my father rang me he sounded
terrified, I don’t think he's kidding about. I tried ringing him back and I can't get any reply.
West: Will you go to the house and wait for the Police officers and liaise with them there?
JB: Shall I go now?
West: Yes, the car from Witham won't take long. Can I have your telephone number?
JB: Goldhanger 88645
3:39am (or 3:19am)
JB: There’s something wrong at home. I don’t know what to do
Julie: Go to bed. bye honey
JB: I love you lots
3:35 - CA07 leaves Witham
3:41 - Jeremy leaves his house
3:47 - CA07 drives past Jeremy.
3:48 - CA07 arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 48mph
3:49 - Jeremy arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 31mph
He admitted to telephoning Chelmsford Police after his telephone conversation with Julie (interview Chelmsford Police Station Sunday 8 September 1985).
-
He admitted to telephoning Chelmsford Police after his telephone conversation with Julie (interview Chelmsford Police Station Sunday 8 September 1985).
I stated it could have happened either at 3:39am or 3:19am.
Its not safe to just assume his recollection in that one instance is correct.
-
I stated it could have happened either at 3:39am or 3:19am.
Its not safe to just assume his recollection in that one instance is correct.
Odd though, that he can be SO vague about the times of calls on one hand, yet be absolutely certain about times on the other. He even told Julie how many minutes their late evening call had lasted.
-
Odd though, that he can be SO vague about the times of calls on one hand, yet be absolutely certain about times on the other. He even told Julie how many minutes their call had lasted.
How many minutes did he say?
-
How many minutes did he say?
Adam, I think? he said it was 11 minutes.
-
Odd though, that he can be SO vague about the times of calls on one hand, yet be absolutely certain about times on the other. He even told Julie how many minutes their call had lasted.
Source?
-
Source?
Oh archives, undoubtedly.
-
According to Jeremy's first statement he called Julie at around 3:25am
From Julie's first statement. The call was around 3:30am
"The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985. He sounded disjointed and worried and said words to the effect "There's something wrong at home" and he did not know what to do. He sounded odd. I told him to go to bed."
But she was going by Susan's digital clock. That was always running fast.
I have stayed with Susan at her previous' address at Caterham Road, Lewisham and I have also stayed with her at her present address. I can say that Susan has in her bedroom, ,a digital radio alarm clock which I can describe as white in colour with a red display. She has had this clock in her bedroom at both the addresses I have been to.
I can say that Susan was always in the habit of having this clock displaying the time as ten minutes fast and on some occasions at least fifteen minutes fast. When I stayed at Susan's I would leave for work using the time displayed on her digital alarm clock to give me the time. As I don't wear a watch I would generally arrive at work earlier than I expected. It is for these reasons that I can say without any doubt that Susan's clock radio was fast as I have stated.
The person above assumes Susan deliberatley had the clock forward. However it sounds like a typical case of a cheap digital clock that is not well built for the UK mains frequency.
So the call may well could have been just before my 3:22am estimate of Jeremy calling the police. How long does it take to say "There’s something wrong at home. I don’t know what to do." then "Go to bed. bye honey"?
-
I'd be more worried if he had everything timed to the second !
-
Source?
Julie's handwritten statement (retyped by Hartley) - Page 12.
He timed the call at 17 minutes.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647.msg50140.html#msg50140
-
According to Jeremy's first statement he called Julie at around 3:25am
From Julie's first statement. The call was around 3:30am
"The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985. He sounded disjointed and worried and said words to the effect "There's something wrong at home" and he did not know what to do. He sounded odd. I told him to go to bed."
But she was going by Susan's digital clock. That was always running fast.
I have stayed with Susan at her previous' address at Caterham Road, Lewisham and I have also stayed with her at her present address. I can say that Susan has in her bedroom, ,a digital radio alarm clock which I can describe as white in colour with a red display. She has had this clock in her bedroom at both the addresses I have been to.
I can say that Susan was always in the habit of having this clock displaying the time as ten minutes fast and on some occasions at least fifteen minutes fast. When I stayed at Susan's I would leave for work using the time displayed on her digital alarm clock to give me the time. As I don't wear a watch I would generally arrive at work earlier than I expected. It is for these reasons that I can say without any doubt that Susan's clock radio was fast as I have stated.
The person above assumes Susan deliberatley had the clock forward. However it sounds like a typical case of a cheap digital clock that is not well built for the UK mains frequency.
So the call may well could have been just before my 3:22am estimate of Jeremy calling the police. How long does it take to say "There’s something wrong at home. I don’t know what to do." then "Go to bed. bye honey"?
A bit less than "All is going well.."
-
A bit less than "All is going well.."
Tonight's the night!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
-
Tonight's the night!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
This was contained within the first telephone call of the three, made within the space of a few hours. It's not like you to omit detail David: normally you wear us down with a superfluity of extraneous detail, or interpret documents which have come into your possession in what can only be described as a most unorthodox way.
-
This was contained within the first telephone call of the three, made within the space of a few hours. It's not like you to omit detail David: normally you wear us down with a superfluity of extraneous detail, or interpret documents which have come into your possession in what can only be described as a most unorthodox way.
Strange really to pester his girlfriend with telephone calls, when he was later to claim under Police interrogation that their relationship had been cooling for months. Maybe it had cooled after she refused to back him when the realization came that he was guilty of mass murder..
-
Strange really to pester his girlfriend with telephone calls, when he was later to claim under Police interrogation that their relationship had been cooling for months. Maybe it had cooled after she refused to back him when the realization came that he was guilty of mass murder..
Probably buzzing and needed someone to talk to and also, the call acted as an alibi and confirmation of events to her flat mates.
-
I'd be more worried if he had everything timed to the second !
Well, as long as it's only SOME things, I guess that makes it alright?
-
This was contained within the first telephone call of the three, made within the space of a few hours. It's not like you to omit detail David: normally you wear us down with a superfluity of extraneous detail, or interpret documents which have come into your possession in what can only be described as a most unorthodox way.
David relies heavily on, and interprets, the facts which form the basis of the trial. These are devoid of human interactions and emotions. But it's stories behind them which have led to their creation. We know that the person Jeremy is now is far removed from who he was then. In fact, even "then", going on the adage which tells us that actions speak louder than words, he wasn't who he presented himself as being. I guess we can have some sympathy with a man who sees himself as being stuck in rural Essex, having to flog his guts out doing a job he's not suited for, to support a sister, living it up in London, who's never lifted a finger to help herself, and her children. She and they will be a life time's drain on what he regards as his.
Many of us bought into Jeremy's story. For personal reasons, some of us wanted to. Inevitably, as his actions spoke to us more loudly than his words, our perception of him changed.
-
" Human interactions and Emotions " is what the normal person, Jeremy being no different, reacts to at receiving such a call in the early hours. Anyone's normal brain needs time for such events to sink in.
How would it have seemed to anyone that after receiving such a call that he was as steady as a rock and precise in making his next move/decision-----this being after wakening at 3 in the morning, or thereabouts ? At that stage, he hadn't known that anyone was dead and by all accounts he'd been familiar with Sheila having the odd meltdown which amounted to nothing when her father was able to calm her and prevent a disaster.
Any sudden rush on Jeremy's part would have indicated that it was either expected or that he'd done it and showed his willingness to help police like Huntley did in trying to cover his guilt !
-
What " actions " are you talking about, Jane ?
I don't know any 24 year old who isn't bored with their job. Every young person misses the nightlife if they're otherwise busy either back then or today.
It's nothing to do with if you " buy into it or not ", it's what your own thoughts perceive and you've chosen to find him guilty on flimsy throwaway accounts of a boring life which millions suffer from and is no basis for believing he'd killed anyone.
-
" Human interactions and Emotions " is what the normal person, Jeremy being no different, reacts to at receiving such a call in the early hours. Anyone's normal brain needs time for such events to sink in.
How would it have seemed to anyone that after receiving such a call that he was as steady as a rock and precise in making his next move/decision-----this being after wakening at 3 in the morning, or thereabouts ? At that stage, he hadn't known that anyone was dead and by all accounts he'd been familiar with Sheila having the odd meltdown which amounted to nothing when her father was able to calm her and prevent a disaster.
Any sudden rush on Jeremy's part would have indicated that it was either expected or that he'd done it and showed his willingness to help police like Huntley did in trying to cover his guilt !
The difference here, Lookout, is that I'm not just looking at one thing ie his reactions to an alleged call, (which actually are perfectly appropriate to a call which never happened because he had no sense of any urgency until he thought it might be appropriate to drop such into the conversation he was having with West) I'm looking at all his actions and his conversations. The deeper I've looked, the clearer it's become that Jeremy didn't know how to feel but watched the reaction of others to gain so sort of insight.
You appear to be saying -as you insist that "normal" brains need time to let such things sink in, that those of us who react appropriately aren't normal, but I'm sure I can't have that right. On the other hand you suggest he was used to dealing with this sort of thing from Sheila, so why such hesitancy on this occasion? No matter HOW hard you try to defend his reactions to that one incident, nothing will persuade me that he acted with any sort of concern. NO one, in an emergency, would NOT call 999. NO one would waste time going through a telephone directory and making abortive calls. NO one would ditch calling for help to phone a person too far away to be of any assistance. ALL of those actions were about DOING. NONE was about feeling.
I really don't get where your contrary comments come from. Rushing was required. It would NOT have indicated guilt, nor that he thought it was something expected (of him?) -however, he may well have thought long and hard about what might be the best way of 'doing' things to present himself in the best possible light. It didn't occur to him that he'd need to be able to feel it, too- furthermore we didn't have Ian Huntley as a yardstick.
-
What " actions " are you talking about, Jane ?
I don't know any 24 year old who isn't bored with their job. Every young person misses the nightlife if they're otherwise busy either back then or today.
It's nothing to do with if you " buy into it or not ", it's what your own thoughts perceive and you've chosen to find him guilty on flimsy throwaway accounts of a boring life which millions suffer from and is no basis for believing he'd killed anyone.
No Lookout. I haven't judged him guilty on any ONE thing in particular. It was an amalgam. Incidentally, at 24, most of the time I loved my job..............but it was the one thing I'D chosen for ME, not something I'd been forced into.
-
Oh archives, undoubtedly.
Undoubtedly ::)
-
The difference here, Lookout, is that I'm not just looking at one thing ie his reactions to an alleged call, (which actually are perfectly appropriate to a call which never happened because he had no sense of any urgency until he thought it might be appropriate to drop such into the conversation he was having with West) I'm looking at all his actions and his conversations. The deeper I've looked, the clearer it's become that Jeremy didn't know how to feel but watched the reaction of others to gain so sort of insight.
You appear to be saying -as you insist that "normal" brains need time to let such things sink in, that those of us who react appropriately aren't normal, but I'm sure I can't have that right. On the other hand you suggest he was used to dealing with this sort of thing from Sheila, so why such hesitancy on this occasion? No matter HOW hard you try to defend his reactions to that one incident, nothing will persuade me that he acted with any sort of concern. NO one, in an emergency, would NOT call 999. NO one would waste time going through a telephone directory and making abortive calls. NO one would ditch calling for help to phone a person too far away to be of any assistance. ALL of those actions were about DOING. NONE was about feeling.
I really don't get where your contrary comments come from. Rushing was required. It would NOT have indicated guilt, nor that he thought it was something expected (of him?) -however, he may well have thought long and hard about what might be the best way of 'doing' things to present himself in the best possible light. It didn't occur to him that he'd need to be able to feel it, too- furthermore we didn't have Ian Huntley as a yardstick.
When you have a father who is anti-authority it's difficult to know what to do for the best. It was obvious what he thought of EP ( Dad's Army ) then the social services came under fire when Sheila was involved with them concerning the children. Probably because Nevill didn't give Jeremy any orders when he rang, such as telling him to phone the police, though we know now that by all accounts Nevill had already done that before Jeremy had rang them, may have prompted him into shifting himself.
He was very likely scared in case he got shot if he went to WHF and was delaying going there. Nobody would have known what was going through his mind at that time, I don't care who it is. It's easy to say that he didn't ring 999 because it was he who'd done the murders-----case closed as far as you're concerned. If only things were that simple.
How do you know that Jeremy had been " forced " into the job ? Didn't he seek alternate employment ?
Which was probably harder work than the farm which had been a cushy number sitting in a tractor getting well-paid, I can't see any forced labour there !
-
When you have a father who is anti-authority it's difficult to know what to do for the best. It was obvious what he thought of EP ( Dad's Army ) then the social services came under fire when Sheila was involved with them concerning the children. Probably because Nevill didn't give Jeremy any orders when he rang, such as telling him to phone the police, though we know now that by all accounts Nevill had already done that before Jeremy had rang them, may have prompted him into shifting himself.
He was very likely scared in case he got shot if he went to WHF and was delaying going there. Nobody would have known what was going through his mind at that time, I don't care who it is. It's easy to say that he didn't ring 999 because it was he who'd done the murders-----case closed as far as you're concerned. If only things were that simple.
How do you know that Jeremy had been " forced " into the job ? Didn't he seek alternate employment ?
Which was probably harder work than the farm which had been a cushy number sitting in a tractor getting well-paid, I can't see any forced labour there !
Anti authority? He was a magistrate for goodness sake! The old Dads Army comment has no basis in fact! According to Jeremy, he did make a request, he asked him to come to WHF! Nevill didn't call the police!
Things are that simple, in an emergency, you call 999!
Farming is easier than serving in a bar? There is really no limit to the excuses you will make!
-
Anti authority? He was a magistrate for goodness sake! The old Dads Army comment has no basis in fact! According to Jeremy, he did make a request, he asked him to come to WHF! Nevill didn't call the police!
Things are that simple, in an emergency, you call 999!
Farming is easier than serving in a bar? There is really no limit to the excuses you will make!
Being a Magistrate doesn't stop you from hating to deal with authorities outside of your job. Nevill was his own man and obviously didn't wish to be involved with government busybodies.
So, after Jeremy had completed 17 hrs on the rape harvest he had bags of energy to go on and cycle to the farm and kill everyone ? Make up your mind, farming was either cushier than working in a bar or it wasn't !!
-
Being a Magistrate doesn't stop you from hating to deal with authorities outside of your job. Nevill was his own man and obviously didn't wish to be involved with government busybodies.
So, after Jeremy had completed 17 hrs on the rape harvest he had bags of energy to go on and cycle to the farm and kill everyone ? Make up your mind, farming was either cushier than working in a bar or it wasn't !!
You didn't know Nevill Lookout but the last thing you would choose to do if you hated dealing with authorities - is become a magistrate!
He didn't speak a FULL 17 hours and didn't complete his job at the end of the day - plus I have \never said he cycled anywhere!
-
we have no idea what nevile was or wasnt really like.
-
we have no idea what nevile was or wasnt really like.
Some of us have a little insight provided by those who DID know him.
-
Some of us have a little insight provided by those who DID know him.
nearly all of them have a vested intrest in painting a crtan picture of him.
-
Just a quick question as I can’t find anything on it. Was there a recording of Jeremy’s call to the police? I know I should look harder but wondered if you knew thanks
-
we have no idea what nevile was or wasnt really like.
Of course we don't, but Jane does have friends who did know him and the very fact that he chose to be a magistrate, tells us that he had respect for the law and was interested in it.
-
Just a quick question as I can’t find anything on it. Was there a recording of Jeremy’s call to the police? I know I should look harder but wondered if you knew thanks
No, because he didn't dial 999
-
nearly all of them have a vested intrest in painting a crtan picture of him.
But at least they're talking about a person they knew as opposed to creating a character for a total stranger.
-
Just a quick question as I can’t find anything on it. Was there a recording of Jeremy’s call to the police? I know I should look harder but wondered if you knew thanks
Taped recordings were allegedly destroyed.
-
Taped recordings were allegedly destroyed.
Alleged says so much, doesn't it.
-
There were no recordings Notsure.
-
The sad fact is that he wasn't allowed to work in a bar, but made to understand quite forcibly that he was expected to continue in farming by supporting his father. He was told to ditch Suzette, Julie was frowned upon too, though maybe by Boxing Day 1984 June had relented somewhat after her heartfelt talks with the vicar and she was afforded a modicum of pleasantry whenever she crossed the threshold of White House Farm.
However the gruesome truth remained that Jeremy was already plotting mass murder by this stage, his plans temporarily thwarted when Sheila cancelled the proposed Christmas visit. He was forced through the motions of farming to satisfy the terms of his father's will, gleaned when he stole the safe key (he accomplished a similar feat at Gresham's and of course the Osea Road burglary) and the cheques from his mother as supplementary income having dried up he became morose as London beckoned but was temporarily out of reach, until of course that final act of diablerie which resulted in the premature inheritance, part of which now being the Maida Vale flat, vacated by acts so wicked they remain beyond most human comprehension.
-
Ooops, I forgot that EP didn't record things like murders, they preferred to make things up as they went along by writing scribbled notes instead which were easier to edit.
-
Ooops, I forgot that EP didn't record things like murders, they preferred to make things up as they went along by writing scribbled notes instead which were easier to edit.
Like I said, Bamber's phone call wasn't recorded.
-
Like I said, Bamber's phone call wasn't recorded.
Of course, had he called 999 it would have been a different story. I suppose, as they were all dead anyway, he probably thought he'd best leave the emergency services to deal with real emergencies.
-
Ooops, I forgot that EP didn't record things like murders, they preferred to make things up as they went along by writing scribbled notes instead which were easier to edit.
A while ago I read that calls back then were tape recorded. But after 30 days the cassette reels were re-used and thus old data was always overwritten by new calls.
That makes sense if there are none in this case. Because the police had no good reason to retain that data while they were not investigating JB. Neither did they need it later because no one disputed that call had taken place.
Not that it matters because. A) cassette reels are not timestamped and B) there was no call from Nevil.
-
Of course, had he called 999 it would have been a different story. I suppose, as they were all dead anyway, he probably thought he'd best leave the emergency services to deal with real emergencies.
so he kills 5 members of his own family including 2 children in cold blood but he doesn't want to waste the time of the emegency services.
thats ratther considrate behavior for a mass killer.
-
so he kills 5 members of his own family including 2 children in cold blood but he doesn't want to waste the time of the emegency services.
thats ratther considrate behavior for a mass killer.
He knew there was no emergency - not anymore anyway.
-
I think? he said it was 11 minutes.
He didn't say that. You're mistaken if you think you found that in the archives. Ann Eaton may have mentioned 10 or 11 minutes, but in relation to the response time of the police, not the length of the early morning call to Julie.
He timed the call at 17 minutes.
Julie's statement says he said that, but in relation to an earlier call, not the early morning call.
-
He didn't say that. You're mistaken if you think you found that in the archives. Ann Eaton may have mentioned 10 or 11 minutes, but in relation to the response time of the police, not the length of the early morning call to Julie.
Julie's statement says he said that, but in relation to an earlier call, not the early morning call.
I wasn't talking about the early morning call!
-
I wasn't talking about the early morning call!
Neither was Jane - you have just assumed!
-
Neither was Jane - you have just assumed!
Jane wrote "He even told Julie how many minutes their call had lasted." Why would Jane refer, without clarification, to an earlier call to Julie that hadn't previously been mentioned in this thread? In any case, where is the evidence that Jeremy said he timed that earlier call?
-
Jane wrote "He even told Julie how many minutes their call had lasted." Why would Jane refer, without clarification, to an earlier call to Julie that hadn't previously been mentioned in this thread? In any case, where is the evidence that Jeremy said he timed that earlier call?
I KNOW which call she was talking about! The evidence come from Julie!
-
How do you know that Jane was referring to the earlier call that hadn't previously been mentioned?
-
How do you know that Jane was referring to the earlier call that hadn't previously been mentioned?
Because I was part of the discussion - I'm sure she will let you know which call she was talking about.
-
You weren't part of the initial discussion. Your first post occurred well over an hour later. You used the "know" with emphasis, but seem merely to be stating your opinion.
-
You weren't part of the initial discussion. Your first post occurred well over an hour later. You used the "know" with emphasis, but seem merely to be stating your opinion.
Then ask her - but I KNOW which call she was referring to.
-
Then ask her - but I KNOW which call she was referring to.
Well you should know, shouldn't you ? ??? If you don't know by now you never will. I've never known two people who work so closely together ! Conjoined.
-
But she was going by Susan's digital clock. That was always running fast.
Did she make allowance for its inaccuracy, though?
-
Well you should know, shouldn't you ? ??? If you don't know by now you never will. I've never known two people who work so closely together ! Conjoined.
Jane is a friend Lookout - remember them?
-
Did she make allowance for its inaccuracy, though?
Not sure what your problem is but I’m fairly certain you’re not above a few inaccuracies yourself! Your whole purpose for being here seems to be to pick up on small mistakes and make a meal of them. Careful you don’t choke now won’t you!
-
Jane is a friend Lookout - remember them?
I should do because at the moment I can't keep up. Outside of here of course !
-
I should do because at the moment I can't keep up. Outside of here of course !
Good for you.
-
Then ask her - but I KNOW which call she was referring to.
If, Jane, you were referring to the earlier call, could you modify your post to make that clear?
-
If, Jane, you were referring to the earlier call, could you modify your post to make that clear?
The original post now benefits from the insertion of two words which, of course, the quote doesn't. It's up to you to make assumptions about which one you believe is meant to be correct.
-
The original post now benefits from the insertion of two words which, of course, the quote doesn't. It's up to you to make assumptions about which one you believe is meant to be correct.
I told her which call you were referring to - load of old fuss about nothing!
-
I told her which call you were referring to - load of old fuss about nothing!
So he/she doesn't take your word for it and as a result has now, under the banner of "............could you modify your post to make that clear" ended up with differing ones from me. I'd say that's going to be rather confusing for someone so pedantic. All TOTALLY unnecessary.
-
The original post now benefits from the insertion of two words . . .
Thank you for adding the words "late evening". Why would his mentioning of the duration of that call relate to recalling the details or sequence of calls made in the middle of the night?
-
Thank you for adding the words "late evening". Why would his mentioning of the duration of that call relate to recalling the details or sequence of calls made in the middle of the night?
Similarly, why would mentioning the TV programmes (by name) he had watched the night before seem important unless he was trying to establish an alibi early on?
-
Similarly, why would mentioning the TV programmes (by name) he had watched the night before seem important unless he was trying to establish an alibi early on?
Why wouldn't he class them as important ? At least he remembered what he'd watched and was no doubt questioned about them ::)
-
Why wouldn't he class them as important ? At least he remembered what he'd watched and was no doubt questioned about them ::)
When police take witness statements they ask witnesses questions about what they did ::)
-
When police take witness statements they ask witnesses questions about what they did ::)
An answer like "I watched TV" would have sufficed, not a run down of the shows, he mentioned those to help table his alibi.
-
Why wouldn't he class them as important ? At least he remembered what he'd watched and was no doubt questioned about them ::)
Why would he be questioned about what he watched? He wasn't a suspect at that point. The police would have simply asked him what he did - that level of detail was NOT important at that time.
-
To my mind it indicates he never went to bed.
-
Why would he be questioned about what he watched? He wasn't a suspect at that point. The police would have simply asked him what he did - that level of detail was NOT important at that time.
It's par for the course isn't it ? By their very nature police work on suspicion.
-
It's par for the course isn't it ? By their very nature police work on suspicion.
No, he wouldn't have been asked what he watched on TV - ridiculous suggestion!
-
No, he wouldn't have been asked what he watched on TV - ridiculous suggestion!
Why is it ridiculous ?
-
Why is it ridiculous ?
5 people are dead and they need to get the fundamentals - Bamber is not a suspect - they aren't interested in what he watched! At that juncture, what he watched would have been as relevant as what colour pants he was wearing!
-
Why is it ridiculous ?
Because at that point, Jeremy had spent long enough with them feeding them the subliminal message that it woz Sheila wot dun it. They weren't looking for anyone else.
-
Because at that point, Jeremy had spent long enough with them feeding them the subliminal message that it woz Sheila wot dun it. They weren't looking for anyone else.
And wouldn't have been bothered by what he watched on TV and wouldn't have asked.
-
And wouldn't gave been bothered by what he watched on TV and wouldn't have asked.
Exactly!
-
Sez youz.
-
Sez youz.
OK Lookout you're right, there's a case of five dead people and as part of trying to work out what happened, it's imperative that they found out what Bamber watched on TV? ;D ;D ;D
-
OK Lookout you're right, there's a case of five dead people and as part of trying to work out what happened, it's imperative that they found out what Bamber watched on TV? ;D ;D ;D
And the police even asked JB had he read the Bible------ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D, him, a playboy.
-
The whole point of the police doing a witness statement is to elicit information.
In the essexboys range rover case you can find witnesses talking about what they were watching on TV that night. Earl Avery talks about watching prison break the night Teresa died in his police statement.
Police ask witnesses what they did in the time leading up to the events and if the answer is "Watching TV" then they are going to ask you what you watched.
::)
-
Sez youz.
Well yes. That seems eminently reasonable. Jeremy had spent all that time alone with them, giving them every little (embroidered) detail regarding Sheila and her illness -they KNEW he hadn't been there coz they'd seen him arrive- and had done a fine job of accusing her without actually saying the words -he didn't try to implicate anyone else because he'd set a suicide scene- and subsequently, at that time, they weren't looking for anyone else, ergo, Jeremy's taste in television was of no interest.
-
And the police even asked JB had he read the Bible------ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D, him, a playboy.
Oh really!!! I had NO idea that they asked him this the day after the murders. Why do you think they'd have done that, Lookout?
-
Oh really!!! I had NO idea that they asked him this the day after the murders. Why do you think they'd have done that, Lookout?
Obviously when he came up for questioning, they did. The same as asking him what it was he'd watched on TV on the night of the murders.
-
Obviously when he came up for questioning, they did. The same as asking him what it was he'd watched on TV on the night of the murders.
Obviously then. But in his original witness statement he volunteered the information. He wasn't asked.
-
Similarly, why would mentioning the TV programmes (by name) he had watched the night before seem important unless he was trying to establish an alibi early on?
Didn't he mention by name only one TV programme (Recovery)? Is it true that this programme was broadcast that night at the relevant time?
-
Didn't he mention by name only one TV programme (Recovery)? Is it true that this programme was broadcast that night at the relevant time?
If you read the statement. Jeremy gives a chronology of what he done from having supper at the farm all the way till the phone call. Which is typical of how police get people to make witness statements. Hence he has to recount what he watched on TV since it took place between supper and the phone call.
Seriously, this is a stupid discussion.
-
Didn't he mention by name only one TV programme (Recovery)? Is it true that this programme was broadcast that night at the relevant time?
What's that got to do with it? How many programmes about miscarriages and punk rockers were on that night? Of course he didn't watch any of them but the times help to place him at Goldhanger.
-
If you read the statement. Jeremy gives a chronology of what he done from having supper at the farm all the way till the phone call. Which is typical of how police get people to make witness statements. Hence he has to recount what he watched on TV since it took place between supper and the phone call.
Seriously, this is a stupid discussion.
Every discussion that sees JB as the guilty one has to be stupid because of the persistence of irrelevant details that keep cropping up to keep the guilty argument going.
-
Every discussion that sees JB as the guilty one has to be stupid because of the persistence of irrelevant details that keep cropping up to keep the guilty argument going.
I think the "irrelevant details" are all on your side. Every time a fact is put to you, you twist it out of it's time frame and put obscure interpretations on it.
-
I think the "irrelevant details" are all on your side. Every time a fact is put to you, you twist it out of it's time frame and put obscure interpretations on it.
And I'm looking at the ID who's a past master at it !
-
And I'm looking at the ID who's a past master at it !
Dear me! You're projecting onto that mirror again. It won't take much more before it cracks!!!
-
And I'm looking at the ID who's a past master at it !
Then don't read your own posts Lookout! ;D
-
And the police even asked JB had he read the Bible------ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D, him, a playboy.
No they didn't, they asked if he's HANDLED it!
-
No they didn't, they asked if he's HANDLED it!
There ya go! Was I right or was I right? Those pesky obscure interpretations again. They paint the entire case a totally different colour.
-
The whole point of the police doing a witness statement is to elicit information.
In the essexboys range rover case you can find witnesses talking about what they were watching on TV that night. Earl Avery talks about watching prison break the night Teresa died in his police statement.
Police ask witnesses what they did in the time leading up to the events and if the answer is "Watching TV" then they are going to ask you what you watched.
::)
They might ask what you watched IF you were a suspect or IF a witness was using the TV to highlight a time frame. Bamber didn't need to do that, he wasn't a suspect at that juncture and from his phone call evidence, the police were under the assumption that it didn't kick off until after 3am.
-
There ya go! Was I right or was I right? Those pesky obscure interpretations again. They paint the entire case a totally different colour.
He wasn't exactly a 'playboy' either - he just shagged about!
-
He wasn't exactly a 'playboy' either - he just shagged about!
Think he liked to present himself as a bit of a PB, though
-
Think he liked to present himself as a bit of a PB, though
Well, he likes to present himself as innocent too! ;)
-
He wasn't exactly a 'playboy' either - he just shagged about!
A " Champagne Charlie " is still a playboy in my eyes. Nothing but the best to bag a bag ? It's what playboys do, isn't it ?
-
A " Champagne Charlie " is still a playboy in my eyes. Nothing but the best to bag a bag ? It's what playboys do, isn't it ?
So the girls he screwed were all tarts but he was just doing what boys do? I think I may have previously suggested that you don't much like women.
-
So the girls he screwed were all tarts but he was just doing what boys do? I think I may have previously suggested that you don't much like women.
Not particularly those sort of women, no.
-
Not particularly those sort of women, no.
The Tango requires a partner so why should one be labeled any differently from the other?
-
The Tango requires a partner so why should one be labeled any differently from the other?
What are you talking about ? Tango ?
-
What are you talking about ? Tango ?
Euphemisms, Lookout. Like the activity the "Tango" is a euphemism for, it requires two people to be engaged in it. Unless one of the pair is either particularly good -or bad- at it, I see no reason for them to be judged differently.
-
A " Champagne Charlie " is still a playboy in my eyes. Nothing but the best to bag a bag ? It's what playboys do, isn't it ?
Dunno Lookout, A. I'm not a playboy and B. I would never fall for that sh*t.