Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on February 27, 2025, 08:28:AM
-
I can't think of one reason why it might have been Sheila
-
I can't think of one reason why it might have been Sheila
Well all of EP, incl very senior officers eg Chief Sup Harris, the police surgeon and pathologist found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
The only dissenter at the early stages was DS Jones who perhaps unsurprisingly was involved with all the incriminating evidence eg silencer and JM's testimony.
-
Well all of EP, incl very senior officers eg Chief Sup Harris, the police surgeon and pathologist found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
The only dissenter at the early stages was DS Jones who perhaps unsurprisingly was involved with all the incriminating evidence eg silencer and JM's testimony.
DS Jones seemed to dislike JB from the very outset. His choice of words in the early hours of 7.8.85 to what was deemed at the time a man who had just lost his entire family in a shooting tragedy seemed oddly cold. At that stage he couldn't have formed an immediate impression that easily.
-
However it may just be a case of " coppers instinct" whether you believe it to be spot on or misguided.
-
Seemed to dislike JB from the very outset. His choice of words to what was deemed at the time a man who had just lost his entire family in a shooting tragedy seemed oddly cold. At that stage he couldn't have formed an immediate impression that easily.
Yes. And it was referred to at trial. He also said something like if I am hard it is for a reason? What is this supposed to mean?
We know very little about him: his background, childhood, schooling, family, friends, associates, any disciplinary record with police, any pre and post career outside EP, political views, membership of any groups etc, his mental health, etc, etc.
We know he liked to consume alcohol on duty but this may have been par for the course at the time. It was made reference to at trial and no one batted an eyelid.
-
He also said something like if I am hard it is for a reason? What is this supposed to mean?
I shudder to think ;D
-
However it may just be a case of " coppers instinct" whether you believe it to be spot on or misguided.
But if he was that good how come he didn't progress through the ranks?
It might be that he was motivated by money either through necessity or greed and seized on the fact there was money around. The contents of NB's wallet appears to have disappeared which was small fry in comparison to the estate as a whole. But he may have cut a deal with the likes of Peter Eaton. I have always wondered about the conversation that took place when DS Jones collected the silencer from PE and the pair sat drinking whisky until the small hours ;)
-
I shudder to think ;D
;D ;)
-
Yes. And it was referred to at trial. He also said something like if I am hard it is for a reason? What is this supposed to mean?
We know very little about him: his background, childhood, schooling, family, friends, associates, any disciplinary record with police, any pre and post career outside EP, political views, membership of any groups etc, his mental health, etc, etc.
We know he liked to consume alcohol on duty but this may have been par for the course at the time. It was made reference to at trial and no one batted an eyelid.
I think he viewed JB as somewhat a "Nancy boy " due to his middle class roots and posh voice. I think in his case it may have been a degree of classism. However I may be looking too much into it. Sometimes people just don't take to one another. As said its just strange he seemed to dislike from the initial outset.
-
I think he viewed JB as somewhat a "Nancy boy " due to his middle class roots and posh voice. I think in his case it may have been a degree of classism. However I may be looking too much into it. Sometimes people just don't take to one another. As said its just strange he seemed to dislike from the initial outset.
Maybe. Or maybe he would have been the same/similar with anyone.
-
However it may just be a case of " coppers instinct" whether you believe it to be spot on or misguided.
Indeed so. And such cannot -must not!- be dismissed lightly. Aren't we always told to trust our instincts?
-
But if he was that good how come he didn't progress through the ranks?
It might be that he was motivated by money either through necessity or greed and seized on the fact there was money around. The contents of NB's wallet appears to have disappeared which was small fry in comparison to the estate as a whole. But he may have cut a deal with the likes of Peter Eaton. I have always wondered about the conversation that took place when DS Jones collected the silencer from PE and the pair sat drinking whisky until the small hours ;)
Could be that -for various reasons- he chose not to. My friend's late husband made a similar choice because "progress through the ranks" would have meant moving his entire family away from thir support group.
Speaking of conversations, I'd be interested to know what form conversation took between Sheila and JB when he drove her home from the party, and the afternoon prior to the massacre when she and the boys spoke to him whilst he was in the tractor?............but of course, we never will.
-
I think he viewed JB as somewhat a "Nancy boy " due to his middle class roots and posh voice. I think in his case it may have been a degree of classism. However I may be looking too much into it. Sometimes people just don't take to one another. As said its just strange he seemed to dislike from the initial outset.
Haven't we all met people that we've taken an instant dislike to? Despite that we may feel this is unreasonable, it's difficult to dismiss. More so, if someone's approach to us is causing hackles to rise.
-
I can't think of one reason why it might have been Sheila
My theory is she wanted herself and her babies to be on the other side.
Neville and June were killed for one or two reasons. Either they interfered in preventing Sheila from completing her task or she had delusions that they needed to be killed - or a combination of both.
When everyone was dead, Sheila was left alone with all the corpses in the house, ruminating about what she had done; and not quite able to kill herself to join the twins. When the police broke in or where about to break in, Sheila was faced with either completing her task or facing life in a criminal, mental institution, separated from her children.
However in this scenario there might have been a shot heard by police downstairs - unless the commotion they created in the kitchen masked the sound of the shot.
-
Haven't we all met people that we've taken an instant dislike to? Despite that we may feel this is unreasonable, it's difficult to dismiss. More so, if someone's approach to us is causing hackles to rise.
Indeed I have , usually after spending five minutes in their company. I'm sure many have felt the same way about me. But in this instance at the point in time it was a bereaved relative and detective. The latter had no reason to suspect the former at the time. It just seems they got off on a rocky road from the outset.
-
Seems DS Jones thought JB was doing a " dying swan" act in the field, later coming back with some opium poppies.
-
Indeed I have , usually after spending five minutes in their company. I'm sure many have felt the same way about me. But in this instance at the point in time it was a bereaved relative and detective. The latter had no reason to suspect the former at the time. It just seems they got off on a rocky road from the outset.
I'm guessing he'd have dealt with bereavement on previous occasions, albeit none quite as shocking. Perhaps there was something about JB's responses which didn't quite ring true?
-
Well all of EP, incl very senior officers eg Chief Sup Harris, the police surgeon and pathologist found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
The only dissenter at the early stages was DS Jones who perhaps unsurprisingly was involved with all the incriminating evidence eg silencer and JM's testimony.
That maybe so, but still, I can't think of one single reason.
Jeremy told them he received a call from his father and they went along with his story, initially, niavely believing it.
-
Well all of EP, incl very senior officers eg Chief Sup Harris, the police surgeon and pathologist found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
The only dissenter at the early stages was DS Jones who perhaps unsurprisingly was involved with all the incriminating evidence eg silencer and JM's testimony.
Did any of them find anything to affirm that it was suicide? Anything to suggest it?
-
That maybe so, but still, I can't think of one single reason.
Jeremy told them he received a call from his father and they went along with his story, initially, niavely believing it.
I've previously said that because of the circumstances under which they first met him, i.e. under siege conditions, JB was able to blind side police. They we all probably scared w(sh)itless, never having experienced such a situation outside of 're-enactments' and were very open to being manipulated.
-
Also, I have just thought - initially, they didn't know that Jeremy could get in and out through windows and the house was secure with no sign of a break-in.
Jeremy couldn't have been a likely suspect at the start, because without any sign of a break-in or known means of entry, how could it have been anyone else?
-
Also, I have just thought - initially, they didn't know that Jeremy could get in and out through windows and the house was secure with no sign of a break-in.
Jeremy couldn't have been a likely suspect at the start, because without any sign of a break-in or known means of entry, how could it have been anyone else?
Forget signs of a break-in Dan, the windows and doors were all secured firmly from the inside making an exit impossible.
That is what you have to focus on!!
-
This is what Prof Knight said
"A. Can I say, leading up to that, that I was struck in this case by the fact that in all the other four shootings, the direction was downwards or horizontal. Sheila is the only shooting of the whole five where the bullets have gone upwards. Obviously one must put the gun under the chin with the butt down there at the bottom. For a third party to do this seems rather extraordinary. To shoot upwards through throat, because he would have to hold the gun under her neck when she is obviously upright because of the blood splashings. And although its not impossible, it seems a strange thing to happen. As I say it is the only death of the five where the wounds went down or straight through. So I think it would be difficult for someone else to do this without her objecting."
-
Forget signs of a break-in Dan, the windows and doors were all secured firmly from the inside making an exit impossible.
That is what you have to focus on!!
Which says what, exactly? It's quite possible that JB A) had a spare key B) returned early enough to be let in by his father. However, it's very clear he knew how to get in by means other than through a door, as evidenced by his entry when he went to get his passport.
-
Which says what, exactly? It's quite possible that JB A) had a spare key B) returned early enough to be let in by his father. However, it's very clear he knew how to get in by means other than through a door, as evidenced by his entry when he went to get his passport.
ILB believes he let himself in with a key.
No evidence he had a key.
If he did it would be of no use on the night as Nevill and June would have bolted the doors.
-
ILB believes he let himself in with a key.
No evidence he had a key.
If he did it would be of no use on the night as Nevill and June would have bolted the doors.
Yes there is
-
If he did it would be of no use on the night as Nevill and June would have bolted the doors.
Not nessecarily.
Bamber could have bolted the doors from the inside and left via a window to give an appearance of them bolted.
-
This is what Prof Knight said
"A. Can I say, leading up to that, that I was struck in this case by the fact that in all the other four shootings, the direction was downwards or horizontal. Sheila is the only shooting of the whole five where the bullets have gone upwards. Obviously one must put the gun under the chin with the butt down there at the bottom. For a third party to do this seems rather extraordinary. To shoot upwards through throat, because he would have to hold the gun under her neck when she is obviously upright because of the blood splashings. And although its not impossible, it seems a strange thing to happen. As I say it is the only death of the five where the wounds went down or straight through. So I think it would be difficult for someone else to do this without her objecting."
Downward shots -
June's 5 bed shots.
June's 2 floor shots.
Nevill's 2 face shots in bed.
Nevill's 4 kitchen head shots.
Daniel/Nicholas 8 bed shots.
Horizontal Shots -
Nevill's 2 torso shots in the bedroom.
-
Which says what, exactly? It's quite possible that JB A) had a spare key B) returned early enough to be let in by his father. However, it's very clear he knew how to get in by means other than through a door, as evidenced by his entry when he went to get his passport.
You failed to address the point I made Jane!
No one said that JB had a problem getting in to the Whitehouse!
-
Forget signs of a break-in Dan, the windows and doors were all secured firmly from the inside making an exit impossible.
That is what you have to focus on!!
Okay. Perhaps you'd care to clarify the point you were intending to make?
-
Okay. Perhaps you'd care to clarify the point you were intending to make?
The point is Jane, that JB could enter by slipping the latch on a window but couldn't exit again and secure the widow behind him!
He pointed this out to the police himself!
And all doors and widows were secured from the inside!
In other words, JB could enter, but could not exit undetected!
-
The point is Jane, that JB could enter by slipping the latch on a window but couldn't exit again and secure the widow behind him!
He pointed this out to the police himself!
And all doors and widows were secured from the inside!
In other words, JB could enter, but could not exit undetected!
Which would be fine if it could be guaranteed 100% that "all doors and windows were secured from inside the house". I know what the claim is, but so often, claim and reality are polarized.
-
Did any of them find anything to affirm that it was suicide? Anything to suggest it?
None of the senior officers or experts, all with decades of experience under their belts, found anything to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
A Det Sup Kenneally was taksed with reviewing the case. He found nothing to contradict the murder/sucide theory.
What further affirmation do you require that all concerned were satisfied it was a case of murder/suicide?
The relatives and DS Jones, aided and abetted by an incompetent and corrupt FSS @ Huntindgon, led by Ronald Outteridge who was charged with perverting the course of justice in the case of Stefan Kiszko, were determined they were going to secure a conviction.
-
Also, I have just thought - initially, they didn't know that Jeremy could get in and out through windows and the house was secure with no sign of a break-in.
Jeremy couldn't have been a likely suspect at the start, because without any sign of a break-in or known means of entry, how could it have been anyone else?
JB admitted he could gain entry into the farmhouse when it appeared secure from outside but he did not know of way to exit and leave the property secured from within.
DCI Jones checked all windows and doors and all were secured from within.
The relatives introduced the theory of JB exiting through a window and slamming it shut and in doing so simultaneously securing the catch back into position. The relatives carried out their own experiments which the incompetent and corrupt lab became involved with.
Why didn't the defence arrange to take jurors to the farmhouse to see in practice how this worked? Instead the trial judge told jurors:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
-
JB admitted he could gain entry into the farmhouse when it appeared secure from outside but he did not know of way to exit and leave the property secured from within.
DCI Jones checked all windows and doors and all were secured from within.
The relatives introduced the theory of JB exiting through a window and slamming it shut and in doing so simultaneously securing the catch back into position. The relatives carried out their own experiments which the incompetent and corrupt lab became involved with.
Why didn't the defence arrange to take jurors to the farmhouse to see in practice how this worked? Instead the trial judge told jurors:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
I think we do need to know exactly how thorough was the check which ascertained "all windows and doors were secured from within".
-
JB admitted he could gain entry into the farmhouse when it appeared secure from outside but he did not know of way to exit and leave the property secured from within.
DCI Jones checked all windows and doors and all were secured from within.
The relatives introduced the theory of JB exiting through a window and slamming it shut and in doing so simultaneously securing the catch back into position. The relatives carried out their own experiments which the incompetent and corrupt lab became involved with.
Why didn't the defence arrange to take jurors to the farmhouse to see in practice how this worked? Instead the trial judge told jurors:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
No, he said he did but the bathroom window was found to be 'unlocked' with no explanation as to why? Just so happens that this is the window Bamber was used to using to gain entry. A coincidence too far!
-
Which would be fine if it could be guaranteed 100% that "all doors and windows were secured from inside the house". I know what the claim is, but so often, claim and reality are polarized.
Well, it could be proved if there was a photo of the kitchen window with the bottom latch secured, Jane!
-
Well, it could be proved if there was a photo of the kitchen window with the bottom latch secured, Jane!
Nope, because the bathroom was found to be unlocked - closed but unlocked and THAT was the window Bamber used frequently to gain access.
-
Nope, because the bathroom was found to be unlocked - closed but unlocked and THAT was the window Bamber used frequently to gain access.
If that is a fact Zoso, why didn't the police tell that to Robert Boutflour and save the poor man banging at other windows to prove where JB exited the Whitehouse?
-
Nope, because the bathroom was found to be unlocked - closed but unlocked and THAT was the window Bamber used frequently to gain access.
I hope you can back this up Zoso? because the window Bamber gained entry through could not be secured from outside if leaving this way.
I don't think Bamber would leave it unlocked if he exited through the kitchen window?
All the windows were secured according to Taff.
-
I hope you can back this up Zoso? because the window Bamber gained entry through could not be secured from outside if leaving this way.
I don't think Bamber would leave it unlocked if he exited through the kitchen window?
All the windows were secured according to Taff.
But why did Bamber say: "Secure windows, insecure windows, it makes no difference" under interrogation in September 1985?
-
No, he said he did but the bathroom window was found to be 'unlocked' with no explanation as to why? Just so happens that this is the window Bamber was used to using to gain entry. A coincidence too far!
That's not correct:
265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
-
That's not correct:
265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
If my memory is correct there was one window that was not secured but as it had a metal grill across it makes little difference.
Surely a sharp eyed copper would have spotted broken cobwebs disturbed dust etc. if Bamber had clambered in and out through the windows?
-
If my memory is correct there was one window that was not secured but as it had a metal grill across it makes little difference.
Surely a sharp eyed copper would have spotted broken cobwebs disturbed dust etc. if Bamber had clambered in and out through the windows?
It is referred to in DCI Jones' pocketbook. It was referred to as the dairy window. I would call it a pantry. As you said it had a mesh/metal grill and covered in cobwebs.
264. In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy.
-
It is referred to in DCI Jones' pocketbook. It was referred to as the dairy window. I would call it a pantry. As you said it had a mesh/metal grill and covered in cobwebs.
264. In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy.
Despite what the judge said if you can't get out without leaving a window unsecured has to be suicide.
-
Despite what the judge said if you can't get out without leaving a window unsecured has to be suicide.
To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.
If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites. In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer. What was the point when this was outside? All shots fired in this case were inside. This will totally alter the acoustics.
-
To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.
If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites. In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer. What was the point when this was outside? All shots fired in this case were inside. This will totally alter the acoustics.
Exactly Cc and I would have taken them along the Sea Wall at night as well.
-
To my mind the defence needed to take the jury to WHF to show exactly what the prosecution was alleging and how it worked in practice.
If you consider other high profile crimes the jury is regularly taken to the soc and other relevant sites. In this case the only site visited was a shooting range to hear the rifle fired with and without a silencer. What was the point when this was outside? All shots fired in this case were inside. This will totally alter the acoustics.
That would highlight the window could be banged shut from outside with the latch falling into place.
Supporting the prosecution.
-
Exactly Cc and I would have taken them along the Sea Wall at night as well.
That would just highlight how easy the bike ride was for Bamber & how it avoided properties.
Supporting the prosecution.
-
That would just highlight how easy the bike ride was for Bamber & how it avoided properties.
Supporting the prosecution.
That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.
-
That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.
No one said 15 minutes.
The defence would have visited the route. They didn't oppose that he could cycle it
-
No one said 15 minutes.
The defence would have visited the route. They didn't oppose that he could cycle it
Julie did
-
Julie did
That is correct.
I cycle 4 miles regulary. Takes 15-20 minutes. That is cycling at 30%. Not in a hurry & be dangerous to cycle fast in London.
Cycling at 80% would make 10 minutes.
-
That is correct.
I cycle 4 miles regulary. Takes 15-20 minutes. That is cycling at 30%. Not in a hurry & be dangerous to cycle fast in London.
Cycling at 80% would make 10 minutes.
I can cycle quite fast as well when I can see where I am going.
I asked some serious racers at work about cycling at night with no lights, they just laughed.
-
I can cycle quite fast as well when I can see where I am going.
I asked some serious racers at work about cycling at night with no lights, they just laughed.
Wonder why Bamber has never had the cycle ride as one of his grounds to the CCRC or COA?
Seems to just be properganda from the CT.
-
That's for the jury members to decide, I suspect they would be thinking no way Bamber did this in 15 minutes.
I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.
-
I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.
In 1985 there was no digital footprint. All times are approx. The police station clock was out by 10 minutes. According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out. There is no reliable data.
-
I agree that it would have taken longer than 15 minutes, but all that demonstrates is that Jeremy couldn't have phoned his home from WHF at 3:10 and then called the local police at 3:26.
He didn't attempt to. Phoning Julie around 3am.
-
In 1985 there was no digital footprint. All times are approx. The police station clock was out by 10 minutes. According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out. There is no reliable data.
He said that Nevill called him around 3:10, then tried calling him back, then spent around 10 minutes looking up the number for the police in the phone book. His time was recorded at 3:26.
This is all academic. Other evidence shows that he called Julie at 3am.
-
In 1985 there was no digital footprint. All times are approx. The police station clock was out by 10 minutes. According to a witness and EP, one of JM's house shares, also had a clock 10 minutes out. There is no reliable data.
Where is it stated that the station clock was definitely out by 10 minutes? West stated that it was 'on occasion' inaccurate but on 'very FEW occasions'. Bamber made a BIG thing about West being a liar when he recorded 3:36 and that he did that on purpose. Now of course, he claims Nevill called the police so abandoned the West perjury claim and agree's he called at 3:36. ;D.
The other point being that the station clock was digital - how often do digital clocks run fast? West clearly either read the clock wrong or he entered the time at the end of the call and not the beginning.
-
Where is it stated that the station clock was definitely out by 10 minutes? West stated that it was 'on occasion' inaccurate but on 'very FEW occasions'. Bamber made a BIG thing about West being a liar when he recorded 3:36 and that he did that on purpose. Now of course, he claims Nevill called the police so abandoned the West perjury claim and agree's he called at 3:36. ;D.
The other point being that the station clock was digital - how often do digital clocks run fast? West clearly either read the clock wrong or he entered the time at the end of the call and not the beginning.
One reason why Rivlin drew attention to Jeremy's call time being 3:26 rather than 3:36 is because if 3:36 was in fact the correct time, this would mean that Jeremy definitely called Julie before the police, even if he called Julie as late as around 3:30.
The defence sequence of events was:
1) Nevill called Jeremy at 3:10, Jeremy tried calling Nevill back
2) Jeremy called the local police around 3:25, spoke to PC West who spoke to PC Bonnet at 3:26
3) Jeremy's call to the local police ended around 3:30
4) Jeremy called Julie around 3:30
Had Jeremy called Julie before calling the police (at 3:36), that would sound suspicious to the jury!
-
One reason why Rivlin drew attention to Jeremy's call time being 3:26 rather than 3:36 is because if 3:36 was in fact the correct time, this would mean that Jeremy definitely called Julie before the police, even if he called Julie as late as around 3:30.
The defence sequence of events was:
1) Nevill called Jeremy at 3:10, Jeremy tried calling Nevill back
2) Jeremy called the local police around 3:25, spoke to PC West who spoke to PC Bonnet at 3:26
3) Jeremy's call to the local police ended around 3:30
4) Jeremy called Julie around 3:30
Had Jeremy called Julie before calling the police (at 3:36), that would sound suspicious to the jury!
4 minutes. That is a quick call.
Bamber had to give West information. West had to write it down.
Then West had to phone another station and pass the information on to Bonnett. He had to write it down.
Bamber complained about how long it was taking.
Then West had to speak to Bamber again.
-
One reason why Rivlin drew attention to Jeremy's call time being 3:26 rather than 3:36 is because if 3:36 was in fact the correct time, this would mean that Jeremy definitely called Julie before the police, even if he called Julie as late as around 3:30.
The defence sequence of events was:
1) Nevill called Jeremy at 3:10, Jeremy tried calling Nevill back
2) Jeremy called the local police around 3:25, spoke to PC West who spoke to PC Bonnet at 3:26
3) Jeremy's call to the local police ended around 3:30
4) Jeremy called Julie around 3:30
Had Jeremy called Julie before calling the police (at 3:36), that would sound suspicious to the jury!
He DID call Julie first.
-
He DID call Julie first.
And told her - "Everything's goin' well, There's trouble at'mill".
-
And told her - "Everything's goin' well, There's trouble at'mill".
Whatever he said, he called her first.
-
He said that Nevill called him around 3:10, then tried calling him back, then spent around 10 minutes looking up the number for the police in the phone book. His time was recorded at 3:26.
This is all academic. Other evidence shows that he called Julie at 3am.
There is no evidence regarding the phone calls. It was 1985 not 2025. Today it would be to the second. All times are approx.