Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 08:57:AM

Title: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 08:57:AM
The CPS make it very clear what exactly constitutes the above:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal


The grounds are focused and narrow so no idea why JB keeps submitting submissions to the CCRC which simply do not come close to meeting the criteria eg the marks to NB's back?



Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 09:06:AM
The CPS make it very clear what exactly constitutes the above:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal


The grounds are focused and narrow so no idea why JB keeps submitting submissions to the CCRC which simply do not come close to meeting the criteria eg the marks to NB's back?

Because he is guilty.

It i's 39 also years later. So grounds will get weaker.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 09:51:AM
If it can be proved the Aga caused the marks / burns then this is new evidence not considered at trial.



Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:07:AM
If it can be proved the Aga caused the marks / burns then this is new evidence not considered at trial.

No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 10:11:AM
No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up.

It would be new evidence, what effect it would have on the case is immaterial it would still be new evidence.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:19:AM
No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up.

What do you think they should bring up?

Claimimg SJ threatened Julie to being an 'accessory to murder' won't work.

Firstly there is no evidence he did.

Secondly that may have been correct.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:24:AM
What do you think they should bring up?

Claimimg SJ threatened Julie to being an 'accessory to murder' won't work.

Firstly there is no evidence he did.

Secondly that may have been correct.

I am not a lawyer.  But based on my lay person interpretation I would steer clear of anything to do with JM and other lay witnesses.  I would let the physical soc evidence do the talking. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:25:AM
Proving the burn marks were caused by long term laying against the aga would refute the raid team WS's.

They say Nevill had his head on the coal scuttle.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:30:AM
I am not a lawyer.  But based on my lay person interpretation I would steer clear of anything to do with JM and other lay witnesses.  I would let the physical soc evidence do the talking.

The crime scene evidence does create a straight forward Bamber scenario.

Although it is unclear whether the twins were shot first. Once each.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:34:AM
Proving the burn marks were caused by long term laying against the aga would refute the raid team WS's.

They say Nevill had his head on the coal scuttle.

This is consistent with the pathological evidence ie soc images support hypostasis:

"Hypostasis was consistent with the position in which he was found at the scene".
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:37:AM
The crime scene evidence does create a straight forward Bamber scenario.

Although it is unclear whether the twins were shot first. Once each.

Yes it does! 

And you know only too well gunshot wounds inflicted on the twins were fired in quick succession as evidenced by the pathological evidence which I uploaded a short while ago.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:41:AM
Yes it does! 

And you know only too well gunshot wounds inflicted on the twins were fired in quick succession as evidenced by the pathological evidence which I uploaded a short while ago.

I agree the twins were shot in quick succession.

This was either 6 or 8 shots.

Don't believe he would shoot the twins first, 8 times. He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre.

He would want to move onto Nevill & June quickly. One shot each does the job on the twins.

Julie said the twins were shot first.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:44:AM
It would be new evidence, what effect it would have on the case is immaterial it would still be new evidence.

Its new yes but it isn't evidence of anything and certainly does not meet the CCRC/CoA/CPS criteria for overturning a conviction. 

Frankly its embarrassing.  Its beyond weak. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:44:AM
Possible he shot the twins first. Eight times.

Then re loaded. Upstairs or downstairs.

The silencer would ensure silence with the 8 shots.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 10:49:AM
I agree the twins were shot in quick succession.

This was either 6 or 8 shots.

Don't believe he would shoot the twins first, 8 times. He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre.

He would want to move onto Nevill & June quickly. One shot each does the job on the twins.

Julie said the twins were shot first.

The twins sustained a total of 8 gunshot wounds which were all fired in quick succession after June and NB sustained their initial gunshot wounds.

June sustained 5/6 gunshot wounds whilst she was in bed.  NB sustained 2 gunshot wounds on the landing and 2 on the main stairs.  These were the first shots fired from the magazine JB left. 

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:52:AM
All depends on Bamber's plan and confidence.

He knew WHF & his targets better than anyone.

Quite possible he wasn't going for an 11 shot massacre & was confident no one would hear him shoot the twins 8 times & re load.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:54:AM
The twins sustained a total of 8 gunshot wounds which were all fired in quick succession after June and NB sustained their initial gunshot wounds.

June sustained 5/6 gunshot wounds whilst she was in bed.  NB sustained 2 gunshot wounds on the landing and 2 on the main stairs.  These were the first shots fired from the magazine JB left.

Do you agree with Rob that Nevill was chasing Sheila around WHF?

Benny Hill style.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:57:AM
Going for an 11 shot massacre would mean shooting the twins first. Once each.

Would then be looking for 8 shots on Nevill/June. But panicked after Nevill reacted & fired 9 shots.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 11:09:AM
Going for an 11 shot massacre would mean shooting the twins first. Once each.

Would then be looking for 8 shots on Nevill/June. But panicked after Nevill reacted & fired 9 shots.

If Sheila is the shooter she would only have 8 bullets max in the magazine, not 10 plus 1 in the breach.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 11:16:AM
If Sheila is the shooter she would only have 8 bullets max in the magazine, not 10 plus 1 in the breach.

How do you arrive at this?  JB said he left the mag with 8 - 10 rounds having removed the cartridge from the breech. 

The soc evidence shows June sustained 5/6 gunshot wounds in the first round and NB 4 gunshot wounds upstairs.  These were the first gunshots fired and inflicted on the victims.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 11:21:AM
How do you arrive at this?  JB said he left the mag with 8 - 10 rounds having removed the cartridge from the breech. 

The soc evidence shows June sustained 5/6 gunshot wounds in the first round and NB 4 gunshot wounds upstairs.  These were the first gunshots fired and inflicted on the victims.

I am assuming Nevil would have put the gun away and emptied the magazine.

Sheila would only be able to load 8 bullets at most as the bullets get progressively stiff to insert.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 11:22:AM
Do you agree with Rob that Nevill was chasing Sheila around WHF?

Benny Hill style.

Please desist with making light of the horror the victims experienced. 

The soc evidence does not support NB chasing SC around WHF.  The soc evidence supports SC inflicting the two gunshot wounds to NB's face on the stairs immediately proceeding the main bedroom.  NB turned and when he was on the main staircase, facing downstairs, SC inflicted the gunshot wounds to NB's shoulder and elbow/chest.  By this stage NB had lost complete use of his left arm and had the head shots not supervened the face shots would have killed him.  He was in great pain and losing a lot of blood and in no poistion to put up any sort of defence when SC started inflicting blows to him with the rifle.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 11:26:AM
I am assuming Nevil would have put the gun away and emptied the magazine.

That's an assumption on your part and contradicts with the soc evidence.

Sheila would only be able to load 8 bullets at most as the bullets get progressively stiff to insert.

That's another assumption on your part.  You do not know what SC was capable of in terms of loading the cartridges. 

The soc evidence supports the magazine left with 10/11 bullets.  June sustaining 5/6 in the first round and NB 4 in the first round.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 11:28:AM
That's an assumption on your part and contradicts with the soc evidence.

That's another assumption on your part.  You do not know what SC was capable of in terms of loading the cartridges. 

The soc evidence supports the magazine left with 10/11 bullets.  June sustaining 5/6 in the first round and NB 4 in the first round.

Yes it's an assumption, but MF at trail demonstrated how the last few bullets became very stiff to insert.

I think it is reasonable to assume Sheila could not fully load the rifle.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 11:31:AM
Yes it's an assumption, but MF at trail demonstrated how the last few bullets became very stiff to insert.

I think it is reasonable to assume Sheila could not fully load the rifle.

Do you think MF/FSS Huntingdon are reliable expert witnesses? 

I think it is reasonable to assume Sheila did not fully load the rifle based on the soc evidence.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 11:42:AM
Please desist with making light of the horror the victimsexperienced. 

The soc evidence does not support NB chasing SC around WHF.  The soc evidence supports SC inflicting the two gunshot wounds to NB's face on the stairs immediately proceeding the main bedroom.  NB turned and when he was on the main staircase, facing downstairs, SC inflicted the gunshot wounds to NB's shoulder and elbow/chest.  By this stage NB had lost complete use of his left arm and had the head shots not supervened the face shots would have killed him.  He was in great pain and losing a lot of blood and in no poistion to put up any sort of defence when SC started inflicting blows to him with the rifle.

Please desist from drinking while posting and creating multiple profiles. It makes light of the horror at WHF.

Rob said Nevill was chasing Sheila around WHF. This is similar to the Benny Hill sketches.

What do you think Sheila was doing when Nevill picked up the phone & decided only Bamber could save the day?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 12:43:PM
Do you think MF/FSS Huntingdon are reliable expert witnesses? 

I think it is reasonable to assume Sheila did not fully load the rifle based on the soc evidence.

No, and I don't like the word "expert" as the LL case shows.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: BarefootDanC on March 14, 2025, 01:34:PM
It would be new evidence, what effect it would have on the case is immaterial it would still be new evidence.

What prevented the defence from coming up with the Aga evidence at the trial?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 01:37:PM
What prevented the defence from coming up with the Aga evidence at the trial?

Believe the defence narrative was they were not burns. Prof Knight testifying such.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 14, 2025, 04:16:PM
What prevented the defence from coming up with the Aga evidence at the trial?

I am not sure what you are asking?

If something is known at trail and not used by the defense that is one thing, but if something comes to light years latter not known at the trial that is something else.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 04:39:PM
Please desist from drinking while posting and creating multiple profiles. It makes light of the horror at WHF.

Rob said Nevill was chasing Sheila around WHF. This is similar to the Benny Hill sketches.

What do you think Sheila was doing when Nevill picked up the phone & decided only Bamber could save the day?

I have posted on and off this forum since 2012.  Each time I have returned I have created a new profile which I am perfectly entitled to do as per forum rules.   In no way could this be considered disrespectful towards the victims. 

References to Benny Hill to describe victims pursuing one another is disrespectful and completely distasteful.

When NB phoned JB SC went upstairs and started shooting June in bed.  This is what the soc evidence supports.   
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 04:45:PM
I am not sure what you are asking?

If something is known at trail and not used by the defense that is one thing, but if something comes to light years latter not known at the trial that is something else.

Something comes to light?  It is something the defence could have explored at trial.  It is not some new scientific technique eg DNA evidence.  Its pathetic.

Look at the CCRC's website.  It explains what they are looking for eg new scientific evidence.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/the-application-process/

This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development. It has to be something not covered at your trial or appeal.

The marks were covered at trial.  I honestly think whoever came up with this nonsense is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 05:18:PM
I have posted on and off this forum since 2012.  Each time I have returned I have created a new profile which I am perfectly entitled to do as per forum rules.   In no way could this be considered disrespectful towards the victims. 

References to Benny Hill to describe victims pursuing one another is disrespectful and completely distasteful.

When NB phoned JB SC went upstairs and started shooting June in bed.  This is what the soc evidence supports.

A double mistake by Nevill.

Simultaneously ringing a sleeping Bamber & letting Sheila go upstairs with a rifle.

Was June still sleeping?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 05:21:PM
A double mistake by Nevill.

Simultaneously ringing a sleeping Bamber & letting Sheila go upstairs with a rifle.

Was June still sleeping?

It is what it is supported by the soc evidence.

The soc evidence supports June's head on the pillow.  No idea whether she was asleep or not.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 05:33:PM
It is what it is supported by the soc evidence.

The soc evidence supports June's head on the pillow.  No idea whether she was asleep or not.

Did Sheila shoot June in bed before shooting Nevill?

Maybe Nevill had relaxed too much. Thinking Bamber was coming over within 10 minutes to resolve everything.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 05:35:PM
A double mistake by Nevill.

Simultaneously ringing a sleeping Bamber & letting Sheila go upstairs with a rifle.

Was June still sleeping?

Would you be able to take a rifle off me? Serious question.

I am 6 foot 4.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 05:39:PM

Maybe Nevill had relaxed too much. Thinking Bamber was coming over within 10 minutes to resolve everything.

He didn't want the coppers at his premises, it's that simple. It's why he decided to ring his son. Too much hassle getting the authorities involved was his initial way of thinking.

Eventually it went tit's up by the looks of it.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 05:44:PM
Did Sheila shoot June in bed before shooting Nevill?

Yes you know this.

Maybe Nevill had relaxed too much. Thinking Bamber was coming over within 10 minutes to resolve everything.

NB was still on the phone when SC started firing on June.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 05:46:PM
He didn't want the coppers at his premises, it's that simple. It's why he decided to ring his son. Too much hassle getting the authorities involved was his initial way of thinking.

Eventually it went tit's up by the looks of it.

Bearing in mind NB was a magistrate and had a number of firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammo none of which were stored securely.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 05:49:PM
Bearing in mind NB was a magistrate and had a number of firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammo none of which were stored securely.

Precisely, he didn't want to end up getting in shit for anything in this regard as well. I have referenced this before.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 05:51:PM
He didn't want the coppers at his premises, it's that simple. It's why he decided to ring his son. Too much hassle getting the authorities involved was his initial way of thinking.

Eventually it went tit's up by the looks of it.

Agree Nevill didn't phone the police.

Jeremy would be over in 10 mins & resolve everything.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2025, 05:53:PM
Something comes to light?  It is something the defence could have explored at trial.  It is not some new scientific technique eg DNA evidence.  Its pathetic.

Look at the CCRC's website.  It explains what they are looking for eg new scientific evidence.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/the-application-process/

This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development. It has to be something not covered at your trial or appeal.

The marks were covered at trial.  I honestly think whoever came up with this nonsense is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.

The CCRC are going to be told to scrap the real possibility test. It's nonsense, so can completely understand why it would get scrapped.  Regarding the AGA theory for the burns. I have no idea as to whether it is correct. The new images are certainly interesting.

A lot of people are interested in trying to piece together in the right order (an extremely difficult task) what actually happened. This does not interest you because you take a different line of approach to the case. It's a broad church.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 05:54:PM
Yes you know this.

NB was still on the phone when SC started firing on June.

Poor June. Did all that food shopping for Sheila. Then gets shot while sleeping.

Nevill unable to resolve the situation. Thank goodness Jeremy was only 3 miles away.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 05:55:PM
Agree Nevill didn't phone the police.

Jeremy would be over in 10 mins & resolve everything.

Offer help to a situation.

I guarantee you wouldn't just " simply take the rifle " from me.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 05:57:PM
Poor June. Did all that food shopping for Sheila. Then gets shot while sleeping.

Nevill unable to resolve the situation. Thank goodness Jeremy was only 3 miles away.

Thank goodness Jez turned his AM off when he was in the house.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 05:59:PM
The CCRC are going to be told to scrap the real possibility test. It's nonsense, so can completely understand why it would get scrapped.  Regarding the AGA theory for the burns. I have no idea as to where it is correct. The new images are certainly interesting.

A lot of people are interested in trying to piece together in the right order (an extremely difficult task) what actually happened. This does not interest you because you take a different line of approach to the case. It's a broad church.

The real possibility test has nothing to do with what I have posted.  Its not a case of who takes which line.  No aspect of the marks will ever succeed with the CCRC/CoA.  Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 05:59:PM
Thank goodness Jez turned his AM off when he was in the house.

Not really.

Nevill could have left a message which would exonerate him.

And he could have continued sleeping 'like a log'.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 06:12:PM
Yes you know this.

NB was still on the phone when SC started firing on June.

Did Nevill know June was being shot while he was on the phone to Jeremy?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2025, 06:13:PM
The real possibility test has nothing to do with what I have posted.  Its not a case of who takes which line.  No aspect of the marks will ever succeed with the CCRC/CoA.  Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

Likewise I don't know what people can't understand regarding filling pieces of the jigsaw in.  However, I should add, I have no firm opinion on the marks.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 06:15:PM
Seems me, ILB & CC/Curiosity ageee Nevill did not call the police.

As Jeremy said (after calling the police!) Nevill would want to keep things private.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 06:31:PM
Did Nevill know June was being shot while he was on the phone to Jeremy?

I assume he heard shots, dropped the phone and went upstairs with haste. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Jane on March 14, 2025, 06:32:PM
The CCRC are going to be told to scrap the real possibility test. It's nonsense, so can completely understand why it would get scrapped.  Regarding the AGA theory for the burns. I have no idea as to whether it is correct. The new images are certainly interesting.

A lot of people are interested in trying to piece together in the right order (an extremely difficult task) what actually happened. This does not interest you because you take a different line of approach to the case. It's a broad church.


It's of no use simply to claim -even if it made sense!- that the Aga was responsible for making marks/burns on Nevill's back. Nothing just happens. Everything has a back story. Nevill's wounds were horrendous and bloody. Where was the blood evidence on the Aga? If you're saying that he wasn't injured when he was placed there, exactly what are you suggesting? There are one or two alternatives available. A) Police shot him, either prior to, or after placing him there, but why would they move him back to the chair? B) Sheila snuck in and shot him whilst their backs were turned. At this stage we know it couldn't have been JB because he was outside with the police. Besides which, it's been claimed that an uninjured, but concussed Nevill regained consciousness and managed to phone him. A feasible back story is required before the claim can make any sense.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 06:32:PM
Likewise I don't know what people can't understand regarding filling pieces of the jigsaw in.  However, I should add, I have no firm opinion on the marks.

But the marks are not just filling pieces of the jigsaw.  They've been put forward as part of a submission to the CCRC.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 06:42:PM
I assume he heard shots, dropped the phone and went upstairs with haste.

Wow he must have good ears. WHF is a big building.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2025, 06:55:PM

It's of no use simply to claim -even if it made sense!- that the Aga was responsible for making marks/burns on Nevill's back. Nothing just happens. Everything has a back story. Nevill's wounds were horrendous and bloody. Where was the blood evidence on the Aga? If you're saying that he wasn't injured when he was placed there, exactly what are you suggesting? There are one or two alternatives available. A) Police shot him, either prior to, or after placing him there, but why would they move him back to the chair? B) Sheila snuck in and shot him whilst their backs were turned. At this stage we know it couldn't have been JB because he was outside with the police. Besides which, it's been claimed that an uninjured, but concussed Nevill regained consciousness and managed to phone him. A feasible back story is required before the claim can make any sense.

Good post.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Jane on March 14, 2025, 07:07:PM
Good post.


Aww! Ta Roch :-*
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 08:31:PM
Seems me, ILB & CC/Curiosity ageee Nevill did not call the police.

As Jeremy said (after calling the police!) Nevill would want to keep things private.

He didn't want the coppers sniffing round the farmhouse.

In reference to shelia and probably a few other illegal things.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 08:34:PM
Not really.

Nevill could have left a message which would exonerate him.

And he could have continued sleeping 'like a log'.

Can't fault a bloke for sleeping.

Sciatica has recently ruined my relationship with getting a good night's shut eye.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 09:00:PM
Seems that Nevill was wrong in thinking Jeremy would be over in 10 minutes to resolve everything.

He didn't phone Chelmsford police until 15 minutes later!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: snow66! on March 14, 2025, 09:08:PM
I assume he heard shots, dropped the phone and went upstairs with haste.
Why was he phoning JB at this time Cutie? What prompted Nevill?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 14, 2025, 09:10:PM
Seems that Nevill was wrong in thinking Jeremy would be over in 10 minutes to resolve everything.

He didn't phone Chelmsford police until 15 minutes later!
The Bamberettes don't wish to be reminded of that.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 09:21:PM
Why was he phoning JB at this time Cutie? What prompted Nevill?

I assume he wanted to contain the siutation in-house and wanted JB as back up. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 09:27:PM
https://youtu.be/sMUrBhYpduY?si=J7MQN8JCQv7tIWJd

It was certainly the night Jeremy came home.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 14, 2025, 09:33:PM
https://youtu.be/sMUrBhYpduY?si=J7MQN8JCQv7tIWJd

It was certainly the night Jeremy came home.

I do like the background music.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: snow66! on March 14, 2025, 09:58:PM

It's of no use simply to claim -even if it made sense!- that the Aga was responsible for making marks/burns on Nevill's back. Nothing just happens. Everything has a back story. Nevill's wounds were horrendous and bloody. Where was the blood evidence on the Aga? If you're saying that he wasn't injured when he was placed there, exactly what are you suggesting? There are one or two alternatives available. A) Police shot him, either prior to, or after placing him there, but why would they move him back to the chair? B) Sheila snuck in and shot him whilst their backs were turned. At this stage we know it couldn't have been JB because he was outside with the police. Besides which, it's been claimed that an uninjured, but concussed Nevill regained consciousness and managed to phone him. A feasible back story is required before the claim can make any sense.
Isn't it possible to knock someone out Jane?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:08:PM
Seems that Nevill was wrong in thinking Jeremy would be over in 10 minutes to resolve everything.

He didn't phone Chelmsford police until 15 minutes later!

Not resolve, offer assistance as the brother of the woman going ape shit.

A family affair

You know this.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:10:PM
https://youtu.be/sMUrBhYpduY?si=J7MQN8JCQv7tIWJd

It was certainly the night Jeremy came home.

500 people interviewed in the locality, not one person saw Jez make the journey, perhaps he really did have night vision googles that night.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:11:PM
500 people interviewed in the locality, not one person saw Jez make the journey, perhaps he really did have night vision googles that night.

The Sea Wall route passed no properties.

You know this.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:15:PM
The Sea Wall route passed no properties.

You know this.

In all seriousness what's this " passing properties " mantra you try to make detriment to the car.

It's currently 22.15 on a Friday night in Sheffield where I am. I could jump in my motor right now and drive to the Tesco garage and back without been seen by my neighbours and this is in 2025 with all mod cons.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:17:PM
The Sea Wall route passed no properties.

You know this.

I can only go by De Ath
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 14, 2025, 10:21:PM
In all seriousness what's this " passing properties " mantra you try to make detriment to the car.

It's currently 22.15 on a Friday night in Sheffield where I am. I could jump in my motor right now and bomb to the Tesco garage and back without been seen by my neighbours and this is in 2025 with all mod cons.
It's too risky. https://earth.google.com/web/search/Head+Street,+Goldhanger,+Maldon/@51.74613489,0.75428258,7.84090937a,0d,60y,104.82774754h,72.35767234t,0r/data=CiwiJgokCZoIY9VhvkpAESkFpiBIvkpAGdMkyeqD3AHAIew9xsjh4QHAQgIIASIaChY2bUgwaUJpWnF2VHdfVzZpemdqd1FnEAI6AwoBMEICCABKDQj___________8BEAA
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:24:PM
In all seriousness what's this " passing properties " mantra you try to make detriment to the car.

It's currently 22.15 on a Friday night in Sheffield where I am. I could jump in my motor right now and bomb to the Tesco garage and back without been seen by my neighbours and this is in 2025 with all mod cons.

You think he drove and walked.

The prosecution believe he cycled the Sea Wall. Julie did put in her WS he planned to cycle. She then testified he planned to cycle The Sea Wall.

This was on June's bike which in my view he stole 2 days earlier.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:24:PM
It's too risky. https://earth.google.com/web/search/Head+Street,+Goldhanger,+Maldon/@51.74613489,0.75428258,7.84090937a,0d,60y,104.82774754h,72.35767234t,0r/data=CiwiJgokCZoIY9VhvkpAESkFpiBIvkpAGdMkyeqD3AHAIew9xsjh4QHAQgIIASIaChY2bUgwaUJpWnF2VHdfVzZpemdqd1FnEAI6AwoBMEICCABKDQj___________8BEAA

It's really not, especially in 1985 in his surroundings.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:27:PM
You think he drove and walked.

The prosecution believe he cycled the Sea Wall. Julie did put in her WS he planned to cycle. She then testified he planned to cycle The Sea Wall.

This was on June's bike which in my view he stole 2 days earlier.

You know deep down he drove if he did this.

We all do.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:29:PM
We don't even know theoretically speaking if he left WHF that night.

Phonecalls can't be traced.

And even though someone said they saw Jeremy's astra outside  bourtree there's not a statement unless I'm mistaken to cast it in stone. We will never know the circumstances for certain.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:30:PM
DF said she heard a " car speed off "

Perhaps he came back?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:31:PM
You know deep down he drove if he did this.

We all do.

You mean drove and walked.

The prosecution did the right thing checking with 500 people. They could then say he cycled The Sea Wall.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: snow66! on March 14, 2025, 10:32:PM
I assume he wanted to contain the siutation in-house and wanted JB as back up.
May I ask your scenario up until that point Cutie?
Did Nevill find Sheila in the kitchen with the loaded rifle and try and talk her down before she ran off upstairs?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:35:PM
You mean drove and walked.

The prosecution did the right thing checking with 500 people. They could then say he cycled The Sea Wall.

Parked on Pages Lane, sauntered down

Saunter back, jump in the motor


Back to bourtree.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:39:PM
Parked on Pages Lane, sauntered down

Saunter back, jump in the motor


Back to bourtree.

Saunter.

Is that what you did before getting a 10+ sentance?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 14, 2025, 10:42:PM
Parked on Pages Lane, sauntered down

Saunter back, jump in the motor


Back to bourtree.
His car was still outside Bourtree Cottage around midnight according to a local man passing from the Chequers pub. That would narrow down the time frame available to him.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:47:PM
Saunter.

Is that what you did before getting a 10+ sentance?

No, I had spent almost six months on remand prior.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 14, 2025, 10:49:PM
His car was still outside Bourtree Cottage around midnight according to a local man passing from the Chequers pub. That would narrow down the time frame available to him.

Doesn't mean much. Plenty of time to do everything prior to giving Julie an update at 3am.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 14, 2025, 10:54:PM
Doesn't mean much. Plenty of time to do everything prior to giving Julie an update at 3am.

Was good of Stan to remind Sue of the phonecall
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 15, 2025, 03:25:PM
You know deep down he drove if he did this.

We all do.

Actually I don't ILB, in those days few people had double glazing plus it was a warm time of the year fan lights open etc. yet no one heard a car.

To drive would be total madness but good we all have different views on the case.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 15, 2025, 03:30:PM
Actually I don't ILB, in those days few people had double glazing plus it was a warm time of the year fan lights open etc. yet no one heard a car.

To drive would be total madness but good we all have different views on the case.

Agree driving to Pages Lane & then walking would be madness.

Walking would take too long and be too tiring. Wilkinson said it was not possible to walk cross country in a straight line.

The bike Bamber stole 2 days earlier was used.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 15, 2025, 03:37:PM
There is still dispute over what route he cycled.

The police say The Sea Wall route.  CAL says the Brook House Lane route.

I would have exited out of the GH back garden & cycled the Sea Wall route. To avoid properties.

Worth making the extra effort for the huge rewards.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 15, 2025, 03:52:PM
There is still dispute over what route he cycled.

The police say The Sea Wall route.  CAL says the Brook House Lane route.

I would have exited out of the GH back garden & cycled the Sea Wall route. To avoid properties.

Worth making the extra effort for the huge rewards.

A fair bit of this route would involve carrying the bike, and you still have not shown me a route which avoids the farms and yapping dogs.

I set a few off the other day.

I think he had to walk virtually 100% safe and not that much slower.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 15, 2025, 03:58:PM
A fair bit of this route would involve carrying the bike, and you still have not shown me a route which avoids the farms and yapping dogs.

I set a few off the other day.

I think he had to walk virtually 100% safe and not that much slower.

Walking The Sea Wall route would take 70 minutes. According to Wilkinson. So too long & tiring.

The Sea Wall route is footpaths and farm tracks. There is even a park bench. So he would not have to carry his bike.

It passes no properties.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 15, 2025, 04:22:PM
Walking The Sea Wall route would take 70 minutes. According to Wilkinson. So too long & tiring.

The Sea Wall route is footpaths and farm tracks. There is even a park bench. So he would not have to carry his bike.

It passes no properties.

If walking you would not go via the sea wall, in any case I would say it would be less than 70 minutes.

A young guy could walk around 4mph.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 15, 2025, 04:29:PM
If walking you would not go via the sea wall, in any case I would say it would be less than 70 minutes.

A young guy could walk around 4mph.

The only other walking route is the BHL route.

This is concrete roads & farm roads. So perfect for cycling.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 15, 2025, 08:07:PM
The only other walking route is the BHL route.

This is concrete roads & farm roads. So perfect for cycling.

Depending on crops you can walk across most fields and generally around the edges in situations where it would be impossible to cycle. He does not have to follow recognised walking routes.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 15, 2025, 08:17:PM
Actually I don't ILB, in those days few people had double glazing plus it was a warm time of the year fan lights open etc. yet no one heard a car.

To drive would be total madness but good we all have different views on the case.

Rob it would be easy mate back in 85. These days what with the cctv not so much.

We don't even know for sure he even left WHF that night. DF reports hearing a car, but it's not Crystal. He may have even returned on the pretext of staying over at WHF for an early start. He had a room at the farmhouse. It was his childhood home.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 15, 2025, 08:17:PM
Reference the phonecalls to Julie he would have been capable if having a quiet conversation at 10pm out of earshot.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 15, 2025, 09:03:PM
Depending on crops you can walk across most fields and generally around the edges in situations where it would be impossible to cycle. He does not have to follow recognised walking routes.

Both sides went by Wilkinson's WS. Which said he could not take a short cut across fields.

Walking on cycle paths, farm tracks and roads can be done  . But would take too long and be too tiring.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 16, 2025, 02:11:PM
Both sides went by Wilkinson's WS. Which said he could not take a short cut across fields.

Walking on cycle paths, farm tracks and roads can be done  . But would take too long and be too tiring.

Because they needed him cycling because of time issues.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 16, 2025, 02:49:PM
Because they needed him cycling because of time issues.

Even the defence?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 16, 2025, 03:27:PM
The defence made the right choice in not disputing that it was possible to cycle to/from WHF.

The prosecution would have crucified them & magnified what a good option it was.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Zoso on March 16, 2025, 03:31:PM
Rob it would be easy mate back in 85. These days what with the cctv not so much.

We don't even know for sure he even left WHF that night. DF reports hearing a car, but it's not Crystal. He may have even returned on the pretext of staying over at WHF for an early start. He had a room at the farmhouse. It was his childhood home.

I put this forward years ago, still think it might have happened.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 16, 2025, 04:14:PM
I put this forward years ago, still think it might have happened.

Very feasible and could have happened.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 16, 2025, 04:15:PM
The defence made the right choice in not disputing that it was possible to cycle to/from WHF.

The prosecution would have crucified them & magnified what a good option it was.

Sea wall is absolutely ridiculous.

Road possible, but just too much messing around for me.

Walking would have been a better option than cycling.

The car is the best bet for him.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 16, 2025, 04:48:PM
I put this forward years ago, still think it might have happened.
Do you have the post Zoso? I believe it was something akin to him being in the far side of the rape field. But wouldn't the theory jar with the guy who saw his Astra outside Bourtree Cottage around midnight?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Curiosity on March 16, 2025, 06:14:PM
Sea wall is absolutely ridiculous.

Road possible, but just too much messing around for me.

Walking would have been a better option than cycling.

The car is the best bet for him.
Absolute proof that Jeremy used a bike and wore a wet-suit! - a recently discovered photo which a witness took of him when she was walking along the seawall in the early hours of 7th. August 1985 -

https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/occams-razor?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Or is it?  ::)
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 16, 2025, 06:53:PM
Absolute proof that Jeremy used a bike and wore a wet-suit! - a recently discovered photo which a witness took of him when she was walking along the seawall in the early hours of 7th. August 1985 -

https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/occams-razor?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Or is it?  ::)
I favour the second scenario. Whether she wished them all dead, similar to Elinor Carlisle in an Agatha Christie novel is moot, though her inability to accomplish such a mission gave her brother the pretext he needed for the family annihilation. A master at dissimulation, he fooled many for a time, and continues to do so with smaller numbers to this day, though anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the case has come to the devastating conclusion that the murders were not the act of an insane individual, sick and incognizant, but that of a deliberate, cold-blooded killer, equally sick and insane in his own particular way.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Roch on March 16, 2025, 06:54:PM
Absolute proof that Jeremy used a bike and wore a wet-suit! - a recently discovered photo which a witness took of him when she was walking along the seawall in the early hours of 7th. August 1985 -

https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/occams-razor?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Or is it?  ::)

You beat me to it. I thought Adam would love that as new profile pic.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 16, 2025, 06:55:PM
You beat me to it. I thought Adam would love that as new profile pic.
Technology can accomplish wonders these days.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 16, 2025, 07:17:PM
Guest29835 says Bamber stole June's bike for reconnaisance. Although did not say what the reconnaissance was supposed to be.

The defence wisely did not magnify the numerous advantages of cycling.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 16, 2025, 07:17:PM
Since 1986 the CT have just said -

Wilkinson cycled in daylight.

There would be insects on the ground.

It was in the open so good vision & he could be seen.

Wilkinson was not the same size as Bamber.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 16, 2025, 07:40:PM
Absolute proof that Jeremy used a bike and wore a wet-suit! - a recently discovered photo which a witness took of him when she was walking along the seawall in the early hours of 7th. August 1985 -

https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/occams-razor?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Or is it?  ::)

Looks like a fake photo to me? Do you know when it was taken seeing as you are claiming it it is proof etc?

Sorry you said on the 7th August so definitely a fake.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Curiosity on March 16, 2025, 07:54:PM
Looks like a fake photo to me? Do you know when it was taken seeing as you are claiming it it is proof etc?

Sorry you said on the 7th August so definitely a fake.
Technology can accomplish wonders these days.
And even bring long-deceased Kings of England back to life -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbH_KLMs6aY&ab_channel=FaceLabLJMU
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 01:32:AM
Forgot to say Phillip said he may have got a puncture.

I can recall getting 4 punctures since getting my first bike at 7. So Bamber would be very unlucky if he got one.

If he did get a puncture, he could abort if on the way to WHF. Or would have to walk the remainder of the way back to GH if the massacre had been committed.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 02:09:AM
It is 2.4 miles to WHF. If walking in a straight line across fields. From the back of 9, Head Street. 

He will have to walk across 13 fields.

Wilkinson said it was not possible to do this.

Some of the dividers between fields would be hedges, fences, dips, streams. Or a combination of these.

So a lot of zig zagging increasing the journey to 3+ miles.

Some of the fields would be tough terrain to walk across. 

So a lot of time consuming hard work.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 02:20:AM
Jeremy would know the fields between WHF & GH better than anyone.

Seems he decided a long time beforehand to cycle. Telling Julie in June 85 he planned to cycle.

Don't blame him.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 09:17:AM
Jeremy would know the fields between WHF & GH better than anyone.

He denies doing so. He was never questioned about it at trial.

Suppose he may have walked Brambles on the fields from time to time.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 09:23:AM
It is 2.4 miles to WHF. If walking in a straight line across fields. From the back of 9, Head Street. 

He will have to walk across 13 fields.

Wilkinson said it was not possible to do this.

Some of the dividers between fields would be hedges, fences, dips, streams. Or a combination of these.

So a lot of zig zagging increasing the journey to 3+ miles.

Some of the fields would be tough terrain to walk across. 

So a lot of time consuming hard work.

He could just walk the road way.

Not that I believe he did. I think he just bombed it in the motor.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 09:25:AM
Whether he chose to park on Pages Lane and walk down or drive directly up to WHF is a matter for him.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 09:27:AM
What the f?????
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 11:24:AM
He could just walk the road way.

Not that I believe he did. I think he just bombed it in the motor.

He could cycle that route. As CAL says he did.

As you said, it is roads.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 11:29:AM
He denies doing so. He was never questioned about it at trial.

Suppose he may have walked Brambles on the fields from time to time.

He worked in the fields.

There are not many other farms between Head Street & WHF. Assume WHF covered a lot of these fields.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 02:08:PM
He could cycle that route. As CAL says he did.

As you said, it is roads.

If someone clocks him cycling it's too crystal clear the possibility of an ID.

A car going past is a car, not a visual ID.

No one will remember the reg number as nobody would have any inkling the car was on its way to committ crimes.

Bike is much riskier in this regard

He was well known in the area, prominent family.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 02:14:PM
A risk with the car is the off chance a passing police car decides to pull it due to the unsociable hours. The police may suspect that the driver is out burgling.

If he was stopped on the return journey, he's fucked. The same goes for cycling, any passing police car would view a guy cycling the roads at 2am suspicious and think he was out doing some kind of skullduggery.

Bews remarked that Bambers car was the only vehicle they saw on the way to WHF, a testament to how quiet the roads were at that hour(s)
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 02:51:PM
If someone clocks him cycling it's too crystal clear the possibility of an ID.

A car going past is a car, not a visual ID.

No one will remember the reg number as nobody would have any inkling the car was on its way to committ crimes.

Bike is much riskier in this regard

He was well known in the area, prominent family.

Doubt anyone would clock him travelling fast on a bike at 1am - 2am.

But agree there may be property security cameras. Which is why me & the prosecution believe he cycled The Sea Wall route.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Roch on March 17, 2025, 02:55:PM
Doubt anyone would clock him travelling fast on a bike at 1am - 2am.

It was hardly a mountain bike Adam. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 02:57:PM
Nevill employed Bamber & other farm labourers. He also owned other properties and the caravan site which was 5 miles away.

Suspect Bamber had farmed most of the land between WHF & Head Street. So knew he couldn't walk cross country.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 03:10:PM
Interestingly CCTV was around in 1985. Although not as today.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 03:29:PM
Interestingly CCTV was around in 1985. Although not as today.

Maybe in city centers but I doubt you would find cctv in rural Essex in 1985. 

Amazing to think today JB would either appear or not on home cctv, doorbell cam, dash cam and all calls would be logged to the second.  If only...
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 03:39:PM
Very feasible and could have happened.

Where did he call JM from at circa 9.50pm if not his cottage?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 04:44:PM
Doubt anyone would clock him travelling fast on a bike at 1am - 2am.

But agree there may be property security cameras. Which is why me & the prosecution believe he cycled The Sea Wall route.

No way he went via cycle, Ludicrous.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 04:48:PM
No way he went via cycle, Ludicrous.

Tell that to EP, Julie & the successful prosecution.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 04:49:PM
Tell that to EP, Julie & the successful prosecution.

It's fucking ridiculous
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 04:52:PM
Bambers comments on the route for the first time almost 40 years later calling it " laughable and madness "

Wilkinson undertook his task in October 1985, By this time Bamber was already charged and banged up on remand.

Neither at interview or trial was the route put forward to Bamber where he could formally deny or list unawareness.

The official prosecution stance on the route is " a route that avoided the main roads" ( coa r v bamber 2002)
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 05:02:PM
Millions of people cycle 4.2 miles (& more) daily. Have done for decades.

And they don't have a potential reward of 500k+.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 05:04:PM
Wonder how many miles Deliveroo cyclists cycle daily. Mind you they have electric bikes.

Bike couriers in London in the 80's & 90's would have covered a lot of miles. Believe they got paid per delivery.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 05:09:PM
Going by Google Maps, WHF & Wycke Farm were the two main farms in the area.

So Bamber would have farmed the land between GH & WHF.

He would know he couldn't walk cross country.

June's bike being stolen 2 days earlier for his Sea Wall journey.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 05:19:PM
The Prosecution case is he cycled The Sea Wall route.

Miller saying on CTSB 'no one would see him in a million years'.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 05:24:PM
I put this forward years ago, still think it might have happened.

Where did he call JM from if not his cottage?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 05:57:PM
Where did he call JM from at circa 9.50pm if not his cottage?

Office phone perhaps, nevill still out working, shelia and June downstairs, twins asleep.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:02:PM
He will have drove.

He will have probably done test runs numerous times prior to 7.8.85, possibly even driving down pages lane to see if any reaction to what he was doing was garnered.

There is a possibility that he drove to pages lane and disembarked on the cycle down pages lane before cycling back and chucking the cycle in the boot. I have always been convinced that he wasn't worried about neighbours seeing him or other people due to the time he made the journey.

The car is so much quicker and easier.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:05:PM
He will have drove.

He will have probably done test runs numerous times prior to 7.8.85, possibly even driving down pages lane to see if any reaction to what he was doing was garnered.

There is a possibility that he drove to pages lane and disembarked on the cycle down pages lane before cycling back and chucking the cycle in the boot. I have always been convinced that he wasn't worried about neighbours seeing him or other people due to the time he made the journey.

The car is so much quicker and easier.

Bike in boot.

'Too much pissing about'.

Miller - 'No one would see him in a million years'.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:06:PM
Even in today times past twenty thirty years or so it is only through CCTV that drivers who are committing crimes come a cropper.

Levi bellfield was caught by bus stop cameras that linked vehicles that were owned by him. You very rarely see a homeowner or pedestrian identify a driver of a car going past.

Cctv wasn't about in rural Essex in 1985.

Any security camera will not capture the car driving past as it will point onto the ground of the property

Very good odds.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:08:PM
Bike in boot.

'Too much pissing about'.

Miller - 'No one would see him in a million years'.

If I was going to committ a crime of this magnitude I want to be in and out and back to my home no fucking about. A round trip of 16 minutes from GH to WHF

Cycling on a ladies murder she wrote bike wearing a wetsuit, it's madness
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:13:PM
Office phone perhaps, nevill still out working, shelia and June downstairs, twins asleep.

Wrong!  JM claims JB called her at 9.50pm and the call lasted 17 - 20 mins.  PB called June at 10pm.  There was one line at WHF.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:13:PM
Bamber would take the route of least risk. It was only a 'one off' journey.

As Julie testified, this was The Sea Wall.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:14:PM
Wrong!  JM claims JB called her at 9.50pm and the call lasted 17 - 20 mins.  PB called June at 10pm.  There was one line at WHF.

Good point.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:15:PM
Wrong!  JM claims JB called her at 9.50pm and the call lasted 17 - 20 mins.  PB called June at 10pm.  There was one line at WHF.

Are times proven to a tee or just approx? Is there a BT call log?

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:18:PM
Pamela Boutflour " about ten o clock "
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:23:PM
Are times proven to a tee or just approx? Is there a BT call log?

You know all times are approx but there's enough overlap to rule out JB calling from WHF.  You are not thinking it through! 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:27:PM
You know all times are approx but there's enough overlap to rule out JB calling from WHF.  You are not thinking it through!

What is there to think through? Without an exact time how do I know if they overlap?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:29:PM
Julie's WS says Bamber called her at 10pm.

PB's WS says she spoke to June/Sheila from 10pm.

100% overlap.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:33:PM
Surprised Bamber went to supper considering him & June had not spoken for years.

But appreciate he had to do some reconnaissance.

Staying the night wouldn't happen.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:37:PM
What is there to think through? Without an exact time how do I know if they overlap?

The call JB made to JM lasted some 20 mins.  There was enough time to rule out him calling from WHF given the time PB called was bang in the middle of the time JB and JM were in conversation.  You need to concede!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:40:PM
Julie's WS says Bamber called her at 10pm.

PB's WS says she spoke to June/Sheila from 10pm.

100% overlap.

Julie's WS says 9.50pm. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:43:PM
Julie's WS says 9.50pm.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html

10pm.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:44:PM
The call JB made to JM lasted some 20 mins.  There was enough time to rule out him calling from WHF given the time PB called was bang in the middle of the time JB and JM were in conversation.  You need to concede!

He hasn't accepted a 24 year old man can cycle on farm tracks for 4.2 miles since 1985.

So doubtful.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:47:PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html

10pm.

9.50pm based on 8th Aug WS.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:54:PM
Julie's WS says Bamber called her at 10pm.

PB's WS says she spoke to June/Sheila from 10pm.

100% overlap.

Times are approx, not definite.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:55:PM
The call JB made to JM lasted some 20 mins.  There was enough time to rule out him calling from WHF given the time PB called was bang in the middle of the time JB and JM were in conversation.  You need to concede!

How can I concede when I can't prove that both calls conclusively overlapped, there approx times!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 06:56:PM
He hasn't accepted a 24 year old man can cycle on farm tracks for 4.2 miles since 1985.

So doubtful.

As I said.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:56:PM
He hasn't accepted a 24 year old man can cycle on farm tracks for 4.2 miles since 1985.

So doubtful.

Guy denies knowing the route.

Pitch black, not going to bore the forum going into all that bollocks you posted before, night vision goggles, christmas trees in Surrey etc.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 06:56:PM
Julie's WS says 9.50pm.

Julie isn't evidence of anything  :)
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:57:PM
How can I concede when I can't prove that both calls conclusively overlapped, there approx times!

Even Adam and I agree!  You have to concede on this one!  Otherwise everyone will see you as 'difficult'!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 06:58:PM
Julie isn't evidence of anything  :)

Her WS of 8th Aug is reliable.  Her WS's thereafter are unreliable.  Its that simple!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 07:00:PM
Even Adam and I agree!  You have to concede on this one!  Otherwise everyone will see you as 'difficult'!

How can I concede on approximate times?

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 07:05:PM
Don't know why ILB doesn't just accept Bamber cycled The Sea Wall route.

Miller - 'No one would see him in a million years'.

Bikes in boots, sleep overs. Crazy.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 07:06:PM
How can I concede on approximate times?

There's enough overlap!  It isn't like the circa 3.30am or 5.?am call which were brief.  Please do the gentlemanly thing and concede.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 07:08:PM
There's enough overlap!  It isn't like the circa 3.30am or 5.?am call which were brief.  Please do the gentlemanly thing and concede.

Gentelmanly?

ILB thinks Bamber making Julie cycle 3 miles to the bus station with a suitcase is classy.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 07:41:PM
If someone clocks him cycling it's too crystal clear the possibility of an ID.

A car going past is a car, not a visual ID.

No one will remember the reg number as nobody would have any inkling the car was on its way to committ crimes.

Bike is much riskier in this regard

He was well known in the area, prominent family.
Julie said he would wear a mask. It might depend on whether a passer-by could recognize the bike.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 07:43:PM
Julie said he would wear a mask. It might depend on whether a passer-by could recognize the bike.

Have you got a source for that?

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 07:53:PM
Have you got a source for that?
It's in her statement.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 07:57:PM
It's in her statement.

I don't recall reading that.

He dyed his hair and darkened his face. That was more for inside WHF.

Miller said 'No one would see him in a million years' on The Sea Wall route.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:09:PM
There's enough overlap!  It isn't like the circa 3.30am or 5.?am call which were brief.  Please do the gentlemanly thing and concede.

How long was the phonecall to June?

Will never concede with no telephone records. Sorry.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 08:09:PM
I don't recall reading that.

He dyed his hair and darkened his face. That was more for inside WHF.

Miller said 'No one would see him in a million years' on The Sea Wall route.
I will find the source when I have time.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:10:PM
Julie said he would wear a mask. It might depend on whether a passer-by could recognize the bike.

The coppers will pull a guy cycling the roads at that time of night, on the chance a patrol car passed him. They will think he is out robbing.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:11:PM


Miller said 'No one would see him in a million years' on The Sea Wall route.

Miller, an impartial observer of course........
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:13:PM
Gentelmanly?

ILB thinks Bamber making Julie cycle 3 miles to the bus station with a suitcase is classy.

Maybe he didn't have time to drive her.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:15:PM
Don't know why ILB doesn't just accept Bamber cycled The Sea Wall route.

Miller - 'No one would see him in a million years'.

Bikes in boots, sleep overs. Crazy.

The " sleep over " would be a massive advantage to Bamber.

Puts him in WHF without having to piss about travelling.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 08:21:PM
I don't recall reading that.

He dyed his hair and darkened his face. That was more for inside WHF.

Miller said 'No one would see him in a million years' on The Sea Wall route.
It's on Sheet 4 here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3729.0.html
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 08:22:PM
The coppers will pull a guy cycling the roads at that time of night, on the chance a patrol car passed him. They will think he is out robbing.
That's a good point, but wasn't Jeremy familiar to some extent with the routine of law enforcement?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:28:PM
That's a good point, but wasn't Jeremy familiar to some extent with the routine of law enforcement?

As far as I am aware he had never been arrested prior to 1985 for anything. Although I have read he had some shit in NZ and had to go in a line up. No UK criminal record though to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 08:41:PM
The " sleep over " would be a massive advantage to Bamber.

Puts him in WHF without having to piss about travelling.

Well there was no "sleep over".
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 08:42:PM
As far as I am aware he had never been arrested prior to 1985 for anything. Although I have read he had some shit in NZ and had to go in a line up. No UK criminal record though to my knowledge.
Well, I wasn't thinking of that exactly, more Nevill's comment of the local police force being Dad's Army. He would also know the routine or beat of local police in the early hours. I believe he had had previous contact with one of the officers on the occasion of his car accident, so had possibly sussed out how his status affected his treatment by them.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 08:45:PM
Well, I wasn't thinking of that exactly, more Nevill's comment of the local police force being Dad's Army. He would also know the routine or beat of local police in the early hours. I believe he had had previous contact with one of the officers on the occasion of his car accident, so had possibly sussed out how his status affected his treatment by them.

I don't think a 24 year old farmer would be completely sure with the police schedule, he risked a pull on the chance of a passing patrol car.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 09:05:PM
Julie said he would wear a mask. It might depend on whether a passer-by could recognize the bike.

No, if anyone sees someone cycling around 3 in the morning along rough farm tracks / sea wall Bamber is rumbled more so if wearing a mask. A quick inspection of the bike would be very revealing.

His only option is to walk in my view, can take a more direct route, keep well clear of farms and dogs and duck down if he sees anyone. I appreciate now that the times don't work as Bamber obviously thought calls could be traced.

It's why I am interested in the Aga, if hypostasis rules out the police moving Nevil than we are left with Nevil lying against the Aga for around 4 hours. This means the tragedy started around 11 while we know Bamber was still at his cottage. Obviously it has to be proven that the Aga caused the marks.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:07:PM
No, if anyone sees someone cycling around 3 in the morning along rough farm tracks / sea wall Bamber is rumbled more so if wearing a mask. A quick inspection of the bike would be very revealing.

His only option is to walk in my view, can take a more direct route, keep well clear of farms and dogs and duck down if he sees anyone. I appreciate now that the times don't work as Bamber obviously thought calls could be traced.

It's why I am interested in the Aga, if hypostasis rules out the police moving Nevil than we are left with Nevil lying against the Aga for around 4 hours. This means the tragedy started around 11 while we know Bamber was still at his cottage. Obviously it has to be proven that the Aga caused the marks.

But according to JB he received a tel call from NB at circa 3.30am? 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:10:PM
No, if anyone sees someone cycling around 3 in the morning along rough farm tracks / sea wall Bamber is rumbled more so if wearing a mask. A quick inspection of the bike would be very revealing.

His only option is to walk in my view, can take a more direct route, keep well clear of farms and dogs and duck down if he sees anyone. I appreciate now that the times don't work as Bamber obviously thought calls could be traced.

It's why I am interested in the Aga, if hypostasis rules out the police moving Nevil than we are left with Nevil lying against the Aga for around 4 hours. This means the tragedy started around 11 while we know Bamber was still at his cottage. Obviously it has to be proven that the Aga caused the marks.

Why do you have to make everything so complicated?  The simplest answer is usually the right one.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2025, 09:11:PM
Why do you have to make everything so complicated?  The simplest answer is usually the right one.
Which is the simplest answer: driving, walking or cycling?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:15:PM
Which is the simplest answer: driving, walking or cycling?

After he left WHF his next return journey was by car when EP overtook him.

I was referring to Rob's scenario of wanting to reinvent everything to fit in some loopy theory about back burning on the Aga.  You could not make it up.  I bet the CCRC have a right old laugh.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 09:21:PM
After he left WHF his next return journey was by car when EP overtook him.

I was referring to Rob's scenario of wanting to reinvent everything to fit in some loopy theory about back burning on the Aga.  You could not make it up.  I bet the CCRC have a right old laugh.

No ones laughing Cc if it can be proven it was the Aga, should be easy either way.

If it's not the Aga does not matter to me just interested in all aspects of the case.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:30:PM
No ones laughing Cc if it can be proven it was the Aga, should be easy either way.

If it's not the Aga does not matter to me just interested in all aspects of the case.

You believe JB innocent:

- NB called JB at circa 3.30am
- The police found NB in the kitchen perched on the back of the chair with his head hanging forward.  An image we are all familiar with.
- DC Bird, soc officer and photograher, photograhped NB in above position
- The pathologist, who undertook the pm, said NB's found position as depicted on soc images was consistent with hypostatis.  A view shared with the defence pathologist

There is no scope for some loopy theory about back burning on the Aga.  It is barking and the sooner the theory and those that support it are put out to pasture the better!
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 09:34:PM
It takes around 6 hours for hypostasis to become fixed, so someone can be moved and hypostasis will reestablish.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:39:PM
It takes around 6 hours for hypostasis to become fixed, so someone can be moved and hypostasis will reestablish.

Give it up.

Who was going to do the moving? 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 09:43:PM
Give it up.

Who was going to do the moving?

Give what up?

The first thing is to prove or disprove if the Aga caused the marks, I don't give a dam what the CCRC think so don't keep banging on about it.

We all know you need overwhelming evidence to overturn a conviction.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Jane on March 17, 2025, 09:50:PM
Give what up?

The first thing is to prove or disprove if the Aga caused the marks, I don't give a dam what the CCRC think so don't keep banging on about it.

We all know you need overwhelming evidence to overturn a conviction.


Are you claiming not to care one way all the other, or are you saying you're right even if the CCRC think otherwise?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 09:53:PM

Are you claiming not to care one way all the other, or are you saying you're right even if the CCRC think otherwise?

I am trying like others to establish what happened that night, I am not interested in what the CCRC would make of it.

Otherwise we might as well just have one topic on the blood evidence.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:54:PM
Give what up?

This ridculous Aga back burning theory.

The first thing is to prove or disprove if the Aga caused the marks, I don't give a dam what the CCRC think so don't keep banging on about it.

Even if you could prove the marks on NB's back were caused by the Aga what's the point if not to assist JB with a successful submission and ultimately referral to CoA?

We all know you need overwhelming evidence to overturn a conviction.

In which case why are you wasting time on something that doesn't have a cat in hells chance?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 09:56:PM
I am trying like others to establish what happened that night, I am not interested in what the CCRC would make of it.

Otherwise we might as well just have one topic on the blood evidence.

We know what happened.  You just want to complicate everything with absurd theories and hundreds of conspiracies.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 10:03:PM
We know what happened.  You just want to complicate everything with absurd theories and hundreds of conspiracies.

If you know what happened please tell us, because I don't.

Can you explain why West painstakingly copied his log?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:08:PM
It's on Sheet 4 here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3729.0.html

Thanks. He did dye his hair and blacken up.

Getting into action man mode.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 17, 2025, 10:09:PM
If you know what happened please tell us, because I don't.

Can you explain why West painstakingly copied his log?

Thanks.

I have posted repeatedly about the soc evidence by way of blood stains/lack of to flooring, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.  You piece it all together and it tells you what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_reconstruction

I am not interested in West and the boring phone calls/logs.  They do not tell you what happened.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:11:PM
No, if anyone sees someone cycling around 3 in the morning along rough farm tracks / sea wall Bamber is rumbled more so if wearing a mask. A quick inspection of the bike would be very revealing.

His only option is to walk in my view, can take a more direct route, keep well clear of farms and dogs and duck down if he sees anyone. I appreciate now that the times don't work as Bamber obviously thought calls could be traced.

It's why I am interested in the Aga, if hypostasis rules out the police moving Nevil than we are left with Nevil lying against the Aga for around 4 hours. This means the tragedy started around 11 while we know Bamber was still at his cottage. Obviously it has to be proven that the Aga caused the marks.

Miller said 'no one would see him in a million years'. Regarding The Sea Wall.

He has a point. It does not go near any properties, is very remote and is not a through road to anywhere.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:15:PM
Maybe he didn't have time to drive her.

20 minutes.

Or the money to pay for a taxi.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:18:PM
The coppers will pull a guy cycling the roads at that time of night, on the chance a patrol car passed him. They will think he is out robbing.

No coppers on The Sea Wall.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:19:PM
How long was the phonecall to June?

Will never concede with no telephone records. Sorry.

20 minutes.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:22:PM
Well there was no "sleep over".

Would like to know what Zoso says.

The sleepover has been her baby for years.

ILB is just trying to find new theories to avoid agreeing with the prosecution case.

Most recently driving/cycling & a sleepover.

Next he will be claiming Bamber needed night vision goggles.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Rob_ on March 17, 2025, 10:23:PM
I have posted repeatedly about the soc evidence by way of blood stains/lack of to flooring, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.  You piece it all together and it tells you what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_reconstruction

I am not interested in West and the boring phone calls/logs.  They do not tell you what happened.

Yes I agree Nevil was never shot in the bedroom etc. etc.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 10:38:PM
No, if anyone sees someone cycling around 3 in the morning along rough farm tracks / sea wall Bamber is rumbled more so if wearing a mask. A quick inspection of the bike would be very revealing.

His only option is to walk in my view, can take a more direct route, keep well clear of farms and dogs and duck down if he sees anyone. I appreciate now that the times don't work as Bamber obviously thought calls could be traced.

It's why I am interested in the Aga, if hypostasis rules out the police moving Nevil than we are left with Nevil lying against the Aga for around 4 hours. This means the tragedy started around 11 while we know Bamber was still at his cottage. Obviously it has to be proven that the Aga caused the marks.

The most direct walking route is 2.4 miles.

Wilkinson said it was not possible to take a direct route across fields.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 11:13:PM
Well there was no "sleep over".

Again to give an adult sensible reply none of us know for sure the movements of Jeremy Bamber in the time of question. The option is very much open.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 11:14:PM
Would like to know what Zoso says.

The sleepover has been her baby for years.

ILB is just trying to find new theories to avoid agreeing with the prosecution case.

Most recently driving/cycling & a sleepover.

Next he will be claiming Bamber needed night vision goggles.

Adam is just a troll who secretly harbours an unrequited love for Bamber. Maybe pie and mash and millwall hasnt helped. Either way he has never convinced a single member of the guilt of Bamber but there is always the first time.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 11:20:PM
Thanks. He did dye his hair and blacken up.

Getting into action man mode.

Dye his hair and blacken up for what?

To go and kill five family members? What was he trying to disguise?


Makes no sense at all
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 11:25:PM
Dye his hair and blacken up for what?

To go and kill five family members? What was he trying to disguise?


Makes no sense at all

Well AE & Julie said he did those.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 17, 2025, 11:27:PM
ILB is just a troll who supports Bamber because he met him once.

Honour amongst scum.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 11:30:PM
Well AE & Julie said he did those.

AE commented upon it

Julie supported a boyfriend for a month till he upgraded.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 17, 2025, 11:36:PM
ILB is just a troll who supports Bamber because he met him once.

Honour amongst scum.

There's no need to compliment me.

Jeremy says he's  innocent man fighting for freedom. A position he's maintained since 85.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Curiosity on March 18, 2025, 07:45:AM
I have posted repeatedly about the soc evidence by way of blood stains/lack of to flooring, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.  You piece it all together and it tells you what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_reconstruction

I am not interested in West and the boring phone calls/logs.  They do not tell you what happened.
i.e. that Nevill was shot whilst in the bedroom. No evidence of any casings being found on the staircase, other than one on the lower landing close by the skirting which EP believe was the result of one of two headshots which killed June.  They were absolutely right about that, imo.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 08:10:AM
Again to give an adult sensible reply none of us know for sure the movements of Jeremy Bamber in the time of question. The option is very much open.

It is not open:

- JB said he left WHF as he usually would
- DF heard him drive off
- JB called JM circa 9.50pm and the call lasted 17 - 20 mins as per JM's WS 8th Aug.  JB agrees with this.
- PB called June at WHF circa 10pm.  There was only one line at WHF.  June made no mention of JB staying over which she might well have done since it would be unusual.
- A dog walker saw JB's car outside his cottage later that evening.
- No one has ever suggested JB stayed over on 6th Aug or any other evening.  He had his own cottage down the road and all the evidence supports him returning there on 6th Aug.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 08:30:AM
i.e. that Nevill was shot whilst in the bedroom. No evidence of any casings being found on the staircase, other than one on the lower landing close by the skirting which EP believe was the result of one of two headshots which killed June.  They were absolutely right about that, imo.

It is the totality of the evidence that supports the soc reconstruction. 

2 of the shots NB sustained (facial) upstairs were inflicted when the shooter and ejection port were within the confines of the main bedroom.  The 2 shots NB sustained (shoulder and elbow/chest) when he was facing down the stairs were inflicted when the shooter was behind.  The ejection port ejects to the left so yes the cartridge cases would eject onto the landing and into the main bedroom through the open door.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 08:31:AM
It is not open:

- JB said he left WHF as he usually would
- DF heard him drive off
- JB called JM circa 9.50pm and the call lasted 17 - 20 mins as per JM's WS 8th Aug.  JB agrees with this.
- PB called June at WHF circa 10pm.  There was only one line at WHF.  June made no mention of JB staying over which she might well have done since it would be unusual.
- A dog walker saw JB's car outside his cottage later that evening.
- No one has ever suggested JB stayed over on 6th Aug or any other evening.  He had his own cottage down the road and all the evidence supports him returning there on 6th Aug.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

It's very much open. Stop getting frustrated. I will do what I like.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 08:32:AM
It's very much open. Stop getting frustrated. I will do what I like.

I am not getting frustrated at all.  Just highlighting absurd theories.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 08:35:AM
I am not getting frustrated at all.  Just highlighting absurd theories.

It's not absurd, one could suggest your brainwashing of JM is absurd but I do the decent thing and take it on board and explore it.

I don't see why June would mention to PB about Jez kipping the night. And I still can't go on approx times hence to me the theory is open. That's all it remains. I am not championing it. But I am not closing it either.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Curiosity on March 18, 2025, 08:37:AM
It is the totality of the evidence that supports the soc reconstruction. 

2 of the shots NB sustained (facial) upstairs were inflicted when the shooter and ejection port were within the confines of the main bedroom.  The 2 shots NB sustained (shoulder and elbow/chest) when he was facing down the stairs were inflicted when the shooter was behind.  The ejection port ejects to the left so yes the cartridge cases would eject onto the landing and into the main bedroom through the open door.
Wake up! It ejects to the right -
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 08:45:AM
It's not absurd, one could suggest your brainwashing of JM is absurd but I do the decent thing and take it on board and explore it.

I don't see why June would mention to PB about Jez kipping the night. And I still can't go on approx times hence to me the theory is open. That's all it remains. I am not championing it. But I am not closing it either.

It is not absurd at all.  DS Jones brainwashing JM was a tactic the police used pre PACE and was one of the main reasons for introducing PACE because of all the miscarriages of justice produced by unreliable testimony.

There is a mountain of evidence to support JB returning home on 6th Aug.  What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 08:45:AM
20 minutes.

Or the money to pay for a taxi.

Why should he pay it?

Let her fork out for it
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 08:45:AM
Wake up! It ejects to the right -

Ooops yes I meant to the right! 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 08:52:AM

There is a mountain of evidence to support JB returning to him home on 6th Aug.  What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?

Mountain of evidence?

There is the word of JB himself. And the mysterious guy who supposably saw his car parked outside his house never gave a statement to the effect. He also had just claimed to have left a public house so may have been three sheets to the wind. ( pissed)

There is a phonecall at 3.26am on August 7th from his house. Prior to leaving WHF if that's what he did according to DF then there is no tangible evidence to suggest exactly where JB was between 10pm and 3.26am This is pre electronic evidence and cell site era. The only person who says they were at home was JB himself.

The theory which is what many of us have such as your brainwashing of mugford can't be conclusively broken down. So it remains open.

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:00:AM
Mountain of evidence?

There is the word of JB himself. And the mysterious guy who supposably saw his car parked outside his house never gave a statement to the effect. He also had just claimed to have left a public house so may have been three sheets to the wind. ( pissed)

There is a phonecall at 3.26am on August 7th from his house.Prior to leaving WHF if that's what he did according to DF then there is no tangible evidence to suggest exactly where JB was between 10pm and 3.26am This is pre electronic evidence and cell site era. The only person who says they were at home was JB himself.

The theory which is what many of us have such as your brainwashing of mugford can't be conclusively broken down. So it remains open.

Yes there's no evidence as to what he was doing after the phone call to JM made at circa 9.50pm but your absurd theory is that he never left WHF.   

If he never left WHF how come EP overtook him en route?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 09:02:AM
Yes there's no evidence as to what he was doing after the phone call to JM made at circa 9.50pm but your absurd theory is that he never left WHF.   

If he never left WHF how come EP overtook him en route?

I never said or suggested he didn't leave WHF after killing everyone. As I said he called police from his cottage at 3.26am

I said staying the night at WHF had lots of advantages to him.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:04:AM
Mountain of evidence?

There is the word of JB himself. And the mysterious guy who supposably saw his car parked outside his house never gave a statement to the effect. He also had just claimed to have left a public house so may have been three sheets to the wind. ( pissed)

There is a phonecall at 3.26am on August 7th from his house. Prior to leaving WHF if that's what he did according to DF then there is no tangible evidence to suggest exactly where JB was between 10pm and 3.26am This is pre electronic evidence and cell site era. The only person who says they were at home was JB himself.

The theory which is what many of us have such as your brainwashing of mugford can't be conclusively broken down. So it remains open.

Your theory that JM was a woman scorned is as ridiculous as your theory that JB stayed over at WHF. 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 09:06:AM
Your theory that JM was a woman scorned is as ridiculous as your theory that JB stayed over at WHF.

Hell hath no fury has existed from the beginning of time.

You know this.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:07:AM
I never said or suggested he didn't leave WHF after killing everyone. As I said he called police from his cottage at 3.26am

I said staying the night at WHF had lots of advantages to him.

It would have been too high risk.  Had he stayed over, which he clearly didn't, how would he know others would not be alerted to this fact eg the Foakes and/or others who telephoned?  Now that would have been incriminating  ::)

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:11:AM
Hell hath no fury has existed from the beginning of time.

You know this.

But there's no evidence of any fury.  Post break-up JB helped her move.  He then dropped JM and LR off in the West End for a night out on the town.  She was a young student who was clearly focused on her studies/career hence her current position within the ed system in Canada.  Had she wanted to snare JB she could have stopped taking the pill to force his hand; a tactic which has existed from the beginning of time.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 09:14:AM
It would have been too high risk.  Had he stayed over, which he clearly didn't, how would he know others would not be alerted to this fact eg the Foakes and/or others who telephoned?  Now that would have been incriminating  ::)

Why would the others know about JB staying over?

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 09:15:AM
But there's no evidence of any fury.  Post break-up JB helped her move.  He then dropped JM and LR off in the West End for a night out on the town.  She was a young student who was clearly focused on her studies/career hence her current position within the ed system in Canada.  Had she wanted to snare JB she could have stopped taking the pill to force his hand; a tactic which has existed from the beginning of time.

No evidence of any fury?

Going ape shit whilst JB was on the phone to another woman?
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:18:AM
No evidence of any fury?

Going ape shit whilst JB was on the phone to another woman?

It was probably the time of the month!  Stop trying to pretend you can understand women.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Cambridgecutie on March 18, 2025, 09:20:AM
Why would the others know about JB staying over?

Where was he going to leave his car?

Others phoned WHF and those within WHF made phone calls.  If JB decided to stay over it would be outside the norm and might have been referenced to.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 18, 2025, 10:40:AM
Why should he pay it?

Let her fork out for it

You and Bamber really are alike 
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 10:51:AM
You and Bamber really are alike

Why should he pay for it?

Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: Adam on March 18, 2025, 10:03:PM
Why should he pay for it?

Because he is too busy to give her a lift. After she travelled up to see him.

But cycle 3 miles while carrying a suitcase it is. According to the CT.
Title: Re: Hearing New Evidence
Post by: ILB on March 18, 2025, 10:23:PM
Because he is too busy to give her a lift. After she travelled up to see him.

But cycle 3 miles while carrying a suitcase it is. According to the CT.

Cars don't run on fresh air Adam. Typical none driver mentality!

I'm sure Julie didn't slip Bamber petrol money when he was staying overnight with her in London.