Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on April 12, 2025, 04:34:PM
-
From the 2002 appeal judgment:
"Ground 4 – timing of telephone call to Julie Mugford
Ground 4 relates to the first telephone call made by the appellant to Julie Mugford on the night of the killing. The prosecution contended at trial that this preceded the telephone call to the police, whilst the appellant asserted that it was made after he had telephoned the police and before he left home to go to the farmhouse. It has to be said that whichever version is right, it was remarkable that the appellant made such a call. On his own version he had just received a dramatic plea for help from his father, he had rung the police and had been asked to go to meet officers at the farm. Yet he delayed for long enough to make a telephone call to someone many miles away, who could not possibly help in the situation. However, it clearly was even less likely that he would have telephoned before he rang the police and if the call was shortly after 3 a.m. it was wholly inconsistent with his account and only consistent with the account of Julie Mugford as to the nature of that call. Thus timing of that call, if it could be determined by the jury was of importance.
Ground 4 alleges that evidence was withheld from the defence at trial which supports the assertion he made at trial that the call to Julie Mugford was at about 3.30 a.m. and no earlier. Alternatively it is suggested that there is now fresh evidence that supports that contention.
A further and related complaint is made that a document was not disclosed which revealed that Susan Battersby, one of Julie Mugford's flatmates, who gave evidence that the call was at 3.12 a.m., had been less assertive in respect of the timing of the telephone call, indicating that it was either at 3.12 or 3.20 a.m. when she was seen by the police.
The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
"I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, "3.15 a.m."
Later in the same statement Ann Eaton said that on reaching home, she had made notes on a card of the events of 8 August and that she had retained the card that was handed to the police and given a reference CAE/4. The card recorded the fact that Julie had given a statement and then apparently added in brackets alongside at some later stage was:
"There was trouble getting right time of 3.15 phone call. A London friend was phoned."
No reference was made in that statement to any other notes made by Ann Eaton on 8 August. The document that those advising the appellant have now discovered came to light as a result of the City of London Police inquiry. Ann Eaton was seen as a part of that inquiry and made a statement. She described how her September 1985 statement had been taken by an officer DS Davis. She said that he had allowed her to have time to use her 1985 diary and "loose note cards" to put things in date order. She said that she had retained the documents and had handed them to the City of London police. One of the documents was a different set of notes made in pencil on a card which recorded the taking of the statement from Julie Mugford (it was given a reference in the inquiry of CAE/4A). It said about the timing of the telephone call:
"Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flat mate said 3.30 a.m."
The first complaint under this ground relates to the card CAE/4A. It is said that the prosecution failed to disclose this card or that in the alternative it is fresh evidence that the court should consider in determining the safety of the conviction.
There can be no doubt that the defence were unaware of this note at trial. We, therefore consider, whether it is a document that the prosecution were under a duty to disclose, whether there is any reason to think that the police or Ann Eaton may have deliberately concealed its existence, and whether in any event it could have been used by the defence in a way that would have had an impact on the jury's verdicts.
We think that it is clear from the content of the two notes that the card CAE/4A was made first probably as the events were unfolding. The card CAE/4 was what appears to be an expanded version of those notes although not containing all the same detail made at some later stage, possibly that day when Ann Eaton got back home as she recalled in her September 1985 statement. At some later stage additions were clearly made to the second note and it seems likely that they included the reference to the "3.15 phone call".
The first question that we must consider is whether the police were in possession of the card CAE/4A so that it could have formed a part of the disclosure. We conclude that it was not in their possession. The card CAE/4 had been taken from Ann Eaton and was treated as a potential exhibit at trial. It was undoubtedly in the possession of the police. The other card must have been in the possession of Ann Eaton after she had made her statement because she was able to produce it to the City of London Police.
Hence we are dealing with a case either of suppression by the police and/or Ann Eaton, or with a straightforward case of fresh evidence and not with a case of inadvertent non-disclosure by the police.
We have looked carefully to see whether any evidence exists that suggests that DS Davis was aware that there were two cards that gave potentially important conflicting information and we have found none. In a statement made by Ann Eaton in 2000, she referred (pages 36 and 37) to the note CAE/4A and said that she had made additions to CAE/4 at the time of making her statement or shortly before. That was a conclusion to which we had independently come.
The only evidence that suggests that the card CAE/4A was being used by Ann Eaton is the reference by her in her statement to the City of London Police made some years after the event. In that statement she referred to having retained the notes she had consulted in making her statement and she seems not to have recalled that the card CAE/4 had been taken from her by the police. Thus her recollection was at least in this regard faulty. There is, therefore, no evidence upon which we feel any reliance can be placed that she had both cards CAE/4 and CAE/4A with her when she made her statement. Equally there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that DS Davis inspected both sets of notes and decided only to produce that which in this one respect fitted in with the emerging case against the appellant. Accordingly we find no evidence of any impropriety on the part of DS Davis.
So far as Ann Eaton is concerned, we can see nothing that would permit of a conclusion that she was behaving improperly. She is no lawyer or policeman. The significance of any conflicting rough notes would not be apparent to her in the same way that it would be for a person engaged professionally in police inquiries. These were no more than rough notes made by someone who not unnaturally must have been devastated by the events of 7 August and its aftermath. We can see no reason to believe that she was deliberately suppressing information that she realised might be of significance.
Thus on a realistic appraisal of the available evidence, this falls to be considered as an instance of fresh evidence that has emerged since trial and we must consider whether or not, if known by the defence at the time, it could have had any impact on the trial and the resulting convictions.
To consider this aspect of this ground, it is necessary to look at the available evidence at trial. The starting point has to be what Julie Mugford said at trial and in earlier statements. In the statement that she made to the police on the 8 August following a telephone call to one of her house mates, she said that the phone call had been at about 3.30 a.m. In a later statement she said that she had since learnt from Susan Battersby that it was at 3.15 a.m. In evidence she said that she had been woken by the telephone call between 3 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. She said that she had not looked at any watch or clock. In cross-examination, her first statement was put to her and the passage including the approximate time of 3.30 a.m. was read to the jury and she acknowledged that that was what she had said at the time. Mr Rivlin did not choose to establish that she had spoken to one of her flatmates before committing herself to the time of 3.30 a.m. although that fact was apparent from the evidence available to him. Doubtless this was because he thought it was of greater advantage that her independent recollection was 3.30 a.m. rather than establishing that it was or may have been somebody else's recollection. In any event the evidence that she had given did not conflict as to timing with the defence case.
Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
"I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m."
In evidence Helen Eaton again put the time at about 3 a.m. like Julie Mugford she accepted in cross-examination that it could have been at about 3.30 a.m. She told the jury that she had not looked at her watch at the time and that she could not be accurate as to time within half an hour.
Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
Since Julie Mugford and each of the last two witnesses had given evidence that they had not looked at any clock when the telephone rang, it followed that any estimation of the time that they made was of necessity either a guess or based upon information from someone else. The other two occupants of the flat each said that they had looked at the time when the telephone rang and they were able to remember to differing degrees what time was recorded.
Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
"I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton."
In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
If the jury were to disbelieve the appellant's evidence as to the timing of the telephone call, it could only have been because they were sure about the evidence of one or other of Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby. They could have accepted both to be right because if Joanne Woad was right the time could have been 2.59 a.m. and no precise check had been made as to the accuracy of her clock. If Susan Battersby was right, it was at approximately 3.02 a.m. and whilst it was known that she kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast there was some room for some slight variation.
To detemine whether the document CAE/4A was capable of having an impact upon any conclusion that the jury might have reached, it is necessary to consider what use could have been made of it at trial and whether even if used it could have altered any conclusion that the jury might have reached about the evidence of Joanne Woad or Susuan Battersby either by demonstrating some weakness in their evidence or by supporting the evidence of the appellant.
The document did not purport to record anything observed or heard directly by Ann Eaton other than that after speaking to Helen Eaton, Julie Mugford had said that her flatmate said that it was 3.30 a.m. Such evidence is hearsay evidence as to what Helen Eaton herself said. Based upon this document, Helen Eaton could have been cross-examined about what time she had said to Julie Mugford but the document would not have been admissible to disprove any answer that she gave.
Even without knowledge of CAE/4A, Julie Mugford could have been asked questions about the conversation which she had had with Helen Eaton. If she said that Helen Eaton had given a time other than 3.30 a.m. she could have been asked why having said that she needed to telephone the flat before giving the time, she had still said 3.30 a.m. in her statement. All of this was possible without any need to know about, or to refer to, CAE/4A.
Thus it is very difficult to see how knowledge of CAE/4A could have altered the approach which Mr Rivilin chose to adopt. But even accepting in that some way it could have led to other cross-examination we have to consider whether that cross-examination could possibly have had any impact on the jury.
This evidence did not in any way reveal any defect in the evidence of the only two witnesses upon whom the jury would have had to have relied in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. Neither Joanne Woad nor Susan Battersby was a party to the discussion on the telephone whilst Julie Mugford was making her statement. The evidence was clear on the point that each of them was out of the flat at that time. The most the evidence revealed was that Helen Eaton had thought the time was about 3.30 a.m. and that Julie Mugford having consulted her was prepared to adopt that time. However, crucially both Julie Mugford and Helen Eaton had said consistently that they themselves had never looked at the time when the telephone call was received during the night. Each accepted that the time could have been as late as 3.30 a.m. in evidence and the jury knew that. We fail to see how the jury could have attached any further weight to their estimate of the time made on the 8 August when it was not said to be based upon them actually looking at a clock. In any event the jury knew that Julie Mugford gave that estimate in her statement made on that very day.
Thus we are satisfied that even if the jury were able to know of the existence of this document, it could not in any reasoned way have enabled them to have resolved the conflict between Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand in a way different from any conclusion that they may have reached on the evidence which they heard. Accordingly this fresh evidence can form no basis for doubting the safeness of the conviction.
The other document referred to under this ground is a police action form. On 9 September 1985, Detective Superintendent Ainsley issued a written action requiring that Susan Battersby should been seen and a statement should be taken from her. The action recorded that the statement was required:
"Re knowledge of Jeremy Bamber and in particular relation to telephone calls received on 7 and 30 August 1985."
This action was issued to DI Bright. The following day the first statement was taken from Susan Battersby. As we have already recorded in that statement she said that the telephone call was at 3.15 a.m.
The action record has on it under "result of the action":
"10 p.m. tues?
3.12? 3.20? 7/8/85
Tues 27.8.85
Statement obtained
Statement under caution obtained
PDF attached"
Alongside the reference to statement obtained apparently in a different hand and at right angles to the writing there appears in a circle 3.15.
It is common ground that this police action was not seen by the defence. Mr Turner suggests that it was deliberately suppressed. We cannot accept that this is so. None of the police actions or police messages were disclosed to the defence. However, we are satisfied that at the relevant time when this case was being prepared for trial, it was not routinely the case for such documents to be disclosed. Mr Edmund Lawson QC who acted as junior counsel for the appellant at trial gave evidence to us and in evidence said that he could never recall seeing such a police action in any case at or prior to that date. His experience corresponds entirely with that of each of the members of this court, all of whom were involved as counsel in major criminal cases in the mid-1980's. We are thus entirely satisfied that the document was not disclosed because at that date it was not the practice for such documents to be disclosed.
However, even rejecting the suggestion of deliberate suppression of the document we have to consider whether the document reveals information which in itself ought to have been drawn to the attention of the defence.
Mr Turner's submission is that the document gives rise to the inference that Susan Battersby gave at least two different times when she was seen by the police on that occasion, namely 3.12 a.m. and 3.20 a.m. and that this would have been further information that the defence could have utilised to show that she was not sure of the time in the way that she had purported to be before the jury.
We fail to see how anyone could draw from the document and the rest of the evidence on this matter, the inference suggested by Mr Turner. The action does not purport to be a record of anything said by the witness. It is an internal document for the use of DI Bright. That which was to be said by the witness was to be recorded in statement form and the statement recorded the time as being 3.15 a.m.
It seems to us that before taking the required statement DI Bright would inevitably inform himself of the evidence available and of the inferences that the police thought might be drawn from such evidence before going to see the witness. We think, examining just the document, that the most likely explanation for these notes that appear before the record of taking the statement are that they were jottings made by the officer pre-interview. Certainly nothing in the subsequent statement would in any way allow of an inference that the witness was saying anything other than that the time was 3.15 a.m. There is no mention in her statement of either 3.12 a.m. or 3.20 a.m. Each of those times are consistent with the case against the appellant and contradicted his account and there would be no reason why those times should not have been given if the witness was putting them forward. The action refers to the "27 August". However examination of the statement shows that this specific date does not appear in the statement and the witness speaks of events happening on either 26 or 27 August. This does not seem consistent with her putting forward the 27 August in the course of any conversation as a precise date as would be suggested if Mr Turner's inference as to the meaning of the notes that precede the record of the taking of the statement were correct.
We were aware that if we had taken a different view on looking at the document, the prosecution would have sought to call DI Bright who would have advanced exactly the explanation that seemed to us the only sensible one. We could see nothing that the defence could have put to that officer which in any way could have justified a different conclusion.
Thus we concluded that there was no information recorded on the police action form that required to be disclosed to the defence and that the action itself could not have had any impact upon the jury's conclusions. For these reasons ground 4 is in our judgment wholly without merit. "
-
In conclusion:
* It was remarkable that Jeremy called Julie Mugford in any event, he originally said he called the police first, despite the police telling him to go to the farm
* Alternatively, if it is now claimed that he called Julie Mugford first, why call her before calling the police !!??
* It is also clear that he called JM at 3am: One housemate was adamant in evidence that she looked at her clock and it said "3:12" and she kept her clock 10 minutes fast, which was proved. Another housemate said "2 something". The other two housemates said 3 - 3:30am
-
In conclusion:
* It was remarkable that Jeremy called Julie Mugford in any event, he originally said he called the police first, despite the police telling him to go to the farm
* Alternatively, if it is now claimed that he called Julie Mugford first, why call her before calling the police !!??
* It is also clear that her called JM at 3am: One housemate was adamant in evidence that she looked at her clock and it said "3:12" and she kept her clock 10 minutes fast, which was proved. Another housemate said "2 something". The other two housemates said 3 - 3:30am
It's not clear at all.
Changing times and statements.
SB telling JM it was 3.12AM
SBs uncertain time of clock habit.
-
In conclusion:
* It was remarkable that Jeremy called Julie Mugford in any event, he originally said he called the police first, despite the police telling him to go to the farm
* Alternatively, if it is now claimed that he called Julie Mugford first, why call her before calling the police !!??
* It is also clear that her called JM at 3am: One housemate was adamant in evidence that she looked at her clock and it said "3:12" and she kept her clock 10 minutes fast, which was proved. Another housemate said "2 something". The other two housemates said 3 - 3:30am
Dan, do you really think that JB would be stupid enough to phone Julie at 3.00 knowing the call may be witnessed by her flat mates, and then go on to tell the police that his dad phoned about ten minutes later?
That would be way way beyond stupid!
-
Dan, do you really think that JB would be stupid enough to phone Julie at 3.00 knowing the call may be witnessed by her flat mates, and then go on to tell the police that his dad phoned about ten minutes later?
That would be way way beyond stupid!
If the police pulled him up he can say 'so I got the time wrong by 10 minutes while half asleep".
-
If the police pulled him up he can say 'so I got the time wrong by 10 minutes while half asleep".
The time wrong for which call, Adam?
-
He wouldn't tell Julie to put down 3.30am if he knew he rang Chelnsofrd at 3.26.
Did he have clock in bourtree? He certainly had a nice watch.
-
Dan, do you really think that JB would be stupid enough to phone Julie at 3.00 knowing the call may be witnessed by her flat mates, and then go on to tell the police that his dad phoned about ten minutes later?
That would be way way beyond stupid!
Yes, I do think he was that stupid. It was pretty stupid phoning Julie in any event!
At the time he was excited and didn't think that details like that would be scrutinised.
-
If the police pulled him up he can say 'so I got the time wrong by 10 minutes while half asleep".
Yes, that's what he is doing now! These days he says "Nevill called me around quarter past half past 3" - i.e moving the time to around 3:25 so that he can claim he called the police around 3:36.
-
Yes, that's what he is doing now! These days he says "Nevill called me around quarter past half past 3" - i.e moving the time to around 3:25 so that he can claim he called the police around 3:36.
They need to drop this the Nevill 3.26 call, it's embarrassing.
-
Yes, I do think he was that stupid. It was pretty stupid phoning Julie in any event!
At the time he was excited and didn't think that details like that would be scrutinised.
From a guilt point of view, why do you think JB phoned Julie after he got back from killing his family. Dan?
What was the purpose of the call?
-
From a guilt point of view, why do you think JB phoned Julie after he got back from killing his family. Dan?
What was the purpose of the call?
To rope her in as an accessory and try to keep her onside.
-
From a guilt point of view, why do you think JB phoned Julie after he got back from killing his family. Dan?
What was the purpose of the call?
Because she was in with it and he wanted to pre warn her in case the police questioned her before he had time to, he didn’t know how it would pan out once he had involved the Police.
-
Because she was in with it and he wanted to pre warn her in case the police questioned her before he had time to, he didn’t know how it would pan out once he had involved the Police.
If she was "in with it" there was no need to telephone her at that moment. He had a further opportunity in the village a few hours later.
-
If she was "in with it" there was no need to telephone her at that moment. He had a further opportunity in the village a few hours later.
You can plan beforehand, but once the Police are involved you don’t know how it’s going to end. He hadn’t got a clue how/when he would see Julie again after.
-
The time wrong for which call, Adam?
Nevill's call to him.
-
You can plan beforehand, but once the Police are involved you don’t know how it’s going to end. He hadn’t got a clue how/when he would see Julie again after.
The weak point in Jeremy's diabolical plan was having to feign a call from Nevill. It would have been more believable to outsiders had Julie spent the night with him at Bourtree Cottage and vouched for the call. The fact that she was in London and by all accounts in no fit state to receive a telephone call counts in her favour.
-
The weak point in Jeremy's diabolical plan was having to feign a call from Nevill. It would have been more believable to outsiders had Julie spent the night with him at Bourtree Cottage and vouched for the call. The fact that she was in London and by all accounts in no fit state to receive a telephone call counts in her favour.
I agree totally that had she spent the night at bourtree she would have been perfect for an alibi.
-
Because she was in with it and he wanted to pre warn her in case the police questioned her before he had time to, he didn’t know how it would pan out once he had involved the Police.
What did JB want to warn Julie about that couldn't have been discussed/planned in the ten o'clock call, HB?
This was a long call I believe, something like twenty minutes.
If JB had really decided to kill his family that night, then that was the time to tell Julie that he was deadly serious and get their stories straight surely!
No ambiguous rubbish like tonights the night and nothing else.
And if Julie is telling the truth, nothing of any importance was said in the 3.15-30 call anyway!
-
To rope her in as an accessory and try to keep her onside.
Thanks Steve!
-
What did JB want to warn Julie about that couldn't have been discussed/planned in the ten o'clock call, HB?
That's a good point snow66! I always thought the plan was hypothetical right until the last moment. Maybe the programme on miscarriages tipped the balance as he reflected on the way Suzette had been treated, combined with his jealousy of the twins and how they were feted by Nevill and June. As he told Julie: "The way they have treated me..they have forfeited the right to live."
-
Nevill's call to him.
So that would mean that JB would have to admit that Nevill called before 3.00 and it took half an hour before he called the police then, Adam?
Pretty dumb mistake to make phoning Julie twenty five minutes before he called the police then??
Didn't he realize this would cause a massive problem later on??
-
So that would mean that JB would have to admit that Nevill called before 3.00 and it took half an hour before he called the police then, Adam?
Pretty dumb mistake to make phoning Julie twenty five minutes before he called the police then??
Didn't he realize this would cause a massive problem later on??
Yes that would incriminate him more.
But two people said the call was 3.00am.
Suspect he was back at GH for around 30 minutes before phoning Chelmsford police.
Showered, changed, washed clothes, ate, rang Julie.
-
Yes that would incriminate him more.
But two people said the call was 3.00am.
Suspect he was back at GH for around 30 minutes before phoning Chelmsford police.
Showered, changed, washed clothes, ate, rang Julie.
Well one person said the call was at 2am. Until she altered her statement.
The other said 3.15am, because she was " nervous " she told the star prosecution witness it was 3.12am
This is something " she sometimes did "
A copper apprently did a " check " on a clock.
-
What did JB want to warn Julie about that couldn't have been discussed/planned in the ten o'clock call, HB?
This was a long call I believe, something like twenty minutes.
If JB had really decided to kill his family that night, then that was the time to tell Julie that he was deadly serious and get their stories straight surely!
No ambiguous rubbish like tonights the night and nothing else.
And if Julie is telling the truth, nothing of any importance was said in the 3.15-30 call anyway!
Mission Accomplished, you might get visitors. Once he phones the Police who knows what could happen, this might be his last contact for a while, he wants to reaffirm her loyalty before he meets the Police.
-
You don't murder your family and then invite your girlfriend over who according to her " wasn't happy with his plans" over to you unless you've got a prehearsed in league conspiracy with one another beforehand. For all he knew she could drop him in it big style. It's that simple.
Julie says he made no mention of the crime in the weekend she spent with him.
-
Well one person said the call was at 2am. Until she altered her statement.
The other said 3.15am, because she was " nervous " she told the star prosecution witness it was 3.12am
This is something " she sometimes did "
A copper apprently did a " check " on a clock.
Have to go by the two witnrsses who testified. Together with Bamber's 30 minute window.
But appreciate you never accept a witness who undermines Jeremy's 40 year 'Campaign for Freedom".
-
Have to go by the two witnrsses who testified. Together with Bamber's 30 minute window.
But appreciate you never accept a witness who undermines Jeremy's 40 year 'Campaign for Freedom".
Man maintains innocence.
I am neutral.
I am just finding faults that is all, they are open for all to see and come to their own conclusion.
-
Have to go by the two witnrsses who testified. Together with Bamber's 30 minute window.
But appreciate you never accept a witness who undermines Jeremy's 40 year 'Campaign for Freedom".
But for heavens sake Adam, calling Julie half an hour before calling the police would be a school boy error surely? He knew others shared the flat with Julie and therefore the call couldn't be manipulated to suit, yet if you are correct, that is exactly what he did in his statement to the police!
Nah, JB didn't phone Julie at 3.00 that night, no way!
Guilty or innocent, he phoned Julie sometime after 3.10.
-
Mission Accomplished, you might get visitors. Once he phones the Police who knows what could happen, this might be his last contact for a while, he wants to reaffirm her loyalty before he meets the Police.
Do you think JB phoned Julie about 3.00, half an hour before calling the police, HB?
Was he really that stupid?
-
I go by all people that testified. From either side.
Except Bamber's testimony who I believe guilty. EP & the DPP didn't go a bundle on him either
-
EP & the DPP didn't go a bundle on him either
It took a 20 year old trainee teacher getting jilted to achieve that.
-
It took a 20 year old trainee teacher getting jilted to achieve that.
A lot more than that.
She left him to retutn to London, work & her degree which Bamber had abruptly taken her from.
-
A lot more than that.
She left him to retutn to London, work & her degree which Bamber had abruptly taken her from.
He didn't kidnapp her, he needed comfort from his girlfriend.
Her later enjoying meals out, holidays and concerts at his expense.
-
AG would have made a good witness, surprised the defence didn't call her.
-
He didn't kidnapp her, he needed comfort from his girlfriend.
Her later enjoying meals out, holidays and concerts at his expense.
Yes she could have said 'no' to a police car.
She did enjoy 10 days of jolly ups. Before trying to leave him. Despite him offerring to buy her a bar.
-
A lot more than that.
Official narrative was murder suicide.
DI Miller, who years later appeared on the crimes that shook Britain documentary saying " we've done loads of tests and they all point to Shelia"
-
Yes she could have said 'no' to a police car.
She did enjoy 10 days of jolly ups. Before trying to leave him. Despite him offerring to buy her a bar.
No more than cocky bravado on his part, she was his girlfriend. He was coming into money.
AG claims she was in bed with him four days after the funeral.
AG also claims he was asking her for tips " on the best way to dump Julie "
-
Official narrative was murder suicide.
DI Miller, who years later appeared on the crimes that shook Britain documentary saying " we've done loads of tests and they all point to Shelia"
What tests?
-
What tests?
These are DI miller's words.
-
These are DI miller's words.
What tests?
-
What tests?
These are DI Millers words.
-
These are DI Millers words.
You don't know.
Source please.
-
You don't know.
Source please.
In one of the relatives statements will find and supply you the source In due course.
These are miller's words.
-
In fairness, he may have been trying to placate.
-
Bamber did insinuate Sheila & gave his rabbit story. There was then a rifle on Sheila.
For Taff that was enough. Early on.
-
Bamber did insinuate Sheila & gave his rabbit story. There was then a rifle on Sheila.
For Taff that was enough. Early on.
In fairness most of CID would back their gaffer Taff.
All but Stan and Micky Barlow
-
Bamber did insinuate Sheila & gave his rabbit story. There was then a rifle on Sheila.
For Taff that was enough. Early on.
SC had a history of mental illness, attitudes were different in the 80s
-
SC had a history of mental illness, attitudes were different in the 80s
Nutter, do lally, looney, been having treatment.
You can say that again.
-
Believe Taff came to a sensible conclusion on what was put before him. Post conviction in 1986, Ronald Stone ( chief of Essex police) backed Taff on his initial decision. However I don't believe he was fooled by Bamber, it's just a decision he came to. SC had a long history of mental illness and was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Think the portrayal of taff as a bumbling idiot in the drama was insulting and wrong. And disrespectful.
Whether he officially changed stance, we will never know. He died in July 1986. I'll not go off what his colleagues said due to bias of the events.
-
Nutter, do lally, looney, been having treatment.
You can say that again.
There is documented evidence of SC problems.
They didn't arrive at their conclusion on the basis of Bamber alone.
-
Nutter, do lally, looney, been having treatment.
You can say that again.
She had been having treatment.
Julie herself references Jeremy " finding it difficult to talk to shelia and be stuck for words when she was unwell"
Bamber at trial and to this day says he didn't understand her illness.
I would be the same, it's wasn't understood as much as it in today's world.
-
Do you think JB phoned Julie about 3.00, half an hour before calling the police, HB?
Was he really that stupid?
I haven’t put times on anything, Bamber said he phoned the Police before Julie, then he back tracked and said he phoned Julie before the Police, he couldn’t give reasons why he phoned Julie before he phoned the Police. He’s all over the place because he got caught out lying.
He also told Jones previously, he spoke to Julie for not long, 1 minute 2 minute because he HAD to phone the Police!
-
The 5am call was planned. He needed Julie with him as soon as possible.
The 3.00am call may have been spontaneous. He was hyped up and Julie had dismissed him a few hours earlier. He had time to ring her prior to calling the police.
After eventually saying he called Julie before the police he could have said he called her as did not know what to do. But testified it was 'to hear a friendly voice'. At 3.00am.
-
I haven’t put times on anything, Bamber said he phoned the Police before Julie, then he back tracked and said he phoned Julie before the Police, he couldn’t give reasons why he phoned Julie before he phoned the Police. He’s all over the place because he got caught out lying.
He also told Jones previously, he spoke to Julie for not long, 1 minute 2 minute because he HAD to phone the Police!
But would he really have been all over the place if guilty, HB?
Doesn't this show that he was in a genuine panic, in brain fog territory you might say!
A cold blooded killer would have every detail and time down to a tee, no school boy errors would be made surely?
-
But would he really have been all over the place if guilty, HB?
Doesn't this show that he was in a genuine panic, in brain fog territory you might say!
A cold blooded killer would have every detail and time down to a tee, no school boy errors would be made surely?
Killers make mistakes or they would never be caught, don’t talk silly. With the best planning in the world you cannot be sure of the eventual outcome, it’s only when you lie you get caught out and that’s when you panic. There is no mention of any police call from either Jeremy or Julie in the 3.00/3.15 am call, now if you had called your girlfriend to get her up out of bed at that time, you would have said, “I’ve had to call the Police, they’ve asked me to meet them at the farm” especially just coming off the phone to them. For once use your Common sense!
-
But would he really have been all over the place if guilty, HB?
Doesn't this show that he was in a genuine panic, in brain fog territory you might say!
A cold blooded killer would have every detail and time down to a tee, no school boy errors would be made surely?
Thing is, Snow, none of us can make allowances for those things we don't know will happen. All we can do is sort them out, as best as we can, if, and when, they occur...............and that includes JB!
-
Thing is, Snow, none of us can make allowances for those things we don't know will happen. All we can do is sort them out, as best as we can, if, and when, they occur...............and that includes JB!
But JB made the 3.15 call 'happen', Jane, surely he would have checked the time he made it if guilty? And surely he would have decided what to tell the police regarding whether he made the call before or after calling the police?
Nah, he was all over the place because he was in shock and panic once his dad phoned, only logical explanation!
-
But JB made the 3.15 call 'happen', Jane, surely he would have checked the time he made it if guilty? And surely he would have decided what to tell the police regarding whether he made the call before or after calling the police?
Nah, he was all over the place because he was in shock and panic once his dad phoned, only logical explanation!
He was in that much shock and panic, he didn’t call 999.
-
But JB made the 3.15 call 'happen', Jane, surely he would have checked the time he made it if guilty? And surely he would have decided what to tell the police regarding whether he made the call before or after calling the police?
Nah, he was all over the place because he was in shock and panic once his dad phoned, only logical explanation!
But he was able to tell Julie how long he'd been on the phone to her. I'm more inclined to think he got in a bit of a middle because he hadn't been telling the truth. He could only plan what he would do. He had no control over other's reactions to that.
-
He was in that much shock and panic, he didn’t call 999.
He had to keep it local incase it was a false alarm HB, I think Bill Robertson explained all that!
-
He had to keep it local incase it was a false alarm HB, I think Bill Robertson explained all that!
That's not what Bamber said! Bamber said he thought it "wouldn't many any different", despite that it said in the phone book in bold "in an emergency, phone 999"!
-
That's not what Bamber said! Bamber said he thought it "wouldn't many any different", despite that it said in the phone book in bold "in an emergency, phone 999"!
Yes, thats what he initially told the police I believe, Dan.
-
He had to keep it local incase it was a false alarm HB, I think Bill Robertson explained all that!
Nothing like shopping local eh Snow. Is that yours or Bills idea Snow. Because it’s not what Bamber said?
-
Nothing like shopping local eh Snow. Is that yours or Bills idea Snow. Because it’s not what Bamber said?
Its not mine, HB, but i've heard it many times. I presumed it originated from JB at some stage!
-
Its not mine, HB, but i've heard it many times. I presumed it originated from JB at some stage!
oh, you made it sound like it was yours, so your passing on someone else’s Crap then?
-
oh, you made it sound like it was yours, so your passing on someone else’s Crap then?
I'll try and find out where it originated from, HB!
-
Its not mine, HB, but i've heard it many times. I presumed it originated from JB at some stage!
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether it originated from JB or from Bill Robertson. We can only go on the reason he gave in 1985/1986. Excuses which he or his supporters have dreamt up years or even decades later are just that.
-
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether it originated from JB or from Bill Robertson. We can only go on the reason he gave in 1985/1986. Excuses which he or his supporters have dreamt up years or even decades later are just that.
Why do you think he dialled Chelmsford Police rather than 999?
-
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether it originated from JB or from Bill Robertson. We can only go on the reason he gave in 1985/1986. Excuses which he or his supporters have dreamt up years or even decades later are just that.
You are a hard taskmaster, Dan! :))
-
I'll try and find out where it originated from, HB!
Its ok Snow, it’s obvious where it came from.
-
Yes, that's what he is doing now! These days he says "Nevill called me around quarter past half past 3" - i.e moving the time to around 3:25 so that he can claim he called the police around 3:36.
No idea why he bothers at this late stage. None of it can be proved/disproved. The times will never shift from what was set out at trial:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
-
That's not what Bamber said! Bamber said he thought it "wouldn't many any different", despite that it said in the phone book in bold "in an emergency, phone 999"!
But he was in somewhat of a double bind:
- He received a call from NB alerting him to SC having a gun and going crazy and asking him to go over.
- He knows SC has a long history of serious mental health issues.
- He knows his parents are very private people particularly with regards to family affairs and SC's mental health
- He knows his father is a magistrate and yet has guns and ammo all over the farmhouse none of it secured
*********************************
- If he thought his father wanted the police involved then why was he phoning him
- If he phoned the police and all was ok then he risked upsetting NB because this is not what he asked for
-
He said that Nevill didn't want to involve the police.
So he calls the police!
Then changes his mind decades later and says Nevill did call the police. As well as call him.
Be easier to just take his rifle back
-
Yes, I do think he was that stupid. It was pretty stupid phoning Julie in any event!
At the time he was excited and didn't think that details like that would be scrutinised.
Not at all. As I said in my previous post he was in a double bind. JM was aware of SC's mental health issues. She was also familiar with NB and June. Also she had witnessed SC's state at the party Sat eve, some 72 hours earlier. It's all very well saying 'well I would dial 999 immediately' but you need to consider the surrounding facts.
-
He said that Nevill didn't want to involve the police.
So he calls the police!
Then changes his mind decades later and says Nevill did call the police. As well as call him.
Be easier to just take his rifle back
Yes he called the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
-
Yes he called the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
No he didn’t, he phoned Julie after supposedly receiving a call from his Dad, according to his 8/9 statement with DCI jones, 7th page down, I can’t load anything my Computer is broke.
-
But he was in somewhat of a double bind:
- He received a call from NB alerting him to SC having a gun and going crazy and asking him to go over.
- He knows SC has a long history of serious mental health issues.
- He knows his parents are very private people particularly with regards to family affairs and SC's mental health
- He knows his father is a magistrate and yet has guns and ammo all over the farmhouse none of it secured
*********************************
- If he thought his father wanted the police involved then why was he phoning him
- If he phoned the police and all was ok then he risked upsetting NB because this is not what he asked for
Totally agree with you.
-
He was half asleep and may have not appreciated the seriousness of the situation.
He may have been of the opinion of what Adam often purports that " Nevill would simply take the rifle from Shelia"
-
No he didn’t, he phoned Julie after supposedly receiving a call from his Dad, according to his 8/9 statement with DCI jones, 7th page down, I can’t load anything my Computer is broke.
He did call the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
I never said he didn't call JM first.
-
Yes he called the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
Why do you think he decided to look through Yello Pages for the phone number of a police station over 20 miles from WHF. After phoning Julie?
Strangest reaction I've ever heard of.
-
He did call the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
I never said he didn't call JM first.
To hear a friendly voice. At 3.00am.
-
To hear a friendly voice. At 3.00am.
She didn't get to use it! He seems to have done most of the talking!
-
He did call the police AFTER being told of the situation AND NB cutting the conversation short and then finding he was unable to call back.
I never said he didn't call JM first.
Sorry I thought the thread was the timing of the call to JM and you was missing this out. Others have it that he called the police and then Julie.
-
Why do you think he decided to look through Yello Pages for the phone number of a police station over 20 miles from WHF. After phoning Julie?
Strangest reaction I've ever heard of.
He wanted to shop local rather than using the 999 service.
-
Sorry I thought the thread was the timing of the call to JM and you was missing this out. Others have it that he called the police and then Julie.
I've always thought he called JM first to sound her out having found himself in somewhat of a double bind.
-
But he was in somewhat of a double bind:
- He received a call from NB alerting him to SC having a gun and going crazy and asking him to go over.
- He knows SC has a long history of serious mental health issues.
- He knows his parents are very private people particularly with regards to family affairs and SC's mental health
- He knows his father is a magistrate and yet has guns and ammo all over the farmhouse none of it secured
*********************************
- If he thought his father wanted the police involved then why was he phoning him
- If he phoned the police and all was ok then he risked upsetting NB because this is not what he asked for
This is inventing stuff on JB's behalf.
JB said he called the local police (rather than 999) because "he didn't think it would make any difference" and Nevill didn't call the police because he "does involve organisations"
-
I've always thought he called JM first to sound her out having found himself in somewhat of a double bind.
I don’t think we will ever know what they said, they’re both liars, I don’t understand why posters try to dismiss the fact he called Julie first and then the Police? It’s obvious he phoned Julie before the Police, he says he wasn’t on long because he’d got to phone the Police.
-
He wanted to shop local rather than using the 999 service.
Why?
Over 20 miles from WHF is not local.
-
My reasons he called Chelmsford Police -
It helps explain the long gap after Nevill's call.
The further out a police car is despatched from, the more chance of being picked up by them at GH.
The further out a police car is despatched from, the more time he has before having to drive to WHF.
-
No idea why he bothers at this late stage. None of it can be proved/disproved. The times will never shift from what was set out at trial:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
I agree, if the People who where involved or at the scene can’t get the times right, no one else will, it’s impossible.
-
Why?
Over 20 miles from WHF is not local.
Its Snowy and Bills theory, Jeremy had the brain wave to keep it local rather than 999? Maybe ringing the Local Police isn’t like ringing the Police 😂
-
This is inventing stuff on JB's behalf.
JB said he called the local police (rather than 999) because "he didn't think it would make any difference" and Nevill didn't call the police because he "does involve organisations"
What I am inventing on JB's behalf?
-
This is inventing stuff on JB's behalf.
JB said he called the local police (rather than 999) because "he didn't think it would make any difference" and Nevill didn't call the police because he "does involve organisations"
What am I inventing on JB's behalf?
Yes JB said as much in his police interviews. Sounds about right on the basis when NB could go private he would: private school fees, private medical care.
-
Only one person says Nevill didn't like involving the authorities - Bamber.
Although he contradicted himself. Both on the night & decades later.
-
Only one person says Nevill didn't like involving the authorities - Bamber.
Although he contradicted himself. Both on the night & decades later.
He'd been knocked out for three/four hours by the AGA according to some, yet when he called Jeremy he still didn’t think it serious when Sheila was going Crazy with the rifle?
-
Only one person says Nevill didn't like involving the authorities - Bamber.
Although he contradicted himself. Both on the night & decades later.
He said as much in his police interviews.
-
He said as much in his police interviews.
And now he’s saying his father did phone the Police?
-
He said as much in his police interviews.
Do you think Neville was injured when he phoned Bamber?
-
Do you think Neville was injured when he phoned Bamber?
No.
-
And now he’s saying his father did phone the Police?
But he didn't say this in 1985/6.
-
Nevill says 'please come over' & doesn't like involving the police. According to Bamber (retracted decades later).
So he -
Doesn't come over.
Phones Julie to 'hear a friendly voice.
Looks in Yello Pages & phones a police station over 20 miles from WHF.
----------
Strangest reaction I have ever heard.
-
Nevill's call was 'mysterious' enough.
-
Nevill says 'please come over' & doesn't like involving the police. According to Bamber (retracted decades later).
So he -
Doesn't come over.
Phones Julie to 'hear a friendly voice.
Looks in Yello Pages & phones a police station over 20 miles from WHF.
----------
Strangest reaction I have ever heard.
You are overlooking the fact the conversation was cut short.
The call was made based on the soc evidence: blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks. The totality of this evidence supports SC opening fire on June in bed and NB leaving the handset on the kitchen worktop to go upstairs where he sustains the two facial gunshot wounds on the little landing stairs just preceding the entrance to the main bedroom.
-
You are overlooking the fact the conversation was cut short.
The call was made based on the soc evidence: blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks. The totality of this evidence supports SC opening fire on June in bed and NB leaving the handset on the kitchen worktop to go upstairs where he sustains the two facial gunshot wounds on the little landing stairs just preceding the entrance to the main bedroom.
So when did Neville call the police.
-
So when did Neville call the police.
He didn't.
-
He didn't.
Thank you. Who cut the call between Jeremy and Neville, are you saying Neville cut the call but didn’t put the receiver back down?
-
Thank you. Who cut the call between Jeremy and Neville, are you saying Neville cut the call but didn’t put the receiver back down?
It appears NB heard shots/screams/noise from upstairs and left the handset on the worktop. This is what all the physical evidence at soc supports.
-
It appears NB heard shots/screams/noise from upstairs and left the handset on the worktop. This is what all the physical evidence at soc supports.
Tge phone went dead, if he just left the phone on the worktop it would still be a open line, so someone cut the call?
-
Nevill's call was 'mysterious' enough.
No it wasn't
It was never proved or disproven. The technology simply didn't exist.
-
Tge phone went dead, if he just left the phone on the worktop it would still be a open line, so someone cut the call?
He may have slammed it on the receiver.
-
NB had firearms lying around
NB had children on the premises
NB had a schizophrenic daughter on the premises.
NB was a clever astute man
NB knows that getting the authorities involved will result in.
Daniel and Nicholas been removed from any type of custody of Shelia
Nevill and June unlikely being able to see the children in any capacity for a long time.
The potential of Shelia getting into trouble.
The potential of awkward queries by police about firearms.
The embarrassment as word spreads around the community
The embarrassment of being a local JP and word getting about.
It's a private insular family, hence he phoned Bamber.
-
Tge phone went dead, if he just left the phone on the worktop it would still be a open line, so someone cut the call?
It was an open line that's how the GPO were able to hook up and listen in:
-
He may have slammed it on the receiver.
So Sheila’s is going crazy with a gun, Neville decides to let her get on with it, phones Jeremy up to tell him to come over and help, doesn’t want to involve the Police, hears Sheila (was she shooting away at this stage) attacking June throws the phone on the hook, it luckily cancels the call between Jeremy and himself, stops Jeremy ringing back, the phone falls onto the table making it look like it’s off the hook, he runs upstairs into a ambush of fire from Sheila? Have I missed anything out at this stage?
-
He may have slammed it on the receiver.
He didn't slam it on the receiver. He left it on the worktop as it was found by EP.
-
He didn't slam it on the receiver. He left it on the worktop as it was found by EP.
Whatever happened, he cut the call and went elsewhere.
-
It was an open line that's how the GPO were able to hook up and listen in:
I will let Zoso deal with that she’s the expert, isn’t there something along the lines after a while with the phone being off the hook the line clears? Not sure though. He specifically said the line went dead, if it was open he would still hears noises in the house especially gunshot fire,
-
So Sheila’s is going crazy with a gun, Neville decides to let her get on with it, phones Jeremy up to tell him to come over and help, doesn’t want to involve the Police, hears Sheila (was she shooting away at this stage) attacking June throws the phone on the hook, it luckily cancels the call between Jeremy and himself, stops Jeremy ringing back, the phone falls onto the table making it look like it’s off the hook, he runs upstairs into a ambush of fire from Sheila? Have I missed anything out at this stage?
Shelia HAS the gun.
-
He didn't slam it on the receiver. He left it on the worktop as it was found by EP.
JB said " it sounded like someone had put their finger on the receiver button
That would result in a terminated call.
-
So Sheila’s is going crazy with a gun, Neville decides to let her get on with it, phones Jeremy up to tell him to come over and help, doesn’t want to involve the Police, hears Sheila (was she shooting away at this stage) attacking June throws the phone on the hook, it luckily cancels the call between Jeremy and himself, stops Jeremy ringing back, the phone falls onto the table making it look like it’s off the hook, he runs upstairs into a ambush of fire from Sheila? Have I missed anything out at this stage?
NB doesn't throw the phone on the hook. The handset was left on the kitchen worktop where it was found by EP.
Yes you have missed what the totality of the soc evidence supports at soc. This supports JB's narrative.
-
It was an open line that's how the GPO were able to hook up and listen in:
He said it went dead, there is a difference in the tone to a open line?
-
NB doesn't throw the phone on the hook. The handset was left on the kitchen worktop where it was found by EP.
Yes you have missed what the totality of the soc evidence supports at soc. This supports JB's narrative.
The handset being left there doesn't back up JBs theory of a engaged tone.
It would still be an open line.
-
Whatever happened, he cut the call and went elsewhere.
NB left the receiver on the kitchen worktop and went upstairs. This is what all the evidence supports.
-
NB had firearms lying around
NB had children on the premises
NB had a schizophrenic daughter on the premises.
NB was a clever astute man
NB knows that getting the authorities involved will result in.
Daniel and Nicholas been removed from any type of custody of Shelia
Nevill and June unlikely being able to see the children in any capacity for a long time.
The potential of Shelia getting into trouble.
The potential of awkward queries by police about firearms.
The embarrassment as word spreads around the community
The embarrassment of being a local JP and word getting about.
It's a private insular family, hence he phoned Bamber.
Very good post, ILB!
I think that sums things up very well indeed!
-
NB left the receiver on the kitchen worktop and went upstairs. This is what all the evidence supports.
I totally understand and resonate that NB would call JB rather than automatically ring the authorities for many reasons stated.
-
JB said " it sounded like someone had put their finger on the receiver button
That would result in a terminated call.
You keep making the mistake of seeing JB as a reliable witness.
Do you think the GPO's op's ws is wrong?
-
The handset being left there doesn't back up JBs theory of a engaged tone.
It would still be an open line.
It was an open line that's how the GPO op was able to listen in as per her wit stat which I've just uploaded.
-
You keep making the mistake of seeing JB as a reliable witness.
Do you think the GPO's op's ws is wrong?
He's the main person in the case cutie. It's own words. He is the one claiming he received a call from his father.
Stop being bizarre.
-
It was an open line that's how the GPO op was able to listen in as per her wit stat which I've just uploaded.
But JB said he tried to call back and got the engaged tone.
So it can't have been an open line.
-
No it wasn't
It was never proved or disproven. The technology simply didn't exist.
Ringing Bamber's AM at 3.10am. Then saying 11 words.
Even the judge said ir was 'mysterious'.
-
He didn't.
Agree.
Why did Bamber & the CT say he did. Decades later?
Desperation?
-
Ringing Bamber's AM at 3.10am. Then saying 11 words.
Even the judge said ir was 'mysterious'.
You are getting boring with the AM now. The AM didn't even feature back at the trial in 1986, even thought I believe it was there.
-
Agree.
Why did Bamber & the CT say he did. Decades later?
Desperation?
Perhaps yes.
Imagine having your life robbed from you unjustly and spending decades in a prison cell. I'd imagine you'd try anything.
For the record I don't buy it either.
-
You are overlooking the fact the conversation was cut short.
The call was made based on the soc evidence: blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks. The totality of this evidence supports SC opening fire on June in bed and NB leaving the handset on the kitchen worktop to go upstairs where he sustains the two facial gunshot wounds on the little landing stairs just preceding the entrance to the main bedroom.
Agree the call was cut short. Ekeven words. You can sat that again.
Agree June was shot in bed.
You are not a SOC expert. The prosecution case is Nevill was shot in bed. The DPP, jury & appeal courts agree.
-
It appears NB heard shots/screams/noise from upstairs and left the handset on the worktop. This is what all the physical evidence at soc supports.
Why didn't Nevill put the phone down?
Surely Bamber didn't attempt an obvious stage.
-
Why didn't Nevill put the phone down?
Surely Bamber didn't attempt an obvious stage.
Urgency.
-
But JB said he tried to call back and got the engaged tone.
So it can't have been an open line.
If it wasn't an open line how do you think the GPO op was able to listen in? Are you saying the wit stat from the GPO op was wrong?
-
NB had firearms lying around
NB had children on the premises
NB had a schizophrenic daughter on the premises.
NB was a clever astute man
NB knows that getting the authorities involved will result in.
Daniel and Nicholas been removed from any type of custody of Shelia
Nevill and June unlikely being able to see the children in any capacity for a long time.
The potential of Shelia getting into trouble.
The potential of awkward queries by police about firearms.
The embarrassment as word spreads around the community
The embarrassment of being a local JP and word getting about.
It's a private insular family, hence he phoned Bamber.
Only Bamber says Nevill did not want authories involved.
So why did Bamber look for the number of a police station over 20 miles away.
Then claim Nevill did call the police decades later.
-
Agree the call was cut short. Ekeven words. You can sat that again.
Agree June was shot in bed.
You are not a SOC expert. The prosecution case is Nevill was shot in bed. The DPP, jury & appeal courts agree.
Based on what? No one has ever put the pieces together.
-
JB said " it sounded like someone had put their finger on the receiver button
That would result in a terminated call.
People always put the phone back on the hook.
-
I totally understand and resonate that NB would call JB rather than automatically ring the authorities for many reasons stated.
That went well.
-
Only Bamber says Nevill did not want authories involved.
So why did Bamber look for the number of a police station over 20 miles away.
Then claim Nevill did call the police decades later.
Point one, because of the reasons I gave.
Point two, because he didn't know how to go about it hence he rang his bird for support ( according to him)
Point 3, he's spent 30 odd years by then in a concrete box. He's frustrated angry and wants freedom by any means nessecary.
That simple
-
You keep making the mistake of seeing JB as a reliable witness.
Do you think the GPO's op's ws is wrong?
Agree Bamber is totally unrelaible.
He was not convincing in court. The judge repeatedly having to tell him to speak up.
-
That went well.
Like many things in life. Things fuck up.
-
Point one, because of the reasons I gave.
Point two, because he didn't know how to go about it hence he rang his bird for support ( according to him)
Point 3, he's spent 30 odd years by then in a concrete box. He's frustrated angry and wants freedom by any means nessecary.
That simple
Ageee he will be frustrated.
Barry George & Sion Jenkins got out in 10 years.
He didn't have to think about how to go about things. Just do what Nevill said - ''please come over'.
-
If it wasn't an open line how do you think the GPO op was able to listen in? Are you saying the wit stat from the GPO op was wrong?
I'm balancing it.
We can't have an open line and somebody saying they have a engaged tone.
So which is right?
You can't claim his memory is knackered of years of imprisonment in the sense, he was recalling it with PS Bews in the early hours of 7.8.85
-
Urgency.
Urgent or not. People always put a phone on the hook.
The diary & phone are obvious stages.
-
I will let Zoso deal with that she’s the expert, isn’t there something along the lines after a while with the phone being off the hook the line clears? Not sure though. He specifically said the line went dead, if it was open he would still hears noises in the house especially gunshot fire,
The line was def open hence the GPO op was able to listen in.
The expert evidence at trial said the handset at Bourtree would need to remain in situ for between 1 min and 2 mins until JB was able to call out as a result of the call from WHF and that line remaining open:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
-
Ageee he will be frustrated.
Barry George & Sion Jenkins got out in 10 years.
He didn't have to think about how to go about things. Just do what Nevill said - ''please come over'.
I believe he thought the same as what you did.
That Ivan Drago Nevill would take the rifle and everything would be fine.
He did comment that " my dad seemed really frightened "
Which is the reason he phoned police.
Who knows.
-
I'm balancing it.
We can't have an open line and somebody saying they have a engaged tone.
So which is right?
You can't claim his memory is knackered of years of imprisonment in the sense, he was recalling it with PS Bews in the early hours of 7.8.85
Can't we? What's your evidence for this?
-
Urgent or not. People always put a phone on the hook.
The diary & phone are obvious stages.
Agree the phone where it was left is not a natural place.
I would expected him to slam it on the receiver.
Just my opinion
-
The line was def open hence the GPO op was able to listen in.
The expert evidence at trial said the handset at Bourtree would need to remain in situ for between 1 min and 2 mins until JB was able to call out as a result of the call from WHF and that line remaining open:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
This means Bamber did not 'immediately try to call back'.
Or 'the line went dead'.
-
Can't we? What's your evidence for this?
Common sense.
It was either an open line or engaged.
-
I believe he thought the same as what you did.
That Ivan Drago Nevill would take the rifle and everything would be fine.
He did comment that " my dad seemed really frightened "
Which is the reason he phoned police.
Who knows.
Yes Nevill instantly reclaiming his rifle while fully fit is better than 5 dead people. One a 6.4 man with 40+ horrific beating injuries.
-
Yes Nevill instantly reclaiming his rifle while fully fit is better than 5 dead people. One a 6.4 man with 40+ horrific beating injuries.
Shelia may have been Rocky to Nevills drago that night.
-
Shelia may have been Rocky to Nevills drago that night.
She could barely walk or talk. As already stated.
Neither Bamber or Sheila had injuries as she put up no resistance to him.
-
Yes Nevill instantly reclaiming his rifle while fully fit is better than 5 dead people. One a 6.4 man with 40+ horrific beating injuries.
Whats this "fully fit " thing you purport all the time?
I'm 6 foot 4 myself and 56 years old, if a 9 stone guy came in my house shooting me right now I'd be as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
-
This means Bamber did not 'immediately try to call back'.
Or 'the line went dead'.
We know for sure the line was open.
No the expert evidence states the JB would need to replace his handset for 1 to 2 mins until he could call out eg EP and JM. What would happen if he attempted to terminate NB's call and then redialled? What sound would he receive?
-
Agree the phone where it was left is not a natural place.
I would expected him to slam it on the receiver.
Just my opinion
Well he didn't slam it on the receiver as per all the evidence.
-
We know for sure the line was open.
No the expert evidence states the JB would need to replace his handset for 1 to 2 mins until he could call out eg EP and JM. What would happen if he attempted to terminate NB's call and then redialled? What sound would he receive?
Beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep.
-
Whats this "fully fit " thing you purport all the time?
I'm 6 foot 4 myself and 56 years old, if a 9 stone guy came in my house shooting me right now I'd be as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Sheila was not a 9 stone guy.
She was bare footed, in a nightie, holding a rifle she did not know how to use, operating at 20%.
-
We know for sure the line was open.
No the expert evidence states the JB would need to replace his handset for 1 to 2 mins until he could call out eg EP and JM. What would happen if he attempted to terminate NB's call and then redialled? What sound would he receive?
1-2 minutes.
So did not 'immediately try to call back'.
-
Well he didn't slam it on the receiver as per all the evidence.
Why do you think neither Sheila or Nevill had put on foot ware or dressing gowns?
It was a big house.
Anyone would think they had to abruptly get out of bed.
-
1-2 minutes.
So did not 'immediately try to call back'.
Why not?
As I said the expert evidence at trial was that the line was left open at WHF therefore JB would need to replace his handset until he could call out and make a successful call eg EP and JM. But what would happen if he dialled WHF?
-
Sheila was not a 9 stone guy.
She was bare footed, in a nightie, holding a rifle she did not know how to use, operating at 20%.
Stop talking this bollocks about percentages of human beings and be realistic, she was on halpierdol.
The rifle is not complicated to operate.
-
Why not?
As I said the expert evidence at trial was that the line was left open at WHF therefore JB would need to replace his handset until he could call out and make a successful call eg EP and JM. But what would happen if he dialled WHF?
Didn't Bamber say 'the line went dead'?
So Nevill put his hand on the receiver.
Usually people put the phone back on the hook.
-
Why do you think neither Sheila or Nevill had put on foot ware or dressing gowns?
NB does appear to be wearing some kind of overcoat over his PJ, not a matching set. ( graphic image)
-
Didn't Bamber say 'the line went dead'?
So Nevill put his hand on the receiver.
Usually people put the phone back on the hook.
Have mentioned this earlier, you have to answer this cutie it can only be one or the other.
-
NB does appear to be wearing some kind of overcoat over his PJ, not a matching set. ( graphic image)
He was bare footed in his pyjamas.
Do you agree Bamber & Sheila having no injuries shows she put up no resistance to him?
-
41.
Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head...
-
He was bare footed in his pyjamas.
Do you agree Bamber & Sheila having no injuries shows she put up no resistance to him?
I would have expected shelia to fight Bamber.
Her ex husband testifying at trial in 1986 " she had a hot Latin temper"
This was someone trying to kill her.
-
He was bare footed in his pyjamas.
Do you agree Bamber & Sheila having no injuries shows she put up no resistance to him?
I would have expected shelia to struggle.
-
I would have expected shelia to fight Bamber.
Her ex husband testifying at trial in 1986 " she had a hot Latin temper"
This was someone trying to kill her.
He also said she had no hand to eye co ordination & couldn't engage with her 6 year olds.
No chance V Bamber. As the evidence shows.
-
He also said she had no hand to eye co ordination & couldn't engage with her 6 year olds.
No chance V Bamber.
I towered Bamber, he's not some brickshithouse wall, probs 5 11 tops,not a big guy
-
I towered Bamber, he's not some brickshithouse wall, probs 5 11 tops,not a big guy
Sheila was ready.
It was 'now or never'.
-
I towered Bamber, he's not some brickshithouse wall, probs 5 11 tops,not a big guy
Try telling that to Nevill's head, face, body watch & rifle butt.
-
Bamber and Shelia in their adult years were not close.
The mantra that Bamber coaxed her out of bed and she was like a wilting violet is farfetched.
Upon seeing him at that time she would probably get into a state.
Days previous she felt uneasy when he drove her home from a party.
-
Try telling that to Nevill's head, face, body watch & rifle butt.
Nevill was heavier and taller than Bamber.
-
Bamber and Shelia in their adult years were not close.
The mantra that Bamber coaxed her out of bed and she was like a wilting violet is farfetched.
Upon seeing him at that time she would probably get into a state.
Days previous she felt uneasy when he drove her home from a party.
Not close. So why did Nevill call his AM?
Suspect he attempted persuasion. Using force if needed. It was only a few yards he had to move her.
-
Have mentioned this earlier, you have to answer this cutie it can only be one or the other.
The line was open. If it wasn't how do you think the GPO op was able to listen in and then link EP to the open line?
Find some expert evidence about what would happen if JB terminated the call his end and then called WHF. Why would he not get the engaged tone?
-
Nevill was heavier and taller than Bamber.
Sadly shot 4 times in/by his bed.
Being bare footed in the kitchen didn't help.
-
Not close. So why did Nevill call his AM?
I once didn't talk to my sister for six months after a family row.
Nevill called Bamber because he was his son. And shelia was his daughter.
-
I once didn't talk to my sister for six months after a family row.
Nevill called Bamber because he was his son. And shelia was his daughter.
That went well.
-
The line was open. If it wasn't how do you think the GPO op was able to listen in and then link EP to the open line?
Find some expert evidence about what would happen if JB terminated the call his end and then called WHF. Why would he not get the engaged tone?
JB said " then the phone went dead "
Which clearly means he is insinuating that it went dead from WHF.
-
That went well.
" all those years ago when I picked up the phone I never believed it would lead and end up like this " Jeremy Bamber Full Sutton prison 2005.
-
The line was def open hence the GPO op was able to listen in.
The expert evidence at trial said the handset at Bourtree would need to remain in situ for between 1 min and 2 mins until JB was able to call out as a result of the call from WHF and that line remaining open:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
The line was open because it was left off the hook, doesn’t mean it was connected anywhere, Bamber clearly states he tried to ring back 20/30 seconds later he has a memory dial which he normally uses when he tries to ring a number that’s engaged. He would not have been able to make a call unless he cleared his own line first and if he didn’t clear his line each time he picked the phone up he would still be connected and then that would take another two minutes to clear again.
-
JB said " then the phone went dead "
Which clearly means he is insinuating that it went dead from WHF.
JB said...Oh must be 100% correct then ;D
He was a farmer not a GPO op. The GPO op, Jean Rowe, said the line was open hence she was a) able to listen in and hear Crispy barking and b) connect EP to the open line much later (which the CT believe was a 999 call made from within WHF ;D)
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
-
The line was open because it was left off the hook, doesn’t mean it was connected anywhere, Bamber clearly states he tried to ring back 20/30 seconds later he has a memory dial which he normally uses when he tries to ring a number that’s engaged. He would not have been able to make a call unless he cleared his own line first and if he didn’t clear his line each time he picked the phone up he would still be connected and then that would take another two minutes to clear again.
You don't know whether the line was open because it was off the hook or because NB made a call to JB and abondoned it. The soc evidence supports the latter because it can be evidenced that the totality of the physical evidence documented and photographed by way of blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks show that the perp was in the main bedroom shooting June with NB then arriving on the little staircase just before the entrance to the main bedroom where he sustained his facial wounds.
The expert evidence from trial:
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
According to the above JB would need to leave the handset at GH on its caradle for at least 60 seconds until he was able to make a call eg JM, EP.
-
It's all over the place -
Nevill letting a 20% Sheila roam free with a loaded rifle.
Ringing a son who hated him & didn't get on with Sheila. At 3.00am.
A 24/7 AM device switched off.
Nevill waiting for Bamber to wake from sleeping 'like a log' & get downstairs. Then only saying 11 words.
Immediately ringing back' although was not able to.
Waking up 5 people to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Nevill saying 'please come over'. Then not going over.
Eventually deciding to ring the police although Nevill may have already rang them.
Eventually ringing the police although according to him Nevill did not like authorities involved.
Saying Nevill did not like authorities involved. Then decades later saying Nevill called a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of 999.
Looking through Yello Pages for the number of a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of dialling 999.
Asking to be picked up although lived a 7 minute drive away.
Driving slowly to arrive after the police.
-
It's all over the place -
Nevill letting Sheila go upstairs with a rifle.
Ringing a son who hated him & didn't get on with Sheila. At 3.00am.
A 24/7 AM device switched off.
Nevill waiting for Bamber to wake from sleeping 'like a log' & get downstairs. Then only saying 11 words.
Immediately ringing back' although was not able to.
Waking up 5 people to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Nevill saying 'please come over'. Then not going over.
Eventually deciding to ring the police although Nevill may have already rang them.
Eventually ringing the police although according to him Nevill did not like authorities involved.
Saying Nevill did not like authorities involved. Then decades later saying Nevill called a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of 999.
Looking through Yello Pages for the number of a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of dialling 999.
Its not all over the place at all. The totality of the physical evidence at soc takes precedence and is very clear about what happened. You know this.
-
Its not all over the place at all. The totality of the physical evidence at soc takes precedence and is very clear about what happened. You know this.
I have just posted 13 things that don't work.
You are not a soc expert.
You know this.
-
It's all over the place -
Nevill letting a 20% Sheila roam free with a loaded rifle.
Ringing a son who hated him & didn't get on with Sheila. At 3.00am.
A 24/7 AM device switched off.
Nevill waiting for Bamber to wake from sleeping 'like a log' & get downstairs. Then only saying 11 words.
Immediately ringing back' although was not able to.
Waking up 5 people to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Nevill saying 'please come over'. Then not going over.
Eventually deciding to ring the police although Nevill may have already rang them.
Eventually ringing the police although according to him Nevill did not like authorities involved.
Saying Nevill did not like authorities involved. Then decades later saying Nevill called a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of 999.
Looking through Yello Pages for the number of a police station over 20 miles away. Instead of dialling 999.
Asking to be picked up although lived a 7 minute drive away.
Driving slowly to arrive after the police.
Neville was knocked clean out by the AGA for hours and Hours before he phoned Jeremy according to snowy. Cutie says Neville let Sheila go on a rampage while he phoned Jeremy to come over, and then walked into a ambush on the stairs, Sheila must have been like a sniper ready and waiting for his advance.,
-
Its not all over the place at all. The totality of the physical evidence at soc takes precedence and is very clear about what happened. You know this.
Do you think Sheila was poised ready and waiting for Neville’s advance on the stairs, when did she reload or had she got a full Mag ready for him, it’s nice to hear from a SOC expert, look forward to hearing your shot sequence as Neville approached.
-
Neville was knocked clean out by the AGA for hours and Hours before he phoned Jeremy according to snowy. Cutie says Neville let Sheila go on a rampage while he phoned Jeremy to come over, and then walked into a ambush on the stairs, Sheila must have been like a sniper ready and waiting for his advance.,
Seems Nevill heard a quiet rifle upstairs. At the exact same moment Bamber answered the phone.
He then blindly went upstairs & allowed Sheila to shoot him twice in the face from inches away and twice in the torso.
-
I have just posted 13 things that don't work.
You are not a soc expert.
You know this.
Your 13 things are neither here nor there.
Show me a soc reconstruction that trumps mine. Impossible because there's only one narrative where all the parts documented and photographed at soc fit together.
-
Neville was knocked clean out by the AGA for hours and Hours before he phoned Jeremy according to snowy. Cutie says Neville let Sheila go on a rampage while he phoned Jeremy to come over, and then walked into a ambush on the stairs, Sheila must have been like a sniper ready and waiting for his advance.,
Please don't associate me with the nonsense about Aga burns.
It's what the totality of the soc evidence supports by way of blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
-
Your 13 things are neither here nor there.
Show me a soc reconstruction that trumps mine. Impossible because there's only one narrative where all the parts documented and photographed at soc fit together.
If 13 things don't work. That does matter.
Nevill & June were ambushed in bed. It was 2am.
Simple.
-
If 13 things don't work. That does matter.
Nevill & June were ambushed in bed. It was 2am.
Simple.
Your 13 things are based on perceptions and/or lack of evidence.
My soc reconstruction is evidenced based.
-
Your 13 things are based on perceptions and/or lack of evidence.
My soc reconstruction is evidenced based.
In your proposed 'reconstruction' the cartridge cases would have flown over the banister rail or between the balusters onto the lower stairs and/or Hall floor below, but surprise-surprise they magically disappeared from there and regenerated on the bedroom floor betwixt bed and cupboard with the rest of them. ::)
-
Please don't associate me with the nonsense about Aga burns.
It's what the totality of the soc evidence supports by way of blood stains to flooring/lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
Well he knew she had the rifle and going crazy, so he must have let her carry on doing what she was doing while he phoned Jeremy AGREED?
I’m at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment, my computer is knackered and I’m undecided what to do, either go back to Apple or stay with Windows. I might not even replace it till the winter months, All my files are on the computer and I’m just using my iPhone.
-
Your 13 things are based on perceptions and/or lack of evidence.
My soc reconstruction is evidenced based.
Some of the 13 things did happen - ringing Julie, ringing Chelmsford Police.
Some are just based on what Bamber says - Nevill ringing, Nevill not wanting the police involved.
-
In your proposed 'reconstruction' the cartridge cases would have flown over the banister rail or between the balusters onto the lower stairs and/or Hall floor below, but surprise-surprise they magically disappeared from there and regenerated on the bedroom floor betwixt bed and cupboard with the rest of them. ::)
Guest29835 says the police moved 4 cartridges into the bedroom.
If the evidence doesn't fit your opinion, change it!
-
In your proposed 'reconstruction' the cartridge cases would have flown over the banister rail or between the balusters onto the lower stairs and/or Hall floor below, but surprise-surprise they magically disappeared from there and regenerated on the bedroom floor betwixt bed and cupboard with the rest of them. ::)
The casings are where would you would expect them to land. The ejection port ejects to the right. When NB sustained his facial wounds the ejection port was within the main bedroom. When NB sustained his shoulder and elbow/chest shots the ejection port was facing down the stairs and a casing landed on the landing and on the door threshold.
-
Well he knew she had the rifle and going crazy, so he must have let her carry on doing what she was doing while he phoned Jeremy AGREED?
What's the defnition of "going crazy"? FE called NB wanting him to go over immediately when SC had an episode prior to her last admission to a psychiatric hospital but he left it until the following day.
I’m at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment, my computer is knackered and I’m undecided what to do, either go back to Apple or stay with Windows. I might not even replace it till the winter months, All my files are on the computer and I’m just using my iPhone.
I'm currently on a chromebook. Depends what you want it for.
-
Some of the 13 things did happen - ringing Julie, ringing Chelmsford Police.
Yes that's true!
Some are just based on what Bamber says - Nevill ringing, Nevill not wanting the police involved.
But for those who think JB guilty it is easy to rubbish his claims and certain events and vice-versa for his 'supporters' based on perceptions and subjectivity.
Only the soc evidence is rooted in science and objective but many are either unable or unwilling to grapple with it so just go round with circular arguments.
-
What's the defnition of "going crazy"? FE called NB wanting him to go over immediately when SC had an episode prior to her last admission to a psychiatric hospital but he left it until the following day.
I'm currently on a chromebook. Depends what you want it for.
This is Neville asking for help at 3.00 am in the morning not FE, and with deadly weapon, and of all the people he’s asking help from is Bamber, I would say they are behaving in a uncontrolled way, so Neville is unable to control her? So he must have let her carry on going in an uncontrolled way with a deadly weapon in her hands while he makes a phone call?
I have looked at the iPad 13 it links better with my iPhone, especially for mapping routes
-
Neville was knocked clean out by the AGA for hours and Hours before he phoned Jeremy according to snowy. Cutie says Neville let Sheila go on a rampage while he phoned Jeremy to come over, and then walked into a ambush on the stairs, Sheila must have been like a sniper ready and waiting for his advance.,
I will do a revised post on the Aga burns later, HB!
-
I will do a revised post on the Aga burns later, HB!
Thanks Snow. I think if you can get around that Neville was knocked out for hours and hours, it would help? Anyway it’s good that your trying ;D
-
Thanks Snow. I think if you can get around that Neville was knocked out for hours and hours, it would help? Anyway it’s good that your trying ;D
I will simply go through all of the possibilities, accepting that the AGA did indeed make the marks mind you!
If you cant entertain the possibility at all that the AGA may have made the marks, then it wont be worth reading my post, HB!
-
One has to ask, if JB is guilty then why did he leave the kitchen phone off the hook and then tell the police that the line went dead?
Another strange bit of planning!!
-
I will simply go through all of the possibilities, accepting that the AGA did indeed make the marks mind you!
If you cant entertain the possibility at all that the AGA may have made the marks, then it wont be worth reading my post, HB!
If you put your post up, it’s there to be scrutinised and challenged, accept it or don’t post.
-
If you put your post up, it’s there to be scrutinised and challenged, accept it or don’t post.
Of course, HB ,that goes without saying!