Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Blodwynflower on March 12, 2012, 12:12:PM

Title: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 12, 2012, 12:12:PM
Good afternoon all

Was a sniffer dog actually taken into White house farm? It has probably been discussed here before (sorry if it has).

I know it has been discussed  here that Jeremy was checked by one outside.

Thankyou.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 12, 2012, 01:04:PM
Wouldn't a sniffer dog have detected the location of a silencer, especially if it had been used?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 12, 2012, 02:21:PM
Hi Blodwynflower, although a  police dog handler and police dog attended the scene it has never been clear (to me) if the dog was actually trained for sniffing out gun shot residue. The dog may have just been trained to "bring down" escapee criminals or "intimidate" aggressive criminals.

I also don't believe the police dog ever entered whf, as EP were not looking for a silencer at the time and therefore there was no need for the dog to try and find one!

Personally I think whf was such a mess after EP had stormed it, throwing a police dog in would have added to the chaos.


 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: vidvic on March 12, 2012, 03:41:PM
Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on March 12, 2012, 03:43:PM
Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?

I do not remember seeing a witness statement relating to this.  Maybe Mike will be able to help.

 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 12, 2012, 04:25:PM
Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?


The sniffer dog's negative response was far from the only evidence that the defence failed to use. If you read Rivlin's statement here, concerning the substantial amount of evidence that was withheld from the defence, it's not hard to see why this was so. The defence were allowed such a prejudicial, cherry picked selection of the evidence that they can be forgiven for being utterly confused about what really happened at WHF.

By witholding evidence, EP not only denied Jeremy Bamber a fair trial, they also denied Jeremy an adequately informed defence.

"Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result."

Innocent Man
David Shaw

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 12, 2012, 04:51:PM
Quote
"Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result."

Innocent Man
David Shaw


Am I right in thinking that ordinarily, from the outset, Mercer would not have been asked to provide a statement regarding his role or involvement at the scene?  Is it also correct to assume that since the defence would not have known of this incident, no attempt was subsequently made to obtain a statement from Mercer?  Jeremy Bamber may or may not have recalled the incident.  If Jeremy Bamber was in shock, I would not expect him to necessarily recall the incident or its significance.  Is it known whether the dog's function was explained to him when he was checked?  If not, I cannot imagine why a quick sniff from a dog at the scene would have retained any significance in the mind of Bamber.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 12, 2012, 05:08:PM
Am I right in thinking that ordinarily, from the outset, Mercer would not have been asked to provide a statement regarding his role or involvement at the scene?  Is it also correct to assume that since the defence would not have known of this incident, no attempt was subsequently made to obtain a statement from Mercer?  Jeremy Bamber may or may not have recalled the incident.  If Jeremy Bamber was in shock, I would not expect him to necessarily recall the incident or its significance.  Is it known whether the dog's function was explained to him when he was checked?  If not, I cannot imagine why a quick sniff from a dog at the scene would have retained any significance in the mind of Bamber.

Quote "Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm."

Is there any proof from a more official document that the dog was trained this way?

Quoting David Shaw is not a particularly reliable source of information, and could be considered by some as bias!

It may have been a non-point to JB and his defence as the dog, and the dogs actual abilities, made no difference at the time as to whether JB had fired a gun or not!

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 12, 2012, 05:31:PM
Quote "Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm."

Is there any proof from a more official document that the dog was trained this way?

Quoting David Shaw is not a particularly reliable source of information, and could be considered by some as bias!

It may have been a non-point to JB and his defence as the dog, and the dogs actual abilities, made no difference at the time as to whether JB had fired a gun or not!


David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on March 12, 2012, 05:35:PM

David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.

I think that is a very fair summary of the position Keira. 

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 12, 2012, 05:45:PM
Hi Blodwynflower, although a  police dog handler and police dog attended the scene it has never been clear (to me) if the dog was actually trained for sniffing out gun shot residue. The dog may have just been trained to "bring down" escapee criminals or "intimidate" aggressive criminals.

I also don't believe the police dog ever entered whf, as EP were not looking for a silencer at the time and therefore there was no need for the dog to try and find one!

Personally I think whf was such a mess after EP had stormed it, throwing a police dog in would have added to the chaos.

Many thanks for your reply Nick.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 12, 2012, 06:01:PM
If a sniffer dog HAD indeed gone into the farm though, wouldn't it have led the police to any guns, silencer, ammunition?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 08:49:AM
If a sniffer dog HAD indeed gone into the farm though, wouldn't it have led the police to any guns, silencer, ammunition?

If the sniffer dog was specially trained to sniff out gun shot residue, explosives etc.  then I assume it would have lead the police to the silencer; however the police, it would appear, thought that when they found SC with the one gun they had it sown up!

But as we don't really know what the dog was trained in, this will, amongst all the other things, remain a mystery!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 09:06:AM

David Shaw is at least as reliable as Wikipedia and probably a lot more reliable than this. However, I accept your point about his book, Nick. The problem with Shaw is that we don't know what the source of his information is. yet isn't this true of all of the WHF murders authors? All we have are their claims to have interviewed various persons involved, extended family, EP officers and so on. What tends to happen in practice is that antis tend to accept the views of Colin Caffell and of those authors who extensively interviewed Jeremy's extended family, whereas pros tend to accept the views of those who claim to have extensively interviewed police officers.

Choc, I have only used Wiki as a point of reference to others for information, or to discuss the uncorroborated statements they have made! - and stating that David Shaw (DS) is probably a lot more reliable than Wiki is very subjective.

Wiki's narrative is very brief, whereas the "novel" produced by DS could contain far more misleading statements than Wiki.

I have also not built Wiki statements into my posts in order to support them, as you have done with David Shaw's uncorroborated account of the sniffer dog.

It's difficult enough to believe the official EP documents presented on the forum, never mind the various books. I have read Roger Wilkes and found that reasonably non bias.

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 10:38:AM

Choc, I have only used Wiki as a point of reference to others for information, or to discuss the uncorroborated statements they have made! - and stating that David Shaw (DS) is probably a lot more reliable than Wiki is very subjective.

Wiki's narrative is very brief, whereas the "novel" produced by DS could contain far more misleading statements than Wiki.

I have also not built Wiki statements into my posts in order to support them, as you have done with David Shaw's uncorroborated account of the sniffer dog.

It's difficult enough to believe the official EP documents presented on the forum, never mind the various books. I have read Roger Wilkes and found that reasonably non bias.


Nick,

Your comment,


"Thanks for your reply Grahame. I was just interested as some of the comments (While in NZ......) clearly refer again to the darker side of JB!"


contradicts your claims above. This comment represents use of uncorroborated, unverified and unattributed claims that could have been posted to Wikipedia by anyone, including those desperate to keep Jeremy in prison, to craftily blacken Jeremy's reputation here.

This comment is implicitly subjective and biased.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 10:49:AM
Nick,

Even the obvious relish with which you refer to unattributed and unproven claims about Jeremy, as above, in order to blacken Jeremy's character tends to undermine your claim to objectivity. Many of your claims are every bit as subjective as mine are at times. All of us here are subjective at times.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 11:08:AM

Nick,

Your comment,


"Thanks for your reply Grahame. I was just interested as some of the comments (While in NZ......) clearly refer again to the darker side of JB!"


contradicts your claims above. This comment represents use of uncorroborated, unverified and unattributed claims that could have been posted to Wikipedia by anyone, including those desperate to keep Jeremy in prison, to craftily blacken Jeremy's reputation here.

This comment is implicitly subjective and biased.

I simply suggested the comments made (not by me) refer to JB's darker side, which they do! - I did not write these comments - I am simply referring to them for comment - I do not use them to back any of my posts - I do not say I agree with them!, but...........!

 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 11:11:AM
Nick,

Even the obvious relish with which you refer to unattributed and unproven claims about Jeremy, as above, in order to blacken Jeremy's character tends to undermine your claim to objectivity. Many of your claims are every bit as subjective as mine are at times. All of us here are subjective at times.

I don't "relish" blackening JB's character, as you so boldly put it, he did a good enough job of doing that himself!



Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: jon on March 13, 2012, 11:33:AM
I don't "relish" blackening JB's character, as you so boldly put it, he did a good enough job of doing that himself!
By doing what ?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 11:48:AM
I don't "relish" blackening JB's character, as you so boldly put it, he did a good enough job of doing that himself!


Thank you. You have just confirmed my points
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 11:54:AM
I simply suggested the comments made (not by me) refer to JB's darker side, which they do! - I did not write these comments - I am simply referring to them for comment - I do not use them to back any of my posts - I do not say I agree with them!, but...........!


Nick,

You are using unattributed, uncorroborated and unproven claims from unreliable Wikipedia to support the negative view of Jeremy which you repeatedly promote here. It is absurd for you to attempt to take the high moral ground and to paint yourself as objective when you are every bit as subjective and biased as the rest of us are at times.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 12:01:PM
By doing what ?

Jon , are you serious or just winding me up!

JB dealing drugs / JB breaking in to the caravan site and stealing money are just two examples!

If any of JB's friends, now or then, want to suggest he had an exemplary charter then so be it, and if you want believe that then so be it!

If there is a witness list for the defence available called to support JB's good character then so be it. I'd certainly like to see it!

Do you believe JB didn't deal drugs?

Do you believe JB didn't break into the caravan park office and steal money?

Can you please advise me of any witness called by the defence to support JB's good character?

Do you believe JB was an angel, bearing in mind his actions following the murders (and I hope you are aware of these as I do not want to list them)?


Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 12:05:PM

Nick,

You are using unattributed, uncorroborated and unproven claims from unreliable Wikipedia to support the negative view of Jeremy which you repeatedly promote here. It is absurd for you to attempt to take the high moral ground and to paint yourself as objective when you are every bit as subjective and biased as the rest of us are at times.

Choc, I agree we both refer to unattributed, uncorroborated and unproven claims from unreliable sources!

But, I repeat, I do not use these to support my posts.........!

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 12:40:PM
Jon , are you serious or just winding me up!

JB dealing drugs / JB breaking in to the caravan site and stealing money are just two examples!

If any of JB's friends, now or then, want to suggest he had an exemplary charter then so bit, and if you want believe that then so be it!

If there is a witness list for the defence available called to support JB's good character then so be it. I'd certainly like to see it!

Do you believe JB didn't deal drugs?

Do you believe JB didn't break into the caravan park office and steal money?

Can you please advise me of any witness called by the defence to support JB's good character?

Do you believe JB was an angel, bearing in mind his actions following the murders (and I hope you are aware of these as I do not want to list them)?


Nick,

Why do you repeatedly attempt to blacken Jeremy's character by exaggerating his faults yet never detail the flaws in Sheila's character? Why do you take such relish in attacking Jeremy in such a one sided manner?

Sheila used class A drugs and attended weekly glamour parties where lines of coke were on the table

Colin said he believed Sheila's friend, Freddie, was a drug dealer - was Sheila involved?

Sheila posed for pornographic photos

Sheila had sexual experiences as a minor

Sheila was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia

There are witness statements of Sheila's severe and violent psychotic episodes and mental disturbance

Sheila's violence made Freddie fear for the safety of everyone in her flat

Sheila's violent psychotic attacks had led to her twice being hospitalised in psychiatric clinics

Sheila's sons had to be removed from her care because they were at risk

Sheila told her psychiatrist that she feared that she and her sons would harm or rape each other

Sheila told her father that she was the Virgin Mary with a mission to save the world

Sheila believed that she and her family were possessed by the devil

Sheila was passed from one surrogate mother to another as a baby to a far greater extent that Jeremy

Sheila experienced far more disruption of her crucial developmental stages than Jeremy did.

In short, poor Sheila had a murderers profile, whereas Jeremy did not.

Yet we never hear any of this from you, you are instead intent on repeatedly attacking Jeremy's character while ignoring Sheila's many, serious problems.



Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 01:14:PM

Nick,

Why do you repeatedly attempt to blacken Jeremy's character by exaggerating his faults yet never detail the flaws in Sheila's character? Why do you take such relish in attacking Jeremy in such a one sided manner?

Sheila used class A drugs and attended weekly glamour parties where lines of coke were on the table

Colin said he believed Sheila's friend, Freddie, was a drug dealer - was Sheila involved?

Sheila posed for pornographic photos

Sheila had sexual experiences as a minor

Sheila was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia

There are witness statements of Sheila's severe and violent psychotic episodes and mental disturbance

Sheila's violence made Freddie fear for the safety of everyone in her flat

Sheila's violent psychotic attacks had led to her twice being hospitalised in psychiatric clinics

Sheila's sons had to be removed from her care because they were at risk

Sheila told her psychiatrist that she feared that she and her sons would harm or rape each other

Sheila told her father that she was the Virgin Mary with a mission to save the world

Sheila believed that she and her family were possessed by the devil

Sheila was passed from one surrogate mother to another as a baby to a far greater extent that Jeremy

Sheila experienced far more disruption of her crucial developmental stages than Jeremy did.

In short, poor Sheila had a murderers profile, whereas Jeremy did not.

Yet we never hear any of this from you, you are instead intent on repeatedly attacking Jeremy's character while ignoring Sheila's many, serious problems.

Quote from me "he did a good enough job of doing that himself! Question from Jon - By doing what ?

I was simply replying to Jon's question!!  :o

Please note the context of my answer, and not just your slanted take on it!

Jon didn't ask me about Sheila's problems, but you have now provided a list  ::)

 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Hartley on March 13, 2012, 01:17:PM
Any idea where the woods are?

Nope, I'm really sorry, all of these blasted trees are in the way.  ::)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: tyler on March 13, 2012, 02:59:PM
Any idea where the woods are?

Nope, I'm really sorry, all of these blasted trees are in the way.  ::)
I do hope this isnt a pop at Keira?Getting in on other peoples disagreements again?
Some things(or peolple) never change  ::)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 03:14:PM
I do hope this isn't a pop at Keira?Getting in on other peoples disagreements again?
Some things(or people) never change  ::)

Hi Tyler, you've just fallen in by your comment (oops! so Have I  :-[)!

Choc does jump on the back of others disagreements and hammered into Hartley after he had been banned. It's the nature of the forum!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 03:59:PM
I do hope this isnt a pop at Keira?Getting in on other peoples disagreements again?
Some things(or peolple) never change  ::)


Thank you, Tyler!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Hartley on March 13, 2012, 04:01:PM
I do hope this isnt a pop at Keira?Getting in on other peoples disagreements again?
Some things(or peolple) never change  ::)

No it wasn't. Although perhaps you may like to heed your own advice.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 04:10:PM
Hi Tyler, you've just fallen in by your comment (oops! so Have I  :-[)!

Choc does jump on the back of others disagreements and hammered into Hartley after he had been banned. It's the nature of the forum!


Nick,

Stop stirring. I refuse to be goaded into responding to this absurd post.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 04:11:PM
No it wasn't. Although perhaps you may like to heed your own advice.


Hartley, stop picking on Tyler.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Hartley on March 13, 2012, 04:19:PM
Tyler, you have my apologies if you feel picked on, I have no idea how that could be true, but you have my apologies nonetheless.

Choc, refer to bullet point four below.

4.
Understand that it's not you, it's them. This can be surprisingly difficult, considering that impossible people have complete mastery of blaming skills. Chances are, the more often they blame you, the more they themselves are actually at fault. Keep in mind that this is not to be used as a way to blame them. Blaming is what impossible people do, and they do it well. Instead, you are only facing the facts, for your own sake. That being said, here's a simple way to tell: if you accept responsibility for your own faults and resolve to improve yourself, it's probably not you. Remember, impossible people "can do no wrong."
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 13, 2012, 04:27:PM
Gunga made a good point about the futility of trying to 'convert' people.  I think is an underlying dynamic at play in the debating on here.  I think people are not even conscious that they're doing it.  The only thing you can do in my opinion, is attempt to interpret what is put in front of you and (politely) point out the flaws in others' thinking, if the need arises.

Then again, maybe it's unrealistic to expect that things wont be prickley on here.  Just thought I'd have my twopenneth.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lonny on March 13, 2012, 04:30:PM
Jon , are you serious or just winding me up!

JB dealing drugs / JB breaking in to the caravan site and stealing money are just two examples!

If any of JB's friends, now or then, want to suggest he had an exemplary charter then so be it, and if you want believe that then so be it!

If there is a witness list for the defence available called to support JB's good character then so be it. I'd certainly like to see it!

Do you believe JB didn't deal drugs?

So did JM

Do you believe JB didn't break into the caravan park office and steal money?

So did JM

Can you please advise me of any witness called by the defence to support JB's good character?

They probably didn't, but the only ones who pointed out a dark side did so for financial gain......


Do you believe JB was an angel, bearing in mind his actions following the murders (and I hope you are aware of these as I do not want to list them)?


You only have JMs word for any of his bad behaviour after.....the same JM who admitted trying to KILL him

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 05:12:PM
Jon , are you serious or just winding me up!

JB dealing drugs / JB breaking in to the caravan site and stealing money are just two examples!

If any of JB's friends, now or then, want to suggest he had an exemplary charter then so be it, and if you want believe that then so be it!

If there is a witness list for the defence available called to support JB's good character then so be it. I'd certainly like to see it!

Do you believe JB didn't deal drugs?

So did JM

Do you believe JB didn't break into the caravan park office and steal money?

So did JM

Can you please advise me of any witness called by the defence to support JB's good character?

They probably didn't, but the only ones who pointed out a dark side did so for financial gain......

Do you believe JB was an angel, bearing in mind his actions following the murders (and I hope you are aware of these as I do not want to list them)?

You only have JMs word for any of his bad behaviour after.....the same JM who admitted trying to KILL him

Lonny, I agree with most of the the points you made above, but my answer was to a specific question from Jon which is why I structured it the way I did!

The question from Jon did not require me to list problems with Sheila, or JM, or anyone else, but I accept your point.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 13, 2012, 05:32:PM

Nick,

Stop stirring. I refuse to be goaded into responding to this absurd post.

Choc,

Okay, then could I please have a response to my post #24, in response to your post listing Sheila's faults where you use some fairly goading words against me?

Do you acknowledge that my reply post #24 is fair, accurate and non goading?

And I don't believe I am exaggerating (as you put it) JB's faults at all, simply pointing them out and as an 80% guilty poster I will err on this side.


Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: HMEssex on March 13, 2012, 06:10:PM
Jon , are you serious or just winding me up!

JB dealing drugs / JB breaking in to the caravan site and stealing money are just two examples!

If any of JB's friends, now or then, want to suggest he had an exemplary charter then so be it, and if you want believe that then so be it!

If there is a witness list for the defence available called to support JB's good character then so be it. I'd certainly like to see it!

Do you believe JB didn't deal drugs?

Do you believe JB didn't break into the caravan park office and steal money?

Can you please advise me of any witness called by the defence to support JB's good character?

Do you believe JB was an angel, bearing in mind his actions following the murders (and I hope you are aware of these as I do not want to list them)?




Nobody has suggested that Jeremy had an exemplary charter, but then neither did Sheila or Julie.  He, however, was not known to show any violent tendencies, unlike the two women (for their various reasons).

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 06:18:PM



Nobody has suggested that Jeremy had an exemplary charter, but then neither did Sheila or Julie.  He, however, was not known to show any violent tendencies, unlike the two women (for their various reasons).


Excellent point, HMEssex.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 06:56:PM

Choc, I agree we both refer to unattributed, uncorroborated and unproven claims from unreliable sources!

Thank you, well said, Nick


But, I repeat, I do not use these to support my posts.........!



In my opinion, you used that uncorroborated and unproven quotation from Wikipedia in an attempt to blacken Jeremy's character, in order to support your view, expressed in some of your posts here, of a dark side to Jeremy's character - and all in order to promote your view that Jeremy murdered his family.


[/quote]
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 13, 2012, 07:10:PM
Choc,

Okay, then could I please have a response to my post #24, in response to your post listing Sheila's faults where you use some fairly goading words against me?

Do you acknowledge that my reply post #24 is fair, accurate and non goading?

And I don't believe I am exaggerating (as you put it) JB's faults at all, simply pointing them out and as an 80% guilty poster I will err on this side.


I'm sorry if you regard my post as goading you, I do not believe I was doing this, I believe I was merely stating my view.

In all fairness to you, yes you tend to be one sided in your view of Jeremy's character, but I can be equally one sided. I have, however, discussed Jeremy's character flaws in my posts and have not solely discussed Sheila's.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: vidvic on March 14, 2012, 03:54:PM
I am still waiting to see any evidence that this dog was ever removed from the van.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 14, 2012, 04:20:PM
I am still waiting to see any evidence that this dog was ever removed from the van.

I agree. The "evidence" relating to the police dog suggesting JB had no gun shot residue upon his person is totally unfounded - unless you wish to believe in a bit of fiction from David Shaw!

I personally would like to see the full court trial transcript to see if Rivlin picked up on this nugget of evidence in JB's defence?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 04:45:PM
Scott Lomax confirms the sniffer dog was brought up to Jeremy and did not give a positive reaction.  I can't remember whether or not Wilkes refers to this dog, but Nick will state that two authors writing of this is mere fiction. I wish there was some official corroboration of the use of this dog. There should be a statement from PC Mercer about this, but this statement might well, of course, have been dropped into that black hole where far too much evidence was hidden.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on March 14, 2012, 04:51:PM
PC Mercer works in the CO OP in Chelmsford Essex and firmly believes Jeremy is innocent

Have you spoken to him?

 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 04:56:PM
I would think the Dog Handler could be called at an appeal if necessary and there is nothing fictional about Mercer

No Ngb I have not spoken to him personally but Simon McKay has all the details.

I might go and speak to him though



Brilliant, Jackie, you've made my day! 

You were saying Vic and Nick....?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Hartley on March 14, 2012, 05:09:PM
I agree. The "evidence" relating to the police dog suggesting JB had no gun shot residue upon his person is totally unfounded - unless you wish to believe in a bit of fiction from David Shaw!

I personally would like to see the full court trial transcript to see if Rivlin picked up on this nugget of evidence in JB's defence?

Nick, I'm not sure if this is a help or a hindrance, but below is a copy of a post from Mike on the SFJ almost three years ago. It mentions the dog handler a few times.

Having said that, I have no idea where this information actually originates, perhaps Mike would be able to provide an insight.

Quote
MASTER OVERVIEW LOG

0350hrs (LOG 1)
CA7 PS Bews, PC 1995 - 1509 arrive white house farm. Son in Vauxhall Astra (Jeremy) arrives.

0355hrs (LOG 1)
PS Bews, PC 1509 and son Jeremy recce house.

0402hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
FM CA7 - duty sergeant, 1 PC and Mr Bamber junior left vehicle and approaching house on foot, vehicle parked out of sight.

0403hrs (wireless message log)
All FSU stood down in ED and returning to HQ in preparation for firearms to be drawn.

0404hrs (communications log)
All FSU stood down in ED and returning to HQ in preparation for firearms to be drawn.

0409hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
FM CA7 - no signs of life in house all lights on in premises and two dogs going berserk, son says dogs are normally quiet. Son, PC and Sergeant backing off from premises

0412hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Acting Inspector Targrass at CD informed of situation.

0418hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Chief Supt’ Harris authorised the withdrawal of firearms Corroborated by Mr Simpson

0422hrs (LOG 1)
CA5 arrived at track. Liase with PS Bews. CA6 at end of track with road (PC Cracknell and Norcup).

0425hrs (LOG 1)
PS Bews and PC 1509 to recce house.

0427hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Chief Inspt’ Clarke FSU informed of situation not attending

0430hrs (LOG 1)
PS Bews and PC 1509 return.
CG6 at bottom of lane. Leave to RV with unit from HQ at New Times PH, Tiptree.

0431hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
CA6 attending New Times PH Tiptree as escort for firearms team to farm house.

0435hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
QK26/QK50 attending scene along with QK25

0438hrs (LOG 4)
From Chief Supt’ Harris. ACC contacted. Authority given for firearms team to be activated. Unit will be under command of Acting Inspector Adams.

0452hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
CA6 heading back to farmhouse with firearms team under escort.

0458hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Firearms team and dog unit off at scene

0459hrs (LOG 1)
HQ units arrive (2 x transits) plus CG6 (PC’s Lay and Batchelor) plus dog unit (PC 1422 Mercer) PS Adams incharge of firearms unit.

0508hrs (LOG 1)
Fireamrs unit to house.

0512hrs (LOG 1)
Request for dog handler.

0515hrs (LOG 1)
Dog handler return for flack jacket and return to house.

0518hrs (LOG 1)
PC Myall to house to stay with son Jeremy and PC’s to perimeter of area minimum 400 yards. CA5 to rear of farm.

0525hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

0528hrs (LOG 1)
PC Myall return, take CA7 (A101) around to house. Numerous challenges to house no response.

0529hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
From CA7 - challenge to persons inside house met with no response.

0534hrs (LOG 1)
Son Jeremy returns to track area with PC 1536 to phone girlfriend (CA6).

0538hrs (LOG 3)
From HQIR. Believed three adult + (3) 2 children in house. House contained. TFG challenged house on loudspeaker, no response (PS Adams Commander). Request from TFG at scene for Inspector Montgomery and six extra firearms personal (HQ arranging) Request for Mr Gibbons at scene.

0540hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 4)
N/R @ CW

0543hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 2 and LOG 3)
CA6 returns with son

0545hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 5)
From HQIR. Continue to try phone @ scene and GPO to recheck.

0547hrs
Phone engaged at scene

0548hrs
Request by TSU that 3 premises close to property be checked re hearing any possible noise


0549hrs
PS Adams advised that following checks at properties no noises heard by either family. 3rd family in Australia.

0550hrs
GPO monitoring phone and will contact CD if anything heard. HQIR informed.


0555hrs (LOG 2)
PS adams advised that following checks at properties no noises heard by either family, third family in Australia

0556hrs (LOG 2)
From VG. No change in telephone situation - still off hook. GPO monitoring - they can only hear dog barking at house.

0557hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
PS Adams advised.

0605hrs (LOG 1)
CA6 to end of lane with main road to await further firearms unit

0606hrs (LOG 4)
CW contacted and will inform Mr Gibbons.

0608hrs (LOG 4)
GPO to switch house phone to HQIR incident room via 9 system.

0610hrs (LOG 4)
Mr Gibbons informed and attending via Witham.

0620hrs (LOG 2)
Francis Anthony Seabrook, farm neighbour to be advised not to leave premises

0624hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3 and LOG 4)
Reliefs for night crews arranged.
Chief Supt’ Harris updated by Inspector Wilkinson.

0626hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
Request Chief Inspector or Inspector to attend scene (Chief Inspector already advised). Ambulance one requested to attend scene one standby.

0627hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
VG requested to listen for dog on telephone - negative

0632hrs (LOG 1)
CG32 to scene to relieve CW crew, PC Chaplin and WPC 3115 Dixon.

0637hrs (LOG 1)
Chief Inspector Clarke to farm track

0640hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
Chief Inspector Clark arrived

0646hrs (LOG 3)
ETA request of second F/A unit (few minutes)

0647hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 2 and LOG 3)
QE 24 arrived on scene.

0700hrs (LOG 1)
CA6 returns to track having escorted ambulances to scene

0702hrs (LOG 1)
QK24 Acting police sgt’ Moule and team arrive, go down to CP at farmhouse on foot (keys to vehicle under sun visor) 2 x ambulance 051 - 070 2 + 2 crew arrive. 051 from Witham, 070 from Malden.

0703hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
Additional support unit arrived. Two ambulances. VG advised CA7 all persons resident in Pages lane now advised of situation.

0705hrs (LOG 4)
Chief Supt’ Harris arrived at CD conveyed to crime scene by CA2 by PC Read.

0708hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 3)
Chief Inspector Gibbons arrived.

0712hrs (LOG 1)
CG10. Chief Inspector Gibbons arrives with PC Panting. C.I. Gibbons on foot to CP at farmhouse.

0725hrs (LOG 1)
Jeremy from CP to track for rest.

0730hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 2 and LOG 3)
(access) Entry gained - body found in kitchen male (and female).

0736hrs (LOG 1)
Witham ambulance crew reliefs.

0738hrs (LOG 2)
VG request Chief Supt’ - to be advised. DCI to attend scene. SOCO. Coroners officer informed. Police surgeon to attend.

0739hrs (LOG 1)
Chief Supt’ Harris arrives with PC 1445 Read in CA2. Mr Harris walks to farmhouse CP

0740hrs (LOG 4)
From Detective Inspector IR. Police entered premise. 1 male dead. 1 female dead. Inform DCI. SOCO. And police surgeon to be informed and attend.

0741hrs (LOG 2)
Chief Supt’ Harris arrives.

0743hrs (LOG 5)
PC Wright. Coroners officer, informed only.

0745hrs (LOG 5)
SOCO DS Davidson informed and attending, ETA half hour at CD.

0747hrs (LOG 5)
Police surgeon requested via CW.

0754hrs (LOG 2)
From VG - Inspector Montgomery
1. From Inspector Good, can seminar be cancelled
2. F.S.U. stood down.
Reply - cancel seminar - no further personal at scene.

0755hrs (LOG 1)
Mr NOTTAGE from Colchester, sub divisional commander, ambulance on scene.

0808hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 5)
Dr Craig attending within 5 - 10 minutes (via CW).

0809hrs (LOG 2)
Ambulance crews stood down.

0810hrs (LOG 1 and LOG 5)
House now been thoroughly searched by firearms team. Now confirmed a further three bodies found - five dead in total (info’ from duty Inspector).

0813hrs (LOG 2)
Chief Supt’ Harris, Chief Inspector Gibbons entered house. PS Bews to advise Jeremy of situation.

0815hrs (LOG 2)
Request from A.D.C. Simpson for Mr Harris to make contact.

0819hrs (LOG 1)
Ambulance 051 with Witham crew leave.
0820hrs (LOG 1)


0821hrs (LOG 5)
DS Davidson leaving CD for scene.

0825hrs (LOG 1)
Dr Craig arrives on scene to see son, Jeremy. Then on to farmhouse with PS Bews.

0826hrs (LOG 2 and LOG 5)
From DCI Jones, inform DI Miller and request him to attend scene.

0827hrs (LOG 5)
Witham contacted will call out DI Miller to scene.

0829hrs(LOG 1)
Ambulance 070 with Maldon crew leave.

0830hrs (LOG 2)
From Inspector Montgomery - no persons to pass control vehicle. PC’s Lay and batchelor on house, front and back.

0832hrs (LOG 1)
All units commence leaving scene.

0838hrs (LOG 5)
DS Davidson/ DC Hammersley leaving CD en route to scene.

0842hrs (LOG 1)
Dog unit from scene (PC Mercer)

0843hrs (LOG 1)
H.Q. unit from scene.

0845hrs (LOG 5)
Coroner required at scene plus two more officers and vehicle. PC Wright attending.

0846hrs (LOG 1)
QK23 from scene.

0847hrs (LOG 1)
QK24 from scene

0850hrs (LOG 5)
PC Watson and WPC Cummings attending in CA4 (0856) now cancelled support unit attending.

0851hrs (LOG 1)
Chief Supt’ Harris and Dr Craig speak with Jeremy (walkabout).

0854hrs (LOG 1)
Detective Chief Inspector Jones arrives at scene with PC Clark. Liase with PS Bews and Chief Supt’ Harris having left Jeremy with Dr Craig.

1030hrs (LOG 5)
PC Tingey called required to attend scene regarding Draw planning. ETA.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:10:PM
Actually Keira we could have another day out taking photos and collecting evidence

You could meet Mercer as well apparently he is a really really nice person


Great idea. I would love to meet this lovely man  ;D

Haven't Nick and Vic gone quiet...
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: simong on March 14, 2012, 05:24:PM
Which CO-OP Jackie? Kings Road, Duke Street, Market Street, Torquay Road, there's one at Meadgate Ave as well i think. I am off work this week and would love a chat with someone who worked on the case.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:39:PM
Which CO-OP Jackie? Kings Road, Duke Street, Market Street, Torquay Road, there's one at Meadgate Ave as well i think. I am off work this week and would love a chat with someone who worked on the case.


I'll bet you would.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:40:PM
We could end up in the same place for a pub lunch and I think Tyler wants to come this time as she is only in Southend


Great idea!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: simong on March 14, 2012, 05:41:PM
I understand no prob. Shall have a little scout about after the school run tomorrow. Can't be too many Mr.Mercers working in CO-OP's in Chelmsford. You are right about Chelmsford being so large, City status was granted today.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: simong on March 14, 2012, 05:42:PM

I'll bet you would.

Would and Will.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:44:PM
We could go to that place we discussed in West Mersea too, Jackie, it's only 10 minutes away from there.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:48:PM
I don't actually think we should speak to Mr Mercer, Jackie, it would be construed as attempting to tamper with a witness. Better to wait and see what transpires.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:51:PM
Yes I just checked it is only ten minutes

I have a very strong hunch interviews have already been done and this is going in the documentary which will be a strong point from a public perception of the case


Excellent!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 05:53:PM
Which CO-OP Jackie? Kings Road, Duke Street, Market Street, Torquay Road, there's one at Meadgate Ave as well i think. I am off work this week and would love a chat with someone who worked on the case.


Why are you hyperventilating over Mr Mercer's evidence, simong? Does this case have personal significance for you?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on March 14, 2012, 05:55:PM
Yes I just checked it is only ten minutes

I have a very strong hunch interviews have already been done and this is going in the documentary which will be a strong point from a public perception of the case

Since you are saying this I hope it is correct as it will certainly be the subject of comment if it is not.  I am somewhat surprised that I was not aware of this interview.  However, I will look forward to the documentary.



 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 06:04:PM
Since you are saying this I hope it is correct as it will certainly be the subject of comment if it is not.  I am somewhat surprised that I was not aware of this interview.  However, I will look forward to the documentary.



 


No need to worry, NGB, the name is correct, but the places are fictitious to protect the innocent  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on March 14, 2012, 06:07:PM
Ngb you are aware of who is making the documentary and I know hours of filming has been done but who knows what makes the final cut

I am confident it will shake the public watching

So you know for a fact that PC Mercer was interviewed by Mark?

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 06:22:PM

Why are you hyperventilating over Mr Mercer's evidence, simong? Does this case have personal significance for you?



You and your brother used to get very hot under the collar about this case, didn't you?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: simong on March 14, 2012, 06:34:PM

Why are you hyperventilating over Mr Mercer's evidence, simong? Does this case have personal significance for you?

Hello Keira, I don't appear to be hyperventilating. I apologise profusely if that is the impression i have given you. P.C Mercer worked on the case and works near where i live. The fact that he was a police officer and firmly believes in Jeremy Bambers innocence makes him a very interesting person to meet, i feel.

Personal Significance? difficult question but i will say Yes.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: andrea on March 14, 2012, 06:37:PM
Hi Simong  ;D

Nice to see you,as always.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: simong on March 14, 2012, 06:39:PM


You and your brother used to get very hot under the collar about this case, didn't you?

I am not sure that this is relevant to the thread Keira.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: andrea on March 14, 2012, 06:43:PM
Andrea how old is your profile photo?


Why do you want to know that then?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2012, 06:53:PM
Ngb you are aware of who is making the documentary and I know hours of filming has been done but who knows what makes the final cut

I am confident it will shake the public watching

Jack, it might not shake anyone who is as familiar with the case, such as us or the other forum.  Since both sets of forum members are aware of the new evidence. 

I am of course still looking forward to seeing it.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2012, 07:32:PM
Rochy when was there a prime time documentary on the Bamber case last?

Twitter is flooded with law students who believe he is innocent, they are obviously interested in MOJ cases

I expect the general public will feel the same when the case is laid out with the new evidence and PII etc

It is a case that will catch the public interest

NOBODY wants to see someone in prison for life if the person looks like he may be innocent

I am looking forward to it jack... but had hoped it might be longer than 20 mins.  Hopefully it will be very interesting.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 14, 2012, 07:40:PM
Good evening all

So is it still not confirmed that a sniffer dog actually went into the farmhouse?

Thankyou
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2012, 07:46:PM
Rochy if the case is referred which I believe it will be I think a full length documentary would be before the actual appeal to keep the pressure up

I wonder if it will go to judicial review, in the event of a negative CCRC refusing referral? 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: vidvic on March 14, 2012, 08:30:PM
Keira you're right me just like hearing everything first hands is nice but I know he is convinced Jeremy is innocent

How?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: vidvic on March 14, 2012, 08:35:PM


Brilliant, Jackie, you've made my day! 

You were saying Vic and Nick....?

I think jackie is saying that he was on a provisional list of interviewees but I'm not sure she is saying he was actually interviewed? But if he truly believes in bamber's innocence I am absolutely staggered we've not heard from him before now? Despite a £1m pound reward? And I am sure he is absolutely delighted that you've set any journo worth his salt to now try and track him down for copy!!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on March 14, 2012, 08:44:PM
It's bang out of order that his name has been referenced on this thread in the way that it has.  Mods should remove reference to him on this thread imo.  Regardless of what he may or may not think about the case, his views are private as far as i can see. 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 10:47:PM
It's bang out of order that his name has been referenced on this thread in the way that it has.  Mods should remove reference to him on this thread imo.  Regardless of what he may or may not think about the case, his views are private as far as i can see.


I think you're right, Rocky.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 11:21:PM
I think jackie is saying that he was on a provisional list of interviewees but I'm not sure she is saying he was actually interviewed? But if he truly believes in bamber's innocence I am absolutely staggered we've not heard from him before now? Despite a £1m pound reward? And I am sure he is absolutely delighted that you've set any journo worth his salt to now try and track him down for copy!!



People, their views and circumstances change, Vic. Nothing is static in life.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 11:25:PM
Nick, I'm not sure if this is a help or a hindrance, but below is a copy of a post from Mike on the SFJ almost three years ago. It mentions the dog handler a few times.

Having said that, I have no idea where this information actually originates, perhaps Mike would be able to provide an insight.


Well found, Hartley! Thank you for this.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on March 14, 2012, 11:30:PM
I was just thinking if Ray H Spark Films had a night off touring the red light district of Ipswich thinking there was a Mercer story and there was no story!!!

Our documentary is top of his game, the best around right now
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on March 14, 2012, 11:34:PM
Vic what did you mean about Facebook?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 14, 2012, 11:59:PM
Hello Keira, I don't appear to be hyperventilating. I apologise profusely if that is the impression i have given you. P.C Mercer worked on the case and works near where i live. The fact that he was a police officer and firmly believes in Jeremy Bambers innocence makes him a very interesting person to meet, i feel.

Personal Significance? difficult question but i will say Yes.


Hi Simong,

No apology needed. I should be the one apologising to you as you say I'm wrong.

Can I ask you why the case is of personal significance to you? Do you mean it's personal merely in the sense of having a grievance and taking something as 'personal' as a result, or do you mean that you have or had personal involvement with the case itself or with or with Jeremy and, or, his family?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 15, 2012, 12:01:AM
And I am sure he is absolutely delighted that you've set any journo worth his salt to now try and track him down for copy!!

How exactly do you claim I've done that,Vic?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: vidvic on March 15, 2012, 12:14:AM
How exactly do you claim I've done that,Vic?

I didn't Keira. It was Jackie.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on March 15, 2012, 12:27:AM
Vic there's not much of a story is it a police handler trusting his dog

Did you think it was bigger
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on March 15, 2012, 02:12:AM
I didn't Keira. It was Jackie.

Oh, right.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Newbury1 on March 15, 2012, 09:46:AM

Great idea. I would love to meet this lovely man  ;D

Haven't Nick and Vic gone quiet...

I've just got more important things to do!  ::)

But still waiting for the official evidence supporting the police dog issue....... Zzzzzzzzzz!

If it's that important, did Rivlin use it in Court?  ::) - that would silence me  ;)

If Rivlin didn't - take a running jump  ;D

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: tyler on March 15, 2012, 11:09:PM
The fact that Mercer was even there in the first place,with his dog,would he have had to have written up some kind of report afterwards,or a statement maybe?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Blodwynflower on March 16, 2012, 06:21:PM
The fact that Mercer was even there in the first place,with his dog,would he have had to have written up some kind of report afterwards,or a statement maybe?

You would think so, wouldn't you Tyler.....
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi) on March 16, 2012, 09:40:PM
You would think so, wouldn't you Tyler.....

I think all he would be required to do is make the relevant entries in his note book. He would only make a statement if requested to do so.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on May 21, 2012, 01:57:AM

Is there actually any evidence that this dog ever got anywhere near Bamber? And if it did, why did the defence not mention this at trial as Bamber surely would have remembered a close encounter of the canine kind?





Yes, there is Vic, I've just found it.


From PC Dermott's statement

"After a few minutes I was called up to the building via green side where I met with Ps Adams and Jeremy Bamber in the cattle shed on white/green corner. Ps Adams instructed me to wait with Jeremy Bamber whilst he went to speak to Pcs Collins and Delgado. Whilst I was there I had another conversation with Jeremy Bamber...

Ps Adams asked for a dog handler to join my position and we were joined by PC Mercer. I was instructed to find a containment postion on black side and I took PC Mercer back to our transit and equipped him with body armour. We then went to the black side of the building and were unable to find a containment postion because of the density of the hedgerow.

PC Mercer and myself ended up by a barn on black green corner...

Prior to the entry to the building PC Mercer was relieved."

So dog handler PC Mercer [and his dog, or why ask for a dog handler?] were in the cattle shed on white/green corner with Jeremy Bamber.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on May 21, 2012, 02:19:AM



Yes, there is Vic, I've just found it.


From PC Dermott's statement

"After a few minutes I was called up to the building via green side where I met with Ps Adams and Jeremy Bamber in the cattle shed on white/green corner. Ps Adams instructed me to wait with Jeremy Bamber whilst he went to speak to Pcs Collins and Delgado. Whilst I was there I had another conversation with Jeremy Bamber...

Ps Adams asked for a dog handler to join my position and we were joined by PC Mercer. I was instructed to find a containment postion on black side and I took PC Mercer back to our transit and equipped him with body armour. We then went to the black side of the building and were unable to find a containment postion because of the density of the hedgerow.

PC Mercer and myself ended up by a barn on black green corner...

Prior to the entry to the building PC Mercer was relieved."

So dog handler PC Mercer [and his dog, or why ask for a dog handler?] were in the cattle shed on white/green corner with Jeremy Bamber.


Which seems to agree with:


MASTER OVERVIEW LOG

0458hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Firearms team and dog unit off at scene

0459hrs (LOG 1)
HQ units arrive (2 x transits) plus CG6 (PC’s Lay and Batchelor) plus dog unit (PC 1422 Mercer) PS Adams incharge of firearms unit.

0508hrs (LOG 1)
Fireamrs unit to house.

0512hrs (LOG 1)
Request for dog handler.

0515hrs (LOG 1)
Dog handler return for flack jacket and return to house.

0842hrs (LOG 1)
Dog unit from scene (PC Mercer)

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on May 21, 2012, 02:22:AM
So David Shaw and Scott Lomax were both correct in stating that a sniffer dog was taken up to Jeremy.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: NewChilledOutHartley on May 21, 2012, 07:52:AM
So David Shaw and Scott Lomax were both correct in stating that a sniffer dog was taken up to Jeremy.

Unfortunately not. If you can find any reference to a 'sniffer dog', then let's see it please.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 08:43:AM
Unfortunately not. If you can find any reference to a 'sniffer dog', then let's see it please.
Not sure where they got their information from. Perhaps it will help if some enthusiastic person got in touch with Shaw and Lomax and ask them where they did get it from? But it appears that the logs only refer to a dog unit, which is a common practice where backup is needed. Having said that, all police dogs are "sniffer" dogs, or they wouldn't be much use as police dogs in tracking criminals. The dogs used at airports though are expecially trained to sniff out drugs and perhaps explosives.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 09:29:AM
Not sure where they got their information from. Perhaps it will help if some enthusiastic person got in touch with Shaw and Lomax and ask them where they did get it from? But it appears that the logs only refer to a dog unit, which is a common practice where backup is needed. Having said that, all police dogs are "sniffer" dogs, or they wouldn't be much use as police dogs in tracking criminals. The dogs used at airports though are expecially trained to sniff out drugs and perhaps explosives.

Not all police dogs are sniffer dogs, most are just trained to apprehend. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the dog was even got out of the van.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 09:31:AM

Which seems to agree with:


MASTER OVERVIEW LOG

0458hrs (wireless message log and communications log)
Firearms team and dog unit off at scene

0459hrs (LOG 1)
HQ units arrive (2 x transits) plus CG6 (PC’s Lay and Batchelor) plus dog unit (PC 1422 Mercer) PS Adams incharge of firearms unit.

0508hrs (LOG 1)
Fireamrs unit to house.

0512hrs (LOG 1)
Request for dog handler.

0515hrs (LOG 1)
Dog handler return for flack jacket and return to house.

0842hrs (LOG 1)
Dog unit from scene (PC Mercer)

If they were recording that amount of detail you'd think they'd mention an 'official sniffing'.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 09:53:AM
Morning Bridget  I have been reading today,s posts and I was wondering what other duties police dogs have other than sniffing out gunshot residue and drugs.  Maybe to attack criminals but would have thought they would be "all rounders" as they each have their own handler. :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 09:59:AM
Morning Bridget  I have been reading today,s posts and I was wondering what other duties police dogs have other than sniffing out gunshot residue and drugs.  Maybe to attack criminals but would have thought they would be "all rounders" as they each have their own handler. :) :) :)

Morning Susan, there's quite a bit of info on them online, try this from the met police:

http://www.met.police.uk/dogsupport/
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:07:AM
Not all police dogs are sniffer dogs, most are just trained to apprehend. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the dog was even got out of the van.
Sorry to contradict you Bridget. If they were not all sniffer dogs they would not be able to carry out their duties to apprehend. They are ALL trained to track and that is what I meant by that and I rather think you know what I meant? ;)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 10:08:AM
Hi Bridget  just been corrected (again) by my husband who works in the Criminal Justice System that  sniffer dogs are Spaniels and dogs used for apprehending criminals would be an Alsatian I will read your thread anyhow  it would be so funny if he was wrong Ha Ha :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:09:AM
Morning Susan, there's quite a bit of info on them online, try this from the met police:

http://www.met.police.uk/dogsupport/
Which includes sniffingas you can see:
Quote
he dogs and handlers have a variety of skills.

General Purpose Dogs, usually German or Belgian Shepherd Dogs, patrol London with their handlers. They have a range of skills, including:

    Searching for suspects and missing people.
    Locating objects dropped or concealed during a criminal incident.
    Following a track left by a person on the ground.
    Chasing and detaining a person who runs away when challenged to stop.
    Disarming violent armed suspects and controlling hostile crowds.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 10:11:AM
Sorry to contradict you Bridget. If they were not all sniffer dogs they would not be able to carry out their duties to apprehend. They are ALL trained to track and that is what I meant by that and I rather think you know what I meant? ;)

By sniffer dog I mean a dog trained to detect specific scents, such as drugs or explosives. All dogs have good noses.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 10:12:AM
Good morning.
With the heaps of sites and links on this case,it's easy to get bogged down with conflicting stories on who or what was at the scene,and which of it is true.
I did see a section of there having been an Alsatian being brought to the farmhouse. At that particular time,Jeremy was outside,and as far as I can gather,because the dog was trained in sniffing out explosives and the like,there'd been nothing to detect on Jeremy. Whether the dog was ordered to search Jeremy,I don't know,but I'm pretty sure if there'd have been a scent,the dog would have reacted in some way.   
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:13:AM
Hi Bridget  just been corrected (again) by my husband who works in the Criminal Justice System that  sniffer dogs are Spaniels and dogs used for apprehending criminals would be an Alsatian I will read your thread anyhow  it would be so funny if he was wrong Ha Ha :) :) :)
Well in a sense he is wrong. As they also use spaniels and beagles to apprehend criminals as well. They don't use them to attack criminals. But they do use them to track criminals. There is no indication that the dog unit were either spaniels or Alsatians. Quite probably because of the nature of the suspected crime they were Alsatians?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:14:AM
By sniffer dog I mean a dog trained to detect specific scents, such as drugs or explosives. All dogs have good noses.
But you DID know what I meant didn't you? if you read what I said in context.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:15:AM
Good morning.
With the heaps of sites and links on this case,it's easy to get bogged down with conflicting stories on who or what was at the scene,and which of it is true.
I did see a section of there having been an Alsatian being brought to the farmhouse. At that particular time,Jeremy was outside,and as far as I can gather,because the dog was trained in sniffing out explosives and the like,there'd been nothing to detect on Jeremy. Whether the dog was ordered to search Jeremy,I don't know,but I'm pretty sure if there'd have been a scent,the dog would have reacted in some way.
Was that an alsation? Can you link to the record lookout?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 10:18:AM
Hi Grahame  he has been known to be wrong but I think it depends what part of the Country we are talking about plus he is not in the police force better not tell him he could be wrong :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 10:21:AM
But you DID know what I meant didn't you? if you read what I said in context.

Now that I read it again I think I see what you are saying, but at the time I thought you were suggesting that all police dogs would be capable of detecting gun shot residue.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: NewChilledOutHartley on May 21, 2012, 10:22:AM
Was that an alsation? Can you link to the record lookout?

It's just from Shaws Manuscript, which lacks references and contains more errors than it does facts.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445

EXTRACT:
Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 10:25:AM
Hi Grahame,,,,I'm not ignoring you. I'm now trying to find that link on the Alsatian dog. The handler was a PC Mercer.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: NewChilledOutHartley on May 21, 2012, 10:32:AM
Hi Grahame,,,,I'm not ignoring you. I'm now trying to find that link on the Alsatian dog. The handler was a PC Mercer.

Scroll up.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on May 21, 2012, 10:36:AM
It's just from Shaws Manuscript, which lacks references and contains more errors than it does facts.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445

EXTRACT:
Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result.

I agree that it is a pity Shaw did not give the basis for saying PC Mercer's dog was trained to sniff for gunshot residue.  It is not something all police dogs are trained to do.  Shaw may be right but without further information we cannot be sure.  The obvious solution is to speak to PC Mercer.

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:38:AM
Now that I read it again I think I see what you are saying, but at the time I thought you were suggesting that all police dogs would be capable of detecting gun shot residue.
No I wasn't saying that. That it appears is a dog specially trained for that purpose. Probably one of those airport dogs owned and trained for that purpose?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 10:39:AM
Hi Lookout  perhaps 27 years ago different dogs were used for different activities but I do know they use Spaniel dogs for sniffing.  Wish I had not mentioned it off to the weed the garden the other forum have such a laugh when I say I,m off to weed the garden it is better they are laughing than crying.  Speak later my friend.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Bridget on May 21, 2012, 10:41:AM
No I wasn't saying that. That it appears is a dog specially trained for that perpose. Probably one of those airport dogs owned and trained for that purpose?

Ok, I think we understand one another now.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:41:AM
It's just from Shaws Manuscript, which lacks references and contains more errors than it does facts.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445

EXTRACT:
Another incident occurred that morning which never saw the light of day. PC Mercer (dog handler) had brought with him to the farm his Alsatian dog which was specially trained to ‘sniff’ for explosives, firearms or signs that a person had recently handled a firearm. The police would claim Jeremy – only a few hours earlier – had discharged twenty-five rounds and reloaded at least twice during the attack. The sniffer dog approached Jeremy and carried out his trained role without a positive result.
Well from that I am willing to accept that it was an alsation. As I said, because it was that type of suspected crime where the villian was armed that would have been the dog suitable for that purpose.
As to whether it was specially trained to sniff out explosives? I am doubtful and would like to know where Shaw got that information?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 10:45:AM
Hi Lookout  perhaps 27 years ago different dogs were used for different activities but I do know they use Spaniel dogs for sniffing.  Wish I had not mentioned it off to the weed the garden the other forum have such a laugh when I say I,m off to weed the garden it is better they are laughing than crying.  Speak later my friend.
Don't worry about them Susan. They are just the court fools who giggle about anything. There remind me of the inbred swamp people on TV. ;D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 10:55:AM
Hi Grahame  have given up worrying about them it seems so strange to me that is they find me so amusing with my silly Yorkshire accent why they don,t come on here and debate with me they have stated any information I have on Yorkshire I have googled it.  On reflection please don,t come over to us just have a good laugh at me.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 11:10:AM
Hi Grahame  have given up worrying about them it seems so strange to me that is they find me so amusing with my silly Yorkshire accent why they don,t come on here and debate with me they have stated any information I have on Yorkshire I have googled it.  On reflection please don,t come over to us just have a good laugh at me.
Well I haven't noticed your Yorkshire accent? ;D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 11:17:AM
Hi Grahame  I think if you met me you would notice it but I am not quite as hilly billy as some thank God as even I cannot understand what they are talking about :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 11:25:AM
Now that I've finished talking to my neighbour ( she'd talk a glass eye to sleep ) I see that you're all now in the know.
Susan,I don't mind your Yorkshire accent.I spent a lot of my childhood " on holiday " with relatives who lived in Riddlesdon,Keighley. x
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on May 21, 2012, 11:28:AM
Ngb would you say that it was very likely a dog used to sniff gun residue etc would have been called as the basis of the initial investigation/phone call was My sister has gone crazy and she has a gun

There are numerous police dogs in Essex that could have been chosen that night
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 11:28:AM
Now that I've finished talking to my neighbour ( she'd talk a glass eye to sleep ) I see that you're all now in the know.
Susan,I don't mind your Yorkshire accent.I spent a lot of my childhood " on holiday " with relatives who lived in Riddlesdon,Keighley. x
I think the Yorshire accent is a friendly accent. If you can describe an accent in those terms. ;D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on May 21, 2012, 11:30:AM
Hartley WHEN the case is referred to the COA I am sure all this will come out
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 11:30:AM
Ngb would you say that it was very likely a dog used to sniff gun residue etc would have been called as the basis of the initial investigation/phone call was My sister has gone crazy and she has a gun

There are numerous police dogs in Essex that could have been chosen that night
Well as Hartley says the mystery could be cleared up if someone contacts Mercer. Any volunteers?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 11:32:AM
Hi lookout I was just thinking about you out looking for the dog hope you found it.  I was born not very far from where you use to stay I will give the other forum a good laugh now I don,t have a whippet or a cloth cap or cloggs but I do have a strong Yorkshire accent.  Still not got to weeds got held up passing the oven which I thought was not its usual shining self is now so I am off weeding what a hoot :) ;) :D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 11:32:AM
Obviously the dog wouldn't have been trained to sniff out drugs as well. They weren't as prevalent back then as now. Yes,Grahame,the Spaniels are the drug-sniffers.Very clever animals.
I mention drugs, as Nevill kept cannabis in the safe. To keep Sheila calm,presumably.!
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Roch on May 21, 2012, 11:33:AM
Hartley WHEN the case is referred to the COA I am sure all this will come out

I'm not sure JR will have much success.  We could be waiting a very long time....
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 11:33:AM
Hi lookout I was just thinking about you out looking for the dog hope you found it.  I was born not very far from where you use to stay I will give the other forum a good laugh now I don,t have a whippet or a cloth cap or cloggs but I do have a strong Yorkshire accent.  Still not got to weeds got held up passing the oven which I thought was not its usual shining self is now so I am off weeding what a hoot :) ;) :D
Well my grass needs cutting. I could only lay in the sun yesterday if I had a periscope.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 11:36:AM
Obviously the dog wouldn't have been trained to sniff out drugs as well. They weren't as prevalent back then as now. Yes,Grahame,the Spaniels are the drug-sniffers.Very clever animals.
I mention drugs, as Nevill kept cannabis in the safe. To keep Sheila calm,presumably.!
Well in that case I could imagine the dogs laying on their backs sniffing the weed and most of the coppers as well. ;D
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on May 21, 2012, 11:38:AM
I'm not sure JR will have much success.  We could be waiting a very long time....

Things could move on quicker than you think with any gems still held under PII

Things can change in an instant
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 11:40:AM
Grahame  you are so funny I am just thinking of them all being spaced out as high as kites after sniffing the weed must admit my garden weeds are not one of the same next thing on the other side is I grow weed :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 11:41:AM
Susan, there wasn't a Yorkshire accent between any of the relatives,in fact they hadn't adopted the local accent at all,as when I returned back home,to Lancashire, I was laughed at because I'd picked up a very " cut-glass " way of speaking. A bit like the Queen's back in the 50's. Needless to say,it toned down during my teenage years. Perhaps because aunt was a schoolteacher in those days.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on May 21, 2012, 11:42:AM
Ngb would you say that it was very likely a dog used to sniff gun residue etc would have been called as the basis of the initial investigation/phone call was My sister has gone crazy and she has a gun

There are numerous police dogs in Essex that could have been chosen that night

It is possible, but I suspect the priority for the police at that stage was more protection rather than detection. 



Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on May 21, 2012, 11:47:AM
Ngb would a dog be used for protection if guns were involved or could a dog be used to tell where someone was hiding in a large house that might have already fired a gun

To find that person that had used the gun and protect officers going into a very dangerous situation
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 11:54:AM
Hi lookout  I can assure you myself and my family did not speak "cut glass" English more like broken glass although because my husband is Scottish maybe my accent has been toned slightly after living with him for so long.  Different parts of Yorkshire speak differently just listen to William Haigh and he comes from the "posh" bit or Yorkshire and Bernard Ingham who comes from my part although he is a little more posh now than he was.  I am being called :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on May 21, 2012, 12:06:PM
Ngb would a dog be used for protection if guns were involved or could a dog be used to tell where someone was hiding in a large house that might have already fired a gun

To find that person that had used the gun and protect officers going into a very dangerous situation

Yes, sometimes dogs are used where weapons are involved.  The reality is that it is considered acceptable to send a dog into a dangerous situation where the risk to a police officer is considered too great.  I have witnesses this myself.

 
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: mertol22 on May 21, 2012, 12:13:PM
The police dog or dogs there that night failed to scent the track of the figure seen scampering away another matter not cleared up.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: JackiePreece on May 21, 2012, 12:16:PM
NGB I didn't realise they used the dogs like that, thank goodness I was never a dog handler

PC Mercer has been quite vocal to certain people regarding his involvement at WHF and has said he strongly believes Jeremy to be innocent

I think there is more truth in Scotts book about this than just a rumour
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on May 21, 2012, 12:17:PM
NGB I didn't realise they used the dogs like that, thank goodness I was never a dog handler

PC Mercer has been quite vocal to certain people regarding his involvement at WHF and has said he strongly believes Jeremy to be innocent

I think there is more truth in Scotts book about this than just a rumour

You may be right.  I certainly think it is worth talking to Mercer.

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 12:19:PM
mertoll22  please don,t complicate the matter with the poor dog Ha Ha Ha
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 12:22:PM
Hi ngb  look at the dogs used in war zones to detect bombs ahead of the troops they do a wonderful job and are really loved by their handlers.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: ngb1066 on May 21, 2012, 12:24:PM
Hi ngb  look at the dogs used in war zones to detect bombs ahead of the troops they do a wonderful job and are really loved by their handlers.

Yes that is true.

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 03:05:PM
Hi lookout  Spaniels are also used in war zones to sniff out bombs before the troops proceed think I have said this once today but it will give the others a good laugh and that is my intention from now on and I have not started yet :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 03:19:PM
egap1  most male members of Bernard,s family had the bushy eyebrows fortunately the females did not :) I did know that Tony Christie came from Leeds I think  but only heard of him when he became famous  :) :) :)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: Nuala on May 21, 2012, 03:55:PM
Lookout re the cannabis I think it was more than likely for Nevill's personal use?   Obviously not sure if there were any skeletons in Nevill's closet but face value he seems like a pretty good all round egg.  Assuming this is correct it cant have been easy coping with June and Sheila?


Nevill's father, Herbert, was born in Bengal, India to parents who were steeped in the British Raj. Nevill's grandfather and great grandfather were army officers of the Raj in India who became civil servants of the Raj. Drug use was rife in the Raj. Nevill's father's career after the Raj was as an officer in the Navy who spent most of his life travelling to and from exotic locations. So Nevill came from a rather interesting family background on the Bambers' side.       
 

The Bambers' family tree.



Ralph Nevill Bamber
Born 9 JUN 1924
Died 7 August 1985


Nevill's parents:



Herbert Ralph Munrol Bamber   Bn:1889 Bengal, India Died 1950
Married Beatrice Cecilia Nevill  in 1916



Herbert's parents - Nevill's paternal grandparents:



1901 Census, 53 Denmark Villa, Hove Sussex

Name: Henry W J Bamber   Bn 1840 India Retired from Indian Civil Service
Name: Alice M Bamber  - born India c 1844
Children and servants, followed by ages and place of birth:

 
Florence A Bamber    31   Bedford
Edith S Bamber         28    India
Ethel M Bamber        27    Bedford
Helen E Bamber        24    India
Kathleen M Bamber   23    India
Daisy M Bamber        21    Dulwich
Violet R Bamber        19     India
Gladys L Bamber       15     Dulwich
Herbert R M Bamber  13     India
Sybil E Bamber          12    Hants
William B W Slade      55    Servant
Louise C W Slade       49    "    "
Fanny E Edwards       29    "     "
 


Henry WJ Bamber's parents:


William Richard Bamber  Bn:1778  D:1843
Married Harriet Warren  (Bn: 1798) in Newport Essex




William Richard Bamber's parents believed to have been:



William Bamber     Bn 1752 Jamaica
Married Mary Regan  1777 

Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 04:05:PM
NGB I didn't realise they used the dogs like that, thank goodness I was never a dog handler

PC Mercer has been quite vocal to certain people regarding his involvement at WHF and has said he strongly believes Jeremy to be innocent

I think there is more truth in Scotts book about this than just a rumour
Jackie, can you get hold of Mercer do you think?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 04:08:PM
Lookout re the cannabis I think it was more than likely for Nevill's personal use?   Obviously not sure if there were any skeletons in Nevill's closet but face value he seems like a pretty good all round egg.  Assuming this is correct it cant have been easy coping with June and Sheila?
Someone I know who also knew Jeremy said that Ralph was under investigation for his war crimes. But I have absolutely no way of confirming that and would have to count it as hearsay?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: bloggs and son on May 21, 2012, 04:11:PM
egap1  most male members of Bernard,s family had the bushy eyebrows fortunately the females did not  :) I did know that Tony Christie came from Leeds I think  but only heard of him when he became famous  :) :) :)
How would that trait manifest itself in them then? ::)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: susan on May 21, 2012, 05:07:PM
Hi Grahame they had moustaches :) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: tyler on May 21, 2012, 05:22:PM
Lookout re the cannabis I think it was more than likely for Nevill's personal use?   Obviously not sure if there were any skeletons in Nevill's closet but face value he seems like a pretty good all round egg.  Assuming this is correct it cant have been easy coping with June and Sheila?
Wasnt the cannabis in the safe as it had been confiscated by Nevill from a house guest,who was then consequently asked to leave whf?
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 05:26:PM
And that was just the women,Susan.
Title: Re: Sniffer dog
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2012, 05:40:PM
Joking aside,they were very interesting facts about Nevill and the Raj. I knew a Major in the Army,who was posted to India. He too had an interesting background,and was the late brother of Graham Stark,the actor.
When I attended his funeral,the Union Jack was draped over his coffin. He was highly thought of.