Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: chevalier noir on June 28, 2012, 01:33:PM
-
I feel that this question is being overlooked for some reason? So I have posted it under a new topic
Will anyone object if I get back to original question?
Here is notes of Jeremy Bamber call to police and Ralph call to police.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMzdlOWY0NTUtNmNiZS00NGJlLWI5YTYtNGM5ZGM3NGFkNmU3/edit?authkey=CIbx3JIB
http://twitpic.com/6qkaq9
-
Will anyone object if I get back to original question?
Here is notes of Jeremy Bamber call to police and Ralph call to police.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWMzdlOWY0NTUtNmNiZS00NGJlLWI5YTYtNGM5ZGM3NGFkNmU3/edit?authkey=CIbx3JIB
http://twitpic.com/6qkaq9
Here are sequence of events according to both telephone logs.
Nevill’s call Jeremy’s call
Made at 3.26 Made at 3.36
Police dispatched car CA7 (3.35am) Despatched another car CA5
CA7 arrives at the scene at 3.48 CA5 arrives at 4.23
Refers to Sheila as ‘Daughter’ Refers to Sheila as ‘Sister’
Address White House Farm Address Head St, Goldhanger
860209 – WHF number 88645 – Jeremy’s phone number
Says his Daughter has gone ‘Beserk’ Jeremy says Sister had gone ‘crazy’
Nevill says Sheila was 26 yrs Jeremy says Sheila was 27 yrs
Nevill lists shotguns and .410’s Jeremy makes no mention of any other guns in the house
He says she has got one of ‘my’ guns Jeremy Says ‘the gun’
This is by kind supply from the official Jeremy Bamber website. All copyright belongs to them.
Could I ask some questions that have puzzled me for a long time? A single judge ruled that time of 3.26 was a mistake. And because of this everybody seems to reject Ralphs call to the police as just a copy.
Very sorry but this still problem with me.
(1) Why was car CA7 dispatched at 3.35 when Jeremy's call was at 3.36?
-
It wasn't overlooked at all. Jeremys call was at 3:26 not 3:36.
You were answered in the thread where you originally posted.
-
It wasn't overlooked at all. Jeremys call was at 3:26 not 3:36.
You were answered in the thread where you originally posted.
But surely if that was true then that means that jeremy's call which was availably was wrong anf Raplhs call which was discovered years after was right then?
-
Hello. This is what one poster wrote some time ago:
[quote"curiousessex"]Note, that the patrol car, CA05, was dispatched to respond to the call made to the police by Jeremy at 3:36am, as verified by the fact that these details are recorded in the message log relating to Jeremy's call, "Dispatched CA05 to scene"...
It is also apparent that during the call made to the police by Nevill Bamber (3:26am) that he left the handset off its cradle, and that this would be consistent with Ralph having earlier called Jeremy, and the line going dead, because Ralph would have tapped the cradle to enable him to make the call to the police at 3:26am, so that by the time Jeremy attempted to re-establish contact with Nevill at whf, he kept getting the engaged tone. Jeremy got the engaged tone at that time, because Nevill was speaking to the police. Later, the police got the operator to check the line at whf from where Nevill had made the call at 3:26am, who confirmed that at that stage, the handset was off its cradle... [/quote]
-
But surely if that was true then that means that jeremy's call which was availably was wrong anf Raplhs call which was discovered years after was right then?
I am still confused. Which telephone log was an exhibit in the trial Jeremy Bamber log or Ralph log?
-
Hello. This is what one poster wrote some time ago:
If you are going to quote another member then please can you use the quote button to do so, otherwise you are in danger of misquoting them.
As can be seen below 'Curiousessex' is actually referring to something posted on another website.
But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ::)
I'm not sure of the layout of Chelmsford police station, and I'm not sure where PC West was in relation to Malcolm Bonnet. I've tried to find out but without success.
Did Bonnet write both logs?
The answer to all this and the case may lay simply in the accuracy of the Essex Police clock or clocks.
The website www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk includes ‘Bamber v Regina – Officially the latest evidence’ which details the following under the heading ‘Jeremy’s Alibi’.
Nevill’s Call to Police (3.26) and Jeremy's call to police (3.36)
Jeremy has always maintained that his father called him to tell him that Sheila had a gun and he wanted him to come over. It has now been proven that Jeremy was telling the truth as his father DID call the police. The fact that the police failed to disclose both Jeremy and Nevill's call to them prevented Jeremy from getting a fair trial. The jury should have been made aware of both calls. Click here to read more
If the ‘click here’ link is followed more details are provided –
Nevill's call to Police
One of the big mysteries in this case which has always been harmful to Jeremy's testimony was the prosecution's case that Nevill Bamber didn't call the Police. This is featured in the Daily Mirror Article 05/08/10
But we know that Nevill did call the Police - view the Police transcipts here
The logs are rolling documents and were started when the calls were made and added to as the events of the evening unfolded. An explanation for the anomalies below is that the officer who took the calls simply made a mistake about the times. What do you think?
Nevill’s call
Made at 3.26
Police dispatched car CA7 (3.35am)
CA7 arrives at the scene at 3.48
Refers to Sheila as ‘Daughter’
Address White House Farm
860209 – WHF number
Says his Daughter has gone ‘Beserk’
Nevill says Sheila was 26 yrs
Nevill tells them about shotguns and .410’s
He says she has got one of ‘my’ guns
Jeremy’s call
Made at 3.36
Despatched another car CA5
CA5 arrives at 4.23
Refers to Sheila as ‘Sister’
Address Head St, Goldhanger
88645 – Jeremy’s phone number
Jeremy says Sister had gone ‘crazy’
Jeremy says Sheila was 27 yrs
Jeremy makes no mention of any other guns in the house
Jeremy Says ‘the gun’
It could be argued that Jeremy made the call from WHF and then went to his home at Goldhanger and made the second call, but it’s not possible to get from one to the other in less than 10 minutes.
Why was this log never shown to the jury?
Why would the same police officer, collar number 1990, make two different records of a call from the same person, at different times (3;26 and 3:36am), referring to details passed to him about the caller’s "daughter" in one, and the callers "sister", in the other?
The patrol car which overtook Jeremy en route to the farmhouse that morning, (CA07) was responding to the call made by Nevill, not to the call made by Jeremy, as confirmed by the fact that CA07 left to go to the scene, (3:35am), one minute before Jeremy made his call to the police at 3:36am (this anomaly was apparently commented upon during the judgement at the last (2002) appeal).
Note, that the patrol car, CA05, was dispatched to respond to the call made to the police by Jeremy at 3:36am, as verified by the fact that these details are recorded in the message log relating to Jeremy's call, "Dispatched CA05 to scene"...
It is also apparent that during the call made to the police by Nevill Bamber (3:26am) that he left the handset off its cradle, and that this would be consistent with Ralph having earlier called Jeremy, and the line going dead, because Ralph would have tapped the cradle to enable him to make the call to the police at 3:26am, so that by the time Jeremy attempted to re-establish contact with Nevill at whf, he kept getting the engaged tone. Jeremy got the engaged tone at that time, because Nevill was speaking to the police. Later, the police got the operator to check the line at whf from where Nevill had made the call at 3:26am, who confirmed that at that stage, the handset was off its cradle...
-
If you are going to quote another member then please can you use the quote button to do so, otherwise you are in danger of misquoting them.
As can be seen below 'Curiousessex' is actually referring to something posted on another website.
But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ::)
But mister Jam. I did copy what he said accurately and in your quote he confirms it. At the trial the original log was jeremy bamber log. The log that was disputed was Ralph bamber log discovered many years later. So original log was one accepted at trial they time they were thought to have quoted incorrectly was 3.26 and not 3.36 Why would they send out car CA7 which was not mentioned on original log? Am I understanding this correctly.
-
I'm not sure who you think you are amusing. :-\
Carry on. ::)
-
I don't understand amusing? what is this.
There is another anomaly as well.
Car CA7 which was dispatched at 3.35am and arrives at scene at 3.48am = roughly 15 minutes.
Care CA5 which was dispatched at 3.36am and arrives at 4.23am.= roughly 45 minutes. Why so long?
Was it that the first call from Ralph Bamber was a 999 call and the call from Jeremy Bamber was to the police station?
The police car C07 must have been going very fast to get from chelmsford to White House Farm in such a short time?
-
I don't understand amusing? what is this.
There is another anomaly as well.
Car CA7 which was dispatched at 3.35am and arrives at scene at 3.48am = roughly 15 minutes.
Care CA5 which was dispatched at 3.36am and arrives at 4.23am.= roughly 45 minutes. Why so long?
Was it that the first call from Ralph Bamber was a 999 call and the call from Jeremy Bamber was to the police station?
The police car C07 must have been going very fast to get from chelmsford to White House Farm in such a short time?
Car CO7 was not necessarily in Chelmsford at the time, it could have been returning from another shout and in the location.
-
I can see this case being another unsolved job like the Diane Jones one ( in the same area ) in 1983.
Nobody would ever believe in a million years that Sheila was responsible ( or not,as her mind was sick ) but sad to say that infanticide is published more often than we'd like.
-
Car CO7 was not necessarily in Chelmsford at the time, it could have been returning from another shout and in the location.
But April car CA7 is not even mentioned in the original telephone log. It was only brought to light when the second log was found years later.
May I suggest that mr Ralph Bamber made his first call to the police by dialling 999 and then phoned Jeremy Bamber? For if you read both notes they are entirely different and not just one mistake as some try and make out?
-
Malcolm Bonnett was a civilian on duty in the Chelmsford HQ Information Room at the police HQ in Chelmsford, whereas Pc West was working at Chelmsford police station.
Car CA7 isn't identified, but is mentioned: "CW informed & unit + duty PS despatched", where other documents indicate CW refers to Witham police station, and the duty PS was presumably Ps Bews. There seems not to have been any explanation, or even attempt to explain, why it took nine minutes for any car to be sent to the farm. CA7 seems to have been in the area, probably at or close to Witham police station. Even from there, it must have been driven very fast to the farm.
-
Malcolm Bonnett was a civilian on duty in the Chelmsford HQ Information Room at the police HQ in Chelmsford, whereas Pc West was working at Chelmsford police station.
Car CA7 isn't identified, but is mentioned: "CW informed & unit + duty PS despatched", where other documents indicate CW refers to Witham police station, and the duty PS was presumably Ps Bews. There seems not to have been any explanation, or even attempt to explain, why it took nine minutes for any car to be sent to the farm. CA7 seems to have been in the area, probably at or close to Witham police station. Even from there, it must have been driven very fast to the farm.
That is a good point Reader...9 minutes to despatch a car. :) :) :)
-
I think chevaliers point was that the log that was supposed to represent Nevill's telephone call to the police was because it was a 999 call AT 3.26 was treated as an emergency. Therefore CA7 was dispatched (where from we are not told)
But Jeremy's call which was at 3.36 was not counted as an emergency call because he phoned the police station and so car CA5 was dispatched at 3.36 and reached the crime scene 0ver 40 minutes later.
Now the log that was supposed to be Nevills call to the police was found amongst other papers that were being held under PII was found to be written on the back of another document a few years after the trial. Jeremy found it and immediately snapped it up as being proof that his father had in fact phoned the police.
A judge examined it apparently and judged that it was the same call that Jeremy had made and was passed on to another officer and this officer had obvioiusly written down the wrong time. He wrote 3.26 instead of 3.36.
Chevaliers question was I think that if Jeremy phoned at 3.36. Ehich by the way was not disputed at the original trial and was verified by certain officers to be the correct time. Why then was car CA7 sent out at 3.35 which was before Jeremy had made the call?
-
Chevaliers question was I think that if Jeremy phoned at 3.36. Ehich by the way was not disputed at the original trial and was verified by certain officers to be the correct time. Why then was car CA7 sent out at 3.35 which was before Jeremy had made the call?
From the appeal:
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.
-
From the appeal:
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.
Bridget it seemed all to easy to say he must have read the time incorrectly after the second log was found. In other words to fit the second log around the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial. But I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly. But in fact it must have been car CA7 that overtook him. CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later. The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7. There are also big differences between the first log again confirmed and accepted at trial and the second log. First there was a different address and then the age of the sister. Then not sister by daughter. Again the mention of different guns sauch as a number of 410's etc. But the first log, Jeremy's he doesn't mention 410's he says "the gun". In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake, whi I suggest was conveniently changed in order to fit it into the accepted scenario.
-
Bridget it seemed all to easy to say he must have read the time incorrectly after the second log was found. In other words to fit the second log around the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial. But I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly. But in fact it must have been car CA7 that overtook him. CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later. The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7. There are also big differences between the first log again confirmed and accepted at trial and the second log. First there was a different address and then the age of the sister. Then not sister by daughter. Again the mention of different guns sauch as a number of 410's etc. But the first log, Jeremy's he doesn't mention 410's he says "the gun". In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake, whi I suggest was conveniently changed in order to fit it into the accepted scenario.
I hear what you're saying Grahame and accept there are differences, some of which may only be explained as mistakes. I think you also have to consider that we don't know the full extent of the conversation between Jeremy and PC West, which could have been rather more vague on the details than the log implies. Do we know whether either West or Bonnet wrote their logs as they were talking to their callers or were parts of them written afterwards from memory? The 3.26am log has a sender and receiver box which clearly shows that it's a call from West to Bonnet, and neither of them have ever said anything different.
Was Bonnet working in a position where he would have received calls from the public that night?
-
I hear what you're saying Grahame and accept there are differences, some of which may only be explained as mistakes. I think you also have to consider that we don't know the full extent of the conversation between Jeremy and PC West, which could have been rather more vague on the details than the log implies. Do we know whether either West or Bonnet wrote their logs as they were talking to their callers or were parts of them written afterwards from memory? The 3.26am log has a sender and receiver box which clearly shows that it's a call from West to Bonnet, and neither of them have ever said anything different.
Was Bonnet working in a position where he would have received calls from the public that night?
Yes I do understand all that Bridget and it is quite reasonable to speculate all that. But unfortunately the only concrete evidence that we hacve to go on are the logs themselves. Although as you say it is a log between two police officers. Either that or we are missing a further log from Nevill? But as this is an internal log then I can only accept what you say.
-
There are some significant points above by grahame, and I would like to see the evidence alluded to.
For convenience, below are better images of the first sides of each log than the images linked to earlier in this topic.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image)
. . . the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial.
What evidence at trial confirmed Pc West's log?
. . . I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly.
Is there a transcript or statement detailing this available, especially the identification of CA5 rather than CA7? The car that overtook JB's car was certainly hurrying to the scene, so JB's speed was simply estimated. Any "normal" speed would seem slow in comparison to the likely speed of car CA7.
. . . CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later.
Consistent with travel from Chelmsford as distinct from Witham.
. . . The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7.
Do you mean a car identified as CA7? Pc West's log refers to two cars, but identifies only one of them.
. . . In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake . . .
Can you correct the first sentence, which is misworded, and explain what people you are referring to as "they"?
I do understand all that Bridget and it is quite reasonable to speculate all that. But unfortunately the only concrete evidence that we have to go on are the logs themselves.
Even if they're not "concrete" evidence, we should at least consider the statements made later by Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett.
-
They seem to me to be reasonable conclusions Reader.
-
Someone once told me if you want the police to come quickly then don't hang up the phone as this ties up the line. If that had happened would the police need the GPO to confirm the phone was off the hook? Ralph could have been making a third call to a doctor. However, we still have to find out why the phone was off the hook. I don't believe Ralph managed to call the police at all. I think he was in the process of making a call when something happened to make him drop the receiver... in my opinion.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image)
What evidence at trial confirmed Pc West's log?
Are you asking what proof is there that both Bonnetts and Wests logs were at the original trial?
In Bonnetts log in your post, a court exhibit sticker is highlighted in red, so I'm assuming we accept that it was present and available?
With regards to Wests log, he refers to it whilst giving evidence, as can be seen below.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5591;image)
Or have I misinterpreted you meaning? :-\
-
Everyone appears to be treating the issie of these telephone calls as if the only way it or they could be veryfied is by reference to itemised billing? Fact is, the drugs squad had Jeremy under surveilance, and Special branch had took an interest because threats had been made against Ralph Bamber, and his families, lives...
An attack alarm had also been fitted at yhe farmhouse linked to the police station by the telephone line.
I do not need anyone telling me that thr police and Special branch did not have the capability back in August 1985 to be able to check and find out who called who, when and whyfore - of course the pilice and Special branch had the aity and capability to trace calls like these. Anyone who thinks they did not, I suggest you do a reality check on yourselves....
-
Everyone appears to be treating the issie of these telephone calls as if the only way it or they could be veryfied is by reference to itemised billing? Fact is, the drugs squad had Jeremy under surveilance, and Special branch had took an interest because threats had been made against Ralph Bamber, and his families, lives...
An attack alarm had also been fitted at yhe farmhouse linked to the police station by the telephone line.
I do not need anyone telling me that thr police and Special branch did not have the capability back in August 1985 to be able to check and find out who called who, when and whyfore - of course the pilice and Special branch had the aity and capability to trace calls like these. Anyone who thinks they did not, I suggest you do a reality check on yourselves....
Mike what was the answer as to why Ralph hadn't pressed the attack alarm?
-
It wasn't overlooked at all. Jeremys call was at 3:26 not 3:36.
You were answered in the thread where you originally posted.
No, you have got it wrong, Jeremy's call was at 3:36am, and added to the original call made by Ralph Bamber at 3:26am, in the 3:26am log written up by PC West. Anyone who looks at the contents of that (3:26am) log, can see that it is made up of and compromises of two messages on the same page. The first part a recording of what Ralph spoke about, and the second part mentions what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Bonnet repeated to West. Fact is, the contents of the 3:26am logs are two portions of messages, one part from Raph, and the other from Malcolm Bonnet who repeated to PC West what Jeremy had told him. The court of appeal has been deceived yet again by the police into thinking the contents of log 3:26am, related to just one call. This allowed someone to suggest that Bonnet got the timing of Jeremy's call wrong by 10 minutes, but once you know there are two parts to the messages on the log (3:26am) all becomes absolutely clear that PC West got information for the first part of the log from another source other than from Malcolm Bonnet or Jeremy Bamber, and that other source could only have been Ralph Bamber, and no-one else...
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons...
A court has yet to consider the argument that the contents of phone log 3:26am, is an almagamation of calls from Ralph and Jeremy, not simply a record of a call from either Ralph, or Jeremy, solely?
-
No, you have got it wrong, Jeremy's call was at 3:36am, and added to the original call made by Ralph Bamber at 3:26am, in the 3:26am log written up by PC West. Anyone who looks at the contents of that (3:26am) log, can see that it is made up of and compromises of two messages on the same page. The first part a recording of what Ralph spoke about, and the second part mentions what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Bonnet repeated to West. Fact is, the contents of the 3:26am logs are two portions of messages, one part from Raph, and the other from Malcolm Bonnet who repeated to PC West what Jeremy had told him. The court of appeal has been deceived yet again by the police into thinking the contents of log 3:26am, related to just one call. This allowed someone to suggest that Bonnet got the timing of Jeremy's call wrong by 10 minutes, but once you know there are two parts to the messages on the log (3:26am) all becomes absolutely clear that PC West got information for the first part of the log from another source other than from Malcolm Bonnet or Jeremy Bamber, and that other source could only have been Ralph Bamber, and no-one else...
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons...
A court has yet to consider the argument that the contents of phone log 3:26am, is an almagamation of calls from Ralph and Jeremy, not simply a record of a call from either Ralph, or Jeremy, solely?
I am sure that there are others with a greater mind capacity than mine, who can put forward such an argument along the lines that the contents of [phone log 3:26am, corroborates the fact that Jeremy told the truth about the call from his father, and that if accepted it will lead to his convictions being quashed...
-
I was under the view the calls were on 1 rolling log mike.
-
I was under the view the calls were on 1 rolling log mike.
Contents of log 3:26am, were - but contents of log 3:36am were recorded separately by Civilian Employee Malcom Bonnet...
-
View both logs, here:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image
Note in log 3:26am, there is mention at the back end of messages that "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's", and that in log 3:36am, mention is made that "HQIR informed", and "CW informed and unit plus duty PS despatched"...
More significantly (3:26am):-
"Daughter gone berserk" and "Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns"
At no stage did Jeremy use such words when speaking to Malcolm Bonnet, and at no stage did Malcolm Bonnet say such words to PC West - so where did PC West get those words from? In contrast, this is what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Malcolm Bonner wrote down in log 3:36am:-
"Father phoned (aged 62) please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun, Phone went dead".
Log 3:26am is an amalgamation of the two messages received by PC West, (1) from Ralph Bamber, and (2) a second message from Malcolm Bonnet, repeating what Jeremy had told him.
-
View both logs, here:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image
Note in log 3:26am, there is mention at the back end of messages that "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's", and that in log 3:36am, mention is made that "HQIR informed", and "CW informed and unit plus duty PS despatched"...
More significantly (3:26am):-
"Daughter gone berserk" and "Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns"
At no stage did Jeremy use such words when speaking to Malcolm Bonnet, and at no stage did Malcolm Bonnet say such words to PC West - so where did PC West get those words from? In contrast, this is what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Malcolm Bonner wrote down in log 3:36am:-
"Father phoned (aged 62) please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun, Phone went dead".
Log 3:26am is an amalgamation of the two messages received by PC West, (1) from Ralph Bamber, and (2) a second message from Malcolm Bonnet, repeating what Jeremy had told him.
There is no way that "Daughter gone berserk" and "Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns" and "Father phoned (aged 62) please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun, Phone went dead" can be reconciled as having been spoken by the same person to two different people. Similarly, there is no way that PC West could misinterpret what Malcolm Bonnet told him about what Jeremy had said, to force PC West to record things inaccurately to the point of being contradictory, inconsistent and so much ambiguously?
-
In a nutshell...
The contents of log 3:26am, should be sufficient on its own to send the case back to the court of appeal. Anyone who says this has already been argued and rejected by the court of appeal in its 2002 judgement, needs to be reminded that at that time, it was wrongly argued that the contents of log 3:26am related to the call of one person, and that the person had been Ralph Bamber, but because the court were invited to accept that PC West made an error and that he could have got the timing of the call some 10 minutes fast, the court was prepared to accept that Jeremy's call had taken place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am - but no-one it seems noticed that the contents of log 23:26am, was made up of a series of messages from more than one person (Ralph and Jeremy (who's words were relayed to PC West by Civilian Employee Malcolm Bonnet))? Once this argument is understood and applied to the contents of log 3:26am, it can be treated as proof positive that Jeremy told the truth about receiving a call from his father, because his father had called the police himself, after the father had called Jeremy, and before Jeremy himself had called the police (3:36am)...
-
Contents of phone log (3:26am):-
Ralph Bamber...
"Daughter gone berserk" and "Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns"
Malcom Bonnet, repeating to PC West what Jeremy had told him...
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents of phone log (3:36am):-
Jeremy Bamber...
"Father phoned (aged 62) please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun, Phone went dead".
-
In a nutshell...
The contents of log 3:26am, should be sufficient on its own to send the case back to the court of appeal. Anyone who says this has already been argued and rejected by the court of appeal in its 2002 judgement, needs to be reminded that at that time, it was wrongly argued that the contents of log 3:26am related to the call of one person, and that the person had been Ralph Bamber, but because the court were invited to accept that PC West made an error and that he could have got the timing of the call some 10 minutes fast, the court was prepared to accept that Jeremy's call had taken place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am - but no-one it seems noticed that the contents of log 23:26am, was made up of a series of messages from more than one person (Ralph and Jeremy (who's words were relayed to PC West by Civilian Employee Malcolm Bonnet))? Once this argument is understood and applied to the contents of log 3:26am, it can be treated as proof positive that Jeremy told the truth about receiving a call from his father, because his father had called the police himself, after the father had called Jeremy, and before Jeremy himself had called the police (3:36am)...
That is strange Mike. Because I was thinking along the same lines just before I read your posts. There are certain details like the ones you have pointed out that just do not fit in however you look at it. It does appear to be an amalgamation of the two messages. For there are just too many differences between the two messages for the second just to be a badly copied message of the first. Too many anomalies for my liking. The officer must have been stone deaf to make so many mistakes. Either that or a terrific guesser.
-
Are you asking what proof is there that both Bonnett's and West's logs were at the original trial?
No. I know Pc West's was, but Bonnett's log didn't surface until much later.
In Bonnett's log in your post, a court exhibit sticker is highlighted in red, so I'm assuming we accept that it was present and available?
Although Bonnett's log had that sticker, the judge, the prosecution and the defence were all unaware of the log at trial. The defence eventually found it in the papers they had been given.
With regards to West's log, he refers to it whilst giving evidence
Pc West gave evidence about his log, but that evidence was rather limited as the defence didn't know at the time that almost every detail in it was important. He wasn't asked whether Ralph Bamber had already called him. Incidentally, Pc West came across at trial as rather unintelligent and ill-prepared.
. . . the drugs squad had Jeremy under surveillance, and Special branch had took an interest because threats had been made against Ralph Bamber, and his family's, lives...
The extent of that on the date in question has not been made public.
-
No. I know Pc West's was, but Bonnett's log didn't surface until much later.
Although Bonnett's log had that sticker, the judge, the prosecution and the defence were all unaware of the log at trial. The defence eventually found it in the papers they had been given.
Pc West gave evidence about his log, but that evidence was rather limited as the defence didn't know at the time that almost every detail in it was important. He wasn't asked whether Ralph Bamber had already called him. Incidentally, Pc West came across at trial as rather unintelligent and ill-prepared.
The extent of that on the date in question has not been made public.
All very goog points Reader.
-
No. I know Pc West's was, but Bonnett's log didn't surface until much later.
Although Bonnett's log had that sticker, the judge, the prosecution and the defence were all unaware of the log at trial. The defence eventually found it in the papers they had been given.
Pc West gave evidence about his log, but that evidence was rather limited as the defence didn't know at the time that almost every detail in it was important. He wasn't asked whether Ralph Bamber had already called him. Incidentally, Pc West came across at trial as rather unintelligent and ill-prepared.
The extent of that on the date in question has not been made public.
If the contents of PC Wests phone log (3:36am) had been available at trial, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the defence would have seized upon the fact that its contents related to two messages received by PC West - (1) first part received from Ralph Bamber, and (2) second part a recording of a message past to West by Malcolm Bonnet regarding the call Jeremy received from his father, and what he relayed in his call to Bonnet. I do not see how the prosecutions case could have avoided being attacked in this manner if the contents of the log had been available, and viewable...
-
Reader, where you on the jury or present in some other capacity during the trial? It's a bit brash of me to ask on the open forum but I couldn't help it.
-
I first heard of the case in the earliest TV documentary about it, but my further interest stemmed from a radio broadcast that mentioned that Jeremy "had a website" (which turned out to be www.jeremybamber.com) and wanted further information to help him appeal.
-
I first heard of the case in the earliest TV documentary about it, but my further interest stemmed from a radio broadcast that mentioned that Jeremy "had a website" (which turned out to be www.jeremybamber.com) and wanted further information to help him appeal.
Thanks for providing that info. The reason I asked was because I read your comments about West at trial.
-
Thanks for providing that info. The reason I asked was because I read your comments about West at trial.
He is just referring to a letter from Ainsley to Harris which refers to Wests court appearance.
To suggest that Wests log was not available at trial, is pure unfounded speculation. The fact that the log has a court exhinit label and that West refers to it at trial, supports the opposite.
-
It's Bonnett's log that has the court exhibit label but wasn't known to the defence at the time. Pc West referred to his own log, which was produced at the trial.
-
It's Bonnett's log that has the court exhibit label but wasn't known to the defence at the time. Pc West referred to his own log, which was produced at the trial.
Yes my mistake.
But as per my previous posts, there is no evidence which shows that the defence were unaware of the existence of Bonnets log. The timing inconsistancy was brought up at the original trial.
I don't believe this is an argument that the defence can rely upon.
-
My understanding is that the timing inconsistency was known about, but Bonnett's log was not produced. The defence would obviously have noticed the further inconsistencies had they seen it.
-
My understanding is that the timing inconsistency was known about, but Bonnett's log was not produced. The defence would obviously have noticed the further inconsistencies had they seen it.
There is no evidence of that being the case.
-
In a witness statement , dated, 16th December 1985, Malcolm Bonnet states that at 03:26am, on Wednesday, 7th August 1985, he received a telephone call on the internal line. That the officer on the other end of the line identified himself as PC 1990 from Chelmsford. On completion of the conversation with PC 1990 I called a mobile police car identified by call sign "Charlie Alpha 7" and sent that vehicle directly to the scene of the alleged incident at whf, Tolleshunt D'Arcy. I have recorded that I sent vehicle CA07 at 3;35am. Other units were sent to the scene. The vehicle CA07 notified me by radio his arrival at 3:48am...
No detail as to the nature of the call made by PC 1990 is recorded at all in this witness statement, and based on the contents of the phone log timed at 3:26am, it seems clear that PC West must have referred the details of Ralph Bambers call to the police which Bonner duly recorded in the first part of the log (Daughter has got one of my guns), and that whilst PC West was engaged in talking to Bonnet about what Ralph Bamber had reported, Jeremy had then also made a call to the police which PC West also referred to Bonnet, hence why the log timed at 3:26am, is made up of two different messages, one referring to the call made by Ralph, and the second part relating to the call made by Jeremy...
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image
-
There is no evidence of that being the case.
Perhaps mike tesko knows of some direct evidence, but it seems quite absurd to suppose that the defence had seen Bonnett's log and yet failed to raise the discrepancies it raised during the trial and also failed to raise them in the two appeals.
-
Perhaps mike tesko knows of some direct evidence, but it seems quite absurd to suppose that the defence had seen Bonnett's log and yet failed to raise the discrepancies it raised during the trial and also failed to raise them in the two appeals.
Not even remotely. Unless this is in the same vein as Rivlin questioning Myall about moonlight reflecting off of windows, yet years later the reflection turns into the sighting of a person.
Or are we suggesting that Jeremy withheld this from his own legal team?
-
Why would the defence ignore the fact that two official logs differed in relation to various other details given in them when they were already questioning the different call times? There's a world of difference between that situation and the police disagreeing with the accused.
-
Why would the defence ignore the fact that two official logs differed in relation to various other details given in them when they were already questioning the different call times? There's a world of difference between that situation and the police disagreeing with the accused.
I have no idea Reader, however it is still not evidence that they had been withheld, there is nothing which suggests that to be the case. The defence didn't pick up on a number of other items, which in hindsight seems strange, almost negligent.
Personally I don't see the logs as being sufficiently different to cause concern.
-
I have no idea Reader, however it is still not evidence that they had been withheld, there is nothing which suggests that to be the case. The defence didn't pick up on a number of other items, which in hindsight seems strange, almost negligent.
Personally I don't see the logs as being sufficiently different to cause concern.
There is a significant difference between the contents of phone log 3:26am, and 3:36am. Anyone who compares the contents of both cannot fail to see that the contents of 3:26am relate to details received from different indirect sources, namely, Ralph Bamber, (daughter has got one of my guns), and Jeremy (sister has got the gun)? This is in stark contrast to the content of log 3:36am which simply deals with the detail of Jeremy's call to the police. There is a marked
difference between both logs which I feel cannpt be ignoresd
-
There is a significant difference between the contents of phone log 3:26am, and 3:36am. Anyone who compares the contents of both cannot fail to see that the contents of 3:26am relate to details received from different indirect sources, namely, Ralph Bamber, (daughter has got one of my guns), and Jeremy (sister has got the gun)? This is in stark contrast to the content of log 3:36am which simply deals with the detail of Jeremy's call to the police. There is a marked
difference between both logs which I feel cannpt be ignoresd
One of these two logs (3:26am) has got the court stamp on whilst the other (3:36am) does not. What this tells me is that both logs were not exhibited during the trial together. Therefore, it was not possible for anyone to notice or argue the relevant differences contained in both...
-
One of these two logs (3:26am) has got the court stamp on whilst the other (3:36am) does not. What this tells me is that both logs were not exhibited during the trial together. Therefore, it was not possible for anyone to notice or argue the relevant differences contained in both...
It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...
-
It now becomes clear that the following sequence of events took place involving calls between Ralph at the scene and Jeremy at his cottage, between Jeremy at his cottage and whf (engaged), between Ralph and the police, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, between Jeremy and PC West, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, and between Malcolm Bonnet and the occupants of CA07, and between PC West and Jeremy?
-
It now becomes clear that the following sequence of events took place involving calls between Ralph at the scene and Jeremy at his cottage, between Jeremy at his cottage and whf (engaged), between Ralph and the police, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, between Jeremy and PC West, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, and between Malcolm Bonnet and the occupants of CA07, and between PC West and Jeremy?
According to the contents of Malcolm Bonnets witness statement (December 1985) audio recordings were made of all the calls he dealt with, including the call he recieved commencing at 3:26am. Therefore the production of the relevant audio recording, timed and dared and access to its contents would reveal the true circumstances of PC Wests call to Malcolm Bonnet. This audio recording would confirm that the contents of log 3:26am, is actually a recording of two calls received by the police, one from Ralph and the other from Jeremy...
-
It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...
Make your mind up. So now Bonnetts log was available, but Wests log wasn't?
Well unfortunately that's just not true, West refers to his log whilst giving evidence, as can be seen from the trial transcript.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=11964;image)
Oops. ::)
-
It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...
Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?
-
Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?
If the second log was not discovered years later we would not be having this argument. The plain facts are that they contradict oneanother in more than one way. But instead of seeing something wrong here there are those here who won't accept those contradictions as being very odd. But instead for reasons best known to themselves would rather accept that the police officer made umpteen mistakes just in order to harmonise the two telephone logs. Abit like using a big hammer to make lots of pieces of jigsaw fit in the way they want it to fit in. Although the final result is glaringly wrong? But then we are accustomed to the antis using such tactics aren't we. Not being honest towards others and even not being honest with themselves.
-
Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?
No I wouldn't have thought so. It's probably more likely that it is just a photocopy of the log made before the trial took place.
To highlight that point, here is Bonnetts log without a court sticker:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=16097;image)
And here it is with a court sticker:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image)
-
If the second log was not discovered years later we would not be having this argument. The plain facts are that they contradict oneanother in more than one way. But instead of seeing something wrong here there are those here who won't accept those contradictions as being very odd. But instead for reasons best known to themselves would rather accept that the police officer made umpteen mistakes just in order to harmonise the two telephone logs. Abit like using a big hammer to make lots of pieces of jigsaw fit in the way they want it to fit in. Although the final result is glaringly wrong? But then we are accustomed to the antis using such tactics aren't we. Not being honest towards others and even not being honest with themselves.
Very well put !!
-
No I wouldn't have thought so. It's probably more likely that it is just a photocopy of the log made before the trial took place.
To highlight that point, here is Bonnetts log without a court sticker:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=16097;image)
And here it is with a court sticker:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1742;image)
Those who have been around for a little while may remember Mike trying to make out that the court sticker on this log was strategically placed to cover up something on the log proving another call took place, unfortunately he forgot that argument when he posted a copy of the log without the court sticker. :P
One wonders why people don't believe him. :-\
-
If the second log was not discovered years later we would not be having this argument. The plain facts are that they contradict oneanother in more than one way. But instead of seeing something wrong here there are those here who won't accept those contradictions as being very odd. But instead for reasons best known to themselves would rather accept that the police officer made umpteen mistakes just in order to harmonise the two telephone logs. Abit like using a big hammer to make lots of pieces of jigsaw fit in the way they want it to fit in. Although the final result is glaringly wrong? But then we are accustomed to the antis using such tactics aren't we. Not being honest towards others and even not being honest with themselves.
Why do you feel the need to imply dishonest tactics? To me, it is totally, blatantly and glaringly obvious that these logs relate to the call from JB to West, and the call from West to Bonnet and nothing else.
-
We're still waiting for Mike to post:
1) Itemised phone bills.
2) Sheila's autopsy report which Mike T says indicates gouge marks to Sheila's arms and that the bullet removed from her neck was fragmented.
3) A statement from Myall that he saw a figure in whf at 3:45.
As it's Mike T's objective to persuade people that JB is innocent (I think), then I have no idea why he won't post documents that he quotes and relies on to bolster his arguments.
EDIT: unless they don't exist of course. :-\
As can be seen from the above post, not much has changed around here. :P
The only thing I can't get my head around is why people are so happy to swallow any old crap the gets fed to them, it's utterly bizarre. ???
-
If the second log was not discovered years later we would not be having this argument. The plain facts are that they contradict oneanother in more than one way. But instead of seeing something wrong here there are those here who won't accept those contradictions as being very odd. But instead for reasons best known to themselves would rather accept that the police officer made umpteen mistakes just in order to harmonise the two telephone logs. Abit like using a big hammer to make lots of pieces of jigsaw fit in the way they want it to fit in. Although the final result is glaringly wrong? But then we are accustomed to the antis using such tactics aren't we. Not being honest towards others and even not being honest with themselves.
How is it that when they apply certain rules it supplies them with hard fact ans when we use the same rules theyn call it supposition or conjecture?
-
How is it that when they apply certain rules it supplies them with hard fact ans when we use the same rules theyn call it supposition or conjecture?
I don't believe that's the case at all, could you give us an example?
-
Make your mind up. So now Bonnetts log was available, but Wests log wasn't?
Well unfortunately that's just not true, West refers to his log whilst giving evidence, as can be seen from the trial transcript.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=11964;image)
Oops. ::)
Oops...
And what unique court exhibit reference was PC Wests log (3:36am) given? Furthermore, Oops, where is the copy of the log in question bearing this unique identification mark upon it? Oops, there doesn't appear to be one, Oops...
-
Oops...
And what unique court exhibit reference was PC Wests log (3:36am) given? Furthermore, Oops, where is the copy of the log in question bearing this unique identification mark upon it? Oops, there doesn't appear to be one, Oops...
The fact that you haven't posted it on the forum, is not an indication that it does not exist.
However, the fact that West is handed his log to refer to in court, as clearly indicated in the above transcript, clearly shows that it was available and not withheld at all.
There isn't even an argument here.
-
To me, it is totally, blatantly and glaringly obvious that these logs relate to the call from JB to West, and the call from West to Bonnet and nothing else.
Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?
-
Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?
Yes, the sender is PC1990 (West), the receiver is MB (Bonnett).
-
As can be seen from the above post, not much has changed around here. :P
The only thing I can't get my head around is why people are so happy to swallow any old crap the gets fed to them, it's utterly bizarre. ???
Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself. like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...
-
Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?
Without that part I agree it would be less clear just from reading the log, but I would still be quite happy to accept MB's explanation.
-
Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself. like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...
What do you think he was referring to at trial then?
-
I would still be quite happy to accept MB's explanation.
What explanation?
-
Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself. like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...
Rubbish, as per my previous post, the fact that you have not supplied Wests log with a court sticker, does not indicate that it does not exist.
As is clearly highlighted by the fact that there is a copy of Bonnetts log, with and without a sticker.
The fact that it is mentioned as being in court and referred to, in Wests court transcript above, completely dispels your myth I'm afraid.
I don't need to prove anything Mike, you are the one who is trying to present an alternative chain of events and pursuade people that something else happened.
-
What explanation?
That he recieved a call from PC West and recorded it on the form.
-
The fact that you haven't posted it on the forum, is not an indication that it does not exist.
However, the fact that West is handed his log to refer to in court, as clearly indicated in the above transcript, clearly shows that it was available and not withheld at all.
There isn't even an argument here.
Without reference to the unique court exhibit identifying mark given / allocated to log 3:36am, it cannot be established that it was the same log you yourself are referring to now. Furthermore, there is a glaring error with the time the call was allegedly made, intensified because the times on both logs are inconsistent, am iguos and contradictory. You cannot rely on the contents of one of these logs, without having regard for the contents of the other. BOTH LOGS needed to be disclosed and exhibited, not just one of them. For this reason the court was decieved regarding this matter...
-
Without reference to the unique court exhibit identifying mark given / allocated to log 3:36am, it cannot be established that it was the same log you yourself are referring to now. Furthermore, there is a glaring error with the time the call was allegedly made, intensified because the times on both logs are inconsistent, am iguos and contradictory. You cannot rely on the contents of one of these logs, without having regard for the contents of the other. BOTH LOGS needed to be disclosed and exhibited, not just one of them. For this reason the court was decieved regarding this matter...
The obvious point here is that you are trying to persuade people that the log was not available.
You have not been successful as you have not shown people anything which indicates that as having been the case. Nothing, nada, zip.
Most people realise that.
-
Rubbish, as per my previous post, the fact that you have not supplied Wests log with a court sticker, does not indicate that it does not exist.
As is clearly highlighted by the fact that there is a copy of Bonnetts log, with and without a sticker.
The fact that it is mentioned as being in court and referred to, in Wests court transcript above, completely dispels your myth I'm afraid.
I don't need to prove anything Mike, you are the one who is trying to present an alternative chain of events and pursuade people that something else happened.
The only person talking rubbish is you I am afraid...
The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all. This is evidence that the log contents gave been tampered with...
-
The only person talking rubbish is you I am afraid...
The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all. This is evidence that the log contents gave been tmpered with...
Here we go again. ::)
Refer to my previous posts:
The fact that you haven't posted it on the forum, is not an indication that it does not exist.
However, the fact that West is handed his log to refer to in court, as clearly indicated in the above transcript, clearly shows that it was available and not withheld at all.
There isn't even an argument here.
Rubbish, as per my previous post, the fact that you have not supplied Wests log with a court sticker, does not indicate that it does not exist.
As is clearly highlighted by the fact that there is a copy of Bonnetts log, with and without a sticker.
The fact that it is mentioned as being in court and referred to, in Wests court transcript above, completely dispels your myth I'm afraid.
I don't need to prove anything Mike, you are the one who is trying to present an alternative chain of events and persuade people that something else happened.
The obvious point here is that you are trying to persuade people that the log was not available.
You have not been successful as you have not shown people anything which indicates that as having been the case. Nothing, nada, zip.
Most people realise that.
-
The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all.
How can it not exist and not have existed at all, given that it has already been posted on this forum and is referred to in the court transcript?
-
How is it that when they apply certain rules it supplies them with hard fact ans when we use the same rules theyn call it supposition or conjecture?
Prejudice on their part. That's the only way that will happen. They start from the position that JB is guilty and that we must prove to them without any shadow of doubt that he is innocent.
But I for one came to the case with an open mind and could see so many mistakes and anomalies that I thought to myself, funny. Funny I thought. Funny. There's something not quite right here. Perhaps some here should start removing their blinkers of prejudice andthen they might see that something just ain right here. ;)
-
That he received a call from PC West and recorded it on the form.
It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).
-
It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).
Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, and possibly a record of a second (or prior) call from West to Bonnet since JB was still on the line when West called Bonnet during his call.
Also, imagine the coversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". West calls Bonnet and says "I have received a called from a JB, who has said that his father (RB) has called him to say his sister has gone crazy and has a gun". From that Bonnet isn't going to know whether the person with the gun is JBs sister, or RB's sister, so clarification would have to be sought, which would be JB's sister, RB's daughter, hence the way that MB's log is written, and then the last paragraph as clarification of the circumstances of the call.
-
There does not exist any court exhibit reference for PC Wests log , (3:36am) - this means it was not disclosed or referred to during the trial. Everything of this nature has to have a unique court exhibit reference, if it does'nt have such a unique court exhibit reference it cannot be used or relied upon during the trial. If it does get used or relied upon during trial and it is not given a court exhibit reference it could render the convictions unsafe because a piece of evidence was relied upon to help secure a conviction which was not an official exhibit (Not disclosed properly to the defence)...
-
It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).
Surely their witness statements and court evidence comprehensively clears this up?
-
Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, and possibly a record of a second (or prior) call from West to Bonnet since JB was still on the line when West called Bonnet during his call.
Also, imagine the coversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". West calls Bonnet and says "I have received a called from a JB, who has said that his father (RB) has called him to say his sister has gone crazy and has a gun". From that Bonnet isn't going to know whether the person with the gun is JBs sister, or RB's sister, so clarification would have to be sought, which would be JB's sister, RB's daughter, hence the way that MB's log is written, and then the last paragraph as clarification of the circumstances of the call.
It's also worth noting that the first police officers on the scene (Bews, Myall & Saxby) asked Jeremy why his father had not phoned the police himself.
When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family.
From 2002 Appeal Judgement
-
Surely their witness statements and court evidence comprehensively clears this up?
It clears up that particular point for me. If mike tesko realizes that not every page of evidence receives a court sticker, he might not try to press his point. However, the sticker on Malcolm Bonnett's log doesn't prove that this log was seen by the defence at the time.
-
It clears up that particular point for me. If mike tesko realizes that not every page of evidence receives a court sticker, he might not try to press his point. However, the sticker on Malcolm Bonnett's log doesn't prove that this log was seen by the defence at the time.
I accept that in principle, although given the fact that West refers to Bonnett in his log and during his court evidence (and probably in his statements which we haven't seen), then I'd find it highly unlikely that the defence would not have seen Bonnetts log, or at the very least been aware of it. If they didn't have it, then I'd expect them to ask for it, demand to see it even. For that reason alone, I believe that they did see it and have a copy of it.
Having said that, for arguments sake, let's say that the defence didn't actually see it, what it does not do for me, is indicate in any way, shape or form, that Bonnetts log was purposely withheld from the defence in order to cover anything up or deny important evidence from them. As is suggested by Mike.
In any event, there isn't any information in either log which detracts from the prosecutions case, or at least nothing which is sufficiently alarming to the CCRC to allow them to refer back to the CoA.
-
Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, . . .
Yes, there should be. If there is, it may be amongst the withheld documents.
Also, imagine the conversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". . . .
Surely even you wouldn't assert that you are 100% sure that this imagined explanation is correct. If the two logs refer to a single call from JB to Pc West, how do you explain that the two logs give Sheila's age differently, and why did Pc West stay on the line to Malcolm Bonnett for at least 9 minutes from the receipt of JB's call, enabling him to know about the police car that Bonnett sent to the scene?
-
Yes, there should be. If there is, it may be amongst the withheld documents.
Surely even you wouldn't assert that you are 100% sure that this imagined explanation is correct. If the two logs refer to a single call from JB to Pc West, how do you explain that the two logs give Sheila's age differently, and why did Pc West stay on the line to Malcolm Bonnett for at least 9 minutes from the receipt of JB's call, enabling him to know about the police car that Bonnett sent to the scene?
Very good points Reader. None of these explanations really clear up all the contradictions between the two logs. There may well be other logs not yet released? Remember all the original evidence was based entirely on the first log with nothing to back it up, so everyone assumed JB was lying. Now they twist the wording of the second log just to make it fit into their own pet theory. Just how prejudiced can you get?
-
Yes, there should be. If there is, it may be amongst the withheld documents.
Surely even you wouldn't assert that you are 100% sure that this imagined explanation is correct. If the two logs refer to a single call from JB to Pc West, how do you explain that the two logs give Sheila's age differently, and why did Pc West stay on the line to Malcolm Bonnett for at least 9 minutes from the receipt of JB's call, enabling him to know about the police car that Bonnett sent to the scene?
The age isn't a concern to me, maybe Jeremy described Sheila as being "26 or 27", West recorded one, Bonnett recorded the other, it's not an important detail, Sheilas age (whether 26 or 27) had no relevance to the required response of the police. Just like the description of 'Berserk' versus 'Crazy'.
Why did West need to have stayed on the phone (although it's quite conceivable that he did)? Did Bonnett tell him a unit had been despatched to the scene, or would be dispatched? When was that information recorded, during the call with Jeremy or afterwards? They were all in constant contact after that anyway, as can be seen from the recorded logs.
-
How can it not exist and not have existed at all, given that it has already been posted on this forum and is referred to in the court transcript?
I meant it (3:36 am) was not exhibited during the trial. Furthermore, it is not clear that the log referred to at court is / was the sane 3:36 am log we are talking about now...
-
I just cant see this arguement on time can ever bear fruit.what will it prove.enlighten me please
-
I just cant see this arguement on time can ever bear fruit.what will it prove.enlighten me please
I'm guessing it's a two pronged attack, the first being an attempt to show that a call from Nevill to the police was made. The second trying to suggest that the defences case was hampered by these logs being withheld and therefore Jeremy received an unfair trial.
Unfortunately (for the innocent camp at least), there is nothing which indicates that this is true.
-
I meant it (3:36 am) was not exhibited during the trial.
I don't understand. You referred to a log. How could you have meant a time? Your precise wording was "The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all." You clearly asserted the non-existence of the log, not just the time recorded in it. Is there any evidence that the log that the transcript shows was handed to Pc West at the trial wasn't the same log that has been posted here?
Is there any direct evidence that Bonnett's log was not seen by the defence (until much later)?
Why did West need to have stayed on the phone (although it's quite conceivable that he did)?
Malcolm Bonnett recorded that CD (PC West) was contacting CW (the control room at Witham presumably) by landline. Evidently, Pc West thought that this was a good idea, and it turned out that it was, as a unit that had just finished a patrol could be sent out again. If Pc West was still on the line to HQ, why didn't he simply ask them to make that call? Pc West logged the two cars sent before logging that he asked Jeremy to go to the farm, so it seems that Jeremy was still on the line.
-
Surely their witness statements and court evidence comprehensively clears this up?
What if the witness statements were not made by themselves, but by somebody like the DPP who typed the contents out in their absence, and or edited them without their consent - do you think that / this practice is al-right, and fair?
-
Here we go again. ::)
Refer to my previous posts:
Refer to your owns posts, you are talking garbage...
-
The obvious point here is that you are trying to persuade people that the log was not available.
You have not been successful as you have not shown people anything which indicates that as having been the case. Nothing, nada, zip.
Most people realise that.
I disagree with everything you are saying, you are just making things up...
-
It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).
This could be easily resolved, all Essex police and the DPP/CPS office have to do is release the audio tapes which recorded all the conversations between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, after and from 3:26am...
Problem solved....
-
I disagree with everything you are saying, you are just making things up...
There's nothing to disagree with. ::)
-
It's also worth noting that the first police officers on the scene (Bews, Myall & Saxby) asked Jeremy why his father had not phoned the police himself.
From 2002 Appeal Judgement
It is also worth noting, that upon meeting Jeremy in Pages Lane, near to the farm cottages, Bews, Myall and Saxby, asked Jeremy to recount what had taken place from his point of view? Now, anyone who knows what the police are like, will tell you that they are always trying to catch people out. So, when they asked Jeremy "Why didn't your father call the police"? it was an attempt to trick Jeremy into coming up with some sort of an excuse that could have been his undoing - but because Jeremy did not know his father had called the police, he told them why he thought his father had not called the police, (even though as it turns out his father had made contact with the police). This is a prime example of you trying to twist the truth into something other than what it really was / is...
Allow me to twist it back on you...
Based on what you are saying, it appears that Bews, Myall and Saxby went to the scene not really knowing why they were being deployed there, because they had to ask Jeremy for his account, and they tried to trick him into saying he knew his father had called the police, (Because he had called the police before Jeremy did)? But, because Jeremy was being honest and truthful, he told them that his father was not the kind of person (in his opinion) to involve the authorities. Lets get the facts right, so that there can be no mistake about what is being said, is it your case that although an attack alarm was fitted at the scene, because threats against the lives of Ralph Bamber, and his family (including Jeremy) had been made, that when the attack upon Raph and the other members of his family did occur that Ralph, or June, or Sheila, did not think to activate the alarm?
Is that what you are saying?
If so, what was the point of having the attack alarm fitted at whf in the first place?
If what Bews, Myall and Saxby said to Jeremy, about why his father did not call the police, and this was intended to expose Jeremy as some sort of a liar, how do you work that out then? All Ralph, or June, or Sheila had to do was to activate the alarm if they were being attacked by anybody currently staying inside whf? If the alarm was not activated then this could be because they were not being attacked by anyone outside the immediate family circle? Well, I a reliably informed that the alarm was activated by Ralph Bamber and that its activation caused the line to and from WHF to produce a constant engaged tone, consistent with what Jeremy has told the police, and everybody else who is prepared to listen to the account he has given?
Fact of the matter is, that Bews, Myall and Saxby were simply deployed to the scene, as a result of Ralph Bambers call to the police at 3:26am, and the subsequent activation of the attack alarm - en route to the scene, the occupants of CA07 were updated about Jeremy's call to the police at 3:36am, whic took place after they had already been deployed...
These are the facts, you can try to twist them as much as you want to, but Ralph Bamber did make contact with the police from the scene at 3:26am, some ten minutes before Jeremy did at 3:36am...
-
Why does the phone go dead after a short call..why does it say in one of the logs "message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"? We know that Ralph(Nevill) had been shot in the bedroom,so if he made the phone call in the kitchen there would be blood on the phone there..if he has the strength to make two phone calls,one to Jeremy,one to the Police then surely he could have grabbed one of the many guns in the house for protection knowing what kind of a man he was. If Ralph wanted to keep the incident "in-house" to prevent a scandal why phone the Police at all? And why phone the son whom he had said to Barbara Wilson the secretary "I must never turn my back on that young man"?
-
Why does the phone go dead after a short call..why does it say in one of the logs "message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"? We know that Ralph(Nevill) had been shot in the bedroom,so if he made the phone call in the kitchen there would be blood on the phone there..if he has the strength to make two phone calls,one to Jeremy,one to the Police then surely he could have grabbed one of the many guns in the house for protection knowing what kind of a man he was. If Ralph wanted to keep the incident "in-house" to prevent a scandal why phone the Police at all? And why phone the son whom he had said to Barbara Wilson the secretary "I must never turn my back on that young man"?
Hello Steve. That last quote is an interesting one, isn't it? It was first quoted to me by a friend of Neville's and I asked him what he thought was meant by it. Actually, I didn't need to ask, the tone of voice told me. But they were his feelings and not necessarily representative of the original meaning.
Those words could have meant that, in his father's opinion, Jeremy needed guidance. that without it he would get into muddles or they could have meant that whilst Jeremy could be an irrritating, hot headed little toe rag,he was his son and he would always support him.
-
There's nothing to disagree with. ::)
Exactly, what you are saying amounts to nothing...
-
Hi april 1 a very good point you made about what Neville said I must never turn my back on that young man. I agree with your sentiments as to what he actually meant by it I feel nothing sinister about the remark just meant I will always be there for him.
-
The age isn't a concern to me, maybe Jeremy described Sheila as being "26 or 27", West recorded one, Bonnett recorded the other, it's not an important detail, Sheilas age (whether 26 or 27) had no relevance to the required response of the police. Just like the description of 'Berserk' versus 'Crazy'.
Why did West need to have stayed on the phone (although it's quite conceivable that he did)? Did Bonnett tell him a unit had been despatched to the scene, or would be dispatched? When was that information recorded, during the call with Jeremy or afterwards? They were all in constant contact after that anyway, as can be seen from the recorded logs.
Produce the audio recordings of all the conversations between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet at the material time we are talking about, and then it will be "GAME OVER". These are being deliberately withheld for a reason, think about it...
-
Hi april 1 a very good point you made about what Neville said I must never turn my back on that young man. I agree with your sentiments as to what he actually meant by it I feel nothing sinister about the remark just meant I will always be there for him.
Hi Susan,,,yes,a lot has to do with the interpretation or misinterpretation of a sentence. Barbara Wilson didn't have a bad thing to say about Jeremy.
It would seem that the only ones who disliked him were the relatives!.
-
Another thing, funny how these comments made by PC West and Malcolm Bonnet do not appear in any witness statement, until after the nature of the investigation changes into five murders and Jeremy becomes a suspect?
-
Hi lookout I seem to think she spoke very highly of Jeremy.
-
How can it not exist and not have existed at all, given that it has already been posted on this forum and is referred to in the court transcript?
It was not available at the time of the trial, it did not exist in its present format, and may not necessarily be the log being referred to in transcript during the trial. The only way anyone can be absolutely sure would be if the log in question being spoken about was identified by an official court exhibit reference number allocated to it in the same transcript, and if the log in question, had the corresponding court exhibit reference number stamped upon it...
-
Here we are trying to work out if one of the logs was or was not disclosed during the trial, but the real issue is whether or not both logs were disclosed together - I am afraid not...
-
Hi lookout I seem to think she spoke very highly of Jeremy.
A cynic might argue that she viewed him through rose tinted specs prior to the killings and then through same specs as RWB, CAE & co after the killings.
-
Why does the phone go dead after a short call..why does it say in one of the logs "message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"? We know that Ralph(Nevill) had been shot in the bedroom,so if he made the phone call in the kitchen there would be blood on the phone there..if he has the strength to make two phone calls,one to Jeremy,one to the Police then surely he could have grabbed one of the many guns in the house for protection knowing what kind of a man he was. If Ralph wanted to keep the incident "in-house" to prevent a scandal why phone the Police at all? And why phone the son whom he had said to Barbara Wilson the secretary "I must never turn my back on that young man"?
It has not been scientifically proven that Ralph had been shot whilst present in the bedroom, where do you get your information from? At least four bullet cases were introduced into the bedroom scenario by DC Hammersley acting upon instruction from PI "Bob" Miller, so with this in mind the 12 bullet cases found in the vicinity or in the bedroom, needs to be drastically reduced to a total of eight?
Seven bullet cases for June, and the other one for Sheila - end of maths lesson....
-
It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).
Access to audio recordings spoken about by Malcolm Bonnet, in connection with the call he received from PC west at 3:26am himself in a witness statement, dated, December 1985, resolves this matter instantly but police, DPP /CPS will not disclose its contents...
Work it out in your own minds as to the reason why they are terrified of disclosing the relevant audio tapes of the conversations between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet?
-
Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, and possibly a record of a second (or prior) call from West to Bonnet since JB was still on the line when West called Bonnet during his call.
Also, imagine the coversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". West calls Bonnet and says "I have received a called from a JB, who has said that his father (RB) has called him to say his sister has gone crazy and has a gun". From that Bonnet isn't going to know whether the person with the gun is JBs sister, or RB's sister, so clarification would have to be sought, which would be JB's sister, RB's daughter, hence the way that MB's log is written, and then the last paragraph as clarification of the circumstances of the call.
Produce audio recordings, problem is then solved?
-
It has not been scientifically proven that Ralph had been shot whilst present in the bedroom, where do you get your information from? At least four bullet cases were introduced into the bedroom scenario by DC Hammersley acting upon instruction from PI "Bob" Miller, so with this in mind the 12 bullet cases found in the vicinity or in the bedroom, needs to be drastically reduced to a total of eight?
Seven bullet cases for June, and the other one for Sheila - end of maths lesson....
So are there conflicting accounts of where the bullet cases were found?
-
So are there conflicting accounts of where the bullet cases were found?
No there is not.
-
I just cant see this arguement on time can ever bear fruit.what will it prove.enlighten me please
No, the argument or issue is the contents of both timed logs, One (3:26am) which has mention of words attributable to Ralph Bamber (Daughter has got one of my guns) and Jeremy (Sister has got the gun), as opposed to and compared against the contents contained in the other log (3:36am) where there are only references to Jeremy's call to PC West? Basically put, nothing which PC West says to Malcolm Bonnet between 3:26am and 3:36am, can be attributable to what Jeremy told PC West, because Jeremy did not make his call to PC West until 3:36am? Any comments recorded in log 3:26am by Bonnet must be information which PC West obtained from another source other than from Jeremy, and since the recorded words imply that "My daughter has got one of my guns" it appears to be the case that the only other person who might have had good reason to call the police, was non other than Ralph Bamber. Furthermore, since Jeremy did not call PC West until after the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene at 3:35am...
-
Access to audio recordings spoken about by Malcolm Bonnet, in connection with the call he received from PC west at 3:26am himself in a witness statement, dated, December 1985, resolves this matter instantly but police, DPP /CPS will not disclose its contents...
Work it out in your own minds as to the reason why they are terrified of disclosing the relevant audio tapes of the conversations between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet?
As per the Dickenson Report, the audio tapes no loger exist.
Things that don't exist can be requested, but I don't fancy your chances.
-
No there is not.
Yes, there is...
According to DC Hammersley, PC Bird photographed all the bullet case in situ before he (Hammersley) collected them all up in the main bedroom, Childrens bedroom, Landing, Stair and kitchen, yet these photographs have never yet seen the light of day. Instead they introduced diagrams which purport to show exactly where DC Hammersley found and took possession of all the spent bullet cases? Now this is interesting because there exists a handwritten note written up by PI "Bob" Miller, instructing DC Hammersley, to vacate the original exhibits marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4 so that four bullet cases could be introduced into the main bedroom scenario to boost up the total found there to 12 as opposed to 8? Do the maths yourself, June was / is shot seven times, and Sheila once in the bedroom?
-
As per the Dickenson Report, the audio tapes no loger exist.
Things that don't exist can be requested, but I don't fancy your chances.
Again, there is some confusion about which audio tapes are being referred to in the Dickenson report, since as I understand it Jeremy was requesting access to the recording of his own conversation with PC West, not the conversations between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet? Which audio tapes are you referring to, (a) the Bamber to PC west, or (b) PC West to Malcom Bonnet?
The other thing is, these investigations and reports that keep getting banded about do not cover the fact that there was a training exercise carried out at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still insitu, and that police treated the bodies of the deceased at that time like props in a film set?
-
Yes, there is...
According to DC Hammersley, PC Bird photographed all the bullet case a handwrittens in situ before he (Hammersley) collected them all up in the main bedroom, Childrens bedroom, Landing, Stair and kitchen, yet these photographs have never yet seen the light of day. Instead they introduced diagrams which purport to show exactly where DC Hammersley found and took possession of all the spent bullet cases? Now this is interesting because there exists a handwritten note written up by PI "Bob" Miller, instructing DC Hammersley, to vacate the original exhibits marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4 so that four bullet cases could be introduced into the main bedroom scenario to boost up the total found there to 12 as opposed to 8? Do the maths yourself, June was / is shot seven times, and Sheila once in the bedroom?
Pure fantasy I'm afraid. ::)
-
No, the argument or issue is the contents of both timed logs, One (3:26am) which has mention of words attributable to Ralph Bamber (Daughter has got one of my guns) and Jeremy (Sister has got the gun), as opposed to and compared against the contents contained in the other log (3:36am) where there are only references to Jeremy's call to PC West? Basically put, nothing which PC West says to Malcolm Bonnet between 3:26am and 3:36am, can be attributable to what Jeremy told PC West, because Jeremy did not make his call to PC West until 3:36am? Any comments recorded in log 3:26am by Bonnet must be information which PC West obtained from another source other than from Jeremy, and since the recorded words imply that "My daughter has got one of my guns" it appears to be the case that the only other person who might have had good reason to call the police, was non other than Ralph Bamber. Furthermore, since Jeremy did not call PC West until after the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene at 3:35am...
Why would West bury a man and carry around with him self the burden, that he took a distress call from a doomed father, who's son he helped incarcerate forever?
-
Pure fantasy I'm afraid. ::)
In your mind, yes, but provable by presentation or reference to the aforementioned handwritten note compiled by PI "Bob" Miller...
I wonder where all those photographs which PC Bird took of all the bullet cases in situ vanished to?
-
Why did PI "Bob" Miller instruct DC Hammersley to vacate four exhibits from the main bedroom scene bearing the original identifying marks of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, and then replace these four displaced exhibits with four of the 12 bullet cases found in the bedroom concerned? You would do this to create an impression that more shots had been fired in the bedroom than was fired in the bedroom. Once you grasp this simple calculation, it should suddenly dawn on you that only 8 bullets were fired in the main bedroom, seven of these were fired into the body of June Bamber killing her, the other outstanding bullet was bullet PV/ 19 which was fired under the chin and which ended Sheila's life there in the bedroom...
-
In your mind, yes, but provable by presentation or reference to the aforementioned handwritten note compiled by PI "Bob" Miller...
I wonder where all those photographs which PC Bird took of all the bullet cases in situ vanished to?
If it was provable in any degree, then you wouldn't be gibbering on about it on a forum.
It's just a story, you can't prove it, you have no evidence, nobody believes you and you are achieving absolutely nothing.
-
Yes, there is...
According to DC Hammersley, PC Bird photographed all the bullet case in situ before he (Hammersley) collected them all up in the main bedroom, Childrens bedroom, Landing, Stair and kitchen, yet these photographs have never yet seen the light of day. Instead they introduced diagrams which purport to show exactly where DC Hammersley found and took possession of all the spent bullet cases? Now this is interesting because there exists a handwritten note written up by PI "Bob" Miller, instructing DC Hammersley, to vacate the original exhibits marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4 so that four bullet cases could be introduced into the main bedroom scenario to boost up the total found there to 12 as opposed to 8? Do the maths yourself, June was / is shot seven times, and Sheila once in the bedroom?
Where can Bob Millers handwritten note be found? I presume that you have seen it?
-
Why would West bury a man and carry around with him self the burden, that he took a distress call from a doomed father, who's son he helped incarcerate forever?
Ridiculous isn't it, sure you have different views about the case but I'm sure even you can only take so much.
-
If it was provable in any degree, then you wouldn't be gibbering on about it on a forum.
It's just a story, you can't prove it, you have no evidence, nobody believes you and you are achieving absolutely nothing.
It is not a story, I can prove it, I do have evidence, I am not bothered if no-one believes me, and I will achieve something regarding this case, one way or t'other...
Try to get some sleep, oh and don't have any unnecessary nightmares...
-
Where can Bob Millers handwritten note be found? I presume that you have seen it?
I have them, yes...
-
Ridiculous isn't it, sure you have different views about the case but I'm sure even you can only take so much.
Same mental approach as the police who framed the Birmingham six, despite all of the victims being blown to pieces and murdered - Some people don't have a conscience...
-
I have them, yes...
Is there a good reason why you can't post them on here?
-
Ridiculous isn't it, sure you have different views about the case but I'm sure even you can only take so much.
People tend to post according to their stance. Mine hovers around 70/30 - 80/20. I find it very difficult to accept that many people would knowingly burn a man. It is easier to understand why a select few with a lot to lose might do so. However, no offence but West is cannon fodder. Either he has been easily goaded in to burning a man or he didn't take a call from Ralph.
-
So, back to the phone logs, two different conflicting logs about information received from two indirect sources, from Ralph, and from Jeremy, the details of which were passed on to Malcolm Bonnet by PC West, whose own log (3:36am) doesn't even have a court exhibit reference number stamped upon it, or allocated to it. No copy of this log (3:36am) was placed on the court file, otherwise it would have got the aforementioned stamp upon its page - but such a stamp is absent. Its absence tells us that it was never an exhibit during the trial. If it had been there would be some reference in the court transcript that the log (3:36am) had been allocated a court exhibit reference number in keeping with normal procedure. None existed, non was given to it, non exists upon it. There has to be a reason for this / that?
-
Is there a good reason why you can't post them on here?
No...
-
So, back to the phone logs, two different conflicting logs about information received from two indirect sources, from Ralph, and from Jeremy, the details of which were passed on to Malcolm Bonnet by PC West, whose own log (3:36am) doesn't even have a court exhibit reference number stamped upon it, or allocated to it. No copy of this log (3:36am) was placed on the court file, otherwise it would have got the aforementioned stamp upon its page - but such a stamp is absent. Its absence tells us that it was never an exhibit during the trial. If it had been there would be some reference in the court transcript that the log (3:36am) had been allocated a court exhibit reference number in keeping with normal procedure. None existed, non was given to it, non exists upon it. There has to be a reason for this / that?
Administrative error? Or would this be most unusual?
-
People tend to post according to their stance. Mine hovers around 70/30 - 80/20. I find it very difficult to accept that many people would knowingly burn a man. It is easier to understand why a select few with a lot to lose might do so. However, no offence but West is cannon fodder. Either he has been easily goaded in to burning a man or he didn't take a call from Ralph.
Then somebody else did at 3:26am, and PC West only reported what Jeremy spoke to him about at 3:36am...
Problem solved...
-
People tend to post according to their stance. Mine hovers around 70/30 - 80/20. I find it very difficult to accept that many people would knowingly burn a man. It is easier to understand why a select few with a lot to lose might do so. However, no offence but West is cannon fodder. Either he has been easily goaded in to burning a man or he didn't take a call from Ralph.
Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.
That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. ::)
-
Administrative error? Or would this be most unusual?
Most unusual, indeed, considering that there is no mention at all anywhere in the court transcript to this particular log having a court exhibit reference number, and no-one seeking to identify it by that reference, whilst testifying allegedly about it, or being shown it and confirming its identity by reference to the court exhibit number...?
-
Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.
That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. ::)
Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?
Oh, I see....
-
Most unusual, indeed, considering that there is no mention at all anywhere in the court transcript to this particular log having a court exhibit reference number, and no-one seeking to identify it by that reference, whilst testifying allegedly about it, or being shown it and confirming its identity by reference to the court exhibit number...?
What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?
Unusual? No not even close.
-
Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?
Oh, I see....
Bamber was convicted on imaginary evidence, borne out in the minds of the relatives and some police officers who shot and killed Sheila and sought to cover it up...
-
Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?
Oh, I see....
No I didn't. But if that is the case, and you are doing the same, then you have just lost all of your complaint chips.
-
What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?
Unusual? No not even close.
Sorry, bit slow on the uptake here! What is your point?
-
What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?
Unusual? No not even close.
You haven't got a fucking clue you have you, the original statements made by these police officers, and any other witness who testifies in the case, would be kept on the court file, and bear the official court stamp - which is why I know the log (3:36am) was never an exhibit during the trial because the official court stamp for Chelmsford CC is absent, and not present on any copy of the same...
-
No I didn't. But if that is the case, and you are doing the same, then you have just lost all of your complaint chips.
Don't worry about it, I will simply obtain as many complaint chips as I need...
-
The other glaring feature of this matter, is that there is no mention in the court transcript, or in the appeal judgement (2002) of any comparison between the contents of logs 3:26am and 3:36am? If both logs had been present during the trial, how could the defence not have noticed all those glaring inconsistencies, and glaring contradictory features, and not raise them before judge and jury? It did not happen because both logs were not disclosed at the same time, and this was done deliberately so as not to alert the defence to the fact that the police received information from another source prior to Jeremy's call to PC West at 3:36am...
-
Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.
That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. ::)
I meant that 20-30% of my posts will be ones not necessarily beneficial to the innocent argument.
-
No...
Will you?
-
The other glaring feature of this matter, is that there is no mention in the court transcript, or in the appeal judgement (2002) of any comparison between the contents of logs 3:26am and 3:36am? If both logs had been present during the trial, how could the defence not have noticed all those glaring inconsistencies, and glaring contradictory features, and not raise them before judge and jury? It did not happen because both logs were not disclosed at the same time, and this was done deliberately so as not to alert the defence to the fact that the police received information from another source prior to Jeremy's call to PC West at 3:36am...
If both logs had been disclosed the trial judge would have been privy to them, and he would have been duty bound to bring these conflicting discrepancies to the attention of counsel for the defence and prosecution, and try to ensure that the jury were made aware of these discrepancies - this did not happen because both logs did not get disclosed to the defence prior to the commencement of the trial in October 1986. Similarly, this does not appear to have happened at all during the 2002 appeal, which is even more alarming...
-
Will you?
I can't upload anything at the moment for technical reasons....
-
If both logs had been disclosed the trial judge would have been privy to them, and he would have been duty bound to bring these conflicting discrepancies to the attention of counsel for the defence and prosecution, and try to ensure that the jury were made aware of these discrepancies - this did not happen because both logs did not get disclosed to the defence prior to the commencement of the trial in October 1986. Similarly, this does not appear to have happened at all during the 2002 appeal, which is even more alarming...
Why does the 'Ralph' telephone log have the Chelmsford court stamp on it, if it wasn't available to the defence?
-
I can't upload anything at the moment for technical reasons....
Fair enough. Thank you.
-
You haven't got a fucking clue you have you, the original statements made by these police officers, and any other witness who testifies in the case, would be kept on the court file, and bear the official court stamp - which is why I know the log (3:36am) was never an exhibit during the trial because the official court stamp for Chelmsford CC is absent, and not present on any copy of the same...
Version I've just looked at has court stamp, but version you placed on this site looks to have had it photoshopped out???
-
Version I've just looked at has court stamp, but version you placed on this site looks to have had it photoshopped out???
Are you able to post this on here?
-
You haven't got a fucking clue you have you, the original statements made by these police officers, and any other witness who testifies in the case, would be kept on the court file, and bear the official court stamp - which is why I know the log (3:36am) was never an exhibit during the trial because the official court stamp for Chelmsford CC is absent, and not present on any copy of the same...
Rubbish, just because you haven't posted something it does not mean that it doesn't exit.
West refers to his log at trial, he is handed a copy of it in front of the entire court. It isn't even an argument, well not a very sensible one.
There isn't any witness statements on the forum from the first officets to attend the scene, are you suggesting the they are being withheld from the defence?
-
Rubbish, just because you haven't posted something it does not mean that it doesn't exit.
West refers to his log at trial, he is handed a copy of it in front of the entire court. It isn't even an argument, well not a very sensible one.
There isn't any witness statements on the forum from the first officets to attend the scene, are you suggesting the they are being withheld from the defence?
Who made those statements for those police officers, have you got any idea?
-
Fair enough. Thank you.
But I could send you a copy of it tomorrow with your permission to your email address...
-
Are you able to post this on here?
I'm working off my iPhone so can't put it up, but if you google Ralph phone call to police, then look at either daily mirror story or Wikipedia item on Jeremy bamber, you'll see the log, with the Chelmsford crown court stamp on the left hand side, half way down. Has a reference number too.
-
Did someone else other than PC West pass information at 3:26am, to Malcolm Bonnet relating to the call made by Ralph Bamber, and is this why PC West continues to maintain that he contacted Bonnet after Jeremy called him at 3:36am, and has West changed the timing of the call to 3:36am, to try and deflect attention away from the first part of the message (3:26am) "Daughter has got one of my guns"?
-
Show us the phone bills.....the itemised ones you have....
-
I'm working off my iPhone so can't put it up, but if you google Ralph phone call to police, then look at either daily mirror story or Wikipedia item on Jeremy bamber, you'll see the log, with the Chelmsford crown court stamp on the left hand side, half way down. Has a reference number too.
Wrong phone log (3:26am) - other log (3:36am) does not have a court stamp on it...
-
I'm working off my iPhone so can't put it up, but if you google Ralph phone call to police, then look at either daily mirror story or Wikipedia item on Jeremy bamber, you'll see the log, with the Chelmsford crown court stamp on the left hand side, half way down. Has a reference number too.
Great. Thank you
-
But I could send you a copy of it tomorrow with your permission to your email address...
I would very much appreciate that. Thank you
-
Did someone else other than PC West pass information at 3:26am, to Malcolm Bonnet relating to the call made by Ralph Bamber, and is this why PC West continues to maintain that he contacted Bonnet after Jeremy called him at 3:36am, and has West changed the timing of the call to 3:36am, to try and deflect attention away from the first part of the message (3:26am) "Daughter has got one of my guns"?
What becomes clear, is that nothing Jeremy said to PC West could be mistakenly interpreted to mean what is recorded from 3:26am, ( daughter has got one of my guns) onward (to 3:36am). On the other hand, the contents recorded in the second part (Sheila has got the gun) do generally relate to the gist of what Jeremy spoke to PC West about. PC West records Jeremy's call at 3:36am, some 10 minutes after the other details had already been passed and recorded by Malcolm Bonnet...
-
I would very much appreciate that. Thank you
Here, this may be helpful:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16068;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16069;image
(3) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16071;image
-
Here, this may be helpful:-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16068;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16069;image
(3) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=636.0;attach=16071;image
Thanks Mike.
-
. . . the original statements made by these police officers, and any other witness who testifies in the case, would be kept on the court file, and bear the official court stamp - which is why I know the log (3:36am) was never an exhibit during the trial because the official court stamp for Chelmsford CC is absent, and not present on any copy of the same...
It's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. The court transcript shows Pc West was handed a document that he accepted as his own log of the call he received and there is nothing to suggest that his log, as posted on this forum, differs from the log that he was handed during the trial.
-
I'm working off my iPhone so can't put it up, but if you google Ralph phone call to police, then look at either daily mirror story or Wikipedia item on Jeremy bamber, you'll see the log, with the Chelmsford crown court stamp on the left hand side, half way down. Has a reference number too.
Bonnetts log is on the forum, there are two versions, one with a court stamp and one without, clearly the one without is a copy taken before the stamp was applied.
Clearly Bonnetts log was available at court.
Wests log is on this forum, there is only one version of it and it does not have a court stamp, this indicates that it is a copy taken before a stamp was applied (if a stamp was indeed applied), it does not indicate that it was not available at court. In addition to this, the log is referred to in PC West trial transcript, the log is handed to him in front of the entire court.
Clearly Wests log was available at trial.
Anybody who tries to tell you differently is attempting to mislead you.
The statements and logs of West and Bonnett clearly indicate that a call from Ralph to the police did not take place.
Anybody who tries to tell you differently is attempting to mislead you.
-
The police said they found Nevill downstairs in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, amid a scene that suggested there had been a struggle, though Bamber's lawyers suggested at appeal that some or all of the mayhem in the kitchen may have been caused by the armed police when they broke into the house.[46] Nevill's body was slumped forward over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, his head resting just above a coal scuttle. The police said chairs and stools were overturned, and there was broken crockery, a broken sugar basin, and what looked like blood on the floor. A ceiling light lampshade had been broken. A telephone was lying on one of the surfaces with its receiver off the hook, and several .22 shells beside it. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three were in the kitchen, and one on the stairs—the police concluded he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.[47]
The above is from Wikipedia:The White House Murders. It does not specifically state that Nevill Bamber is shot in the bedroom,but if not he could have telephoned from there,except the phone which had been in the Bambers' bedroom was found downstairs in the kitchen,and the kitchen phone had been put under some magazines. I don't understand how Nevill can make a call after he has been attacked with the gun physically,as he would not be able to speak properly,and if he did not make the call in the bedroom he had to have made it in the kitchen,but there is no blood on the phone.
If Neville Bamber is coming downstairs wounded as the blood trail suggests why does he not try to reach for a gun in the gun cupboard. He apparently has the strength of two hands to dial two telephone numbers,yet the line goes dead after only one sentence.
Is it not more likely that Neville Bamber heard an intruder upstairs and was shot,then managed to get downstairs to try and reach the gun that was left on the settle by Jeremy the previous night. He did not make any phone call. Then realizing that the intruder was Jeremy who had taken the gun he fought for his life,which would explain the brutality of his injuries. The left side of his lip was wounded, his jaw was fractured,his teeth,neck and larynx were damaged.He had black eyes,broken nose,bruising to the cheeks,cuts to the head,bruising to the right forearm and circular burn-type marks on his back which suggest he was hit with the rifle. This makes the injuries far more likely to have been made by Jeremy than Sheila,who seemed to be like a zombie when she answered the phone call the previous evening(was it Pamela that rang) and looked like she was in the middle of her period,which might also explain why June Bamber missed her church meeting that last night. It's also suspicious that the cellphone wasn't working,all these events when Jeremy was sniffing around,who knew that the whole family would be at the farm that evening and had phoned Julie Mugford saying "Tonight's the night".
As for the telephone logs,is there indisputable evidence that one call was made from White House Farm and one from Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger? Do we know definitively that both Police telephone logs were contemporaneous,or was it possible one had been written retrospectively?
-
It's interesting that Pc West's log (as posted on the forum) seems to indicate that a unit was sent as a consequence of Pc West contacting Witham (CW), as this contact would have been after JB called, which he logged as having occurred at 3:36, but Malcolm Bonnett's log shows the unit as having been sent at 3:35. However, Bonnett may not have known that the time that he logged was accurate to the minute; he may have had to estimate it.
Jeremy's information suggests that his father had not already been injured when he called Jeremy.
-
It's interesting that Pc West's log (as posted on the forum) seems to indicate that a unit was sent as a consequence of Pc West contacting Witham (CW), as this contact would have been after JB called, which he logged as having occurred at 3:36, but Malcolm Bonnett's log shows the unit as having been sent at 3:35. However, Bonnett may not have known that the time that he logged was accurate to the minute; he may have had to estimate it.
Jeremy's information suggests that his father had not already been injured when he called Jeremy.
Would Bonnet not have been informed by radio that a unit was attending?
-
PC West details his contact to Witham when giving evidence in court.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5593;image)
-
In that transcript, Pc West doesn't say that he gave the HQ IR the exact time of despatch. His next reported action was speaking to JB again.
-
In that transcript, Pc West doesn't say that he gave the HQ IR the exact time of despatch. His next reported action was speaking to JB again.
Pc West contacted CW by landline, I can only assume that Bews/Myall/Saxby (CA07) responded and informed HQ via radio that they were attending?
Meanwhile HQ (Bonnett) also despatched unit CA05 to the scene from Chelmsford?
-
Possibly, but CA7 may have reported back to Witham at that stage. By the way, I think that Malcolm Bonnett later told COLP that it was he that had contacted CA7 and sent it to the scene, thereby apparently contradicting both himself and Pc West.
-
It's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. The court transcript shows Pc West was handed a document that he accepted as his own log of the call he received and there is nothing to suggest that his log, as posted on this forum, differs from the log that he was handed during the trial.
That is incorrect. PC West was shown the other (3:26am) log with reference to comments attributed to him which he spoke to Malcolm Bonnet about. This is why log 3:26am bears the court stamp and the court exhibit reference number 9, whilst the other log (3:36am) does not. PC West was being shown the 3:26am log with part of the message contained therein, hence when asked to confirm it was a record of what Jeremy had told him, he confirmed it was. The fact of the matter is that only one log (3:26 am) was disclosed and exhibited, and if I am wrong about that, how can it be explained that a log (3:36am) which was wrtten in PC Wests own hand not have the court stamp upon it, and no court exhibit number associated with or to it? Whilst the other (3:26am) which bears some comments attributed to himself does? PC West was not shown and he did not handle and did not refer to the different conflicting log contents contained in both logs, only one of them. It seems clear to me which of the two logs in question PC West was looking at and dealing with during the trial (3:26am) because that is the only log wghch bears the xourt stamp and a reference to the court exhibit...
-
You must be incorrect. At the top of page 4 of the transcript, it states that Pc West said "I am sorry, it is recorded on the front. He said that she was aged 27." This shows that Pc West must have been referring to his own log, as Malcolm Bonnett's log shows Sheila's age as 26.
-
You must be incorrect. At the top of page 4 of the transcript, it states that Pc West said "I am sorry, it is recorded on the front. He said that she was aged 27." This shows that Pc West must have been referring to his own log, as Malcolm Bonnett's log shows Sheila's age as 26.
Which brings us back to why his own log (3:36am) does not bear the court stamp or any reference to the court exhibit number 9, yet log 3:26am does? The testimony in the transcript is inconsistent with the log which bears the coutt stamp and reference to court exhibit 9? So in this respect I am correct...
-
There's no inconsistency, because, as I've already mentioned, it's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. By the way, the exhibit number shown on MB's log is 29, not 9.
-
If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?
This also means he called Julie before he called police.
This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.
-
To be overtaken at 3:48, he probably left home immediately after calling the police. I am suggesting his call to Pc West took under 5 minutes, which is less time than some people have suggested, but not impossible.
I agree that he called Julie before calling the police. I think he misremembered that detail when being interviewed. I think he didn't decide to telephone the police until after he had spoken to Julie.
Where does he state initially that his father rang at 3:20? I thought he hadn't noted the time. He spent some time trying to ring his father back. He also used some time to ring Julie (probably at about 3:30) and some time to get dressed to go out. I doubt that he took a shower.
-
The deception which appears to have been carried out revolves around the claim that PC West contactd Malcolm Bonnet 10 minutes sooner than PC West recorded in his own log (3:36am) so that it matched the time (3;26am) recorded in Malcolm Bonnets log. This becomes more obvious with the introduction of Malcolm Bonnets witness statement contents in December 1985, where Bonnet seeks to clarify matters about the timing of PC Wests call which he puts as having occurred at 3:26am...
PC West (3:36am) and Malcolm Bonnets (3:26am) timing relating to the call made by PC West to Bonnet are at odds with one another. In order to alleviate this factual and problematic feature involving thier accounts, Wests log (3:36am) appears to have been kept out, and Bonnets log (3:26am) put in, without it actually having been seen or refferred to in evidence...
-
There's no inconsistency, because, as I've already mentioned, it's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. By the way, the exhibit number shown on MB's log is 29, not 9.
PC Wests log bearing the time of 3:36am was / is the only page - under the circumstances how can it not have a coudt stamp upon it, and not be allocated a court exhibit number?
-
To be overtaken at 3:48, he probably left home immediately after calling the police. I am suggesting his call to Pc West took under 5 minutes, which is less time than some people have suggested, but not impossible.
I agree that he called Julie before calling the police. I think he misremembered that detail when being interviewed. I think he didn't decide to telephone the police until after he had spoken to Julie.
Where does he state initially that his father rang at 3:20? I thought he hadn't noted the time. He spent some time trying to ring his father back. He also used some time to ring Julie (probably at about 3:30) and some time to get dressed to go out. I doubt that he took a shower.
Is your 5min. call duration still current when you include Wests call to Witham?
Jeremy has also said that he spent 10 minutes looking for the police phone number in Yellow Pages, having initially phoned Witham station but not got any answer.
Jeremey states in his 7/8/85 statement that Ralph called at about 3:10.
(http://. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1091.0;attach=18247;image)
-
If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?
This also means he called Julie before he called police.
This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.
Because the "discovered" logs indicate that someone called the police before that time. There are so many anomalies on that later log that it can be and indeed has been suggested that it is an amalgum of two messages? As far as I can recall this second log was discivered by Jeremy and it was written on the back of another document? I THINK that is what I have read, but unfortunately cannot find where is says that.
-
Because the "discovered" logs indicate that someone called the police before that time. There are so many anomalies on that later log that it can be and indeed has been suggested that it is an amalgum of two messages? As far as I can recall this second log was discivered by Jeremy and it was written on the back of another document? I THINK that is what I have read, but unfortunately cannot find where is says that.
Yes thats right, log 3:26am is only a copy which was photocopied onto the back of another document, or vice versa...
-
If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?
This also means he called Julie before he called police.
This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.
Hi Vidvic,,,simply because Jeremy wasn't aware of the serious situation that existed. He probably just thought it was another of Sheilas' outbursts,,to which he'd attended on occasion to assist his father on keeping her calm.
-
Lookout are you suggesting that Jeremy Bamber had on a previous occasion hurried to White House Farm to mediate an argument between Ralph and Sheila? From all that I have read the father was the one stable influence in her life.
-
Lookout are you suggesting that Jeremy Bamber had on a previous occasion hurried to White House Farm to mediate an argument between Ralph and Sheila? From all that I have read the father was the one stable influence in her life.
Steve,,,it wasn't the father who instigated arguments,,,it was June,,,as both her and Sheila were daggers drawn at times and June was like a red rag to a bull when Sheila was around. Indeed,Nevill was the mainstay of the family,,and acted as a go-between if trouble arose. Whenever Sheilas' bouts got out of hand,Nevill would phone Jeremy to assist him in calming her down,,,most likely to try and reason with her.
-
Could you produce the evidence that Ralph(Nevill) was in the habit of telephoning Jeremy for his assistance?
-
I am still waiting to hear from anybody as to how phone log 3:26am (which was photocopied onto the reverse of another document, or vice versa), managed to become an exhibit during the trial? Nobody mentions it or its contents, yet it becomes a court exhibit (29) - I wonder what court exhibit tbe other document on the reverse side became?
-
Jeremy has also said that he spent 10 minutes looking for the police phone number in Yellow Pages, having initially phoned Witham station but not got any answer.
When did Jeremy state that? The number wouldn't have been in the Yellow Pages. I thought he stated that getting through to the police took ten minutes at the outside. However, that would have included looking up the numbers for both Witham and Chelmsford police stations and unsuccessfully attempting to get through to Witham.
Jeremy states in his 7/8/85 statement that Ralph called at about 3:10.
After his arrest, Jeremy confirmed that he phoned Julie and then rang the police. He also thought his original statement would have been accurate. However, I think it was his 7/8/85 statement that was inaccurate in some respects.
This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.
I think that his estimate in his 7/8/85 statement of 3:10 am as the time when his father called him was probably also inaccurate, but only because 26 minutes would have been rather long. I think that he was called before he rang Julie, but his call to Julie was, according to Julie's statement of 8/8/85, made at about 3:30 am.
I would be interested to see Jeremy's second statement (made on 8/8/85 I think) if mike tesko is able to post a copy of it.
-
I am still waiting to hear from anybody as to how phone log 3:26am (which was photocopied onto the reverse of another document, or vice versa), managed to become an exhibit during the trial? Nobody mentions it or its contents, yet it becomes a court exhibit (29) - I wonder what court exhibit tbe other document on the reverse side became?
It should not have become an exhibit in itself,but ought to have been shown in its entirety as part of a 24 page log. A further complication is that these first two pages had been rewritten and edited,thereby making them next to worthless in a court of law. I'm inclined to the PC Bewes theory that it was more cock-up than conspiracy,though there is a report here by the former MP Andrew Hunter which had the jury known all the facts would possibly not have led to the conviction of the defendant.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050209/halltext/50209h05.htm
-
Hi steve thanks very much for the thread on the views of the Basingstoke MP I seem to think he offered to put up bail money for Jeremy if he needed it. It is so refreshing to read the views of a complete outsider.
-
re: The Jam - Post #185
Yabber Dabber Doo.
HEARTS, you've come up TRUMPS
Who was manning Witham Police Control Room/Information Desk at the relevant time?
Can you kindly lead us to that Station's all important, telehone logs, Radio message, and car movement logs, not forgetting the WHF Alarm actification/notification?
Thanking you in anticipation, yours truly, Albertross Campion
-
It should not have become an exhibit in itself,but ought to have been shown in its entirety as part of a 24 page log. A further complication is that these first two pages had been rewritten and edited,thereby making them next to worthless in a court of law. I'm inclined to the PC Bewes theory that it was more cock-up than conspiracy,though there is a report here by the former MP Andrew Hunter which had the jury known all the facts would possibly not have led to the conviction of the defendant.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050209/halltext/50209h05.htm
External documentary or photographic aides used in testimony are always given a court exhibit reference number and retained by the court dealing with the case - stop talking nonsense...
Logs have been tampered with for one purpose,and one purpose alone, and that is to cover up the true facts and circumstances of what took place...
-
When did Jeremy state that? The number wouldn't have been in the Yellow Pages. I thought he stated that getting through to the police took ten minutes at the outside. However, that would have included looking up the numbers for both Witham and Chelmsford police stations and unsuccessfully attempting to get through to Witham.
In an interview on the 8th & 9th September 1985.
Extract below, see this thread for the full document: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5791;image)
Also an extract from the 2002 Appeal Judgement:
144. Having received the telephone call from his father, the appellant said that it had not crossed his mind to use the 999 system to call the police. Instead he described spending a little time looking up the number for Colchester Police Station. On that particular page of the directory (which he was shown in the witness box) it reads in bold type, "In emergency call the operator (dial 999 where appropriate) and ask for the police". The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse. He agreed it would also have been possible for him to have called one of the farm workers. He said he had not considered that.
After his arrest, Jeremy confirmed that he phoned Julie and then rang the police. He also thought his original statement would have been accurate. However, I think it was his 7/8/85 statement that was inaccurate in some respects.
I think that his estimate in his 7/8/85 statement of 3:10 am as the time when his father called him was probably also inaccurate, but only because 26 minutes would have been rather long. I think that he was called before he rang Julie, but his call to Julie was, according to Julie's statement of 8/8/85, made at about 3:30 am.
I would be interested to see Jeremy's second statement (made on 8/8/85 I think) if mike tesko is able to post a copy of it.
That statement is located here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33765.html#msg33765
It doesn't add much more to the call timing though.
-
Maybe I was wrong when I said they were worthless in a court of law and I'm sorry if so as I am not a lawyer,but the jury should have been shown the complete log. It's my opinion that as the crime happened in the early hours of the morning the original logs may have been incomplete,had spelling mistakes and so on and were rewritten later with possible Police collusion no doubt,but why would the Police want to cover up "the true facts and circumstances of what took place"? Their boss DCI "Taff" Jones was satisfied that it was a domestic argument and it would have been much simpler for the lower ranks just to go along with that. It was rumblings of discontent from some of the PCs involved with the case and the tenacity of the surviving relatives which led to the different outcome.
[/quote]
-
In an interview on the 8th & 9th September 1985.
Extract below, see this thread for the full document: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5791;image)
Also an extract from the 2002 Appeal Judgement:
That statement is located here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php
On 8 August 1985 Julie Mugford told the Police that Jeremy had telephoned her at 3-30am. However Julie's flatmates put the call at anywhere between 0200-0315 which would place the call prior to Jeremy having phoned the Police. The question is why phone Julie Mugford if you suspect a genuine emergency at White House Farm? We are told that Jeremy asked the Police on the phone why they were taking so long to respond,yet he first telephones Julie. As for Jeremy flapping around in the Yellow Pages for ten minutes,the suspicion this arouses is he didn't want to dial 999 twice,as he would have been put through to the Divisional Headquarters of Essex Police and possibly the same person would have answered Jeremy's call,thus leaving open the possibility that the receiver of the call would guess that the same person had made both calls. Therefore there was one call to 999 and another to the local Police station.
-
Ds "Stan" Jones job was to generate enough confusion surrounding the timing of the calls to warrant the arrest of Jeremy in connection with the four murders and Sheila's death. When you look into everything, it was DS Jones who started this whole thing off trying to put Jeremy in the frame, which included the attempt to suggest that he had been lying about the timing of calls made to the police and his girlfriend - when all along police had access to metered call records which could easily have been used to prove, or disprove the true sequence of events concerning who called who, and when? All the police had to do, was obtain access to the metered call logs pertaining to the telephone at whf, and Jeremys cottage...
-
Steve,,,it wasn't the father who instigated arguments,,,it was June,,,as both her and Sheila were daggers drawn at times and June was like a red rag to a bull when Sheila was around. Indeed,Nevill was the mainstay of the family,,and acted as a go-between if trouble arose. Whenever Sheilas' bouts got out of hand,Nevill would phone Jeremy to assist him in calming her down,,,most likely to try and reason with her.
Where ever did you get this info, as it's nonsense.
-
Ds "Stan" Jones job was to generate enough confusion surrounding the timing of the calls to warrant the arrest of Jeremy in connection with the four murders and Sheila's death. When you look into everything, it was DS Jones who started this whole thing off trying to put Jeremy in the frame, which included the attempt to suggest that he had been lying about the timing of calls made to the police and his girlfriend - when all along police had access to metered call records which could easily have been used to prove, or disprove the true sequence of events concerning who called who, and when? All the police had to do, was obtain access to the metered call logs pertaining to the telephone at whf, and Jeremys cottage...
I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that in fact the police did obtain access to these metered call records, and that they found out the true sequence of events involving all the calls made from whf and from Jeremys cottage, between 6pm on Tuesday, 6th August 1985 and 8am on Wednesday, 7th August 1985. These were deliberately withheld and concealed from the defence and the court which tried this matter, because the prosecution had to try and portray Jeremy as a liar, and to suggest that Ralph Bamber did not make the call to him from whf to his cottage in the middle of the night, when all along police had confirmation that such a call had taken place...
-
Why would Jeremy call 999? It was obviously not an emergency situation at the time of Ralph's call otherwise he would have called 999 himself or at least asked Jeremy to contact the police. The telephone logs could prove Jeremy's innocence because anyone who had been contacted by a call from WHF on the night of the murders would have come forward so it's not feasable that the call could have been to anyone else.
-
Why would Jeremy call 999? It was obviously not an emergency situation at the time of Ralph's call otherwise he would have called 999 himself or at least asked Jeremy to contact the police. The telephone logs could prove Jeremy's innocence because anyone who had been contacted by a call from WHF on the night of the murders would have come forward so it's not feasable that the call could have been to anyone else.
Indeed,,,lebaleb.Jeremy wasn't to know that it was a full blown emergency. Maybe if he had have realised,,he'd have still been blamed for knowing that it was.!
-
Why would Jeremy call 999? It was obviously not an emergency situation at the time of Ralph's call otherwise he would have called 999 himself or at least asked Jeremy to contact the police. The telephone logs could prove Jeremy's innocence because anyone who had been contacted by a call from WHF on the night of the murders would have come forward so it's not feasable that the call could have been to anyone else.
Possible the reason Jeremy didn't dial 999 was because this kind of thing might have happened before, but no one had got to know about it? But of course there may be many reason why he didn't? They have been times when I could have dialed 999 and afterwards I wish I had. But there was this thought at the back of my mind, "Should I bother the police when it may turn out to be nothing?" After all the family were no strangers to Sheila's outbursts and lets face it, what is a slim petite girl like Sheila going to to?
But have you noticed that after nearly every shooting where innocent people are massacred those that knew the shooters say things like, "I could never picture him as a murderer. He was such a mild mannered person". It is always a surprise that those particular people could do such terrible things.
-
Possible the reason Jeremy didn't dial 999 was because this kind of thing might have happened before, but no one had got to know about it? But of course there may be many reason why he didn't? They have been times when I could have dialed 999 and afterwards I wish I had. But there was this thought at the back of my mind, "Should I bother the police when it may turn out to be nothing?" After all the family were no strangers to Sheila's outbursts and lets face it, what is a slim petite girl like Sheila going to to?
But have you noticed that after nearly every shooting where innocent people are massacred those that knew the shooters say things like, "I could never picture him as a murderer. He was such a mild mannered person". It is always a surprise that those particular people could do such terrible things.
Exactly,Grahame.Nevill never liked fuss and officialdom being involved,,,so because it was instilled in Jeremy,he tried to keep the " incident " low-key. He wasn't to know otherwise.Why should he.?
-
Possible the reason Jeremy didn't dial 999 was because this kind of thing might have happened before, but no one had got to know about it? But of course there may be many reason why he didn't? They have been times when I could have dialled 999 and afterwards I wish I had. But there was this thought at the back of my mind, "Should I bother the police when it may turn out to be nothing?
Unfortunately that doesn't make any sense. In Jeremy's own words he dialled local police rather than 999 because he didn't think it made any difference which number he called. Obviously a 999 call wouldn't have required him to look up the number first.
Therefore the reasons he didn't call 999 were, by his own admission, nothing to do with the urgency of the situation.
-
Unfortunately that doesn't make any sense. In Jeremy's own words he dialled local police rather than 999 because he didn't think it made any difference which number he called. Obviously a 999 call wouldn't have required him to look up the number first.
Therefore the reasons he didn't call 999 were, by his own admission, nothing to do with the urgency of the situation.
I think it makes as much sense as your theories,JR.
-
I think it makes as much sense as your theories,JR.
Which particular theory of mine did you have in mind?
-
Which particular theory of mine did you have in mind?
Regarding the non-use of of the 999 facility,,JR. Your version and ours. Theories,yes.?
-
Regarding the non-use of of the 999 facility,,JR. Your version and ours. Theories,yes.?
It's not a theory 'Lookout', it's a comparison of Jeremy's reasons for choosing to call a local number, in his own words, versus something plucked out of thin air and posted on the forum.
You can disagree with Jeremys explanation if you want to though. :-\
-
Even if Jeremy had dialled 999 instead of contacting the police, via the local exchange, he would have still said what he said, and still probably spoken to PC West, or alternatively, spoken directly to Malcolm Bonnet...
-
It's not a theory 'Lookout', it's a comparison of Jeremy's reasons for choosing to call a local number, in his own words, versus something plucked out of thin air and posted on the forum.
You can disagree with Jeremys explanation if you want to though. :-\
If Jeremy was trying to cover up, how did calling the local fuzz help? Surely, if he was trying to make it look as convincing as possible, he would have dialed 999!
-
I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that in fact the police did obtain access to these metered call records, and that they found out the true sequence of events involving all the calls made from whf and from Jeremys cottage, between 6pm on Tuesday, 6th August 1985 and 8am on Wednesday, 7th August 1985. These were deliberately withheld and concealed from the defence and the court which tried this matter, because the prosecution had to try and portray Jeremy as a liar, and to suggest that Ralph Bamber did not make the call to him from whf to his cottage in the middle of the night, when all along police had confirmation that such a call had taken place...
Thank you for the documents you sent me. They are very interesting indeed and pose rather interesting questions, as you have expressed already.
-
Why would Jeremy call 999? It was obviously not an emergency situation at the time of Ralph's call otherwise he would have called 999 himself or at least asked Jeremy to contact the police. The telephone logs could prove Jeremy's innocence because anyone who had been contacted by a call from WHF on the night of the murders would have come forward so it's not feasable that the call could have been to anyone else.
I suggest that if these occurances were in any way habitual, then so was the code of behaviour put in place to deal with them and if NOT dialling 999 was part of that code, because "we deal with these things ourselves" and I can't imagine Jeremy would EVER have told anybody that he didn't call it because his father had told him not to.
-
Thank you for the documents you sent me. They are very interesting indeed and pose rather interesting questions, as you have expressed already.
I absolutely agree. If presented with these facts, could/would the CCRC ask to look through the relevant PII material ? Or would this have already happened?
-
Can I just ask mike, how long have you had these papers and, if there was any value to them, why you've never done anything with them?
What proof exactly lies in them of calls between WHF and Jeremy's house?
-
Even if Jeremy had dialled 999 instead of contacting the police, via the local exchange, he would have still said what he said, and still probably spoken to PC West, or alternatively, spoken directly to Malcolm Bonnet...
He would not have spoken to PC West at Chelmsford Police Station, 999 calls were only answered at HQ (Also in Chelmsford but in a separate building), where Bonnett was stationed.
Jeremy stated that he didn't think that it would make any difference to the response time of the police, whether he rang the local police station or dialled 999.
Extract from 2002 Appeal Judgement.
29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.
If Jeremy had simply dialled 999, then yes it would have been quicker than searching for Witham Police Stations number, ringing that number and not getting any answer, then searching for Chelmsford Police Stations number, dialling that number and getting through to PC West, then being placed on hold whilst PC West spoke to Bonnett and an unknown police officer at Witham, before finally being told that the police were on their way and Jeremy should meet them there.
Whether Jeremy knew it would be quicker or not, I have no idea but he suggests that he didn't. He didn't just choose to dial the local number because he didn't think it was an emergency, or at least that is not a claim that I have ever seen him make, on the the contrary, his words: "you've got to help me"; "he sounded terrified" whilst speaking to PC West, suggests that he did indeed consider the situation to be an emergency.
I'm guessing that it is the prosecutions argument that Jeremy called the local police rather than dialling 999 because the response would be slower.
I'm not quite sure what the argument is here, it's a relatively minor point, although I would have expected his reaction to be an immediate 999 call following the alleged call from Ralph.
I would not have expected him to spend up to 10 minutes searching for telephone numbers and attempting to get through to local police stations.
Also we've got to fit in Jeremys call to Julie in at some point, if it was before calling the police, then it indicates an even greater delay and lack of urgency.
Not that any of this, by itself, indicates that he is guilty of course.
-
The metered call log would also contain relevant information abouty the activated attack alarm linked to the farmhouse telephone line. In particular, the metered call log should pinpoint exactly when the attack alarm was set off, in the geans scheme of things...
-
The metered call log would also contain relevant information abouty the activated attack alarm linked to the farmhouse telephone line. In particular, the metered call log should pinpoint exactly when the attack alarm was set off, in the geans scheme of things...
If the log shows alarm activated it would of sent a signal to a recepient to say the alarm has gone off. Who was the intended recipient? local police station,central control,who? If the alarm was unable to send the signal,ie phone line engaged / off hook / disconected, there will be no record.
-
Can I just ask mike, how long have you had these papers and, if there was any value to them, why you've never done anything with them?
What proof exactly lies in them of calls between WHF and Jeremy's house?
thats just the problem
theres no proof of what exact time or the exact destination of the calls
its not itemised so i cant see it proves anything.
the fact as youve said the calls are metered were actually dealt with in an earlier thread where pictures of the meters were shown.
IF i were to conceed that the bills prove that the police were able to retrospectivly request the relevent data from BT I would want to see that. As it is, saying they did it but being unable to prove it is not going to help the cause
-
thats just the problem
theres no proof of what exact time or the exact destination of the calls
its not itemised so i cant see it proves anything.
the fact as youve said the calls are metered were actually dealt with in an earlier thread where pictures of the meters were shown.
IF i were to conceed that the bills prove that the police were able to retrospectivly request the relevent data from BT I would want to see that. As it is, saying they did it but being unable to prove it is not going to help the cause
From the 2002 AJ.
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.
-
Possible the reason Jeremy didn't dial 999 was because this kind of thing might have happened before, but no one had got to know about it? But of course there may be many reason why he didn't? They have been times when I could have dialed 999 and afterwards I wish I had. But there was this thought at the back of my mind, "Should I bother the police when it may turn out to be nothing?" After all the family were no strangers to Sheila's outbursts and lets face it, what is a slim petite girl like Sheila going to to?
But have you noticed that after nearly every shooting where innocent people are massacred those that knew the shooters say things like, "I could never picture him as a murderer. He was such a mild mannered person". It is always a surprise that those particular people could do such terrible things.
Hi Grahame, I wonder if it did happen before..Is there any way of checking?
I think JB was careful not to phone 999. At this point there was no real insight to what was about to happen. Maybe he thought a local police car was the answer and, did not think it appropriate to send squad cars and, that his local copper could calm whatever the situation was at the farm.
It is so easy to say with hindsight that he should have dialled 999 :) :) :)
-
Hi Grahame, I wonder if it did happen before..Is there any way of checking?
I think JB was careful not to phone 999. At this point there was no real insight to what was about to happen. Maybe he thought a local police car was the answer and, did not think it appropriate to send squad cars and, that his local copper could calm whatever the situation was at the farm.
It is so easy to say with hindsight that he should have dialled 999 :) :) :)
Hi Patti,,I'd read somewhere ( can't for the life of me remember where I saw it ) that while Nevill was on the phone to Jeremy,,he'd said how frightened he was. I wish I could find the damn thing.
-
If Jeremy was trying to cover up, how did calling the local fuzz help? Surely, if he was trying to make it look as convincing as possible, he would have dialed 999!
Exsctly Neil. It just doesn't make sense not dialing 999 does it. But still the bgb argue against themselves by insisting that to show he is guilty because he never dialed 999. How on earth does that help his case?
-
Exsctly Neil. It just doesn't make sense not dialing 999 does it. But still the bgb argue against themselves by insisting that to show he is guilty because he never dialed 999. How on earth does that help his case?
Jeremy would have been better not even phoning at all when you think about it. He couldn't have been any worse off. If he'd been as sly,evil and wicked as people have painted him,,,he wouldn't have phoned.
-
Can I just ask mike, how long have you had these papers and, if there was any value to them, why you've never done anything with them?
What proof exactly lies in them of calls between WHF and Jeremy's house?
It appears Mike got them the other day and they go towards proving that the police had both the will and the means to log calls to and from WHF in 1985.
Furhermore because of operation cool I suggest that they did just that and have or had such documents in their possession that they chose deliberately not to use in court at the trial.
I further suggest that because they had these documents in their possession that they could have proved without a shadow of doubt that Bamber was guilty just by presenting them to the court in 1986.
Moreover I suggest that the said documents prove the exact opposite. That they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ralph Bamber did in fact call the police that night and that he also phoned Jeremy. That is why these logs that Mike has sent in emails are so important. Peration cool. That is the key.
-
Exsctly Neil. It just doesn't make sense not dialing 999 does it. But still the bgb argue against themselves by insisting that to show he is guilty because he never dialed 999. How on earth does that help his case?
i have mentioned this in the past.
on one occasion i needed police assistance and dialled 999. i was routed to a control room that is over 60 miles away (i live on the south border of the county) and the operator could not determine my location. I did hang up and grab the phone book. the numbers are all in the front and a page under P so i found it very quickly. I dont personally have issue with not dialling 999 as now i would do the same,phone the local station.
-
i have mentioned this in the past.
on one occasion i needed police assistance and dialled 999. i was routed to a control room that is over 60 miles away (i live on the south border of the county) and the operator could not determine my location. I did hang up and grab the phone book. the numbers are all in the front and a page under P so i found it very quickly. I dont personally have issue with not dialling 999 as now i would do the same,phone the local station.
I have dialed 999 before now to report a suspected car theft where I witnessed the suspected thieves running away and got told off by the twit at the end of the phone for dialing 999.
On another occasion I dialed 999 and the cops were there in literally seconds peddling like good'uns on their bicycles.
-
Back then yes for dailing 999 you had to have a very good cause to do so, not like todays defunct society dialing 999 because over a sandwich, there was no indication upon jeremy recieving the call that anything fatal had started there was no indication the rifle was even loaded.
-
Back then yes for dailing 999 you had to have a very good cause to do so, not like todays defunct society dialing 999 because over a sandwich, there was no indication upon jeremy recieving the call that anything fatal had started there was no indication the rifle was even loaded.
With Ralph Bamber being a JP the family probably are on casual terms with the police anyway? I know the school does.
-
Hi Patti,,I'd read somewhere ( can't for the life of me remember where I saw it ) that while Nevill was on the phone to Jeremy,,he'd said how frightened he was. I wish I could find the damn thing.
2002 Appeal Judgement maybe?
25. Using a radio link PC West contacted Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room. PC West then spoke to the appellant again, who complained at the time the officer was taking. He said, "When my father rang he sounded terrified". The appellant was told to go to the farm and to wait there for the police. PC West described the appellant as sounding "very laconic" and calm during the first part of their conversation and said that there was no sense of urgency. When he spoke to him again the appellant appeared "more urgent and distressed in his manner".
-
With Ralph Bamber being a JP the family probably are on casual terms with the police anyway? I know the school does.
Why did he not dial 999? So how would that benefit his case if he had? What difference would it had made? nothing. In fact as some have said, It would have made him sound even more convincing if he was lying. NOPE! The contention that because Jeremy did not dial 999 is just a red herring. A smoke screen if you like to make him look more guilty. But in fact it does nothing of the sort.
-
It appears Mike got them the other day and they go towards proving that the police had both the will and the means to log calls to and from WHF in 1985.
Furhermore because of operation cool I suggest that they did just that and have or had such documents in their possession that they chose deliberately not to use in court at the trial.
I further suggest that because they had these documents in their possession that they could have proved without a shadow of doubt that Bamber was guilty just by presenting them to the court in 1986.
Moreover I suggest that the said documents prove the exact opposite. That they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ralph Bamber did in fact call the police that night and that he also phoned Jeremy. That is why these logs that Mike has sent in emails are so important. Peration cool. That is the key.
Question: Where are the Witham telephone logs? There is a log missing. Where is it? Is it being held under PII?
-
Hi Patti,,I'd read somewhere ( can't for the life of me remember where I saw it ) that while Nevill was on the phone to Jeremy,,he'd said how frightened he was. I wish I could find the damn thing.
Hi Lookout, hope you are OK...Will you email me please, I want to send you a pic of my daughter on her wedding day...she looked lovely.
I think he got a bit narked at being held on the phone with PC West...as anyone would have been. Like I say we can all look back and assume what we would do...but JB did get help, but the help came 4 hours too late and 6 weeks went by and no there was no crime scene left.... :) :) :) :)
-
Question: Where are the Witham telephone logs? There is a log missing. Where is it? Is it being held under PII?
Is this what Campion was asking the other day ?
-
Ds "Stan" Jones job was to generate enough confusion surrounding the timing of the calls
I have also wondered if this might be the case.
-
I have dialed 999 before now to report a suspected car theft where I witnessed the suspected thieves running away and got told off by the twit at the end of the phone for dialing 999.
On another occasion I dialed 999 and the cops were there in literally seconds peddling like good'uns on their bicycles.
Yeah,my neighbour dialled 999 to report somebody threatening him with a knife. He was well pissed off when they knocked him out of bed 7 hours later. :P
-
Is this what Campion was asking the other day ?
Nothing suggests that there are any logs.
The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.
The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.
PII isn't a cover all excuse you know ::) It's being far too casually cited. ::)
-
Nothing suggests that there are any logs.
The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.
The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.
PII isn't a cover all excuse you know ::) It's being far too casually cited. ::)
Why did they withhold the logs for 19 years ::)?
-
Why did they withhold the logs for 19 years ::)?
They didn't. ::)
As can be seen by the court stamp on Bonnets and Wests was handed to him in court, see his court transcript. ::)
-
From the 2002 AJ.
This was not true as it says Jeremy claimed that the call was abandoned with the receiver left off the cradle. That is false.
-
They didn't. ::)
As can be seen by the court stamp on Bonnets and Wests was handed to him in court, see his court transcript. ::)
The Wireless Message Log has become a document of central importance to the application for an appeal from the CCRC. Page one states that at 5.25am the police were ‘in conversation with person from inside the farm’. Correspondence with the police during the past few months has led to them admitting that only page one of the Wireless Message Log was available to the defence at trial, thereby conceding that all other fourteen pages of the Wireless Log that were not available would be classed as non-disclosed evidence. The complete document consisting of 21 pages was only made available for the defence when sent to them on 3rd March 2004 by the Essex Police.
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
Not that you need to read it Hartley , but as you are no doubt aware this is what i meant , i have noticed you making a lot of mistakes on here in the last few days , i hope you have found out whether SC did miss appointments at the doctors , or who produced what log at court , i think there was another , regarding NB chair !! Do you think you will ever make a mistake and it will point to JB's innocence ? Or will even your mistakes always point to his guilt ?
I forgot my ::) :P , do grow up !!
-
This was not true as it says Jeremy claimed that the call was abandoned with the receiver left off the cradle. That is false.
I'd say it's misinterpretation rather than not being true.
This was actually discussed at trial, hence the calling of an expert witness.
-
The Wireless Message Log has become a document of central importance to the application for an appeal from the CCRC. Page one states that at 5.25am the police were ‘in conversation with person from inside the farm’. Correspondence with the police during the past few months has led to them admitting that only page one of the Wireless Message Log was available to the defence at trial, thereby conceding that all other fourteen pages of the Wireless Log that were not available would be classed as non-disclosed evidence. The complete document consisting of 21 pages was only made available for the defence when sent to them on 3rd March 2004 by the Essex Police.
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
Not that you need to read it Hartley , but as you are no doubt aware this is what i meant , i have noticed you making a lot of mistakes on here in the last few days , i hope you have found out whether SC did miss appointments at the doctors , or who produced what log at court , i think there was another , regarding NB chair !! Do you think you will ever make a mistake and it will point to JB's innocence ? Or will even your mistakes always point to his guilt ?
I forgot my ::) :P , do grow up !!
Rant over? ::)
-
Rant over? ::)
My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!
-
My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!
Well said Jon.. :) :) :)
-
Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.
-
My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!
Oh right okay. ::)
I'm not sure what that has to do with me, but thanks anyway. ???
-
Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.
There are one or two anomaly's in this case !!
Quite sickening really in such a great country !!
-
My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!
Not to worry,,Jon. There won't be a stone unturned.
-
Nothing suggests that there are any logs.
The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.
The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.
PII isn't a cover all excuse you know ::) It's being far too casually cited. ::)
I would have started here myself Hartley , maybe you can get the COA to look at
the times for you !!
-
Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.
Something has obviously been missed out of those written logs. Strange wording indeed. I would expect policemen to have some kind of teaching on the meaning of words and how to use the correct words in a phrase?
-
Is this what Campion was asking the other day ?
Yes and that is why he congratulated hartley for it was he who introduced it.
-
Yes and that is why he congratulated hartley for it was he who introduced it.
Cheers Graham , they obviously kept some sort of record
of the calls !! But Hartley is probably right its not being
withheld under PPI :P ::) :o
-
My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!
Nor will i, trust me first chance i get and i will leave this country for a better place , how dare a society like ours witholds information , i thought this country fought in 2 world wars to a free world , it seems not.
-
Nothing suggests that there are any logs.
The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.
The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.
PII isn't a cover all excuse you know ::) It's being far too casually cited. ::)
Isn't that the very problem though? As long as we don't know what is held under PII, people will always presume that there has been some skullduggery, especially when you consider the undoubted corruption that exists in our legal system.
Having said all that, I am ignorant of legal procedure and would ask whether there is a schedule that exists, that gives a broad outline of what is being held and why.
-
Nor will i, trust me first chance i get and i will leave this country for a better place , how dare a society like ours witholds information , i thought this country fought in 2 world wars to a free world , it seems not.
And Germany are still calling the shots.
-
Isn't that the very problem though? As long as we don't know what is held under PII, people will always presume that there has been some skullduggery, especially when you consider the undoubted corruption that exists in our legal system.
Having said all that, I am ignorant of legal procedure and would ask whether there is a schedule that exists, that gives a broad outline of what is being held and why.
There would usually be a list, however not all non-disclosed files are withheld under PII, some appear to simply not disclosed.
-
Nothing suggests that there are any logs.
The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.
The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.
PII isn't a cover all excuse you know ::) It's being far too casually cited. ::)
Possibly a clue?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=739.0;attach=12409;image)
-
And Germany are still calling the shots.
Frau Merkel rules Europa now Grahame , Cameron is a puppy dog when she says jump he jumps. bet interpol has files on JB.
-
Somewhat belatedly, Heartles., I am glad to make the following observations :
I do not consider Jon's posts to be rants. IMO he is truly succinct in highlighting your obfuscations.
Bews, Myall, and Saxby were in a patrol car, 13 minutes away from WHF, when they were alerted by Witham Control Desk, by radio.
So:
a) Who was the person in Control at Witham?
b)Why is there no telephone/radio log appertaining to Witham?
c) Where is any information with regard to the WHF alarm?
d)Should Rivlin have been aware, and drawn attention to these anomalies?
Who is, or what is S9A? I am impressed by the block letter printing. It is characteristic of an Architect.
)
0
-
Essex police obtained metered call logs as part and parcel of their everyday enquiries into these deaths. These would be set out in the following format for each day under enquiry:-
Metered phone log records (whf):-
Cheap rate (CB) - 6pm (date) to 8am (date)
Peak Rate (PB) - 9am (date) to 1pm (date)
Standard rate (SB) - 8am (date) to 9am (date) and 1pm (date) to 6pm (date)
Extracts:-
(a) - 5th August 1985 to 6th August 1985
(b) - 6th August 1985 to 7th August 1985
(c) - 7th August 1985 to 8th August 1985
Relevant period being - (Cheap rate period) 6pm, Tuesday, 6th August 1985, to 8am, Wednesday, 7th August 1985...
-
Somewhat belatedly, Heartles., I am glad to make the following observations :
I do not consider Jon's posts to be rants. IMO he is truly succinct in highlighting your obfuscations.
Bews, Myall, and Saxby were in a patrol car, 13 minutes away from WHF, when they were alerted by Witham Control Desk, by radio.
So:
a) Who was the person in Control at Witham?
b)Why is there no telephone/radio log appertaining to Witham?
c) Where is any information with regard to the WHF alarm?
d)Should Rivlin have been aware, and drawn attention to these anomalies?
Who is, or what is S9A? I am impressed by the block letter printing. It is characteristic of an Architect.
)
0
Bearing in mind the tone of your message, including your sneaky hidden comment referring to my profession (what's that all about? Weird), what makes you think that I'm going to be enthusiastically falling over myself to give you the time of day, let alone answer your questions? ???
-
I still can't envisage the circumstances in which a telephone call was made from White House Farm by Ralph(Nevill). Does he hear Sheila going into the twins' bedroom and hear the shots she fires into their bodies,then comes out onto the landing where he is shot four times,Sheila then goes into the master bedroom and shoots June,during which time Nevill manages to stagger downstairs..however he doesn't make for the gun cupboard but the telephone in the kitchen. Let's say Nevill at this stage knows he is wounded too badly to manipulate a gun,but with one hand can dial a number..it's an emergency situation as he relates to Jeremy that "Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun" which is echoed in Jeremy's call to the Police from Goldhanger("You've got to help me..")..whilst Sheila is shooting June seven times Nevill manages to make another phone call to the Police,which is logged as "daughter gone berserk with one of my guns".
At this stage in the scenario therefore Nevill has already made two telephone calls from the kitchen. Nevill then has a little more time to twist his bloodstained watch off his wrist and hide it under the rug,before Sheila comes back into the kitchen where she bashes him brutally in the head,then fires three more times to finish him off.
I'm wondering why,when Nevill manages to get downstairs in a fight or flight situation if ever there was one he wastes time phoning what must have at least been a 7 figure number to Jeremy when one's only thought must be for the safety of those upstairs? The 999 number would have been in anyone's mind first especially since he is injured with his motor skills impaired. There is no blood on the downstairs phone,yet we know from the wristwatch that he had been wounded,unless he somehow in his dying moments manages to unfasten his wristwatch and hide it under the rug.
I would suggest that it's far more likely that it was Jeremy whom Nevill heard moving about in the early hours of that morning and tried the bedroom phone which was disabled as Jeremy had already unplugged the kitchen phone which was later proved to be in working order. Nevill comes out of the bedroom and Jeremy shoot him four times,then goes into the master bedroom where June is shot seven times in total,the first as she is sat up in bed,one shot aimed straight between the eyes.
Nevill is then frogmarched downstairs by Jeremy to the kitchen- in Dr. Vanezis's report there are marks on Nevill's back to suggest that a hot rifle butt is held against his skin for a short period,where he is then assaulted with the rifle and left for dead. Nevill manages to release his wristwatch and hide it under the rug,hoping against hope that its bloodstained state might be useful to investigators. Jeremy then races back upstairs,finishes June off,hurries back downstairs and fires three more bullets into Nevill,which prove fatal.
I just don't see a scenario where Nevill makes any telephone calls to the Police that morning. I can see a scenario where another person,whether Jeremy or a hitman does make a call,with gloved hand on the kitchen phone to the cottage at Whitehanger,which if records do exist,would show that calls were made,but not by whom.
-
There was no blood on the phone and during the alleged call to Jeremy he doesn't say he's been shot.
-
Is there a suggestion that Ralph did not sustain 4 gun shot wounds upstairs?
I'm sure that Mike, at least, has questioned this!
-
If so then why does he not try to seize a rifle from the gun cupboard,or even unlock the back door and summon help..
-
If so then why does he not try to seize a rifle from the gun cupboard,or even unlock the back door and summon help..
Ermm........
-
Ermm........
I think he means if Ralph wasn't shot upstairs then why didn't he grab a gun or leave the house.
I think.
-
I think he means if Ralph wasn't shot upstairs then why didn't he grab a gun or leave the house.
I think.
Oh I know! I was just struggling for an answer!
-
Oh I know! I was just struggling for an answer!
Oh :-[
I don't think it works anyway, his blood was found on the wall upstairs on the landing and in the hall before you get to the kitchen door. So even in the unlikely event that cases were moved around as suggested by Mike, it wouldn't account for the blood stain locations.
-
I'd say it's misinterpretation rather than not being true.
This was actually discussed at trial, hence the calling of an expert witness.
I would say it is certainly not true that Jeremy claimed the call had been abandoned with the receiver left off the cradle. The calling of experts to testify that Jeremy would have been unable to make any calls until Ralph had hung up was obfuscation and a possibly deliberate attempt to make Jeremy look like a liar when in FACT he did not claim the receiver was left off the cradle. In my opinion, after calling Jeremy, Ralph was probably trying to contact a doctor to come and sedate Sheila when things started to go out of control.
-
Now Ralph contacted a Doctor? ???
-
Now Ralph contacted a Doctor? ???
That's another good point. Why not call a doctor if he,Ralph(Nevill) had been shot?
-
Now Ralph contacted a Doctor? ???
He MAY have been TRYING to contact a doctor.
-
That's another good point. Why not call a doctor if he,Ralph(Nevill) had been shot?
If he had already been shot and others were in danger a 999 call would have got him both the police and an ambulance. I don't think he'd been shot when he made the call - you'd think he would have mentioned it.
-
He MAY have been TRYING to contact a doctor.
It's difficult to imagine what peoples' minds would be like at gone 3 in the morning,,,after maybe a couple of drinks and a " spliff ". Under normal circumstances you'd be confused at being wakened up at that hour.
-
He MAY have been TRYING to contact a doctor.
Oh, okay. Anybody else?
-
Not a chance, Harts. Neville would have called 999, thats it.
-
I still can't envisage the circumstances in which a telephone call was made from White House Farm by Ralph(Nevill). Does he hear Sheila going into the twins' bedroom and hear the shots she fires into their bodies,then comes out onto the landing where he is shot four times,Sheila then goes into the master bedroom and shoots June,during which time Nevill manages to stagger downstairs..however he doesn't make for the gun cupboard but the telephone in the kitchen. Let's say Nevill at this stage knows he is wounded too badly to manipulate a gun,but with one hand can dial a number..it's an emergency situation as he relates to Jeremy that "Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun" which is echoed in Jeremy's call to the Police from Goldhanger("You've got to help me..")..whilst Sheila is shooting June seven times Nevill manages to make another phone call to the Police,which is logged as "daughter gone berserk with one of my guns".
At this stage in the scenario therefore Nevill has already made two telephone calls from the kitchen. Nevill then has a little more time to twist his bloodstained watch off his wrist and hide it under the rug,before Sheila comes back into the kitchen where she bashes him brutally in the head,then fires three more times to finish him off.
I'm wondering why,when Nevill manages to get downstairs in a fight or flight situation if ever there was one he wastes time phoning what must have at least been a 7 figure number to Jeremy when one's only thought must be for the safety of those upstairs? The 999 number would have been in anyone's mind first especially since he is injured with his motor skills impaired. There is no blood on the downstairs phone,yet we know from the wristwatch that he had been wounded,unless he somehow in his dying moments manages to unfasten his wristwatch and hide it under the rug.
I would suggest that it's far more likely that it was Jeremy whom Nevill heard moving about in the early hours of that morning and tried the bedroom phone which was disabled as Jeremy had already unplugged the kitchen phone which was later proved to be in working order. Nevill comes out of the bedroom and Jeremy shoot him four times,then goes into the master bedroom where June is shot seven times in total,the first as she is sat up in bed,one shot aimed straight between the eyes.
Nevill is then frogmarched downstairs by Jeremy to the kitchen- in Dr. Vanezis's report there are marks on Nevill's back to suggest that a hot rifle butt is held against his skin for a short period,where he is then assaulted with the rifle and left for dead. Nevill manages to release his wristwatch and hide it under the rug,hoping against hope that its bloodstained state might be useful to investigators. Jeremy then races back upstairs,finishes June off,hurries back downstairs and fires three more bullets into Nevill,which prove fatal.
I just don't see a scenario where Nevill makes any telephone calls to the Police that morning. I can see a scenario where another person,whether Jeremy or a hitman does make a call,with gloved hand on the kitchen phone to the cottage at Whitehanger,which if records do exist,would show that calls were made,but not by whom.
Well now knowing for sure that the technology was not only available to the police on that day but indeed was most likely used that day by the police because of their surveilance of Jeremy concerning his drugs dealings, then why did not the police produce these logs in court to prove undoubtedly that Jeremy was guilty? We must keep speculation that comes from our own limited reasonings to the minimum. These extra logs of Mikes categorically demonstrate that it was more than possible that the police had more information regarding these logs which they must have witheld from the court. It is almost inconceivable that because of operation Cool that they did not have access to such records and these telephone logs of Mikes that prove that.
-
There are documents held under PII, which I believe the CCRC can insist on looking at.
There are documents that have been withheld but which are not under PII. Can the CCRC insist on seeing these or have they already done so? How can these documents be legitimately withheld?
-
There are documents held under PII, which I believe the CCRC can insist on looking at.
There are documents that have been withheld but which are not under PII. Can the CCRC insist on seeing these or have they already done so? How can these documents be legitimately withheld?
It is a recorded fact that the CCRC have not used their powers to demand that the police give up certain documents. The police have simply refused to hand them over and the CCRC have gone along with this. THAT IS THEIR FAILURE as far as I am concerned and they can be condemned for that obstruction of justice as far I I am concerned. It was that act that lost all my respect for that body.
-
There are documents held under PII, which I believe the CCRC can insist on looking at.
There are documents that have been withheld but which are not under PII. Can the CCRC insist on seeing these or have they already done so? How can these documents be legitimately withheld?
Why can't a court order be served to release these documents.? It's not right,,,and it's not justice either.
The longer they hang on to them,,the bigger the bill they're going to have to be faced with on Jeremy's release. It's obvious why they're being kept under wraps. It's a wonder they weren't destroyed back in 1996 with other vital evidence. How dare they.!
-
It is a recorded fact that the CCRC have not used their powers to demand that the police give up certain documents. The police have simply refused to hand them over and the CCRC have gone along with this. THAT IS THEIR FAILURE as far as I am concerned and they can be condemned for that obstruction of justice as far I I am concerned. It was that act that lost all my respect for that body.
Thanks for that Grahame. In a case that is far from clear cut, quite the opposite in fact, in the interest of justice and transparency, they MUST be forced to release EVERYTHING. Justice must be seen to be done, it certainly hasn't happened here. What possible justification can they have for withholding it?
-
The problem is it wouldn't prove that it was actually Nevill speaking at White House Farm. Julie Mugford had already given a statement in which she mentioned a hitman who was to make such a call on the digital telephone so it could be traced back,so unless Julie breaks down and confesses one day that she has framed Jeremy then the conviction will stand.
-
Thanks for that Grahame. In a case that is far from clear cut, quite the opposite in fact, in the interest of justice and transparency, they MUST be forced to release EVERYTHING. Justice must be seen to be done, it certainly hasn't happened here. What possible justification can they have for withholding it?
I don't know? But notice that this does not trouble the BGB. Are they really interested in seeing justice done? Or to see an innocent man being held behind bars for the rest of his life? Surely if someone is truly interested in justice than that air of doubt must be in their minds. But I rather think it to be only prejudice that stops the BGB really investigating why so much evidence is still being witheld and seen to be witheld and to rather close their blinkered eyes so they cannot see it. Therefore I feel that all those who have made up their minds that Bamber is guilty think that way because of some prejudice withing their own minds. For so many legal people even can see that there are so many holes and anomalies in this case to let it rest and give up on a man who may well be innocent?
-
The problem is it wouldn't prove that it was actually Nevill speaking at White House Farm. Julie Mugford had already given a statement in which she mentioned a hitman who was to make such a call on the digital telephone so it could be traced back,so unless Julie breaks down and confesses one day that she has framed Jeremy then the conviction will stand.
Absolutely no one could corroberate JM's story. That is why he could not be convicted on her testimony alone.
-
How could anyone back up Julies story? Bamber only told her of his plans, nobody else.
-
How could anyone back up Julies story? Bamber only told her of his plans, nobody else.
From what I have read about Julie Mugford, I would have to have completely disregarded her evidence. Perhaps if I had heard her evidence first hand, in court, I might have felt differently. I don't think you can underestimate the importance of hearing a witness in person, under cross examination. Having said that, how would the jury's opinion of her changed, if they had known about her news paper deal?
-
Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!
Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot ;)
-
Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!
Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot ;)
Well, I'm not sure I buy into the theory that she shot herself first downstairs. I'm also interested in the bloodied hand print on her nightdress, that somebody mentioned earlier, whose hand print was this?
-
Well, I'm not sure I buy into the theory that she shot herself first downstairs. I'm also interested in the bloodied hand print on her nightdress, that somebody mentioned earlier, whose hand print was this?
Vanezis was of the opinion that it was hers, and only her blood was on her nightie.
-
Thats right, Bridget. Surley had Sheila committed the murders, other blood would have been found.
-
Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!
Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot ;)
Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.
-
I have a few issues with JM and her statement, other than in writing following an oral account , there seems to be no pysical evidence to support what she said, such as a diary with times and dates what jeremy said , a tape with him saying such things, given her testonomy in effect sent him prison forever , all on no concrete evidence he said such things, in the presence of another person that would be quite different , there we have more than one witness, if jb was under the influence of alchohol when he said such things , that could not be taken as evedence, even if he did say such things as a pass of view and not to act , tells me she did not think he was serious , only after she was dumped did this move up a level to now being serious, why?
-
Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.
you think after the first shot she changed her clothes?
-
Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.
Was she running around topless then?
-
Thats right, Bridget. Surley had Sheila committed the murders, other blood would have been found.
You'd think :)
-
The scene was bloody, she would have other blood on her no doubt!
morning Bridget ;)
-
you think after the first shot she changed her clothes?
Yes,,I do,Andrea,,,as well as having shot the others. No doubt her outdoor clothing was saturated in blood,,,as that was why it was left soaking. She would have showered too.
Her nightie would then become the finishing touches to her demise.
The only one who had the most visible covering of blood,was June,,,feet and all.
-
Impossible, Lookout.
So she ran upstairs then changed her clothes, read a bit of the bible then shot herself dead second time round.
Sorry, i cannot buy that.
-
Impossible, Lookout.
So she ran upstairs then changed her clothes, read a bit of the bible then shot herself dead second time round.
Sorry, i cannot buy that.
Nothing's impossible,,Andrea,,simply because none of us were there to witness anything,,,and if this is how the case itself was worked out,,then it sure was the most unfair trial to end all trials.
However,my belief that Jeremy is innocent,still stands.
-
Let me get this staright incase im misunderstanding what youre saying.
She shot the family, then shot herself once, are you then saying she got changed went upstairs read the bible then shot hersefl again? At what point did she shower? After killing the family but before the first shot to herself?
Explain the order of things in your opinion, because i think i'm misunderstanding things.
-
Yes,,I do,Andrea,,,as well as having shot the others. No doubt her outdoor clothing was saturated in blood,,,as that was why it was left soaking. She would have showered too.
Her nightie would then become the finishing touches to her demise.
The only one who had the most visible covering of blood,was June,,,feet and all.
How weird. ::)
Somehow, it has gone from some stained underwear in soak due to being caught out, to "outdoor clothing saturated in blood".
You couldn't make it up. :-\
-
Let me get this staright incase im misunderstanding what youre saying.
She shot the family, then shot herself once, are you then saying she got changed went upstairs read the bible then shot hersefl again? At what point did she shower? After killing the family but before the first shot to herself?
Explain the order of things in your opinion, because i think i'm misunderstanding things.
And all topless remember...
-
Topless too! Oh dear ;D
Glad there was no photos then , guess who would have tried selling them ;)
-
How weird. ::)
Somehow, it has gone from some stained underwear in soak due to being caught out, to "outdoor clothing saturated in blood".
You couldn't make it up. :-\
What I meant were Sheilas' clothes that she wore that day other than her nightie which she changed into.
Nothing clever about your remarks btw,,I just find them immature. Anything to make yourself look a pratt.
-
What I meant were Sheilas' clothes that she wore that day other than her nightie which she changed into.
It was two pairs of knickers (stained you-know-where) and a pair of joggers.
-
I have a few issues with JM and her statement, other than in writing following an oral account , there seems to be no pysical evidence to support what she said, such as a diary with times and dates what jeremy said , a tape with him saying such things, given her testonomy in effect sent him prison forever , all on no concrete evidence he said such things, in the presence of another person that would be quite different , there we have more than one witness, if jb was under the influence of alchohol when he said such things , that could not be taken as evedence, even if he did say such things as a pass of view and not to act , tells me she
Mertol22 I'm not saying Julie is legally blameless and certainly had she gone to the Police of her own volition the day of the murders I think many of the doubters here might be silenced. It's strange though that Jeremy should phone Julie around the time he supposedly gets the call from Nevill,then phones her again around 6.00am from the village,suggesting that at that stage he wanted and needed to keep her on side.
Thinking about the hitman theory again is it possible that Jeremy needed an excuse for the bicycle to be there at Goldhanger and asked Julie to say she wanted to use it? Did anybody in the village see Julie riding a bicycle? It suggests to me that Julie was going along in her mind with Jeremy's plan,which would explain all the sobbing in court which made cross-examination difficult. Of course Jeremy is not going to implicate Julie as that would mean admitting to the whole plot and losing any chance of inheriting the estate.
-
What I meant were Sheilas' clothes that she wore that day other than her nightie which she changed into.
Nothing clever about your remarks btw,,I just find them immature. Anything to make yourself look a pratt.
I'm not the one inventing "blood saturated outdoor clothes".
You can't just make things up, well you can, but you'll probably receive replies like the one above. ::)
-
I'm not the one inventing "blood saturated outdoor clothes".
You can't just make things up, well you can, but you'll probably receive replies like the one above. ::)
You do quite a lot !!
-
I'm not the one inventing "blood saturated outdoor clothes".
You can't just make things up, well you can, but you'll probably receive replies like the one above. ::)
No,,but you invent a lot more other things.
-
No,,but you invent a lot more other things.
That doesn't reinforce your argument about the alleged presence of "blood saturated outdoor clothes", you may think it does, but it doesn't.
-
That doesn't reinforce your argument about the alleged presence of "blood saturated outdoor clothes", you may think it does, but it doesn't.
Anyone else would have understood what I'd meant,,apart from a pedant such as yourself.
-
Anyone else would have understood what I'd meant,,apart from a pedant such as yourself.
What did you mean then?
-
Nothing's impossible,,Andrea,,simply because none of us were there to witness anything,,,and if this is how the case itself was worked out,,then it sure was the most unfair trial to end all trials.
However,my belief that Jeremy is innocent,still stands.
Jeremy is quick to implant in the Police's mind that his sister is "a nutter",yet leaves a loaded gun lying on the settle in full view of the household the previous evening. He had also allegedly tried to get Shiela to handle a gun in front of relatives. From what I have read Sheila did not like guns,she had last handled a gun at a shoot in Scotland in 1979. We have evidence from Pamela Boutflour who spoke to her late on 6th August saying she sounded like a zombie,and Anne Eaton's evidence that Sheila "couldn't put beans on toast".
The phone call purportedly emanating from White House Farm was a means to give Jeremy the chance to blacken Sheila's character and to afford him an alibi of sorts. He knows full well that they are all dead by his own hand;the only way he can be discovered is if the emergency services send an ambulance quickly and manage to resuscitate Sheila,which is why he dallies so long in contacting them.
-
Anyone else would have understood what I'd meant,,apart from a pedant such as yourself.
I understood exactly what you meant. You were suggesting that Sheilas blood stained clothes were put to soak in buckets of water before she changed into a nightie.
I'm merely pointing out to you that there were not any blood soaked clothes soaking in buckets other than her underwear from being caught out.
Therefore, your suggestion can not possibly be true.
-
I understood exactly what you meant. You were suggesting that Sheilas blood stained clothes were put to soak in buckets of water before she changed into a nightie.
I'm merely pointing out to you that there were not ant blood soaked clothes soaking in buckets other than her underwear from being caught out.
Therefore, your suggest can not possibly be true.
I think there may have been a top and track suit bottoms in another bucket. It's possible that they got blood soaked when she was menstruating.
-
I think there may have been a top and track suit bottoms in another bucket. It's possible that they got blood soaked when she was menstruating.
No top, just joggers.
-
On the subject of clothes did we ever get to the bottom of why Jeremy was wearing more clothes than normal for August back at Goldhanger cottage?
-
Thats right, Bridget. Surley had Sheila committed the murders, other blood would have been found.
They didn't have the methods of detecting blood splatter that they do today - had the nighty been available for forensic testing today, there might indeed be other blood. However, as it wasn't seen fit to keep such important evidence, we will never know but nor (by the same token) can it be dismissed as a 'possibility'!
-
Was she running around topless then?
All your theories are built upon sopposition alone. All hearsay. There is absolutely no forensic evidence that connects JB to the crime.
-
How could anyone back up Julies story? Bamber only told her of his plans, nobody else.
Allegedly. We only have Mugfords word for that.
-
Not a chance, Harts. Neville would have called 999, thats it.
Maybe he did? But until we see all the logs we will never know will we.
-
They didn't have the methods of detecting blood splatter that they do today - had the nighty been available for forensic testing today, there might indeed be other blood. However, as it wasn't seen fit to keep such important evidence, we will never know but nor (by the same token) can it be dismissed as a 'possibility'!
It doesn't need to be dismissed, he was convicted 27 years ago. The onus is no longer on the prosecution to prove his guilt, that has already been done in a court of law.
-
What I meant were Sheilas' clothes that she wore that day other than her nightie which she changed into.
Nothing clever about your remarks btw,,I just find them immature. Anything to make yourself look a pratt.
Don't worry about the BGB's mocking lookout. They only have their prejudice to comfort their total inability to think straight.
-
It was two pairs of knickers (stained you-know-where) and a pair of joggers.
Could you provide a reference to that information please?
-
You do quite a lot !!
Don't worry jon we all know where he gets that saying from. The BGB are governed by prejudice alone and nothing else.
-
On the subject of clothes did we ever get to the bottom of why Jeremy was wearing more clothes than normal for August back at Goldhanger cottage?
What on earth does that prove. So he was wearing a lot of clothes according to one policeman. If he committed the murders with lots of clothes on don't you think he would have the common sense to take them off before meeting the police? How many more rediculous insinuations must we put up with?
-
Grahame I think you are forgetting he would have his wet suit on under his clothes ;)
-
Could you provide a reference to that information please?
Ann Eaton's COLP statement if memory serves.
-
Grahame I think you are forgetting he would have his wet suit on under his clothes ;)
It was pretty cool that night,,and when you've just got up you feel cold,,and I too would have dressed for the " North Pole " ,,,but I couldn't pedal a bike with that lot on. I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
Some people will believe anything,,,especially when they're puppets having their strings pulled. Bless.
-
Some people will believe anything,,,especially when they're puppets having their strings pulled. Bless.
My thoughts exactly.
-
My thoughts exactly.
Works both ways,,Bridget,,,particularly to those who are related. ( string-pullers )
-
My thoughts exactly.
Funnily enough, mine also.
-
On a slightly different subject. How many residential properties would Jeremy have to pass on his way to or from the farm? Is it believed (by the BGB's) that Jeremy drove home from work and then returned later on the bicycle? He then cycled back to Goldhanger? If that were the case, would you expect him to be spotted by at least one witness on either journey?
-
On a slightly different subject. How many residential properties would Jeremy have to pass on his way to or from the farm? Is it believed (by the BGB's) that Jeremy drove home from work and then returned later on the bicycle? He then cycled back to Goldhanger? If that were the case, would you expect him to be spotted by at least one witness on either journey?
You would think so! But if you had planned such a crime, would you even RISK being seen? After all, if one person sees you - the game is up!
-
Hi Neil we had a post up the other day I think it was by keeper who lives in the area and said all the people around there are very nosey so somebody would have seen him. Could be wrong about the poster but the post is correct. :)
-
Hi Neil we had a post up the other day I think it was by keeper who lives in the area and said all the people around there are very nosey so somebody would have seen him. Could be wrong about the poster but the post is correct. :)
Hi Susan, yes I did read that. Would be interesting to know roughly how many houses he would have to have passed, not to mention the odd passing motorist.
-
You would think so! But if you had planned such a crime, would you even RISK being seen? After all, if one person sees you - the game is up!
Hi Caroline, yes my thoughts exactly.
-
Hi Caroline R Jeremy would know the area so well and even if he had been on June's bike he would not take the risk. Too ridiculous for words especially as it has been suggested he was wearing a wet suit.
-
It doesn't need to be dismissed, he was convicted 27 years ago. The onus is no longer on the prosecution to prove his guilt, that has already been done in a court of law.
He was indeed - he was convicted without any physical evidence linking him to the deaths, the crime scene couldn't have been more contaminated even if Hannibal had walked through it with his elephants and evidence was hidden from the defence! Proven? Not likely!!
-
Too ridiculous for words especially as it has been suggested he was wearing a wet suit.
;D ;D ;D
-
It was pretty cool that night,,and when you've just got up you feel cold,,and I too would have dressed for the " North Pole " ,,,but I couldn't pedal a bike with that lot on. I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
Some people will believe anything,,,especially when they're puppets having their strings pulled. Bless.
The BGB lot are the ones with puppet masters.
-
Works both ways,,Bridget,,,particularly to those who are related. ( string-pullers )
And those who were drawn into the argument just because they hate someone else who hold opposite views.
-
Hi Susan, yes I did read that. Would be interesting to know roughly how many houses he would have to have passed, not to mention the odd passing motorist.
Forgetting about the case and without suggesting this is what happened.
It is possible to get from WHF to the back gate of St Peter Church in Goldhanger, without passing another dwelling, that would place you 60 metres from No. 9 Head Streets front door.
-
And those who were drawn into the argument just because they hate someone else who hold opposite views.
Cant argue with that Grahame ;D
-
Forgetting about the case and without suggesting this is what happened.
It is possible to get from WHF to the back gate of St Peter Church in Goldhanger, without passing another dwelling, that would place you 60 metres from No. 9 Head Streets front door.
Thanks for that. Does that route avoid roads and therefore the possibility of being seen by other road users?
-
Thanks for that. Does that route avoid roads and therefore the possibility of being seen by other road users?
Yes, via farm tracks and the seawall.
-
Yes, via farm tracks and the seawall.
Would that be a difficult bike ride, across fields? How long would that journey take? Sorry about all the questions!!
-
Would that be a difficult bike ride, across fields? How long would that journey take? Sorry about all the questions!!
Neil, I believe we're talking pitch black farm tracks and a very dangerous eroded path on the edge of the sea, also pitch black.
-
Neil, I believe we're talking pitch black farm tracks and a very dangerous eroded path on the edge of the sea, also pitch black.
Thanks Maggie. Do you know if it was the prosecutions case that he took this route?
-
Thanks Maggie. Do you know if it was the prosecutions case that he took this route?
Off the top of my head Neil, I know the police tried various routes and I cant remember the conclusiin. Grahame will know better than myself but I"m pretty sure the seawall was ruled out. There is a report somewhere but cant remember where I read it.
-
Hi Mags it would be so dark travelling on farm tracks and seawall I wonder if Jeremy had one of those lamps that fastened around his head like potholers use and coal miners. Trouble is the bright light could have given the game away so rule that out.
-
Would that be a difficult bike ride, across fields? How long would that journey take? Sorry about all the questions!!
Don't bother even trying to work it out Neil. It's just another crackpot theory of the BGB. There is absolutely nothing to support that but RWB's silly diary notes.
-
Would that be a difficult bike ride, across fields? How long would that journey take? Sorry about all the questions!!
By bike, something between 30-45minutes I'd say.
Difficult?
I guess it depends who you ask, people who want to persuade you that Jeremy was innocent would no doubt tell you that it was an impossible journey, in pitch blackness with a deadly crumbling seawall between you and certain death.
Those who want to persuade you that Jeremy is guilty might tell you that it was an easy journey, in fact it's so easy that you may as well leave your car at home and stay off the main roads all the time, this is in fact a short cut.
The reality is probably somewhere between the two.
Yes it was night time and dark, but there was moonlight, whether enough to make the journey or not, who knows? I'd say it would add to the journey time but not make it impossible.
The majority of the journey is by farm tracks several metres wide, potentially just about 800metres is along the seawall which isn't and wasn't anywhere near as treacherous as is being suggested, Think of it as a mound with a track on top of it rather than a wall, plus there was and is a grassed track at the bottom of the mound for a good length of it (that the farm vehicles use(d)). Right now some cheeky bugger has put a caravan on one corner of the seawall which people are using as a base for going kyaking.
Also the police walked several routes (on advice from Robert Boutflour), they clearly considered the journey possible and in turn the prosecution clearly persuaded the jury that the journey was possible.
I'm not sure what else I can tell you about it.
-
Don't bother even trying to work it out Neil. It's just another crackpot theory of the BGB. There is absolutely nothing to support that but RWB's silly diary notes.
Tanks grahame, that must be where I read it.
-
Tanks grahame, that must be where I read it.
In fact I am absolutely amazed that the police gave his crackpot ideas even the time of day. That's what you get when you take a common sense every day copper off the case and replace him with a sycophantic idiot.
-
Jeremy certainly must have been Superman.....15 hours harvesting.....home at 10 ish. About 2am walk or bike in pitch black for 30 - 45 mins.....climb through window....kill family....bike 30/40 mins pitch black ....call police ....turn up at farm all clean, unmarked and innocent..my oh my.
-
By bike, something between 30-45minutes I'd say.
Difficult?
I guess it depends who you ask, people who want to persuade you that Jeremy was innocent would no doubt tell you that it was an impossible journey, in pitch blackness with a deadly crumbling seawall between you and certain death.
Those who want to persuade you that Jeremy is guilty might tell you that it was an easy journey, in fact it's so easy that you may as well leave your car at home and stay off the main roads all the time, this is in fact a short cut.
The reality is probably somewhere between the two.
Yes it was night time and dark, but there was moonlight, whether enough to make the journey or not, who knows? I'd say it would add to the journey time but not make it impossible.
The majority of the journey is by farm tracks several metres wide, potentially just about 800metres is along the seawall which isn't and wasn't anywhere near as treacherous as is being suggested, Think of it as a mound with a track on top of it rather than a wall, plus there was and is a grassed track at the bottom of the mound for a good length of it (that the farm vehicles use(d)). Right now some cheeky bugger has put a caravan on one corner of the seawall which people are using as a base for going kyaking.
Also the police walked several routes (on advice from Robert Boutflour), they clearly considered the journey possible and in turn the prosecution clearly persuaded the jury that the journey was possible.
I'm not sure what else I can tell you about it.
As with the access into the house, the prosecution didn't need to prove that a particular route was taken, only that it was possible to take a route.
Extract from the 2002 AJ:
145. The prosecution case at trial was that the appellant, motivated by hatred and greed, had planned and carried out the killings. Having left White House Farm at about 10 p.m. on Tuesday 6 August 1985 he had returned by bicycle (taking a route which avoided the main roads) in the early hours of the following morning.
-
As with the access into the house, the prosecution didn't need to prove that a particular route was taken, only that it was possible to take a route.
Extract from the 2002 AJ:
145. The prosecution case at trial was that the appellant, motivated by hatred and greed, had planned and carried out the killings. Having left White House Farm at about 10 p.m. on Tuesday 6 August 1985 he had returned by bicycle (taking a route which avoided the main roads) in the early hours of the following morning.
Just because it's official doesn't mean it isn't rubbish.
-
Off the top of my head Neil, I know the police tried various routes and I cant remember the conclusiin. Grahame will know better than myself but I"m pretty sure the seawall was ruled out. There is a report somewhere but cant remember where I read it.
There is mention of it here Maggie ....
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Jeremy certainly must have been Superman.....15 hours harvesting.....home at 10 ish. About 2am walk or bike in pitch black for 30 - 45 mins.....climb through window....kill family....bike 30/40 mins pitch black ....call police ....turn up at farm all clean, unmarked and innocent..my oh my.
It's not so far. One of the policemen cycled it in 10 minutes. Maybe curiousessex can tell us more about the routes,or if anyone knows where Maldon Road is from White House Farm which takes six minutes to travel.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Just because it's official doesn't mean it isn't rubbish.
It may well be rubbish, I haven't really pushed it one way or the other, clearly if it was rubbish, then it was good enough rubbish to convince the jury.
I'm not sure that the CCRC will accept "It's rubbish" as a ground of appeal that they could refer on.
Clearly it is not as ludicrous as people are making out, it is entirely plausible and that is all the prosecution needed to put forward.
Why people are getting angry about it I'm not quite sure. ???
-
There is mention of it here Maggie ....
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Thanks Caroline, that poor policeman must have been shattered and it didn't prove anything. ;D
-
By bike, something between 30-45minutes I'd say.
Difficult?
I guess it depends who you ask, people who want to persuade you that Jeremy was innocent would no doubt tell you that it was an impossible journey, in pitch blackness with a deadly crumbling seawall between you and certain death.
Those who want to persuade you that Jeremy is guilty might tell you that it was an easy journey, in fact it's so easy that you may as well leave your car at home and stay off the main roads all the time, this is in fact a short cut.
The reality is probably somewhere between the two.
Yes it was night time and dark, but there was moonlight, whether enough to make the journey or not, who knows? I'd say it would add to the journey time but not make it impossible.
The majority of the journey is by farm tracks several metres wide, potentially just about 800metres is along the seawall which isn't and wasn't anywhere near as treacherous as is being suggested, Think of it as a mound with a track on top of it rather than a wall, plus there was and is a grassed track at the bottom of the mound for a good length of it (that the farm vehicles use(d)). Right now some cheeky bugger has put a caravan on one corner of the seawall which people are using as a base for going kyaking.
Also the police walked several routes (on advice from Robert Boutflour), they clearly considered the journey possible and in turn the prosecution clearly persuaded the jury that the journey was possible.
I'm not sure what else I can tell you about it.
Very informative post. Thank you
-
Whose angry Hartley? It is however questionable.
-
Whose angry Hartley? It is however questionable.
It's just the impression that is being given by some of the posts, fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to show the bike route up as "rubbish", "crackpot theory", etc.
Whether anybody thinks it's rubbish or not, doesn't really matter, it was accepted at the original trial as part of the prosecutions case which ultimately led to the conviction of Jeremy for murder.
-
Very informative post. Thank you
The estimated time of 30-45minutes is taking into account that it would have been night time, you could probably half that time for a daytime journey.
-
Thanks Caroline, that poor policeman must have been shattered and it didn't prove anything. ;D
Let's put it this way..he was not asleep in an armchair in John O' Groats with his wife and children around to vouch that he never stirred from his slumber. He was in Goldhanger,with no alibi,10 minutes away from the crime scene.
-
Hi mags the policeman they are saying did the journey in 10 minutes was on a motorbike ;)
-
Let's put it this way..he was not asleep in an armchair in John O' Groats with his wife and children around to vouch that he never stirred from his slumber. He was in Goldhanger,with no alibi,10 minutes away from the crime scene.
Any one or more of the relatives who ended up benefitting from the Bamber parents estate, were also not too far away, and none was asked for an alibi...
-
It's just the impression that is being given by some of the posts, fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to show the bike route up as "rubbish", "crackpot theory", etc.
Whether anybody thinks it's rubbish or not, doesn't really matter, it was accepted at the original trial as part of the prosecutions case which ultimately led to the conviction of Jeremy for murder.
Yes, but this is an open forum and I have every right to say I think it's rubbish. I wasn't presenting it to the CCRC but just stating my opinion. There also is no sign of anger, that is just a ruse, I would guess that in your heart you know it's rubbish also.
-
Yes, but this is an open forum and I have every right to say I think it's rubbish. I wasn't presenting itto the Ccrc but just stating my ipinion. There also is no sigb of anger, that is just a ruse, I would guess that in your heart you know it's rubbish also.
I wasn't referring to your posts Maggie.
-
Hi Mags you go girl :)
-
Yes, but this is an open forum and I have every right to say I think it's rubbish. I wasn't presenting it to the CCRC but just stating my opinion. There also is no sign of anger, that is just a ruse, I would guess that in your heart you know it's rubbish also.
Hurrah Maggie! The old bike theory? T'is a bit mad like! :)
-
Hi Mags/Caroline R You are both forgetting Jeremy was wearing his wet suit when riding the bike back to his home ;) Very mad me thinks :)
-
Hi Mags/Caroline R You are both forgetting Jeremy was wearing his wet suit when riding the bike back to his home ;) Very mad me thinks :)
Susie, I never forget the wet suit, it's crucial to the case!!
-
Any one or more of the relatives who ended up benefitting from the Bamber parents estate, were also not too far away, and none was asked for an alibi...
No the Police forgot to ask whether Mabel Speakman could ride a bike..
-
Susie, I never forget the wet suit, it's crucial to the case!!
Obviously he needed the wetsuit in case he fell off the bike near the sea wall! ;)
-
Hurrah Maggie! The old bike theory? T'is a bit mad like! :)
I think I owe Mr Hartly an apology, I brought up the bike debate, he very kindly answered my questions and then he get's a kicking! Still, he's probably used to it by now!
-
Obviously he needed the wetsuit in case he fell off the bike near the sea wall! ;)
I heard he had water wings.
-
I heard he had water wings.
What? No snorkel? ;D
-
I think I owe Mr Hartly an apology, I brought up the bike debate, he very kindly answered my questions and then he get's a kicking! Still, he's probably used to it by now!
Not kicking him - just the theory!
-
What? No snorkel? ;D
Of course - they love a bit of bog snorkling in them thar estuaries and it washes blood off a treat!
-
I think I owe Mr Hartly an apology, I brought up the bike debate, he very kindly answered my questions and then he get's a kicking! Still, he's probably used to it by now!
I am used to it, no apology necessary Neil. :)
-
Bridget you are being so naughty you know where you will be going shortly :)
-
Bridget you are being so naughty you know where you will be going shortly :)
again? :(
-
Not kicking him - just the theory!
I wasnt kicking him Neil, neither was I angry. I just said I thought it was a rubbish theory. Thats fair enough I thought.
-
Mags I have always considered you to be a very fair person who does accept other people's views even though they maybe be rubbish so don't know what the lovely Mr.Neil is talking about God Bless Him :)
-
I wasnt kicking him Neil, neither was I angry. I just said I thought it was a rubbish theory. Thats fair enough I thought.
Yes very fair. But I never said you were angry, I said I couldn't understand why people were getting angry. If you read back a couple of pages you will see a few confrontational angry comments against anybody entertaining the idea, I just thought it was strange behavior over a relatively unimportant point.
If you don't see that then it doesn't matter, but I wasn't calling you angry or even dismissing your opinion. I'd like to think my reply to Neil was fairly well balanced.
-
I wasnt kicking him Neil, neither was I angry. I just said I thought it was a rubbish theory. Thats fair enough I thought.
Oh no no ..... I realise that you weren't being personal or getting angry. I just felt responsible for, in effect, making Hartley put forward the 'bike theory', which he doesn't necessarily support and then see his words ridiculed.
-
Of course - they love a bit of bog snorkling in them thar estuaries and it washes blood off a treat!
Couldn't have been wearing flippers though eh? They'd have gotton caught in the chain!
-
Oh no no ..... I realise that you weren't being personal or getting angry. I just felt responsible for, in effect, making Hartley put forward the 'bike theory', which he doesn't necessarily support and then see his words ridiculed.
you are a really nice guy Neil. :D
-
Couldn't have been wearing flippers though eh? They'd have gotton caught in the chain!
Hi Caroline
I don't think he was wearing a wet suit either. I remember Aunt Agatha saying she has Jeremy's wet suit...I do believe she also said it had been examined, but someone might correct me.. :) :) :) :)
-
Thanks Caroline, that poor policeman must have been shattered and it didn't prove anything. ;D
There is no proof Maggie. It's just a one of many wild idiotic musings of RW Boutflour. Absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jeremy did any such thing. If Jeremy has been in prison for 27 years convicted on trumped up evidence why is the BGB continually trying to find more trumped up evidence to try and convince other mugs that he is guilty? Are the relatives that afraid of him getting out? Well I can tell you for a fact that they heaved a great sigh of relief when the CCRC didn't refer his case to the court of appeal? I wonder why they are so paranoid about him?
-
Of course - they love a bit of bog snorkling in them thar estuaries and it washes blood off a treat!
You forget, he went to France to wash the wet suit.
-
Let's put it this way..he was not asleep in an armchair in John O' Groats with his wife and children around to vouch that he never stirred from his slumber. He was in Goldhanger,with no alibi,10 minutes away from the crime scene.
No alibi? What a crap murderer.
-
There is no proof Maggie. It's just a one of many wild idiotic musings of RW Boutflour. Absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jeremy did any such thing. If Jeremy has been in prison for 27 years convicted on trumped up evidence why is the BGB continually trying to find more trumped up evidence to try and convince other mugs that he is guilty? Are the relatives that afraid of him getting out? Well I can tell you for a fact that they heaved a great sigh of relief when the CCRC didn't refer his case to the court of appeal? I wonder why they are so paranoid about him?
Yes,Grahame,,,I wonder why they're paranoid. Also JM who says she " fears for her children if he's ever released ".In Canada.? Jeremy wouldn't hurt a fly,,but by jove,they've all hurt him.
Read his latest blog on Bambertweets.Interesting.
-
Yes,Grahame,,,I wonder why they're paranoid. Also JM who says she " fears for her children if he's ever released ".In Canada.? Jeremy wouldn't hurt a fly,,but by jove,they've all hurt him.
Read his latest blog on Bambertweets.Interesting.
Hi lookout, I have just read Jeremy's lasted blog and it is brilliant... :) :) :)
-
Any one or more of the relatives who ended up benefitting from the Bamber parents estate, were also not too far away, and none was asked for an alibi...
Exactly. I wonder who could have murdererd them? Why weren't they asked for an alibi? Oh I know. Because it were they who continually pestered the police to distraction in order to put the blame on Jeremy.
-
No the Police forgot to ask whether Mabel Speakman could ride a bike..
That suggestion is as daft as the bike theory itself.
-
you are a really nice guy Neil. :D
Hi Maggie, you are too kind. You are all such a lovely bunch on here. Whatever side of the fence you sit, I think that all things considered, everyone gets along just fine. It's so hard sometimes to express what you want to say, without someone misinterpreting it and getting upset, you have to be so careful. I think that since the period of unrest a little while ago, the forum has settled down really nicely and you get some lively, extremely well informed debate. There are some real experts on here, I just love picking all your brains. :)
-
I wasnt kicking him Neil, neither was I angry. I just said I thought it was a rubbish theory. Thats fair enough I thought.
Of course its a rubbish theory Maggie and quite frankly it is very worrying that a jury even considered it. I wonder where they found that jury? But of course you can get gifted lawyers who can convince an ass that he is a horse.
-
Hi Caroline
I don't think he was wearing a wet suit either. I remember Aunt Agatha saying she has Jeremy's wet suit...I do believe she also said it had been examined, but someone might correct me.. :) :) :) :)
Thanks for that Patti - that really did make me laugh! Where esle would you read the sentence "I remember Aunt Agatha saying she has Jeremy's wet suit...I do believe she also said it had been examined" ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Caroline
I don't think he was wearing a wet suit either. I remember Aunt Agatha saying she has Jeremy's wet suit...I do believe she also said it had been examined, but someone might correct me.. :) :) :) :)
Not me, you are correct, they did examine a wetsuit.
-
Of course its a rubbish theory Maggie and quite frankly it is very worrying that a jury even considered it. I wonder where they found that jury? But of course you can get gifted lawyers who can convince an ass that he is a horse.
Now that's got me thinking....did Jeremy have access to a horse? ;D
-
Thanks for that Patti - that really did make me laugh! Where esle would you read the sentence "I remember Aunt Agatha saying she has Jeremy's wet suit...I do believe she also said it had been examined" ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes AA has the wetsuit. I've still got mine. But its shrunk a bit. Thats my excuse and I'm sticking to it. ::)
-
Not me, you are correct, they did examine a wetsuit.
Bridget :) Thank you... :) :) :)
-
Now that's got me thinking....did Jeremy have access to a horse? ;D
Maybe a clothes horse,Neil. ;D
-
Maybe a clothes horse,Neil. ;D
Or a box :) ;D ;D ;D
-
Now that's got me thinking....did Jeremy have access to a horse? ;D
Hi Neil. I feel sure there would have been a sawing horse laying around somewhere.
-
It may have been here on the forum an image of the cycle , will be back later ,if its the type of cycle i think it is my only question to anyone have you tried riding one ?
-
It may have been here on the forum an image of the cycle , will be back later ,if its the type of cycle i think it is my only question to anyone have you tried riding one ?
Pic of the bicycle
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Pic of the bicycle
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Many thanks, ive no doubt the jam will say different but that bike looks like a sit up and beg type , a bit like a dutch cycle, looks 3-speed change on handlebars, and 26x 1/38 tyres, thin easy to punture steel heavy as hell a pain to use , good for nipping to localn shops , a bear for cross country ,
-
Many thanks, ive no doubt the jam will say different but that bike looks like a sit up and beg type , a bit like a dutch cycle, looks 3-speed change on handlebars, and 26x 1/38 tyres, thin easy to punture steel heavy as hell a pain to use , good for nipping to localn shops , a bear for cross country ,
Mertol it is a silly idea that too much time has been spent on.
-
Here are sequence of events according to both telephone logs.
Nevill’s call Jeremy’s call
Made at 3.26 Made at 3.36
Police dispatched car CA7 (3.35am) Despatched another car CA5
CA7 arrives at the scene at 3.48 CA5 arrives at 4.23
Refers to Sheila as ‘Daughter’ Refers to Sheila as ‘Sister’
Address White House Farm Address Head St, Goldhanger
860209 – WHF number 88645 – Jeremy’s phone number
Says his Daughter has gone ‘Beserk’ Jeremy says Sister had gone ‘crazy’
Nevill says Sheila was 26 yrs Jeremy says Sheila was 27 yrs
Nevill lists shotguns and .410’s Jeremy makes no mention of any other guns in the house
He says she has got one of ‘my’ guns Jeremy Says ‘the gun’
This is by kind supply from the official Jeremy Bamber website. All copyright belongs to them.
Could I ask some questions that have puzzled me for a long time? A single judge ruled that time of 3.26 was a mistake. And because of this everybody seems to reject Ralphs call to the police as just a copy.
Very sorry but this still problem with me.
(1) Why was car CA7 dispatched at 3.35 when Jeremy's call was at 3.36?
If the Father had called, i'm sure it would have been mentioned by the Police to Jeremy on the night of the murders and in statements by the Police of on the events of the evening, because at that time Jeremy was not a suspect. But it was not and the caller on the log is the Police officre transfering Jeremys call, this has all been proved. This point should really be closed now!
-
If the Father had called, i'm sure it would have been mentioned by the Police to Jeremy on the night of the murders and in statements by the Police of on the events of the evening, because at that time Jeremy was not a suspect. But it was not and the caller on the log is the Police officre transfering Jeremys call, this has all been proved. This point should really be closed now!
One would think at least that the Police Officer who took the Ralph(Nevill) call would have remembered the voice of a 61 year old male as opposed to a 24 year-old.
-
One would think at least that the Police Officer who took the Ralph(Nevill) call would have remembered the voice of a 61 year old male as opposed to a 24 year-old.
not necessarily steve many older people can sound quite young.
-
But, Maggie, had the police recieved a call from Neville they would have mentioned it to JB, wouldnt they.
They would have backed up JB's story, dont forget he wasnt in the frame until a month after the murders.
-
One would think at least that the Police Officer who took the Ralph(Nevill) call would have remembered the voice of a 61 year old male as opposed to a 24 year-old.
Your voice sounds very different over the phone, a friend of mine says i speak like Billy Currie of Ultravox over the phone, there may have been little in their voice harmonics to split.
-
Mertol it is a silly idea that too much time has been spent on.
That is is Grahame, they cant say we have thrown it into room 101 can they ? we have discussed it however crazy.
-
But, Maggie, had the police recieved a call from Neville they would have mentioned it to JB, wouldnt they.
They would have backed up JB's story, dont forget he wasnt in the frame until a month after the murders.
Andrea I think they spoke to different police stations didn't they and also there's the whole Mike thing and the panic alarm which again change sthe scenario, I think
-
Where is the EVIDENCE of a panic alarm?
-
Had a call been made by Neville to any of the police stations in question it would have been mentioned to jb. they would have told him. IMO
-
Where is the EVIDENCE of a panic alarm?
There was a panic alarm, no evidence to say that it had been activated on that night though.
-
Andrea, thankyou
-
You're welcome
-
That is is Grahame, they cant say we have thrown it into room 101 can they ? we have discussed it however crazy.
It's a silly idea which allegedly Jeremy had discussed with Julie-how else would Julie have known about it? Did Jeremy also suggest to Julie that she might want to borrow June's bicycle,therby giving Jeremy a pretext for having a woman's bicycle lying around his property?
-
Had a call been made by Neville to any of the police stations in question it would have been mentioned to jb. they would have told him. IMO
Thats a fair point andrea thats ok, but given their slap happy dealing with the case , not wearing gloves on a crimescene to name one, it often is the case of someone forgot to tell someone else something and the police today are still at it ,
-
After events had unfolded, mertol, i think any call from Neville to the police would have been mentioned. They would have mentioned it to any doubters that didnt believe Sheila had comitted the murders.
-
After events had unfolded, mertol, i think any call from Neville to the police would have been mentioned. They would have mentioned it to any doubters that didnt believe Sheila had comitted the murders.
if so the times of those calls being critical for obvious reasons.
-
After events had unfolded, mertol, i think any call from Neville to the police would have been mentioned. They would have mentioned it to any doubters that didnt believe Sheila had comitted the murders.
On a similar note...
Now that it has been established beyond doubt that police had a means of checking to see if calls had been made from whf, and Jeremy's cottage, by reference to the metered call log system, namely, the police could tell and gather information about which calls (if any) were made from the scene between 6pm on Tuesday, 6th August 1985, and 8am, on Wednesday, 7th August 1985, if there was no corresponding metered call log record to confirm somebody at the scene had made a call to Jeremy's cottage in the middle of the night, do you not agree that the police would almost certainly have introduced that as part of the case against Jeremy to prove that no such call had been made from the scene by his father? Do you or anybody else think the police would not have used such information and evidence to show that Jeremy was / is a liar?
Of course they would...
But, they did not, and the reason they did not is because police were satisfied that somebody did make such a call from the scene to Jeremy's cottage in the middle of the night, and that a further call was made to the police from the scene, and then the attack alarm was activated...
-
If the Father had called, i'm sure it would have been mentioned by the Police to Jeremy on the night of the murders and in statements by the Police of on the events of the evening, because at that time Jeremy was not a suspect. But it was not and the caller on the log is the Police officre transfering Jeremys call, this has all been proved. This point should really be closed now!
The attack alarm was activated by somebody at the scene that night, yet the police did not tell Jeremy this, or his legal team, and the court which tried this matter was not told about this development, so where does that leave your scenario now?
Rather than the point be closed down now, I say it should be opened up and looked into more deeply and with enthusiasm, since a mans liberty is at stake...
-
The attack alarm was activated by somebody at the scene that night, yet the police did not tell Jeremy this, or his legal team, and the court which tried this matter was not told about this development, so where does that leave your scenario now?
Rather than the point be closed down now, I say it should be opened up and looked into more deeply and with enthusiasm, since a mans liberty is at stake...
Mike the fact that the panic alarm was activated proves nothing as to the identity of the murderer. As for the telephone records one would have thought that any Home Secretary would have been able to access that evidence were it available. It's no use us here hypothesizing about them and then forming another hypothesis on the basis of information we don't have.
In any case had a call been made on the kitchen telephone at the time Jeremy Bamber claimed it still does not prove definitively that Ralph(Nevill) was at the other end of it. It could just as easily have been a hitman confirming to Jeremy that all had gone well,as was set out in Jeremy's plan mentioned to Julie.
-
Mike the fact that the panic alarm was activated proves nothing as to the identity of the murderer. As for the telephone records one would have thought that any Home Secretary would have been able to access that evidence were it available. It's no use us here hypothesizing about them and then forming another hypothesis on the basis of information we don't have.
In any case had a call been made on the kitchen telephone at the time Jeremy Bamber claimed it still does not prove definitively that Ralph(Nevill) was at the other end of it. It could just as easily have been a hitman confirming to Jeremy that all had gone well,as was set out in Jeremy's plan mentioned to Julie.
I think you are wrong about that / this...
I shall tell you for why?
First of all, when the attack alarm was activated from the scene, which must have been just before 3:35am (when the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene from Witham police station), within a minute or so, Jeremy was making his own call from his own cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, to the police (3:36am) - it was therefore not possible for Jeremy to be at whf one minute, and his own cottage the next. This is what proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Jeremy was not the killer as alleged during his trial by aspects and features of the prosecutions case. It was impossible for Jeremy to be at the scene to make the call to himself, then to call the police pretending to be Ralph, and then to activate the attack alarm in time to send the occupants of CA07 racing to the scene from Witham police station, and yet be home in time (3:36am) for him to make his own call to PC West...
Not to be forgotten, is that Jeremy also called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, in-between the call he received from his father, and himself calling the police at 3:36am, so I am afraid to say that any suggestion that Jeremy was at the scene at all, is just too preposterous to contemplate or imagine, or accept - logic dictates that Jeremy was never at the scene in any capacity when members of his family got shot and killed...
As for the hitman theory, well the police rejected that theory out of hand very quickly once Jeremy was initially arrested, and Mugfords story was discredited, and he was not convicted of hiring a hitman, so he doesn't have to prove there wasn't one, does he?
-
As far as I am aware the Prosecution case was that Ralph(Nevill) would not have telephoned Jeremy first before calling the Police. If Sheila is roaming the house with a gun then why doesn't Nevill just dial 999 first and avail himself of a gun from the den?
When PC West receives Jeremy's call and puts him on hold Jeremy is quoted as saying:"When my father rang he sounded terrified". Why in this case when Jeremy himself imparts the need for speedy action onto others does he call Julie first,then flick through a Yellow Pages for ten minutes to find the Chelmsford Police Station number when any concerned individual would dial 999,then dawdles in his driving all the way to the farm? These actions are symbolic of someone who knows that the speed factor in arriving at the farm would make no difference to the outcome,as all occupants were already dead.
You are of course right that Jeremy himself was charged with murder and not of hiring a hitman. I can only surmise that the authorities think it probable that a retrial would produce the same result,with the evidence of secretary Barbara Wilson to whom Nevill foretold presciently his own death at the hand of a gun,and to whom he told "I must never turn my back on that young man".
This would be in addition to Julie Mugford's evidence,who would be sensationally brought into court from Canada to retell what I imagine would be the repeat of an unwavering story and those miffed about her £25,000 would face a similar state of affairs as newspapers clamoured to have exclusive rights for her life story once again.
-
You are of course right that Jeremy himself was charged with murder and not of hiring a hitman. I can only surmise that the authorities think it probable that a retrial would produce the same result,with the evidence of secretary Barbara Wilson to whom Nevill foretold presciently his own death at the hand of a gun,and to whom he told "I must never turn my back on that young man".
Is that the same Barbara Wilson who described Jeremy as 'a likeable young man' and how she probably got along better with him than her own son? The above premonition wasn't mentioned in her statement at the trial. It was something she said six years later in 1991and was never part of any official statement! IF Nevil had told her that she would have mentioned it at the trial!
-
As far as I am aware the Prosecution case was that Ralph(Nevill) would not have telephoned Jeremy first before calling the Police. If Sheila is roaming the house with a gun then why doesn't Nevill just dial 999 first and avail himself of a gun from the den?
Ralph doesn't need to dial 999, because he simply activates the attack alarm linked to Witham police station when the situation really starts to get out of hand - and that my friend is precisely what he did do, when the situation did get out of control. In the meantime, it was perfectly acceptable and reasonable that a father should make a call to his son, to inform him about the current state of play inside the farmhouse. There is no evidence that anyone had been shot at all by the time Ralph made that call to Jeremy, Ralph simply told Jeremy either that "Sheila has got the gun", or "she has got the gun", or whatever combination of words he used during the call, asking Jeremy to come quickly. In many ways I do not necessarily believe that the call got cut off in the way it has been suggested it was suddenly cut off, because Ralph got out the message he wanted to, which was to alert Jeremy to the fact that his sister had got the gun, and was going crazy, come to the farmhouse, quickly?
The fact that his sister was going crazy did not necessarily mean that she had shot anybody, because she had gone crazy before, and had to be admitted to hospital because she had mental health issues. So, going crazy could have been spoken by Ralph in that context, and received by Jeremy in that context with the added proviso that she was in possession of "the gun" on this occasion, something which had never cropped up in any of the other breakdowns?
-
As far as I am aware the Prosecution case was that Ralph(Nevill) would not have telephoned Jeremy first before calling the Police. If Sheila is roaming the house with a gun then why doesn't Nevill just dial 999 first and avail himself of a gun from the den?
When PC West receives Jeremy's call and puts him on hold Jeremy is quoted as saying:"When my father rang he sounded terrified". Why in this case when Jeremy himself imparts the need for speedy action onto others does he call Julie first,then flick through a Yellow Pages for ten minutes to find the Chelmsford Police Station number when any concerned individual would dial 999,then dawdles in his driving all the way to the farm? These actions are symbolic of someone who knows that the speed factor in arriving at the farm would make no difference to the outcome,as all occupants were already dead.
You are of course right that Jeremy himself was charged with murder and not of hiring a hitman. I can only surmise that the authorities think it probable that a retrial would produce the same result,with the evidence of secretary Barbara Wilson to whom Nevill foretold presciently his own death at the hand of a gun,and to whom he told "I must never turn my back on that young man".
This would be in addition to Julie Mugford's evidence,who would be sensationally brought into court from Canada to retell what I imagine would be the repeat of an unwavering story and those miffed about her £25,000 would face a similar state of affairs as newspapers clamoured to have exclusive rights for her life story once again.
Ralph didn't dial 999 because he thought with Jeremy's help, he could handle the situation. Sheila may have been shut in the bathroom [where a gun was kept] so Ralph couldn't disarm her.
When Jeremy called the police, at first they didn't take him seriously. He had to 'sex it up' a bit to justify having called them.
'I must never turn my back on that young man' could have meant 'I must never abandon that young man'. It would be a bizarre situation for Ralph to have been working with Jeremy on a daily basis and not be able to turn his back to him for fear of his life. If that were true, why would he even allow such a person inside WHF?
Maybe after so many years JM could manage to get her story straight.
-
When PC West receives Jeremy's call and puts him on hold Jeremy is quoted as saying:"When my father rang he sounded terrified". Why in this case when Jeremy himself imparts the need for speedy action onto others does he call Julie first,then flick through a Yellow Pages for ten minutes to find the Chelmsford Police Station number when any concerned individual would dial 999,then dawdles in his driving all the way to the farm? These actions are symbolic of someone who knows that the speed factor in arriving at the farm would make no difference to the outcome,as all occupants were already dead.
If the content of the audio recording of the call Jeremy made to PC West (3:36am) was disclosed and available, we would see exactly what Jeremy said to PC West, and in what context he actually had said anything? There hasn't even been a transcript produced by the police of that first contact, its been left to PC West to make a witness statement about it, and to present the so called incident log describing what Jeremy actually said to him on that occasion. If you do not produce the audio recording, or a transcript of the conversation between Jeremy and PC West, on that occasion (3:36am) there is no way of actually checking the accuracy of what PC West purports to have recorded on the log, or later in his witness statement. I am prepared to accept, however, that Jeremy may have said something along the lines that when his father spoke to him he sounded frightened, but what prompted Jeremy to say such a thing? Did PC West ask him if he had heard anything else in the background when his father had called him? or if Ralph had said anything else other than what Jeremy had reported to PC West up to that stage / point? It is all very well, plucking the odd comment out of a conversation and declaring that it proves this or that, but without knowing the precise context in which those comments had been made, it becomes somewhat impossible and you are treading on dodgy ground to suggest it must have meant that Jeremy knew everyone was already dead by the time he made the call to the police (3:36am) because whilst Jeremy was making the call to the police at that time, the attack alarm had been activated back at whf moments or minutes before, and the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed to the scene? How could everybody already be dead inside whf if Jeremy made his call to the police from his cottage at 3:36am, and the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed to the scene a minute earlier, and someone inside whf had very recently activated the attack alarm? Does this not prove that Jeremy did not have a clue about anybody having been shot or killed inside whf by that stage, and that somebody inside the farmhouse must still have been alive at that time or by that stage?
So, with these things in mind, I think it unlikely that Jeremy already knew everybody was already dead by the time Jeremy spoke to PC West at 3:36am...
Then...
when he and the police met up at the scene, two police officers and Jeremy saw a figure inside the bedroom which sent them hurtling back to the patrol car so that PS Bews could pass a radio message to the control room requesting that the firearms team should be deployed to the scene because of what they had just seen and witnessed...
With this in mind, I do not think that anyone can deduce that when and if Jeremy did say to PC West that when his father phoned he had sounded frightened, that it means or meant that Jeremy already knew that everyone inside whf was already dead by that stage. If anything it could suggest the opposite...
-
Andrea I think they spoke to different police stations didn't they and also there's the whole Mike thing and the panic alarm which again change sthe scenario, I think
All would be found in the Witham logs, which as yet have not been "found". Where is the log that contained the panic alarm activation?
-
It's a silly idea which allegedly Jeremy had discussed with Julie-how else would Julie have known about it? Did Jeremy also suggest to Julie that she might want to borrow June's bicycle,therby giving Jeremy a pretext for having a woman's bicycle lying around his property?
That fact can be established. The bicycle was sent to Jeremy's house for Julie Mugford to use, There was nothing suspicious about it. It was RWB's silly suggestion that JB used it on the night of the murders. This same RWB who loved detective stories. The whole story of the silencer was probably based upon the Agatha Christie story of the gun and silencer leaning up against the wall. I would think it fair to say that Bamber was convicted on the strength of an Agatha Christie crime story.
-
You are of course right that Jeremy himself was charged with murder and not of hiring a hitman. I can only surmise that the authorities think it probable that a retrial would produce the same result,with the evidence of secretary Barbara Wilson to whom Nevill foretold presciently his own death at the hand of a gun,and to whom he told "I must never turn my back on that young man".
Well, actually forgive me for saying so, but it was part of the prosecutions case that Jeremy had entered the premises through a downstairs window that night, had killed his family, stage managed the scene to make it look like a suicide, and fled the farmhouse by exiting a different window, and riding away from the scene into the dead of night, on his mothers bicycle, or whatever? Now, if that was the prosecutions case at trial, I cannot see how another court can change the scenario, into Jeremy now having hired a hitman when that idea had already previously been investigated by the police and rejected, just to keep someone locked up for not being responsible for committing the offences they were originally charged and convicted of, and for which they have been falsely in prison over?
Dealing with comments later attributed to Ralph by Barbara Wilson, if Ralph made such comments he could very well have been referring to the young man he had sent to prison, whose father had threatened to kill Ralph, and his family? It doesn't make sense for Ralph to have said those things and for him to be referring to Jeremy, because he had to work alongside or with Jeremy and there would obviously be many occasions when Ralph would have had his back to Jeremy from that point on. Furthermore, if Ralph intended Wilson to understand that he was frightened of being shot in the back by Jeremy, the very first thing Ralph would have done is to get rid of all the firearms kept at the farm? He would have cancelled his shotgun and firearms certificate and reported to the police his reasons for doing so - for Ralph not to have done this was or would have been negligent on his part? You do not think somebody is going to shoot you in the back and then keep firearms of many description and ammunition a plenty at the farm to allow the very son you are talking about to shoot you in the back - so to speak, do you?
Another thing...
So your suggestion is that Ralph told Wilson that Ralph made the comment about the likelihood of being shot in the back by Jeremy, with use of one of his own guns, and nothing at all was done to get rid of all the guns kept at whf? I doubt this very much for all the reasons I have given...
-
Thats a fair point andrea thats ok, but given their slap happy dealing with the case , not wearing gloves on a crimescene to name one, it often is the case of someone forgot to tell someone else something and the police today are still at it ,
Plus all these things may have been true.( Personally I have never been aware of the police telling other witnesses that someone else had phoned them as well) and notes made. But then alterered so as to fit into any senario that police want it to? This much is evidence. Because every police statement is exactly the same. This is because the police always meet for debriefing and in those debriefing meetings they do actially harmonise their notes.
-
The attack alarm was activated by somebody at the scene that night, yet the police did not tell Jeremy this, or his legal team, and the court which tried this matter was not told about this development, so where does that leave your scenario now?
Rather than the point be closed down now, I say it should be opened up and looked into more deeply and with enthusiasm, since a mans liberty is at stake...
Also the point hasn't been proved. Far from it. There are far too many things that have not been explained as to how the police got certain information that Jeremy simply hadn't given them in his call that night.
-
This would be in addition to Julie Mugford's evidence,who would be sensationally brought into court from Canada to retell what I imagine would be the repeat of an unwavering story and those miffed about her £25,000 would face a similar state of affairs as newspapers clamoured to have exclusive rights for her life story once again.
So, here we are trying to portray Julie Mugford as some sort of angel of truth. What truth? How many different versions of the truth is she going to be allowed to give? I think it more likely that although she flew in from Canada (as you point out) to attend the appeal in 2002, she was not called to testify because to have done so, it would have become apparent that she was someone who would say anything to try and make herself look good, and she probably came back to London to try and get a further deal with a newspaper and the possibility of another giant payout, money in her handbag so to speak to help fund her lifestyle back home...
-
Mike the fact that the panic alarm was activated proves nothing as to the identity of the murderer. As for the telephone records one would have thought that any Home Secretary would have been able to access that evidence were it available. It's no use us here hypothesizing about them and then forming another hypothesis on the basis of information we don't have.
In any case had a call been made on the kitchen telephone at the time Jeremy Bamber claimed it still does not prove definitively that Ralph(Nevill) was at the other end of it. It could just as easily have been a hitman confirming to Jeremy that all had gone well,as was set out in Jeremy's plan mentioned to Julie.
Strange isn't it that when the BGB cannot prove it was Jeremy who was at the house that night they bring in a "hit man". A thing that even the police themselves deny. The BGB have really got to make up their minds what they need to believe. I suppose when it it proved that Jeremy didn't do it and a hit man didn't do it, that perhaps the pink elephant tooth fairy did it. How many more of these rediculous senarios do we have to listen to before that work out that Jeremy could not have done it because he was a few miles down the road that night and that absolutely no forensice evidence connects him with the scene and in the end all we have is the contradictory statement of a proven lying jealous druggie girlfriend who had been dumped by her lover.
-
Plus all these things may have been true.( Personally I have never been aware of the police telling other witnesses that someone else had phoned them as well) and notes made. But then alterered so as to fit into any senario that police want it to? This much is evidence. Because every police statement is exactly the same. This is because the police always meet for debriefing and in those debriefing meetings they do actially harmonise their notes.
Exactly...
Nobody bats an eyelid about how the contents of witness statements are made and written up - but the truth of the matter is that it comes into being as a result of a series of questions and answers, asked by a police officer, and replied to by the witness in question. But there is no record made of the questions asked, and the answers given, the contents of the statement are paraphrased by the police officer using a mixture of his own interpretation of what the witness has said, and what the witness in question may have said...
This is why you should not accept everything written up in a witness statement, because the contents may have been worded by a police officer, not by the witness in who's name the statement is made?
-
Morning Grahame very well said. The hitman theory was dismissed by the Police what is the point of it being brought up all the time. Yesterday it was posted up that Julie Mugford told the News of the World Jeremy had never told her he was guilty so what can we make of all this. Now you can understand why I am confused. ;)
-
Exactly...
Nobody bats an eyelid about how the contents of witness statements are made and written up - but the truth of the matter is that it comes into being as a result of a series of questions and answers, asked by a police officer, and replied to by the witness in question. But there is no record made of the questions asked, and the answers given, the contents of the statement are paraphrased by the police officer using a mixture of his own interpretation of what the witness has said, and what the witness in question may have said...
This is why you should not accept everything written up in a witness statement, because the contents may have been worded by a police officer, niot by the witness in who's name the statement is made?
In fact I can witness to that fact. I had to make a statement to a police officer once and when I came to sign it I found that he used different words that I had used.
-
In fact I can witness to that fact. I had to make a statement to a police officer once and when I came to sign it I found that he used different words that I had used.
Correct...
This is why when witnesses attend court they are pulled to pieces by counsel for the opposition, or as a result of questions asked by the trial judge. Witnesses are given a witness statement to sign which has been drafted up and paraphrased by a police officer who in many instances knows what needs to be said and how it needs to be worded to help the prosecutions case...
This is how evidence of this nature is manipulated and wrongly relied upon to help convict someone of offences they might not ordinarily have committed...
-
So, here we are trying to portray Julie Mugford as some sort of angel of truth. What truth? How many different versions of the truth is she going to be allowed to give? I think it more likely that although she flew in from Canada (as you point out) to attend the appeal in 2002, she was not called to testify because to have done so, it would have become apparent that she was someone who would say anything to try and make herself look good, and she probably came back to London to try and get a further deal with a newspaper and the possibility of another giant payout, money in her handbag so to speak to help fund her lifestyle back home...
Job done for the defence then.
-
Morning Grahame very well said. The hitman theory was dismissed by the Police what is the point of it being brought up all the time. Yesterday it was posted up that Julie Mugford told the News of the World Jeremy had never told her he was guilty so what can we make of all this. Now you can understand why I am confused. ;)
Because the BGB are always grasping at straws Susan. They have no coherent account of how it happened at all, The logical account is usually the right one, which the police came up with in the first place. That Sheila had killed her family and then killed herself. There is absolutely nothing else common sense which they can come up with. They must always say rediculous things in order to manufacture a senario where Jeremy is made to look guilty. In order to do this they must have him squeezing through windows, riding bicylces in a wetsuit, to wearing piles of clothes and leaving a blood soaked silencer in a cupboard. NOTHING at all common sense that points to Jeremy. Can you see how rediculous thse nutcase theories are. Most of them derived from the Agatha Christie mystery loving mind of RWB.
-
Most of them derived from the Agatha Christie mystery loving mind of RWB.
I think even she would be perplexed by this ridiculous scenario!
-
I think even she would be perplexed by this ridiculous scenario!
More Shakespeare, with the " Comedy of Errors "!. ( except that it isn't funny )
-
More Shakespeare, with the " Comedy of Errors "!. ( except that it isn't funny )
Perhaps we should call on the services of Sherlock Holmes!!!!!
-
Perhaps we should call on the services of Sherlock Holmes!!!!!
Hi April,,,they might just as well have done,,, the way everything was conducted. I'd heard of the police putting words into peoples' mouths,,but altered statements,corroborating with relatives,,,working ( after retirement ) with the relatives, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine,,,,and there's poor Jeremy festering in a cell. I don't know who's worse,,the police or the relatives.
-
Perhaps we should call on the services of Sherlock Holmes!!!!!
Ann: "But Robert. How did that blood get on that silencer since it was in the cupboard and not on the gun?"
Robert: "Elemetary dear Ann. Elementary. We must make up a story from Agatha Christie and go to the police about it".
-
Ann: "But Robert. How did that blood get on that silencer since it was in the cupboard and not on the gun?"
Robert: "Elemetary dear Ann. Elementary. We must make up a story from Agatha Christie and go to the police about it".
Grahame!! You are being SO naughty this morning...........but very clever!
-
Grahame!! You are being SO naughty this morning...........but very clever!
And very right too.
-
Ann: "But Robert. How did that blood get on that silencer since it was in the cupboard and not on the gun?"
Robert: "Elemetary dear Ann. Elementary. We must make up a story from Agatha Christie and go to the police about it".
Even Miss Marple would have seen through that story - sounds more like a frame-up "We just happened upon it gov - honest! And might I just point you to these ere scratches on the mantel" 'Wink wink!'
-
Even Miss Marple would have seen through that story - sounds more like a frame-up "We just happened upon it gov - honest! And might I just point you to these ere scratches on the mantel" 'Wink wink!'
And above all,," we don't like him ". ( as said by Stan Jones about Jeremy.) So we'll lock him up.
-
And above all,," we don't like him ". ( as said by Stan Jones about Jeremy.) So we'll lock him up.
I was interviewed (as were other locals, I hasten to add!!!) by the police at the time Diana Jones went missing. Robert Jones, not unlike Jeremy, was not somebody the police warmed to. Flippantly, I asked them if he did "it," I was told "Oh, he did it all right. Slippery customer, but we'll get the bastard"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But they didn't, did they, which may partly be behind why they DID get Jeremy.
-
And above all,," we don't like him ". ( as said by Stan Jones about Jeremy.) So we'll lock him up.
You may never know the full truth of what you have just written, lookout? It is a well know police tactic that if they don't like someone they get a hunch about them and persue them and even twist evidence in order to get that person even if the senario comes straight out of an Agatha Christie crime story. And I suggest that, that is what happened to poor old Jeremy. He got caught up in the fantasy land of RWB.
-
You may never know the full truth of what you have just written, lookout? It is a well know police tactic that if they don't like someone they get a hunch about them and persue them and even twist evidence in order to get that person even if the senario comes straight out of an Agatha Christie crime story. And I suggest that, that is what happened to poor old Jeremy. He got caught up in the fantasy land of RWB.
Please refer to post 466.
-
I was interviewed (as were other locals, I hasten to add!!!) by the police at the time Diana Jones went missing. Robert Jones, not unlike Jeremy, was not somebody the police warmed to. Flippantly, I asked them if he did "it," I was told "Oh, he did it all right. Slippery customer, but we'll get the bastard"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But they didn't, did they, which may partly be behind why they DID get Jeremy.
I'd actually said this from the beginning,,because the police got rattled for not " getting their man " in the Diane Jones case,,,they then had to justify their " detection rates ",,and I swear this is partly the reason why they nabbed Jeremy.
-
I'd actually said this from the beginning,,because the police got rattled for not " getting their man " in the Diane Jones case,,,they then had to justify their " detection rates ",,and I swear this is partly the reason why they nabbed Jeremy.
Their detection rates would have been the same if they'd left Sheila as the culprit.
-
You may never know the full truth of what you have just written, lookout? It is a well know police tactic that if they don't like someone they get a hunch about them and persue them and even twist evidence in order to get that person even if the senario comes straight out of an Agatha Christie crime story. And I suggest that, that is what happened to poor old Jeremy. He got caught up in the fantasy land of RWB.
Graham,,,it's a fact. If your face doesn't fit,,,or if you appear to be more intelligent than they are,,,then you've had it chum. Some police really are unbelievably thick.!
-
Please refer to post 466.
Yes thanks
-
Graham,,,it's a fact. If your face doesn't fit,,,or if you appear to be more intelligent than they are,,,then you've had it chum. Some police really are unbelievably thick.!
Oh they are believably thick mark my words. ::)
-
Their detection rates would have been the same if they'd left Sheila as the culprit.
So why wasn't the " big boss " Taff Jones believed then,Bridget,,,,because he was right first time.?
Could it be that the case was " too cut and dried " for the rest of them so they stretched it out a bit more.?
To look as though they were working.?
-
So why wasn't the " big boss " Taff Jones believed then,Bridget,,,,because he was right first time.?
Could it be that the case was " too cut and dried " for the rest of them so they stretched it out a bit more.?
To look as though they were working.?
Are you suggesting that they were a bit bored / underworked and decided to take the difficult route and frame an innocent man for light entertainment / to justify their salaries?
-
You may never know the full truth of what you have just written, lookout? It is a well know police tactic that if they don't like someone they get a hunch about them and persue them and even twist evidence in order to get that person even if the senario comes straight out of an Agatha Christie crime story. And I suggest that, that is what happened to poor old Jeremy. He got caught up in the fantasy land of RWB.
Reminds me of Colin Stagg and Operation Ezdelll - police were convinced that he was guilty and in the end, he'd been telling the truth all along and Robert Napper was the culprit! Had they not put so much emphasis on Stagg they might have caught Napper earlier and stopped him from killing Samantha Bisset and her daughter Jazmine! But they just didn't like Colin Stagg!
-
Are you suggesting that they were a bit bored / underworked and decided to take the difficult route and frame an innocent man for light entertainment / to justify their salaries?
Bridget,,,there would be no MOJ's if they didn't do what you posted.
-
Bridget,,,there would be no MOJ's if they didn't do what you posted.
Good grief.
-
Reminds me of Colin Stagg and Operation Ezdelll - police were convinced that he was guilty and in the end, he'd been telling the truth all along and Robert Napper was the culprit! Had they not put so much emphasis on Stagg they might have caught Napper earlier and stopped him from killing Samantha Bisset and her daughter Jazmine! But they just didn't like Colin Stagg!
Hi Caroline,,,Colin Stagg was another chap I felt sorry for when he was arrested,,,again,,,because the police didn't like him.! What on earth has that got to do with anything.? Yet you get some really butt ugly-looking criminals,yet nobody says a word. Something to do with them not looking the part,,I suspect.
Mind you,,let's face it,,anyone who looks like a " hardened " criminal,,the police aren't going to say anything,are they.ha ?
-
Where is the EVIDENCE of a panic alarm?
If a panic alarm had been installed prior to 7th August 1985, wouldn't Ralph have mentioned it to Jeremy, and Jeremy subsequently have asked questions about it, mentioned it to mike tesko, etc? As far as I know, mike tesko hasn't mentioned or posted any specific document that shows that a panic alarm had even been installed by that date, let alone activated. He also claimed, without mentioning any supporting evidence, that a panic alarm activation button had been installed inside a bedside cabinet in the main bedroom. That is highly implausible.
Regarding telephone logs, the police may have been interested in the use of Jeremy's home telephone at one time as part of a drugs investigation, but there is no proof that any such special call logging was in progress on the night of the killings.
-
Regarding telephone logs, the police may have been interested in the use of Jeremy's home telephone at one time as part of a drugs investigation, but there is no proof that any such special call logging was in progress on the night of the killings.
Or indeed that any kind of common sense was later applied to the whole investigation/trial!
-
Good grief.
You better believe it. Some coppers would lie their pants off for their "friends". ;)
-
You better believe it. Some coppers would lie their pants off for their "friends". ;)
That is not what is being suggested.
-
Regarding telephone logs, the police may have been interested in the use of Jeremy's home telephone at one time as part of a drugs investigation, but there is no proof that any such special call logging was in progress on the night of the killings.
It has been demonstrated that police had the means and opportunity to be able to obtain metered call logs showing the number of telephone calls made from whf at different times of the day, including the length of such calls. In particular, calls made from the scene from as early as 19th March 1985? It must follow that the police, therefore, would have obtained the relevant metered call logs for the relevant period, 6pm, on Tuesday, 6th August 1985, to 8am, Wednesday, 7th August 1985, so that they could test and evaluate the claim made by Jeremy that he had received a call from his father during the early hours of the morning, on 7th August 1985? To suggest or imply that although police had the means to carry out this action they did not employ the use of it (under the circumstances) would be ludicrous. Of course the police did use the metered call log information to test if there was any truth in the claim made by Jeremy that his farther had called him. Why wouldn't they use something of this / that nature? It should also be pointed out, that police were also able to check out and confirm to whom certain calls had been made which are / were listed in these metered call logs. Anyone who claims that the police were only able to trace international calls made from the telephone at whf, should reconsider that line of thinking, since I have already produced information that calls made to the hospital at Northampton where Sheila was being treated, from whf, were identified by the police...
-
That is not what is being suggested.
What was suggested was dishonesty on the part of the police.
-
It has been demonstrated that police had the means and opportunity to be able to obtain metered call logs showing the number of telephone calls made from whf at different times of the day, including the length of such calls. In particular, calls made from the scene from as early as 19th March 1985? It must follow that the police, therefore, would have obtained the relevant metered call logs for the relevant period, 6pm, on Tuesday, 6th August 1985, to 8am, Wednesday, 7th August 1985, so that they could test and evaluate the claim made by Jeremy that he had received a call from his father during the early hours of the morning, on 7th August 1985? To suggest or imply that although police had the means to carry out this action they did not employ the use of it (under the circumstances) would be ludicrous. Of course the police did use the metered call log information to test if there was any truth in the claim made by Jeremy that his farther had called him. Why wouldn't they use something of this / that nature? It should also be pointed out, that police were also able to check out and confirm to whom certain calls had been made which are / were listed in these metered call logs. Anyone who claims that the police were only able to trace international calls made from the telephone at whf, should reconsider that line of thinking, since I have already produced information that calls made to the hospital at Northampton where Sheila was being treated, from whf, were identified by the police...
Are there those amongst you who think that a call to Northampton hospital from whf in March 1985, would be, or was classed as an International call?
-
What was suggested was dishonesty on the part of the police.
Read back.
-
Are there those amongst you who think that a call to Northampton hospital from whf in March 1985, would be, or was classed as an International call?
Or indeed a business call?
-
Or indeed a business call?
Didn't you say these were calls to pay phones?
-
Read back.
Quote from: Bridget on Today at 11:32 AM
Are you suggesting that they were a bit bored / underworked and decided to take the difficult route and frame an innocent man for light entertainment / to justify their salaries?
quote: lookout.
Bridget,,,there would be no MOJ's if they didn't do what you posted.
ie: dishonesty on the part of the police. Whatever their intention.
-
Didn't you say these were calls to pay phones?
No I said some. Perhaps I was wrong though. But it was a business line.
-
Are there those amongst you who think that a call to Northampton hospital from whf in March 1985, would be, or was classed as an International call?
I do believe they could have traced the calls Mike, they had the technology. If we could send men to the moon in 1969 then we could trace calls.....
If they can trace a call made to Northampton from WHF in march 1985 then they could trace any call....Why they didn't and why this was never presented in court by JB's defence is beyond belief. :)
-
I do believe they could have traced the calls Mike, they had the technology. If we could send men to the moon in 1969 then we could trace calls.....
If they can trace a call made to Northampton from WHF in march 1985 then they could trace any call....Why they didn't and why this was never presented in court by JB's defence is beyond belief. :)
Hi Patti, I guess we need the advice of a telecoms expert who would know how the system worked back then! However, there has to have been some kind of logging system to separate the different call type (local, national, international, cheap rate etc.). They had to know when the call was made, what type of call it was, how long it lasted and to whom it was made otherwise how did they bill the customer? Was this about the time when Maureen Lipman did the ads for BT?
-
Calls are billed from the time when they're answered, not the time when they're made. However, fully itemized billing for local calls required new exchange equipment, the large-scale introduction of which occurred in around 1986.
-
Calls are billed from the time when they're answered, not the time when they're made. However, fully itemized billing for local calls required new exchange equipment, the large-scale introduction of which occurred in around 1986.
Of course - I understand that but in order to charge for the call the same information would be required (time of call, destination and the end time). Somewhere this information must have been recorded and collated!
-
Hi Patti, I guess we need the advice of a telecoms expert who would know how the system worked back then! However, there has to have been some kind of logging system to separate the different call type (local, national, international, cheap rate etc.). They had to know when the call was made, what type of call it was, how long it lasted and to whom it was made otherwise how did they bill the customer? Was this about the time when Maureen Lipman did the ads for BT?
Google the history of BT. There is I thread on here somewhere
Actually,google BT Archives.its historical fact and disproves the existance of itemissed bills as Mike has tried to forward.the document produced so far proves nothing unfortunately,apart from we're now unsure if June made or received a phone call from her sister.
Can that be clarified for us please?
-
Are there those amongst you who think that a call to Northampton hospital from whf in March 1985, would be, or was classed as an International call?
No, a trunk call possibly? Certainly not local.
-
The evidence that itemised calls existed back in August 1985, can be found in the typed version of the log relating to whf which I have made available already. Reference to itemized calls refers to bill information at metered call rate duration...
-
I have just emailed BT and asked it they had the technology back in 1985 to produce an itemised domestic phone bill if requested to do so. Will post the response!
-
Hi Maggie
mmmmmm, with or without your teeth in ;D ;D ;D
Hi egap, speak for yourself!! Hope all well with you and studying going well. ;D ;D
-
I have just emailed BT and asked it they had the technology back in 1985 to produce an itemised domestic phone bill if requested to do so. Will post the response!
On what exchange? Why just domestic bills?
-
No, a trunk call possibly? Certainly not local.
There was an elephant at Colchester Zoo once. He was always making trunk calls. ::)
-
Google the history of BT. There is I thread on here somewhere
Actually,google BT Archives.its historical fact and disproves the existance of itemissed bills as Mike has tried to forward.the document produced so far proves nothing unfortunately,apart from we're now unsure if June made or received a phone call from her sister.
Can that be clarified for us please?
PB says that she called her sister and that June answered.
-
PB says that she called her sister and that June answered.
Metered call logs deal with that issue and was resolved by the police...
-
It is most likely, that Sheila picked the 'phone up, thinking it would be Colin enquiring after her and the boys. PB says Sheila sounded desultory ( and no wonder), and Shei.. informs Pam, she'll get June to phone back. QED
-
It may be Sheila's reply was on the lines, indicating 'sex and travel'!
-
It is most likely, that Sheila picked the 'phone up, thinking it would be Colin enquiring after her and the boys. PB says Sheila sounded desultory ( and no wonder), and Shei.. informs Pam, she'll get June to phone back. QED
Where did that scenario come from? PB said she called her sister at 10 o'clock and June answered. It's in her statement.
-
It is most likely, that Sheila picked the 'phone up, thinking it would be Colin enquiring after her and the boys. PB says Sheila sounded desultory ( and no wonder), and Shei.. informs Pam, she'll get June to phone back. QED
'Morning Campion. Didn't that phone call occur at approx 10pm? Just wondering why Sheila said that June would call back instead of just handing her the phone/calling her to it.......and being nosey, am wondering about the purpose of a call at that time of night. It seems an odd time to ring up for a chat.
-
Metered call logs were available and obtainable for phones at the premises of the Bambers, Jeremys cottage, the Boutflours, the Eatons, the Pargeters, and anybody else who the police were intrrested in?
-
It may be Sheila's reply was on the lines, indicating 'sex and travel'!
Please explain. It sounds as if you're talking about reading her palm!!!!!
-
Please explain. It sounds as if you're talking about reading her palm!!!!!
Hi April, yes, I thought that too :)
-
Hello Ladies, It's a colloquial expression which Mike sometimes says to TonyB.
From Wilkes p31, on Tuesday 6th August, Jill Foakes, of WHF cottage, had seen Sheila and the twins in the woods. She obviously communicated this to the BGB, as she did the next morning about seeing JB siitting in a Police car.
Sometimes, Witness Statements are not always accurate, and truthful - especially when adduced by Ds SBJones.
As Mike indicates, the Tel register will be proof of the outgoing calls.
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
-
After all that,,,why didn't you say you were there.?
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
Oh wow! Time to redress the balance eh? The times I've heard that phrase during my time here. Suddenly there appears an enlightened one. A deep thinker. One who can see things much clearer than anyone else on here. Oh let me sit down and rest whilst I listen to these wise utterings that this enlightened one has reasoned out.
Lets get one thing straight. I think you'll find that there are not many amongs those who believe that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred with Jeremy Bamber who think that he is some sweet innocent man who is perfect in every way. You just will not find them here.
Also you will hardly ever find anyone who has suffered a MOJ proven innocent. Good grief show me one solid piece of evidence that points to his guilt. You will not find it. Instead you will find the judge using words like overwhelming "circumstancial" evidence. No matter what you do, no matter what speculation you can come up with, you will never get one whit closer to any proof that Jeremy Bamber is guilty than what that judge said at the very end of the original trial. In fact if anything there has been a wealth of new evidence that has been uncovered since that trial that rather if not indicate JB's innocence, but rather indicate the involvement of those in high office were corruptly witholding a mountain of evidence.
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
That must have taken some time to put together.
-
That must have taken some time to put together.
It took long enough just to read. :-\
-
Marvellous deductions from the judge.
It's got to be either Sheila or Jeremy.!
A fair trial.? I think not.
What a way to conduct a trial over a mass murder. A national disgrace. A joke,if it was funny.
-
Given that you acknowledge that both Jeremy and Sheila are good suspects and that any "evidence" against either of them is supposition and speculation, it seems to me that the only thing that seperates them is that Sheila is dead and only Jeremy "the cuckoo" and a not a blood family member, stood between the family and "their" inheritance. If I was a betting person, I'd be willing to bet all I had on them accepting that Sheila was responsible if money hadn't been involved.
-
Oh wow! Time to redress the balance eh? The times I've heard that phrase during my time here. Suddenly there appears an enlightened one. A deep thinker. One who can see things much clearer than anyone else on here. Oh let me sit down and rest whilst I listen to these wise utterings that this enlightened one has reasoned out.
Lets get one thing straight. I think you'll find that there are not many amongs those who believe that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred with Jeremy Bamber who think that he is some sweet innocent man who is perfect in every way. You just will not find them here.
Also you will hardly ever find anyone who has suffered a MOJ proven innocent. Good grief show me one solid piece of evidence that points to his guilt. You will not find it. Instead you will find the judge using words like overwhelming "circumstancial" evidence. No matter what you do, no matter what speculation you can come up with, you will never get one whit closer to any proof that Jeremy Bamber is guilty than what that judge said at the very end of the original trial. In fact if anything there has been a wealth of new evidence that has been uncovered since that trial that rather if not indicate JB's innocence, but rather indicate the involvement of those in high office were corruptly witholding a mountain of evidence.
Totally well said Graham! :)
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
We're all aware of what the prosecution 'think' happened - now post the proof! Not the hearsay and supposition - the tangible evidence. And while you're on, explain WHY EP have not disclosed all their evidence and why much of sits boxed and filed away under the guise of PII.
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
Given that you acknowledge that both Jeremy and Sheila are good suspects and that any "evidence" against either of them is supposition and speculation, it seems to me that the only thing that seperates them is that Sheila is dead and only Jeremy "the cuckoo" and a not a blood family member, stood between the family and "their" inheritance. If I was a betting person, I'd be willing to bet all I had on them accepting that Sheila was responsible if money hadn't been involved.
-
It's time to redress the balance today after having read so many posts depicting Jeremy Bamber as an ingenuous,selfless character who talks to the five victims daily in his prison cell,who is remaining strong in adversity and who knows that one day justice will prevail and he will be freed. Indeed it seems as if there is an ever-increasing number of adherents to Jeremy's cause with the relentless passage of time having dulled memories as to the horrors perpetrated 27 years ago,the indubitable mistakes made by the authorities in destroying forensic evidence,and the multifarious claims made by numerous experts in their diligent efforts to find that one piece of conclusive proof of innocence which has heretofore for some mysterious reason eluded them.
Without recapitulating my previous threads let us try to establish some common ground between the two camps. Both Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber were good suspects;the former having suffered from bouts of mental illness in the past was unpredictable in her behaviour,whilst Jeremy despised his family who were not blood relations. After the murders Jeremy stood to inherit the whole of his parents' estate.
Let us firstly examine the telephone calls,or logs,which is difficult because we just don't have access to them. All these logs should be released now,so that an attempt can be made to establish whether a telephone call was made from White House Farm that morning,although that would not prove definitively that it was made by Ralph(Nevill) and indeed would not conclusively prove that Jeremy Bamber was at home at Goldhanger as he was in possession of an answering machine which would have registered the call.
Next there have been assertions that Nevill had had an alarm with a panic button in the bedroom installed several weeks prior to the murders. We have been told that this panic alarm was activated around 3:25am,and that there was therefore no need for Nevill to call the Police as a patrol car had been immediately despatched from Witham Police station,and so this is the reason why Nevill called Jeremy first,though Nevill did,according to the Jeremy supporters later did make a call to the Police,hence the excitement of the ambiguous telephone log released in 2004 which suggests a possibility of two separate phone calls to the Police,one from Nevill and the other from Jeremy.
A thought about the panic attack alarm. These had become more common in the mid-1980s as crime soared in Thatcherite Britain,but leaving that aside,as far as I am aware the panic attack alarm was installed in Nevill and June's bedroom,so all Nevill would need to do was depress a lever in the bedroom,hear that the alarm had gone off and wait inside the bedroom in comparative safety until the Police arrived. Yet with no bedroom telephone at hand,which was at this point in the kitchen,and if Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun Nevill takes it upon himself to leave the bedroom and move downstairs to the area of the kitchen telephone to summon additional help from Jeremy.
The problem with this scenario is we have to account for a telephone call made from the kitchen. So let us say that Nevill hears a noise in the twins' bedroom sufficient to cause him to activate the alarm, comes out onto the landing and is shot there, manages to stagger into the kitchen where he takes off his watch and hides it under the rug as a clue to any investigator that he had been in that area, leaves bloodied finger marks of his left hand on the side of the kitchen worktop,but with his right hand manages to dial Jeremy's number. In this scenario he doesn't bother to dial 999 to check that Police are on their way,yet opts to dial a 7 figure number first to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger. He then does decide to call the Police,so has the time to dial two telephone numbers from the kitchen phone. In this second call he doesn't mention the panic alarm,which must still be sounding yet which doesn't seem to be heard at the other end,neither does he check with the Police that they are on their way.
Whilst Nevill has managed to make these calls Sheila has shot her mother several times in the bedroom and has now come downstairs to finish off Nevill. The kitchen floor area by the telephone is again heavily bloodied,suggesting that the murderer shot him several times there. Nevill this time is shot a further four times to the head,yet manages to stagger towards the kitchen door,where he is eventually found slumped over with his head in the coal scuttle. Sheila then vindictively bashes her father over the head with the rifle butt and in this scenario there is no life and death struggle involving mutual physical contact,or any possibility of the silencer scratching the mantlepiece.
Sheila then washes her hands and feet to remove the blood from these areas,as well as any gun residue from firing 25 shots,enters the master bedroom where she writes a few notes with a suicidal theme,reads June's bible one last time for solace,then shoots herself. Realizing she is not dead and looking outside from the bedroom window which is the "trick of the light" seen by the Police outside by this time,she shoots herself a second time,this time fatally.
It's all so plausible and neat.
I would suggest a different scenario. That it was Jeremy Bamber who climbed into White House Farm in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August(any forensic traces can be explained away by admitting to Police he had used this entry point several times in the past), and who in darkness immediately looked for the rifle he had left on the settle in the alcove only a few hours before. He then advances upstairs to the twins' bedroom as he knows how fractious little boys can be and he wouldn't want complications from them hearing a sound and coming out of their bedrooms. He kills them in their beds with Daniel still sucking his thumb,being put to bed possibly devoid of the care, the maternal love,the bedtime story which many a 6 year old would have come to expect. Uncle Jeremy was doing them a favour really, what life did they have being passed from pillar to post with a mentally ill mother and grandmother, and dad would manage to get regular work now he didn't have to care for them. It would simplify the inheritance with Jeremy himself being the sole beneficiary,he could sell up and move on.
With the twins slain Jeremy moves into his parents' room. Yet the panic alarm has sounded and he is taken aback. He has to hasten now or risk being discovered by outside intervention. He shoots at Nevill and manages to incapacitate him but has to reload the rifle and Neville gets past and staggers onto the landing where Jeremy fires another shot. Jeremy now has the startled June to deal with and shoots her as she is lying up in bed.
Nevill is now on the landing,but in Jeremy's scheme it has to be demonstrated that his father made a telephone call from the kitchen to Jeremy himself. Jeremy couldn't risk there being a telephone left in the bedroom in case Nevill made a call from there to the Police naming Jeremy as the killer. So Jeremy frogmarches his father down to the kitchen area,the skin on his back heated by the rifle butt,and as they approach the area of the telephone Nevill manages to make another escape towards the exterior kitchen door area,where he is shot fatally by his adopted son,this time Jeremy bashing Nevill with the rifle butt fracturing his jaw,nose and larynx.
Jeremy then proceeds back upstairs to the master bedroom where June has managed to work her way as far as the door,where Jeremy takes one last look at her by shooting her directly between the eyes. This action along with the clubbing of Nevill speaks volumes about all the torment he had suffered at their hands down the years,their demonstrable lack of love finally reciprocated in that house as Jeremy hurriedly went to fetch Sheila.
Sheila is dozing,she had been a "zombie" at 10 o'clock only the preceding evening according to Auntie Pamela,this model who was normally so fastidious in her personal grooming had not even had the mental capacity to know that her period was on the way,and it had probably been June who had to deal with the situation which prevented her from attending her usual Church meeting. She was led,mute and will-less into her parents' room,where Jeremy laid her down,placed her hands on the trigger of the .22 Anschutz rifle and shot her.
However panic sets in. Sheila is not dead and this is one point of Jeremy's plan which he cannot rehearse. Realizing that a second bullet from this weaker rifle may still not fatally injure Sheila he races downstairs to the gun cupboard where he selects one of the stronger guns from the nine available on the property which does fire the fatal shot.
Jeremy then scatters a few notes made by Sheila around the body,takes out June's bible which he tosses near the corpse, makes a phone call from the kitchen to his anwerphone,exits through the bathroom window and cycles hurriedly back through deserted farmland to his cottage at Goldhanger.
Have you contacted Penguin Fiction with this?
-
Attack alarm was activated at about 3:33am...
-
Attack alarm was activated at about 3:33am...
Keep meaning to ask Mike, but where is the record for that? I can't find it?
-
Attack alarm was activated at about 3:33am...
Mike every detail in this case is important which is why I turn a blind eye to the occasional prolixity manifested in some posts. From what I can remember about burglar alarms in the 1980s and especially the one installed in my parents' house you could have a choice of rooms covered-so the lounge,dining-room and kitchen were covered with a beam,which if someone broke in the alarm would be activated after 25 seconds. However in my parents' house it was theoretically possible to break in,then go to the cloakroom where the control box was located, then type in the code which if done within 25 seconds would disable the alarm. I'm not sure whether the panic alarm upstairs in the bedroom would be disabled also but I assume not.
I'm wondering whether Jeremy knew the code to the alarm system and if so deactivated it that morning. I'm also unclear as to what specific system was installed at White House Farm. There are burglar alarms where you need to insert a key to switch it off,other alarms which are wired to the local Police Station,but then again the Police do not always automatically respond,as they check whether there have been previous false alarms at the property before they make a decision. These alarms are not foolproof as can be evidenced by the Michael Fagan incident a couple of years before the murders,when the alarm at Buckingham Palace was switched off after the Queen activated a panic button,then was still kept waiting when she telephoned the Police.
Going back to my parents' alarm I have heard the panic button alarm and it's very loud,and lasts for 20 minutes if not deactivated,yet it doesn't seem to have been heard by the recipient of Ralph's call,neither is it written down in the log disclosed in 2004 that Ralph asked whether the Police were on their way.
-
Hi Mike is a panic alarm and a burglar alarm one of the same I thought they were different.
-
Hi Mike is a panic alarm and a burglar alarm one of the same I thought they were different.
No. A burglar alarm is different. A panic alarm is a personal alarm which is connected directly to ther alarm company and has to be activated by the individual him/herself. A burglar alarm is activated by an intruder entering a property. You can choose what zones to alarm. There are sensors situated in specific rooms. Ralph had a panic alarm. Not a burglar alarm.
-
No. A burglar alarm is different. A panic alarm is a personal alarm which is connected directly to ther alarm company and has to be activated by the individual him/herself. A burglar alarm is activated by an intruder entering a property. You can choose what zones to alarm. There are sensors situated in specific rooms. Ralph had a panic alarm. Not a burglar alarm.
I worked in a garage shop when I was in college at about the same time. There was a panic button for night-shift staff. I didn't take much notice of how it was wired up but it was a small white box with a red button. It wasn't in a fixed position and could be moved around the shop to some extent (or as far as the cable would stretch).
-
I worked in a garage shop when I was in college at about the same time. There was a panic button for night-shift staff. I didn't take much notice of how it was wired up but it was a small white box with a red button. It wasn't in a fixed position and could be moved around the shop to some extent (or as far as the cable would stretch).
I have a panisc button im my bedroomat home. it is similar in descripion to the above. it operates the burgular alarm bell.it matters not if the alarm is armed or not.
-
Where is the evidence that there was an attack alarm?
-
Not sure Jim but I have read several times about the panic alarm existing. Mike will know when he is back on the forum.
-
Not sure Jim but I have read several times about the panic alarm existing. Mike will know when he is back on the forum.
Susan hi. I have the feeling that the Bambers had a panic alarm fitted because they had been threatened by a person of uncertain temperament.
-
Hi april maggie posted earlier today and gave the reasons why the panic button was fitted it would appear Ralph was being threatened by the Father of some boy sentenced by Ralph in his capacity as a Magistrate.
-
Keep meaning to ask Mike, but where is the record for that? I can't find it?
bump
-
Where is the evidence that there was an attack alarm?
I've asked Mike that myself. I can't see any record of one fitted myself. I just want to know where he got it from?
-
Attack alarm was activated at about 3:33am...
There's no such thing as an attack alarm, and no evidence has been posted of a panic alarm or its activation. If there was any type of alarm installed, surely JB would have known about it and mentioned it years ago.
Similarly there was no such term as "metered call log" until mike tesko invented it as a way of avoiding the term "telephone bill" and disagreement about itemized billing of local calls.
-
There's no such thing as an attack alarm, and no evidence has been posted of a panic alarm or its activation. If there was any type of alarm installed, surely JB would have known about it and mentioned it years ago.
There was a panic alarm installed, without being too specific about the location of the button (in case it is still active), it is downstairs within five or six metres of the location where Ralphs body was discovered.
Other details about the alarm, such as it being a shared or second line, or whether it was a silent alarm or not, I do not know. I've also seen nothing which indicates that the alarm was activated on the night of the murders, I've been told that it was not.
I'm also led to believe that there was a burglar alarm fitted although I have no details about it. Could a panic alarm and a burglar alarm be connected in any way, or would they be stand alone systems?
There are just a few vague references, such as:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=246.0;attach=647;image)
I've seen a reference in Ann's notes or statements, plus a reference to an alarm in a typed list of some sort, I'll dig them out if I can find them.
-
That's dated 4th September, so it doesn't indicate anything was installed prior to August 7th. Panic buttons are not usually hidden. It's safer for them to be located easily.
-
That's dated 4th September, so it doesn't indicate anything was installed prior to August 7th. Panic buttons are not usually hidden. It's safer for them to be located easily.
I don't know what is usual, but in this instance it is quite cleverly disguised, even if you were looking for it you probably wouldn't notice it.
-
I do believe that the alarm system was put in place after the murders by the police. I think AE refers to this in her statement in 1991. :)
-
Hi Patti hope you are well. When you say the alarm system is this the panic alarm or was a new one put in hartley says the panic button is still there but was this there in 1985.
-
Hi Patti hope you are well. When you say the alarm system is this the panic alarm or was a new one put in hartley says the panic button is still there but was this there in 1985.
Susan,hi. Friends of mine had one installed because it was perceived that the family was in danger, but once the threat was passed, to the best of my knowledge the alarm system was removed.