Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: tonyb on July 15, 2012, 09:00:PM

Title: Apology
Post by: tonyb on July 15, 2012, 09:00:PM
Sorry in advance to the Mods,Mike or any viewer of my most recent foul mouthed rants. I apologise for the language,not the content.
 Tony :(
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Roch on July 15, 2012, 09:03:PM
Sorry in advance to the Mods,Mike or any viewer of my most recent foul mouthed rants. I apologise for the language,not the content.
 Tony :(

You might as well let rip Tony.  Though Mike seems to be still going along with the hard drives scenario for the original bed photo..

Don't shoot the messenger  :'(
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: mike tesko on July 15, 2012, 09:09:PM
Sorry in advance to the Mods,Mike or any viewer of my most recent foul mouthed rants. I apologise for the language,not the content.
 Tony :(

I have not tried to deliberately mislead anyone, I have always sought to answer any questions to the best of my ability, and after I was shown the photograph of Sheila on the bed with only one wound upon her neck I always believed (and still do) that at some point in the future I will get to see that particular photograph, or at least a copy of it, again...

The interesting thing about being shown the image of Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her neck was that there was no blood running from the corners of her mouth (either side) and no blood running backwards into the socket of her left eye, which was a feature shown and visible in the photograph I removed from the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM " I saw at Ewen Smiths office at the beginning of 2003...
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: tonyb on July 15, 2012, 09:11:PM
You might as well let rip Tony.  Though Mike seems to be still going along with the hard drives scenario for the original bed photo..

Don't shoot the messenger  :'(
Yeah, #99 he hasn't, #103 he has....
& #2 he hasn't.
Mate I'm confused now,my head hurts!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 09:29:PM
Sorry to butt in with an O/T question, but if an exhibit is referenced 'DA23', who is DA?

Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Roch on July 15, 2012, 09:36:PM
Sorry to butt in with an O/T question, but if an exhibit is referenced 'DA23', who is DA?

Bridget what do you mean?  Where does it mention that exhibit?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 09:44:PM
You know, like DRB is David Robert Boutflour, ND is Neil Davison, that sort of thing? I read something a couple of days ago about the catch on the bathroom window that didn't seem right, and I meant to look further into it but I lost the page and can't remember what I was reading - I'm now trying to retrace my steps. I may have to put out an APB for it soon so you can all help - it's driving me nuts!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Patti on July 15, 2012, 09:46:PM
You know, like DRB is David Robert Boutflour, ND is Neil Davison, that sort of thing? I read something a couple of days ago about the catch on the bathroom window that didn't seem right, and I meant to look further into it but I lost the page and can't remember what I was reading - I'm now trying to retrace my steps. I may have to put out an APB for it soon so you can all help - it's driving me nuts!

Lol................. ;D
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 09:48:PM
Lol................. ;D

What are you laughing at? It's you I'm going to send out looking for it later. You'll like it, I promise :)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Patti on July 15, 2012, 09:55:PM
What are you laughing at? It's you I'm going to send out looking for it later. You'll like it, I promise :)

Could it be Adams or Ainsley?....Who said it and when? Could it have mistyped? If I will like it then I will look for it if it goes in my favour...I'll be back  :D 8)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 10:10:PM
Could it be Adams or Ainsley?....Who said it and when? Could it have mistyped? If I will like it then I will look for it if it goes in my favour...I'll be back  :D 8)

It is your favour, but I don't want to derail Tony's thread too much. What you are looking for is this:

I was (I think) looking for when they first examined JB's clothing. So in Hayward's statement I found the reference numbers for those which were ND and DA (that's me retracing, I could have looked elsewhere). I then went to statements looking for dates. I stumbled over something, and I think it was hand written cos I seem to remember having to decipher it, that said something along the lines of "on the [date] I took posession of the following:" and then a list. In that list was something like "catch from the bottom rail of the top sash of the bathroom window", and the thing that struck me was the date was (again, I think) 29th of September, two days before Elliot examined that window. I don't think I dreamt it but it's a possibility.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Neil on July 15, 2012, 10:11:PM
Hi all, Bridget, are you referring to the note which was left by Jeremy, reminding someone to repair the catch on the window?  I think it was a post by Patti which actually sparked the discussion.  Some time after the murders, Jeremy entered the farm house via the window to retrieve some documents, now at this point I might be mistaken but I think Patti says he left the note mentioning the window catch???
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 10:13:PM
Hi all, Bridget, are you referring to the note which was left by Jeremy, reminding someone to repair the catch on the window?  I think it was a post by Patti which actually sparked the discussion.  Some time after the murders, Jeremy entered the farm house via the window to retrieve some documents, now at this point I might be mistaken but I think Patti says he left the note mentioning the window catch???

No... definately a policeman.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: tonyb on July 15, 2012, 10:14:PM
Don't worry,I've said my piece. Do as you will  ;D
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Neil on July 15, 2012, 10:17:PM
No... definately a policeman.
Sorry Bridget, forgive me, I'm talking rubbish!  (not for the first time)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Patti on July 15, 2012, 10:52:PM
It is your favour, but I don't want to derail Tony's thread too much. What you are looking for is this:

I was (I think) looking for when they first examined JB's clothing. So in Hayward's statement I found the reference numbers for those which were ND and DA (that's me retracing, I could have looked elsewhere). I then went to statements looking for dates. I stumbled over something, and I think it was hand written cos I seem to remember having to decipher it, that said something along the lines of "on the [date] I took posession of the following:" and then a list. In that list was something like "catch from the bottom rail of the top sash of the bathroom window", and the thing that struck me was the date was (again, I think) 29th of September, two days before Elliot examined that window. I don't think I dreamt it but it's a possibility.

The 29th was when JB was arrested.  8th to the 9th of September was when the windows extensively examined.  The 29th is a few days before they were examined again which was the 1st of October...

Elliott was the one that examined SC's nightdress.....Not sure if he examined the windows.  ND would be Neil Davidson? The other could be Adams, I'm not sure...

I will have to look at it tomorrow.....Sadly it is bed time  :( :) :) :)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Patti on July 15, 2012, 11:00:PM
Sorry Bridget, forgive me, I'm talking rubbish!  (not for the first time)

Hi Neil

JB entered the house through a window on the 16th of August and left a note for BW to secure it.
Forensics did an extensive examination of the windows during the 8th and 9th of August and found nothing. Then on the 1st of October another examination was done on the windows and they found that a catch had been scratched underneath...  :) :) :)

Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 11:01:PM
Hi Neil

JB entered the house through a window on the 16th of August and left a note for BW to secure it.
Forensics did an extensive examination of the windows during the 8th and 9th of August and found nothing. Then on the 1st of October another examination was done on the windows and they found that a catch had been scratched underneath...  :) :) :)

16th September, not August.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Patti on July 15, 2012, 11:05:PM
16th September, not August.

I stand corrected....lol  :)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 15, 2012, 11:07:PM
I stand corrected....lol  :)

While we're on that subject, it's said in the CoA decision that the note was to tell BW to pay his solicitor. Where is it documented that he left BW a note asking her to secure the window?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Neil on July 15, 2012, 11:32:PM
Hi Neil

JB entered the house through a window on the 16th of August and left a note for BW to secure it.
Forensics did an extensive examination of the windows during the 8th and 9th of August and found nothing. Then on the 1st of October another examination was done on the windows and they found that a catch had been scratched underneath...  :) :) :)
Thanks Patti,  a member of the BGB may suggest that by leaving this note Jeremy was attempting to illustrate that he couldn't have exited the farm house via the window, on the night of the murders.  It seems a little strange that he entered the house via the window on the 16th Sept, stranger still that he should choose to leave the note.  If he was concerned about leaving the house un secured, why enter via the window?  On the night of the murders, did Jeremy posses a key to the house?  On the night of the murders was there a key hidden outside anywhere?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 12:18:AM
Thanks Patti,  a member of the BGB may suggest that by leaving this note Jeremy was attempting to illustrate that he couldn't have exited the farm house via the window, on the night of the murders.  It seems a little strange that he entered the house via the window on the 16th Sept, stranger still that he should choose to leave the note.  If he was concerned about leaving the house un secured, why enter via the window?  On the night of the murders, did Jeremy posses a key to the house?  On the night of the murders was there a key hidden outside anywhere?
I think the spare key in the shed had been lost? Jeremy did not apparently have a key to the property. The key was in the lock on the inside when the cops broke in. If Jeremy left a note to get the cath mended, then it must mean that he had broken it in entering the property to get his passport? I wonder why he didn't just ask Ann Eaton for the key?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 08:59:AM
The 29th was when JB was arrested.  8th to the 9th of September was when the windows extensively examined.  The 29th is a few days before they were examined again which was the 1st of October...

Elliott was the one that examined SC's nightdress.....Not sure if he examined the windows.  ND would be Neil Davidson? The other could be Adams, I'm not sure...

I will have to look at it tomorrow.....Sadly it is bed time  :( :) :) :)

Elliot examined the windows. From the 2002 appeal:

On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

See what I mean?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 09:05:AM
Elliot examined the windows. From the 2002 appeal:

On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

See what I mean?
Its a window for goodness sake. Show me a window that is in use every day that is not scratched in some way.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 09:07:AM
Its a window for goodness sake. Show me a window that is in use every day that is not scratched in some way.

I think you're missing the point :)

Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 09:26:AM
It was Mick (Michael) Ainsley and Doug (Douglas) Adams.

I'd say DA referred to Adams, unless there is a DJA out there somewhere.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 09:36:AM
I think you're missing the point :)
Probaby. But then I don't possess your level of perspicacity. ;D
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 09:49:AM
Found it... Ron Cook's statement dated 24th October:

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=448.0;attach=15344;image)

Am I being thick? If he took possession of the catch on the 27th of September, what was Elliot looking at on the 1st of October?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 10:00:AM
DA actually seems to refer to DC David Ashenden.

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=442.0;attach=1296;image)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 10:05:AM
DA actually seems to refer to DC David Ashenden.

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=442.0;attach=1296;image)

He's a new one on me... I don't know how you find these things.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 10:25:AM
He's a new one on me... I don't know how you find these things.

That makes two of us, just one of those useless abilities I guess.  :P

I haven't seen him mentioned too much, just a few exhibits given the DA reference.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 10:36:AM
I want to know who PLK refers to now though.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: lebaleb on July 16, 2012, 10:44:AM
Jam, I was wondering if you could post documents a bit smaller as I have to pan down and then scroll across to read them half at a time. Thanks. Do you have a lot of documents? I would like to see any statements from Liz Rimington and anything about position of phones and answering machines at Goldhanger. Thanks.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 10:45:AM
I want to know who PLK refers to now though.

Possibly DC King, one of the 3 SOCOs who examined the windows on the 8th / 9th of September.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 11:03:AM
Possibly DC King, one of the 3 SOCOs who examined the windows on the 8th / 9th of September.

Strange how PLK is missed out of the key, but DC King sounds likely.

I'd quite like to see the statements from DC King, DS Finch and DS Lunn.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: OnceSaid on July 16, 2012, 11:24:AM
Elliot examined the windows. From the 2002 appeal:

On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

See what I mean?

Ron Cook, removed the catch from the window and took it away with him on the 27th of September.  Was the original catch replaced with another catch to secure the window?  Is this what Brian Elliot examined on October 1st, the replacement catch?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 11:30:AM
Ron Cook, removed the catch from the window and took it away with him on the 27th of September.  Was the original catch replaced with another catch to secure the window?  Is this what Brian Elliot examined on October 1st, the replacement catch?

I don't know, whatever way I look at it it doesn't make sense. It would be good to see Elliot's report / statement.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 11:44:AM
Jam, I was wondering if you could post documents a bit smaller as I have to pan down and then scroll across to read them half at a time. Thanks. Do you have a lot of documents? I would like to see any statements from Liz Rimington and anything about position of phones and answering machines at Goldhanger. Thanks.

Hi Lebaleb, just for you I've gone back and changed any documents that I've linked to so that they will appear smaller on your screen.

I'm not sure whether I've seen one from Elizabeth Rimington, maybe only references to one. You could ask Mike to see if he has access to any.

With regards to the telephones, have a look at statements from Barbara Wilson, Jean Bouttell and Douglas Pike. There is also some information in the Dickenson Report and 2002 Appeal Judgement.
These can all be found in the archive/document library section of the forum:  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html

Title: Re: Apology
Post by: lebaleb on July 16, 2012, 12:06:PM
Cheers, Jam. I have asked  Mike about Liz Rimington's statement. He say's he has it but didn't reply about posting it.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 12:18:PM
Cheers, Jam. I have asked  Mike about Liz Rimington's statement. He say's he has it but didn't reply about posting it.

Yeah he does that, you just have to be persistent and cross your fingers.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: maggie on July 16, 2012, 12:44:PM
Ron Cook, removed the catch from the window and took it away with him on the 27th of September.  Was the original catch replaced with another catch to secure the window?  Is this what Brian Elliot examined on October 1st, the replacement catch?
Probably, there's no flies on them........... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: campion on July 16, 2012, 12:57:PM
  Lebalab,    If you want to you may see Lizzz on the Sloppy Joe's advert, on U-tube. The chef has a wonderful time making 'American Pie'!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: lebaleb on July 16, 2012, 03:06:PM
  Lebalab,    If you want to you may see Lizzz on the Sloppy Joe's advert, on U-tube. The chef has a wonderful time making 'American Pie'!

Is there a link?  I can't find it.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: -Harters- on July 16, 2012, 04:30:PM
Strange how PLK is missed out of the key, but DC King sounds likely.

I'd quite like to see the statements from DC King, DS Finch and DS Lunn.

Yes DC King was PLK (Peter Leonard King):

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1095.0;attach=13375;image)

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1095.0;attach=13376;image)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: OnceSaid on July 16, 2012, 05:41:PM
Aha, so this is the wet suit jacket and trousers that has been suggested by others that he wore whilst carrying out the murders then also suggested that he wore it whilst driving back on the bicycle.  I just can't imagine that he would have worn this to commit murder then left it sitting in his bedroom, or worn it whilst on the bicycle returning home.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: susan on July 16, 2012, 05:50:PM
Hi oncesaid  the theory of Jeremy and the wet suit is just too ridiculous to contemplate.  The police did examine the wet suit anyway and returned it.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 06:24:PM
But I have Jeremy's wetsuit.......and it's a one piece!!!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 06:25:PM
It has never been examined!!!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:27:PM
It has never been examined!!!

Who gave it to you AA?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: susan on July 16, 2012, 06:30:PM
AA apologies I thought I had read it had been examined by the police.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 06:34:PM
Who gave it to you AA?







Jeremy.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 06:36:PM
AA apologies I thought I had read it had been examined by the police.






I have read that on here too but it is not the case.  Case of misunderstanding I think.

It has been available for tests..........but I have never been asked for it!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:37:PM
Jeremy.

The one that went to the lab was definately a two piece and came from WHF, not Goldhanger, could it be another one? Not that it really matters since they didn't find anything on it as far as I know.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 06:38:PM






Jeremy.
I told them that AA. But they didn't seem to believe me? They will continue to believe the crackpot ideas of RWB.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:39:PM
I told them that AA. But they didn't seem to believe me? They will continue to believe the crackpot ideas of RWB.

I've yet to meet anyone that believes the wet suit theory.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Roch on July 16, 2012, 06:39:PM
The one that went to the lab was definately a two piece and came from WHF, not Goldhanger, could it be another one? Not that it really matters since they didn't find anything on it as far as I know.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1095.msg34416.html#msg34416
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 06:45:PM
I've yet to meet anyone that believes the wet suit theory.
Well enough people on here have mentioned it. But few acknowledge that it was from RWB's jumbo book of crackpot ideas. And the police believed it enough to examine "a" wetsuit.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:47:PM
Well enough people on here have mentioned it.  But few acknowledge that it was from RWB's jumbo book of crackpot ideas. And the police believed it enough to examine "a" wetsuit.

Mostly BIBs.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 06:50:PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1095.msg34416.html#msg34416







I have only browsed these pages and have neither contributed or paid any great attention of late, so forgive me if this sounds ridiculous or has already been stated, but...........

The link that Roch has just given - if the wetsuit where a two piece, wouldn't each piece be given a different article code?

The suit I have is jacket at top (because it has long sleeves) and trousers....but its one piece!   Black and red!

Are you absolutely certain, without question, it was/is a two piece that the police looked at and examined and not a one piece?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:52:PM






I have only browsed these pages and have neither contributed or paid any great attention of late, so forgive me if this sounds ridiculous or has already been stated, but...........

The link that Roch has just given - if the wetsuit where a two piece, wouldn't each piece be given a different article code?

The suit I have is jacket at top (because it has long sleeves) and trousers....but its one piece!   Black and red!

Are you absolutely certain, without question, it was/is a two piece that the police looked at and examined and not a one piece?

Yes, certain, it's mentioned as two articles in 3 different places and this one was red and blue.
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: maggie on July 16, 2012, 06:53:PM
Well enough people on here have mentioned it. But few acknowledge that it was from RWB's jumbo book of crackpot ideas. And the police believed it enough to examine "a" wetsuit.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 06:55:PM






I have only browsed these pages and have neither contributed or paid any great attention of late, so forgive me if this sounds ridiculous or has already been stated, but...........

The link that Roch has just given - if the wetsuit where a two piece, wouldn't each piece be given a different article code?

The suit I have is jacket at top (because it has long sleeves) and trousers....but its one piece!   Black and red!

Are you absolutely certain, without question, it was/is a two piece that the police looked at and examined and not a one piece?
AA look for brown stains on the inside. It might tell you if it is the same one?
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Bridget on July 16, 2012, 06:57:PM
AA look for brown stains on the inside. It might tell you if it is the same one?

 :-X
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: grahameb on July 16, 2012, 06:59:PM
:-X
;D I didn't realise what I wrote til I read it again. I meant that they tested the brown stains inside the wetsuit top. ::)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 07:00:PM
AA look for brown stains on the inside. It might tell you if it is the same one?





Ugh!!!  I hope he wore trunks under it!!    :)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 07:02:PM




Ugh!!!  I hope he wore trunks under it!!    :)




No brown stains at all.......phew!!    It came to me in very good condition though I know Jeremy had worn it - he told me so!!
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: maggie on July 16, 2012, 07:02:PM
;D I didn't realise what I wrote til I read it again. I meant that they tested the brown stains inside the wetsuit top. ::)
  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: Aunt Agatha on July 16, 2012, 07:09:PM
Yes, certain, it's mentioned as two articles in 3 different places and this one was red and blue.






Thank you Bridget.      :)
Title: Re: Apology
Post by: campion on July 16, 2012, 09:12:PM
l o lebalab,  Posts #41&42.
  ' Sloppy Joes' - Behind the Scenes,  Fajitas.   3.21 min.