Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on July 18, 2012, 07:57:PM
-
After the murders it was established that the police had made an inspection of all the 1st floor windows at WHF and said they were closed.
Between the 8th and 10th of September 1985 a forensic team did an extensive examination of all the windows on the 1st floor and came up with nothing.
On the 1st of October according to the 2002 appeal, another forensic team headed by Elliott did another examination of the windows on the 1st floor. The catch in the downstairs toilet/bathroom had scratch marks underneath it and the frame of the windows on the inside were damaged, but the outside looked fresh and clean.
R. Cook states in his statement that he took the catch from the said bathroom window on the 27th of September. So if R Cook took the catch on the 27th, how come Elliot's forensic team found the catch on the 1st of October.
We also know that JB entered that window on the 16th of September having been questioned by police....So it was inevitable that there would be damage on the bathroom from this said date.
So which is it? Did cook take it like he says on the 27th of September RWC/10
Or did Elliot's team take it on the 1st of October....
Or did Cook remove it and put it back, thus making the catch already scratched???????????
Thank you to Bridget who made reference to this a few days ago... :) :) :)
-
After the murders it was established that the police had made an inspection of all the 1st floor windows at WHF and said they were closed.
Between the 8th and 10th of September 1985 a forensic team did an extensive examination of all the windows on the 1st floor and came up with nothing.
On the 1st of October according to the 2002 appeal, another forensic team headed by Elliott did another examination of the windows on the 1st floor. The catch in the downstairs toilet had scratch marks underneath it and the frame of the windows from on the inside was damaged, but the outside looked fresh and clean.
R. Cook states in his statement that he took the catch from the said bathroom window on the 27th of September. So if R Cook took the catch on the 27th, how come Elliot's forensic team found the catch on the 1st of October.
We also know that JB entered that window on the 16th of September having been questioned by police....
So which is it? Did cook take it like he says on the 27th of September RWC/10
Or did Elliot's team take it on the 1st of October....
Thank you to Bridget who made reference to this a few days ago... :) :) :)
Hi Patti, it's a bit.like the silencer debacle....maybe there was more than one downstairs toilet window.......... maybe one was discovered in the gun cupboard ::) ::)
-
You mean ground floor windows patti :)
Here is the relevant part of Cook's statement:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=448.0;attach=15344;image)
And this is the relevant part of the Appeal court judgment:
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.
-
1st floor is the ground floor Bridget... ;D
Here is an extract from the 2002 appeal regarding the examination.
The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. 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.
-
1st floor is the ground floor Bridget... ;D
Not round here it isn't!
As far as I can tell from the photos and floorplans there is only one window in the downstairs bathroom / toilet, and that is the only sash window in that part of the house.
-
Hi Patti, it's a bit.like the silencer debacle....maybe there was more than one downstairs toilet window.......... maybe one was discovered in the gun cupboard ::) ::)
Hi maggie, it is a bloody good fine and, it is thanks to Bridget... :) :) :)
-
No round here it isn't!
As far as I can tell from the photos and floorplans there is only one window in the downstairs bathroom toilet, and that is the only sash window in that part of the house.
It is up here lol
2nd floor being the upstairs...I will have to check on it being the only sash window on the GROUND floor lol :) :) :) :)
-
Do you guys think it will be OK if I tweet this information? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
It is up here lol
2nd floor being the upstairs...I will have to check on it being the only sash window on the GROUND floor lol :) :) :) :)
It's the window on the opposite side to the kitchen door, just to the right of where the grey part of the building joins the red bit.
-
It's the window on the opposite side to the kitchen door, just to the right of where the grey part of the building joins the red bit.
On the white side? I see. :) :)
A number of things spring to mind, for Cook gives it an exhibit number.....RWC/8
So you are right what was Elliott looking at, if he claims the catch was scratched... :) :)
-
RWC/8
-
I wonder why he didn't examine the catch on the day of the murders? But waited until the 1st of October.
-
This side:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4066;image)
-
I wonder why he didn't examine the catch on the day of the murders? But waited until the 1st of October.
They were checked on the day Grahame by DC Jones....
Then, between the 8th to 10th of September forensic examined the windows and there was nothing found.
Cook then takes the catch on the 27th of September according to his statement and gives it numbers it RWC/8
Then according to the 2002 appeal Elliott's forensic team find the catch scratched....how can this be possible...unless Cook put the catch back...Its a question that needs to be asked... :) :) :)
-
So... possibilities:
The date in Cook's statement is wrong? Unlikely I think since he goes on to say what he did on the 1st.
The date given for Elliot's visit in the 2002 appeal is wrong - but if it was he who removed it and gave it to Cook, why doesn't it have his initials in the reference instead of Cook's?
There are two parts to a sash catch, one attached to each sash. He removed the upper one and the scratches were seen on the lower one? Might that be why Elliot was called in?
Someone replaced the catch with either the original or a replacement and that's what Elliot looked at?
Did Elliot actually examine the catch at the lab, rather than in situ, after it had been removed?
-
One more question: Why did Cook remove that catch on the 27th and only that catch, if the marks weren't discovered until the 1st of October?
-
So... possibilities:
The date in Cook's statement is wrong? Unlikely I think since he goes on to say what he did on the 1st.
The date given for Elliot's visit in the 2002 appeal is wrong - but if it was he who removed it and gave it to Cook, why doesn't it have his initials in the reference instead of Cook's?
There are two parts to a sash catch, one attached to each sash. He removed the upper one and the scratches were seen on the lower one? Might that be why Elliot was called in?
Someone replaced the catch with either the original or a replacement and that's what Elliot looked at?
Did Elliot actually examine the catch at the lab, rather than in situ, after it had been removed?
Could cook have damaged the that window prior to the invasion of Elliott's team? The evidence is now weakened Bridget....unless a simple explanation comes forward...but all the same it was the 2002 appeal this was documented in....if it is not right then, what else in that documents isn't right... :) :) :)
-
Could cook have damaged the that window prior to the invasion of Elliott's team? The evidence is now weakened Bridget....unless a simple explanation comes forward...but all the same it was the 2002 appeal this was documented in....if it is not right then, what else in that documents isn't right... :) :) :)
I agree, that's a question that has to be asked. The answers to this are probably in Elliot's report / statement.
-
Moe read this thread the document is on here....Also part of the 2002 appeal which is copied an pasted... :)
-
So... possibilities:
The date in Cook's statement is wrong? Unlikely I think since he goes on to say what he did on the 1st.
The date given for Elliot's visit in the 2002 appeal is wrong - but if it was he who removed it and gave it to Cook, why doesn't it have his initials in the reference instead of Cook's?
There are two parts to a sash catch, one attached to each sash. He removed the upper one and the scratches were seen on the lower one? Might that be why Elliot was called in?
Someone replaced the catch with either the original or a replacement and that's what Elliot looked at?
Did Elliot actually examine the catch at the lab, rather than in situ, after it had been removed?
The two catches that you talk about Bridget....are! The bottom catch is the female part of the catch and the upper part is the male....There is only one catch but it comes it two parts which allows it to be closed......Is this what you mean? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
The two catches that you talk about Bridget....are! The bottom catch is the female part of the catch and the upper part is the male....There is only one catch but it comes it two parts which allows it to be closed......Is this what you mean? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Sort of, but on my windows the 'male' part is on the bottom sash.
-
Sort of, but on my windows the 'male' part is on the bottom sash.
do you have to physically push the top bit when you close it? I'm sure we had to manually close it to the right...I might google some sash cord window catches...because I don;t think any amount of banging will lock it....It might look locked? but in fact it will still open....I'm not going anywhere with this, but I would just like to know a little bit more. :P :) :) :)
-
do you have to physically push the top bit when you close it? I'm sure we had to manually close it to the right...I might google some sash cord window catches...because I don;t think any amount of banging will lock it....It might look locked? but in fact it will still open....I'm not going anywhere with this, but I would just like to know a little bit more. :P :) :) :)
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but are you referring to the kitchen window? If so, then it is a casement window and not a sliding sash.
The bathroom window which was unlocked from the outside using a hacksaw blade, is a sliding sash.
-
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but are you referring to the kitchen window? If so, then it is a casement window and not a sliding sash.
The bathroom window which was unlocked from the outside using a hacksaw blade, is a sliding sash.
Hi Hartley. I am referring to RCW/8 the downstairs bathroom window catch....Can you confirm to me that that window is a sash cord window....?????? :) :) :)
-
Hi Hartley. I am referring to RCW/8 the downstairs bathroom window catch....Can you confirm to me that that window is a sash cord window....?????? :) :) :)
Yes, see photograph below. But nobody is suggesting that this window was banged and locked from the outside, that was the kitchen casement window above the sink.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you again? :-\
(http://i.imgur.com/fn7RD.jpg)
-
do you have to physically push the top bit when you close it? I'm sure we had to manually close it to the right...I might google some sash cord window catches...because I don;t think any amount of banging will lock it....It might look locked? but in fact it will still open....I'm not going anywhere with this, but I would just like to know a little bit more. :P :) :) :)
I think you're mixing up your windows, the prosecution suggestion was that he got in through the bathroom (sash) window, and left through the kitchen (casement) window and banged that one to shut it. Obviously once in through the bathroom window he could lock that from the inside.
-
Thank you. :D
My mistake Hartley it was the kitchen window that was banged. :(
So the bathroom downstairs is the one on the left as you look at the picture, the one nearest the wall with all the rubble below it...? :-\
-
I think you're mixing up your windows, the prosecution suggestion was that he got in through the bathroom (sash) window, and left through the kitchen (casement) window and banged that one to shut it. Obviously once in through the bathroom window he could lock that from the inside.
I am, but now back on track.. 8) :) :) :) :)
-
Thank you. :D
My mistake Hartley it was the kitchen window that was banged. :(
So the bathroom downstairs is the one on the left as you look at the picture, the one nearest the wall with all the rubble below it...? :-\
Yes..
-
Thank you. :D
My mistake Hartley it was the kitchen window that was banged. :(
So the bathroom downstairs is the one on the left as you look at the picture, the one nearest the wall with all the rubble below it...? :-\
Yes, that's correct. The rubble is the cellar access though.
-
Can either of you tell me why ND/5 became RCW/8 which is the scratched catch taken from the downstairs bathroom by R W Cook on the 28th September. :) :) :) :)
-
Can either of you tell me why ND/5 became RCW/8 which is the scratched catch taken from the downstairs bathroom by R W Cook on the 28th September. :) :) :) :)
Not off the top of my head lol. What is was / ND5 and where are you getting that reference from? Generally it would help if you post the document you must be looking at ;)
-
I was always told that if a person can get into your property they will get into your property. I should think that if someone was able to get into WHF they would be able to get out without any kind of trick such as banging a window so it would shut after them. Especially if they knew that house and had lived in it for years. In other words it is so obvious and everyone knew about it that it didn't need a robin to tell them about it. Again because it was so obvious and even commented on by JB himself that I doubt very much that he did actually get out of the house by that said window. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. Too much is being made and was made about this window that I personally believe it is another red herring?
-
It would....So here is the document, look right at the bottom of the first one. :)
-
I was always told that if a person can get into your property they will get into your property. I should think that if someone was able to get into WHF they would be able to get out without any kind of trick such as banging a window so it would shut after them. Especially if they knew that house and had lived in it for years. In other words it is so obvious and everyone knew about it that it didn't need a robin to tell them about it. Again because it was so obvious and even commented on by JB himself that I doubt very much that he did actually get out of the house by that said window. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. Too much is being made and was made about this window that I personally believe it is another red herring?
Hi Lugg, I'd like to know the size of the kitchen window.....to me size matters. ;) :) :) :) :)
-
Patti you are a very naughty girl but I like you ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti you are a very naughty girl but I like you ;D ;D ;D
moi naughty? Never lol :) :) :) :) :)
PS I like you 2.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It would....So here is the document, look right at the bottom of the first one. :)
Well I guess Davison would be the right person to answer your question, and he has ;)
-
Well I guess Davison would be the right person to answer your question, and he has ;)
Not sure if agree with his answer though Bridget...he wasn't pressed about it, he wasn't with R Cook when the catch was found, so why name the exhibit after him? He must have known that Cook had found it...Oh well! Another mistake, explained...lol but it doesn't explain what Elliot found....3 days later.. :D :D :D :D
-
Not sure if agree with his answer though Bridget...he wasn't pressed about it, he wasn't with R Cook when the catch was found, so why name the exhibit after him? He must have known that Cook had found it...Oh well! Another mistake, explained...lol but it doesn't explain what Elliot found....3 days later.. :D :D :D :D
I agree, it doesn't, but given the complete apathy concerning that point I can only conclude that there is a reasonable explanation which no one is telling us!
-
I agree, it doesn't, but given the complete apathy concerning that point I can only conclude that there is a reasonable explanation which no one is telling us!
Bridget take a look at the picture Hartley has posted. To me the rubble is not rubble, its a badly made cover for the cellar....One slip on that and your a goner! If that is the case then no one could enter that window...there is nothing to hold on to.... :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
Bridget take a look at the picture Hartley has posted. To me the rubble is not rubble, its a badly made cover for the cellar....One slip on that and your a goner! If that is the case then no one could enter that window...there is nothing to hold on to.... :-\ :) :) :) :)
It looks like an old fence panel to me, and we have no idea when that pic was taken. I would suggest that the cellar doors are underneath it.
-
It looks like an old fence panel to me, and we have no idea when that pic was taken. I would suggest that the cellar doors are underneath it.
Hartley will tell us....or Vic. :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
Hartley will tell us....or Vic. :-\ :) :) :) :)
Well apparently no footprints were mentioned. With that I can only conclude that none were found that backs up their theory that JB entered or exited the building by that window?
-
Well apparently no footprints were mentioned. With that I can only conclude that none were found that backs up their theory that JB entered or exited the building by that window?
Hi Lugg :) It looks a bit difficult to mount the top of that cellar...without breaking yer neck! Looks a bit iffy to me. :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Lugg :) It looks a bit difficult to mount the top of that cellar...without breaking yer neck! Looks a bit iffy to me. :) :) :) :) :)
Yes, especially if you're shaking like a leaf after killing 5 members of your own family.
-
Yes, especially if you're shaking like a leaf after killing 5 members of your own family.
They say he got in the bathroom window, but this has never really been proven, nor was it proven he got out using the kitchen window....I think they did to much assuming Lugg, without proper evidence to back it up.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Lugg :) It looks a bit difficult to mount the top of that cellar...without breaking yer neck! Looks a bit iffy to me. :) :) :) :) :)
Patti some of those old places were lethal if there was dry rot anywhere,,which proved it in the cellar where it was rickety by all accounts,,so unless you knew a place thoroughly,you'd be taking a chance where you set foot---------------------or you'd vanish. I'd have said that the cellar was out of bounds.
-
Sash windows,unless maintained,,were,or could be dodgy and nobody would attempt to escape through them,,nor enter by them either,,as they have a habit of sticking partway up or down and won't budge without a bit of "wiggling " to get them on an even keel.
-
Patti some of those old places were lethal if there was dry rot anywhere,,which proved it in the cellar where it was rickety by all accounts,,so unless you knew a place thoroughly,you'd be taking a chance where you set foot---------------------or you'd vanish. I'd have said that the cellar was out of bounds.
Hi Lookout :) It looks a bit iffy to me. If someone was to go through that window they would have to have trodden on that dodgy cellar cover....
But, there could be doors beneath that, but that wall looks very damp to me....We also need to know when that picture was taken....Right I am off, I can't keep my eyes open...Night all...Night Lookout...Xxxxx
-
They say he got in the bathroom window, but this has never really been proven, nor was it proven he got out using the kitchen window....I think they did to much assuming Lugg, without proper evidence to back it up.... :) :) :) :)
I agree. It does not look safe at all, besides, an intruder would risk making noise, especially in the dark. Of course, as Bridget says, we don´t know when the photo was taken. Jeremy did say he entered the house through that window after the murders - what time of the day was that?
-
I'd say that the cellar was covered for a purpose,,,,so that nobody would unwittingly step on it and land on the concrete base at the bottom. It would have been a liability otherwise for those who didn't know it was there.
-
They say he got in the bathroom window, but this has never really been proven, nor was it proven he got out using the kitchen window....I think they did to much assuming Lugg, without proper evidence to back it up.... :) :) :) :)
As someone (Hartley?) has pointed out before, the prosecution didn't have to prove that he did enter through that window that particular night, they only had to show that he could have done. See paragraph 286 of the appeal judgment. Jeremy himself admitted to having gained entry to he house via that window both before and after the murders, so any discussion of whether he could have done is moot.
-
Hi Lookout :) It looks a bit iffy to me. If someone was to go through that window they would have to have trodden on that dodgy cellar cover....
But, there could be doors beneath that, but that wall looks very damp to me....We also need to know when that picture was taken....Right I am off, I can't keep my eyes open...Night all...Night Lookout...Xxxxx
Hi Patti, I remember this being discussed before and I'm sure Hartley or vidvic said it was just rubbish that had been left on top of the cellar doors, this is I think post Ralph and June but not totally certain about that. . Whatever it was it certainly wasn't the doors to the cellar. I am pretty sure about that.
-
As someone (Hartley?) has pointed out before, the prosecution didn't have to prove that he did enter through that window that particular night, they only had to show that he could have done. See paragraph 286 of the appeal judgment. Jeremy himself admitted to having gained entry to he house via that window both before and after the murders, so any discussion of whether he could have done is moot.
A bit of a silly billy then wasn't he?
-
Sash windows,unless maintained,,were,or could be dodgy and nobody would attempt to escape through them,,nor enter by them either,,as they have a habit of sticking partway up or down and won't budge without a bit of "wiggling " to get them on an even keel.
-
Hahahahaha.Lugg,,,those old sash windows would have taken your head off if one of the weights gave way under the frayed string. Experience counts for a lot, ;D They were lethal unless renewed.
-
HAHAHA, four years ago, we were in a hotel in Brighton. It was at the waterfront right beside Brighton Pier. I had opened the old sash window before we went to bed - wanted to hear the waves. ;D Next morning when I woke up, my husband had gotten up ahead of me. He was sitting in a chair in his coat (it was summer), he had stuffed his pillow into that gaping window. It was raining like shite and very cold.
I asked him why he didn´t just close the window - he said he couldn´t. I got up and closed the window like I had never done anything else in my life....
We don´t have sash windows here, guess that is why he didn´t get it..... ::)
-
Which window did the robin choose? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
HAHAHA, four years ago, we were in a hotel in Brighton. It was at the waterfront right beside Brighton Pier. I had opened the old sash window before we went to bed - wanted to hear the waves. ;D Next morning when I woke up, my husband had gotten up ahead of me. He was sitting in a chair in his coat (it was summer), he had stuffed his pillow into that gaping window. It was raining like shite and very cold.
I asked him why he didn´t just close the window - he said he couldn´t. I got up and closed the window like I had never done anything else in my life....
We don´t have sash windows here, guess that is why he didn´t get it..... ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
HAHAHA, four years ago, we were in a hotel in Brighton. It was at the waterfront right beside Brighton Pier. I had opened the old sash window before we went to bed - wanted to hear the waves. ;D Next morning when I woke up, my husband had gotten up ahead of me. He was sitting in a chair in his coat (it was summer), he had stuffed his pillow into that gaping window. It was raining like shite and very cold.
I asked him why he didn´t just close the window - he said he couldn´t. I got up and closed the window like I had never done anything else in my life....
We don´t have sash windows here, guess that is why he didn´t get it..... ::)
One of those metal ones, like the one in the picture slammed shut once and nearly took my finger off.
-
Can either of you tell me why ND/5 became RCW/8 which is the scratched catch taken from the downstairs bathroom by R W Cook on the 28th September. :) :) :) :)
Um. :-\ Isn't ND/5 actually Junes night dress? ???
-
One of those metal ones, like the one in the picture slammed shut once and nearly took my finger off.
Maybe Mr. Alias was just being smart not messing with that window!!
-
Um. :-\ Isn't ND/5 actually Junes night dress? ???
No. It was originally the bathroom widow catch...it was changed to RCW/8 by N Davidson. :D
-
No. It was originally the bathroom widow catch...it was changed to RCW/8 by N Davidson. :D
ND/5 was Junes night dress.
The window catch was also ND/5 for a while, but correctly renamed as there was already an ND/5 and it wasn't Davidsons exhibit anyway.
-
I don't suppose there's much difference between a window catch and a nightdress really.
-
Hi lookout think there may be a big difference if you went to bed in the wrong one ;D
-
I don't suppose there's much difference between a window catch and a nightdress really.
Very profound lookout ;D ;D
-
Very profound lookout ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D tee hee hee.
-
ND/5 was Junes night dress.
The window catch was also ND/5 for a while, but correctly renamed as there was already an ND/5 and it wasn't Davidsons exhibit anyway.
Hartley. DN/5 was originally the window catch...Whether it became the exhibit number for the nightdress or not...Please look back at the documents I posted earlier on this thread.... >:( :P :) :) :)
-
Hartley. DN/5 was originally the window catch...Whether it became the exhibit number for the nightdress or not...Please look back at the documents I posted earlier on this thread.... >:( :P :) :) :)
Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.
Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.
Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? :-\
-
Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.
Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.
Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=195.0;attach=368;image)
-
Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.
Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.
Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? :-\
And my point is that it was changed from ND/5 to RCW/8 despite the explanation and mistakes, which there are far too many to suit in my opinion, whether you agree on that or not. :-\
You are merely reiterating what I said in the first place! Why don't you agree that what I said was correct....and that was the fact it was changed, instead of going round the houses....do you think I'm daft, thick or on one? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And my point is that it was changed from ND/5 to RCW/8 despite the explanation and mistakes, which there are far too many to suit in my opinion, whether you agree on that or not. :-\
You are merely reiterating what I said in the first place! Why don't you agree that what I said was correct....and that was the fact it was changed, instead of going round the houses....do you think I'm daft, thick or on one? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Huh? ???
Anyway, back to reality, all I was pointing out was that ND/5 also related to another exhibit which was taken prior to the window catch.
I don't really understand your reply, it doesn't relate to my observation. :-\
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=195.0;attach=368;image)
You are showing me a document Hartley that looks like it has been altered at some point. Anyone can see that. :-\ Is there any explanation as to why it looks changed? Should it not read ND/5, ND/6 and ND/7 and not ND/6, ND/5 and ND/7....How odd!
I am not saying that ND/5 was NOT the exhibit number for the nightdress. What I am saying is regardless of that, that number was also given to the window catch, then it was changed. I was only saying..... ???
Davidson was in charge of all the exhibits.....was he not? There is nothing fishy about it....I am just saying!
-
You are showing me a document Hartley that looks like it has been altered at some point. Anyone can see that. :-\ Is there any explanation as to why it looks changed? Should it not read ND/5, ND/6 and ND/7 and not ND/6, ND/5 and ND/7....How odd!
I am not saying that ND/5 was NOT the exhibit number for the nightdress. What I am saying is regardless of that, that number was also given to the window catch, then it was changed. I was only saying..... ???
Davidson was in charge of all the exhibits.....was he not? There is nothing fishy about it....I am just saying!
I think you think that I am arguing with you, when I am not. ???
Forget it, I can't be bothered. :(
-
I think you think that I am arguing with you, when I am not. ???
Forget it, I can't be bothered. :(
Neither can I. :( :'(
-
. . . Here is the relevant part of Cook's statement:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=448.0;attach=19099;image)
[For completeness.]
-
Thank you for that reader. Somehow the window catch became ND/5 then RCW/8 Davidson explains how this could have happened. If Cook had made the exhibit RWC/8 then why did Davidson change it to ND/5 then back to RWC8 However, the COLP just took his word for granted and did not challenge it.
On the 1st of October Elliot and his team of forensics did a through search of the down stairs windows, so they might have been there at the same time. I do know that Cook was somewhere else on the afternoon of the 1st of October. Below is what was said in the 2002 appeal about Elliot...
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.
So who is telling the truth here Cook or Elliot? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) Barlow wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
-
Wasn't it Dc Barlow that wrote that, not Brian Elliott?
-
Wasn't it Dc Barlow that wrote that, not Brian Elliott?
Your are right...it was Barlow, I have corrected it....Nice to see someone is awake. :) :) :)
-
You might also want to change "RCW" to "RWC" in two places.
-
You might also want to change "RCW" to "RWC" in two places.
Consider it done.... :o :) :) :) :)