Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mb1 on February 23, 2011, 02:13:PM
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
Interesting!!
-
Where does this info come from?
-
The info is true.
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
MB1 - I have heard of this incident (Blood Relations I think).
Do you know why he had to admit this?
Was he seen by a neighbour and reported or overheard saying he did it or did he simply volunteer this information to an official?
-
The info is true.
Yeah I wasn't questioning it's factuality, like in Newbury1's post I was wondering how this information came to light. I'm not sure it's something he would want to admit if he didn't have to.
-
MB1 - I have heard of this incident (Blood Relations I think).
Do you know why he had to admit this?
Was he seen by a neighbour and reported or overheard saying he did it or did he simply volunteer this information to an official?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that once Jeremy was in the frame for the murders, the police returned to the farm to try and establish how he could have gained entry to the house on the night of the murders. I believe one of the officers found this hacksaw blade. I am quoting this from memory. I will look for the original post so I can check the accuracy of what I am saying.
-
MB1 - I have heard of this incident (Blood Relations I think).
Do you know why he had to admit this?
Was he seen by a neighbour and reported or overheard saying he did it or did he simply volunteer this information to an official?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that once Jeremy was in the frame for the murders, the police returned to the farm to try and establish how he could have gained entry to the house on the night of the murders. I believe one of the officers found this hacksaw blade. I am quoting this from memory. I will look for the original post so I can check the accuracy of what I am saying.
My memory is similar to Takeshi's - he had to explain the hidden hacksaw.
If the break-in on the 14th/15th is true, it's strange.
if the hacksaw was hidden beforehand, stranger still.
Do children regularly break in to their parents house?
-
The excuse of having to get 'documents for his holiday' does seem limp.
He lived at a different address (Goldhanger) and surely his documents would have been kept there?
Was he questioned about this activity any further by the police, like what documents exactly was he after and why didn't he keep them at his home address?
-
I have found this from David Shaw's manuscript "Innocent Man-Jeremy Bamber"
Drake then spoke about the window to the downstairs toilet that the prosecution claimed Jeremy used to get into the house without being seen on the murder night. There was the evidence of the hacksaw blade found lying near the window, (two months after the event, and not seen by any of the officers who searched the same location on the morning and days following the murders) and which had ‘apparently’ been used to force the catch from the outside.
Jeremy had admitted to the police that he had indeed forced this toilet window with the hacksaw blade some weeks after the killings when he went to the farm to pick up some documents and found that he had forgotten his door keys. Justice Drake underlined the Crown’s assertion that his ‘innocent explanation’ of how the blade marks got on to the window frame was ‘just too much of a coincidence to be credible.’ Jeremy’s explanation, the judge added, was ‘one of many examples in this case of there being just too many curious coincidences… to be acceptable to you.’
This is taken from Mr Justice Drake's summing up at the original trial.
-
I have found this from David Shaw's manuscript "Innocent Man-Jeremy Bamber"
Drake then spoke about the window to the downstairs toilet that the prosecution claimed Jeremy used to get into the house without being seen on the murder night. There was the evidence of the hacksaw blade found lying near the window, (two months after the event, and not seen by any of the officers who searched the same location on the morning and days following the murders) and which had ‘apparently’ been used to force the catch from the outside.
Jeremy had admitted to the police that he had indeed forced this toilet window with the hacksaw blade some weeks after the killings when he went to the farm to pick up some documents and found that he had forgotten his door keys. Justice Drake underlined the Crown’s assertion that his ‘innocent explanation’ of how the blade marks got on to the window frame was ‘just too much of a coincidence to be credible.’ Jeremy’s explanation, the judge added, was ‘one of many examples in this case of there being just too many curious coincidences… to be acceptable to you.’
This is taken from Mr Justice Drake's summing up at the original trial.
I would still like to know what documents he was after and why, if they were his documents, he did not keep them at his home address?
-
I have found this from David Shaw's manuscript "Innocent Man-Jeremy Bamber"
Drake then spoke about the window to the downstairs toilet that the prosecution claimed Jeremy used to get into the house without being seen on the murder night. There was the evidence of the hacksaw blade found lying near the window, (two months after the event, and not seen by any of the officers who searched the same location on the morning and days following the murders) and which had ‘apparently’ been used to force the catch from the outside.
Jeremy had admitted to the police that he had indeed forced this toilet window with the hacksaw blade some weeks after the killings when he went to the farm to pick up some documents and found that he had forgotten his door keys. Justice Drake underlined the Crown’s assertion that his ‘innocent explanation’ of how the blade marks got on to the window frame was ‘just too much of a coincidence to be credible.’ Jeremy’s explanation, the judge added, was ‘one of many examples in this case of there being just too many curious coincidences… to be acceptable to you.’
This is taken from Mr Justice Drake's summing up at the original trial.
I would still like to know what documents he was after and why, if they were his documents, he did not keep them at his home address?
I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
I don't know at what stage the housekeeper started to suspect Jeremy, but she said that in her heart she knew Jeremy had killed them all along. So perhaps he considered her not to believe him innocence anymore than his relatives. That being so I can well imagine someone - though not necessarily Jeremy since I didn't know him - not wanting to be face to face with such a person.
I don't agree with the judge's summing up on this matter because he is making an assumption that Jeremy's explanation was a lie on the basis of other circumstantial evidence. Perhaps this is normal for judges and juries, but it appears illogical to me.
-
I have found this from David Shaw's manuscript "Innocent Man-Jeremy Bamber"
Drake then spoke about the window to the downstairs toilet that the prosecution claimed Jeremy used to get into the house without being seen on the murder night. There was the evidence of the hacksaw blade found lying near the window, (two months after the event, and not seen by any of the officers who searched the same location on the morning and days following the murders) and which had ‘apparently’ been used to force the catch from the outside.
Jeremy had admitted to the police that he had indeed forced this toilet window with the hacksaw blade some weeks after the killings when he went to the farm to pick up some documents and found that he had forgotten his door keys. Justice Drake underlined the Crown’s assertion that his ‘innocent explanation’ of how the blade marks got on to the window frame was ‘just too much of a coincidence to be credible.’ Jeremy’s explanation, the judge added, was ‘one of many examples in this case of there being just too many curious coincidences… to be acceptable to you.’
This is taken from Mr Justice Drake's summing up at the original trial.
I would still like to know what documents he was after and why, if they were his documents, he did not keep them at his home address?
One coincidence is fine.
Two, three, four, five...?
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
The following, as with a lot of things, is speculation but potentially possible.
If Jeremy admits he used a hacksaw blade to gain access to the White House Farm this could be for a number of reasons. If it were / had been discovered that this was the means by which the murderer gained access to the property if Jeremy admits this is something he has done also but not on the nights of the murders then any independent evidence linking Jeremy to such a window could not then be conclusive as whilst he may admit to using the window such evidence would not link Jermey to the window on the night of the murders. In such circumstances such evidence could only link Jeremy to the window.
The same type of coincidences could also be said about the telephone calls, the telephone in the kitchen being off the hook, the murder weapon fingerprints and the bullets, unusually, being left in the kitchen.
In the alternative, the police missed the silencer during the initial searches of the White House Farm gun cupboard. It may be possible the silencer may have been returned to the gun cupboard after those searches had been conducted and after the police / media / autopsies had concluded 4 murders and a suicide. A possibility if Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm. The silencer was not found until sometime after the murders and if the silencer had, in fact, disappeared there would need to be an explanation as the existance of a silencer was known to others. A disappearing silencer would not have tied up with 4 murders and a suicide.
-
JB was bailed on 13th Sept.
He admits that on the 14th or 15th Sept he broke into WHF, using a hacksaw blade to open (from the outside) the window in the downstairs bathroom. (The hacksaw blade was found hidden outside.)
The housekeeper, who lived close by, held the keys and he could have asked. He could have asked the police. Yet he broke in, saying he needed 'documents for his holiday'. However, he had recently been to Amsterdam, so surely had his passport etc.
He had been in WHF many times in the month following the deaths. Why, after being arrested and bailed, the sudden need to break into the house?
The following, as with a lot of things, is speculation but potentially possible.
If Jeremy admits he used a hacksaw blade to gain access to the White House Farm this could be for a number of reasons. If it were / had been discovered that this was the means by which the murderer gained access to the property if Jeremy admits this is something he has done also but not on the nights of the murders then any independent evidence linking Jeremy to such a window could not then be conclusive as whilst he may admit to using the window such evidence would not link Jermey to the window on the night of the murders. In such circumstances such evidence could only link Jeremy to the window.
The same type of coincidences could also be said about the telephone calls, the telephone in the kitchen being off the hook, the murder weapon fingerprints and the bullets, unusually, being left in the kitchen.
In the alternative, the police missed the silencer during the initial searches of the White House Farm gun cupboard. It may be possible the silencer may have been returned to the gun cupboard after those searches had been conducted and after the police / media / autopsies had concluded 4 murders and a suicide. A possibility if Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm. The silencer was not found until sometime after the murders and if the silencer had, in fact, disappeared there would need to be an explanation as the existance of a silencer was known to others. A disappearing silencer would not have tied up with 4 murders and a suicide.
Thinking along the same lines...
A guilty person might also be checking to see if the silencer had now 'gone' and was going to become evidence.
-
enjoy your meal mb1?
-
It was lovely - thank you Andrea.
Looks like everyone was slightly shell-shocked by JB's letter appearing tonight. What do you make of it?
-
ive just posted on the thread about that!
i wouldnt have thought the ccrc will care whats on this site after all its just speculation, as long as we dont libel anybody. what do you thiink mb1?
-
What Shaw wrote isn't necessarily accurate. I doubt that Jeremy said he used the hacksaw blade, as I don't think it would be a suitable implement for opening the window, and I thought it was found lying on the ground, but not hidden. The documents Jeremy wanted might have related to some of Nevill's possessions that Jeremy was interested in selling.
-
What Shaw wrote isn't necessarily accurate. I doubt that Jeremy said he used the hacksaw blade, as I don't think it would be a suitable implement for opening the window, and I thought it was found lying on the ground, but not hidden. The documents Jeremy wanted might have related to some of Nevill's possessions that Jeremy was interested in selling.
I thought this also.
Or to get more photos of his sister to sell.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
Yes I think that's what the jury thought as well.
Pure speculation but I think I see two possibilities (which have already been mentioned) as to why he broke in. First possibility is to break in to obtain items to sell. Second is that he didn't break in and it's a direct response to cover up his break in on the night of the murders.
The fact that he'd already been bailed would suggest he took a massive risk if he did break in.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
Yes I think that's what the jury thought as well.
Pure speculation but I think I see two possibilities (which have already been mentioned) as to why he broke in. First possibility is to break in to obtain items to sell. Second is that he didn't break in and it's a direct response to cover up his break in on the night of the murders.
The fact that he'd already been bailed would suggest he took a massive risk if he did break in.
From what I understand there was no secret in the selling of items from White House Farm. If I am not mistaken, I beleive the book 'Blood Relations" mentions the selling of items etc. Additionally were not pictures of Sheila offered for sale?
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
Yes I think that's what the jury thought as well.
Pure speculation but I think I see two possibilities (which have already been mentioned) as to why he broke in. First possibility is to break in to obtain items to sell. Second is that he didn't break in and it's a direct response to cover up his break in on the night of the murders.
The fact that he'd already been bailed would suggest he took a massive risk if he did break in.
As you say, a MASSIVE risk.
Either incredible arrogance or something that was worth the risk.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
Yes I think that's what the jury thought as well.
Pure speculation but I think I see two possibilities (which have already been mentioned) as to why he broke in. First possibility is to break in to obtain items to sell. Second is that he didn't break in and it's a direct response to cover up his break in on the night of the murders.
The fact that he'd already been bailed would suggest he took a massive risk if he did break in.
As you say, a MASSIVE risk.
Either incredible arrogance or something that was worth the risk.
Looking for a blood stained silencer perhaps? (I'm joking by the way, just in case it wasn't clear).
I would have thought that more investigation into these alleged break-ins should have been warranted, both for the defence and for the prosecution. I think this could have been a very important piece of evidence if investigated correctly.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
I thought Jeremy had already been abroad to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett, so presumably he would have had to have a passport for this journey. That is if the Amsterdam trip was prior to the admission of gaining entry to White House Farm via a window.
Yes I think that's what the jury thought as well.
Pure speculation but I think I see two possibilities (which have already been mentioned) as to why he broke in. First possibility is to break in to obtain items to sell. Second is that he didn't break in and it's a direct response to cover up his break in on the night of the murders.
The fact that he'd already been bailed would suggest he took a massive risk if he did break in.
As you say, a MASSIVE risk.
Either incredible arrogance or something that was worth the risk.
Looking for a blood stained silencer perhaps? (I'm joking by the way, just in case it wasn't clear).
I would have thought that more investigation into these alleged break-ins should have been warranted, both for the defence and for the prosecution. I think this could have been a very important piece of evidence if investigated correctly.
Hartley, I treat your 'joke' seriously.
The best place to hide something from someone is somewhere they have already checked.
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
But did JB know that?
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
But did JB know that?
I don't know, but If he had been charged then I would expect him to have been told what evidence they had.
Whilst I'm inventing more speculative theories, there is of course the chance that he broke in to remove another piece of evidence.
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
But did JB know that?
I don't know, but If he had been charged then I would expect him to have been told what evidence they had.
Whilst I'm inventing more speculative theories, there is of course the chance that he broke in to remove another piece of evidence.
He was bailed. So he would have been discussing the case under caution, and had not been formally charged with 5 murders.
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
But did JB know that?
I don't know, but If he had been charged then I would expect him to have been told what evidence they had.
Whilst I'm inventing more speculative theories, there is of course the chance that he broke in to remove another piece of evidence.
He was bailed. So he would have been discussing the case under caution, and had not been formally charged with 5 murders.
Yes, of course :-[
At least I've my stupid moment over early today. ;D
-
I think the important point is Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm which in itself introduces a lot of speculation / confusion against any or all of any evidence being presented as fact or being presented in the balance of probability.
-
I think the important point is Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm which in itself introduces a lot of speculation / confusion against any or all of any evidence being presented as fact or being presented in the balance of probability.
As posted previously ......
'The following, as with a lot of things, is speculation but potentially possible.
If Jeremy admits he used a hacksaw blade to gain access to the White House Farm this could be for a number of reasons. If it were / had been discovered that this was the means by which the murderer gained access to the property if Jeremy admits this is something he has done also but not on the nights of the murders then any independent evidence linking Jeremy to such a window could not then be conclusive as whilst he may admit to using the window such evidence would not link Jermey to the window on the night of the murders. In such circumstances such evidence could only link Jeremy to the window.
The same type of coincidences could also be said about the telephone calls, the telephone in the kitchen being off the hook, the murder weapon fingerprints and the bullets, unusually, being left in the kitchen.
In the alternative, the police missed the silencer during the initial searches of the White House Farm gun cupboard. It may be possible the silencer may have been returned to the gun cupboard after those searches had been conducted and after the police / media / autopsies had concluded 4 murders and a suicide. A possibility if Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm. The silencer was not found until sometime after the murders and if the silencer had, in fact, disappeared there would need to be an explanation as the existance of a silencer was known to others. A disappearing silencer would not have tied up with 4 murders and a suicide.'
-
I suppose but by the 13th of September (if that's when these break ins occurred) then the silencer had already been found.
But did JB know that?
I don't know, but If he had been charged then I would expect him to have been told what evidence they had.
Whilst I'm inventing more speculative theories, there is of course the chance that he broke in to remove another piece of evidence.
He was bailed. So he would have been discussing the case under caution, and had not been formally charged with 5 murders.
Yes, of course :-[
At least I've my stupid moment over early today. ;D
;D
Envy your one! My daily blonde moments are definitely increasing with age.
-
I think the important point is Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm which in itself introduces a lot of speculation / confusion against any or all of any evidence being presented as fact or being presented in the balance of probability.
As posted previously ......
'The following, as with a lot of things, is speculation but potentially possible.
If Jeremy admits he used a hacksaw blade to gain access to the White House Farm this could be for a number of reasons. If it were / had been discovered that this was the means by which the murderer gained access to the property if Jeremy admits this is something he has done also but not on the nights of the murders then any independent evidence linking Jeremy to such a window could not then be conclusive as whilst he may admit to using the window such evidence would not link Jermey to the window on the night of the murders. In such circumstances such evidence could only link Jeremy to the window.
The same type of coincidences could also be said about the telephone calls, the telephone in the kitchen being off the hook, the murder weapon fingerprints and the bullets, unusually, being left in the kitchen.
In the alternative, the police missed the silencer during the initial searches of the White House Farm gun cupboard. It may be possible the silencer may have been returned to the gun cupboard after those searches had been conducted and after the police / media / autopsies had concluded 4 murders and a suicide. A possibility if Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm. The silencer was not found until sometime after the murders and if the silencer had, in fact, disappeared there would need to be an explanation as the existance of a silencer was known to others. A disappearing silencer would not have tied up with 4 murders and a suicide.'
Did see your good post yesterday and meant to comment, but at the mo working on the laptop with a WiFi dongle that has a mind of its own.
Spot on post. +1.
-
I think the important point is Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm which in itself introduces a lot of speculation / confusion against any or all of any evidence being presented as fact or being presented in the balance of probability.
As posted previously ......
'The following, as with a lot of things, is speculation but potentially possible.
If Jeremy admits he used a hacksaw blade to gain access to the White House Farm this could be for a number of reasons. If it were / had been discovered that this was the means by which the murderer gained access to the property if Jeremy admits this is something he has done also but not on the nights of the murders then any independent evidence linking Jeremy to such a window could not then be conclusive as whilst he may admit to using the window such evidence would not link Jermey to the window on the night of the murders. In such circumstances such evidence could only link Jeremy to the window.
The same type of coincidences could also be said about the telephone calls, the telephone in the kitchen being off the hook, the murder weapon fingerprints and the bullets, unusually, being left in the kitchen.
In the alternative, the police missed the silencer during the initial searches of the White House Farm gun cupboard. It may be possible the silencer may have been returned to the gun cupboard after those searches had been conducted and after the police / media / autopsies had concluded 4 murders and a suicide. A possibility if Jeremy could gain undetected access to White House Farm. The silencer was not found until sometime after the murders and if the silencer had, in fact, disappeared there would need to be an explanation as the existance of a silencer was known to others. A disappearing silencer would not have tied up with 4 murders and a suicide.'
Did see your good post yesterday and meant to comment, but at the mo working on the laptop with a WiFi dongle that has a mind of its own.
Spot on post. +1.
Thank you. There are many avenues and possibilities in this case but, it would appear, only one culprit from a potential pool of two possible persons.........
-
The phone call that may have seemed like an alibi at first has become an albatross. It points the finger at Sheila. If evidence appears to contradict Sheila as the killer, it falls back to JB.
Due to the phone call, JB versus Sheila are the only options available to the court (and a defence team).
-
I agree 100% and have always beleived the sequence and timings of the telephone calls hold the key to the mystery. Afterall it is the telephone calls, supported by the telephone logs, which initially pointed the finger at Sheilla and the murder and suicide theory / live situation.
-
The phone call that may have seemed like an alibi at first has become an albatross. It points the finger at Sheila. If evidence appears to contradict Sheila as the killer, it falls back to JB.
Due to the phone call, JB versus Sheila are the only options available to the court (and a defence team).
Plus the only identifiable fingerprints on the rifle belonged to Sheila and Jeremy, which reinforces that.
-
Perhaps JB's team are worried by Kaldin and other's dismantling of the phone 'theories'.
-
Perhaps JB's team are worried by Kaldin and other's dismantling of the phone 'theories'.
Or what started out as a fan club has turned into an even debate.
-
There is an old saying........."Be careful what you wish for"
-
The phone call that may have seemed like an alibi at first has become an albatross. It points the finger at Sheila. If evidence appears to contradict Sheila as the killer, it falls back to JB.
Due to the phone call, JB versus Sheila are the only options available to the court (and a defence team).
+1 A very good post.
-
Perhaps JB's team are worried by Kaldin and other's dismantling of the phone 'theories'.
If someone on a forum can dismantle such theories, so can a judge with many years experience. I'm not saying that if Nevill didn't phone the police that means that Jeremy is guilty, but if he relies too much on things like the alleged call from Nevill to the police, an appeal could fail again. There were many points in the 2002 appeal and perhaps they all seemed like winners to his defence team at the time, but the appeal judges just weren't buying any of them.
-
I thought they docs he needed to go abroad (on his holiday).
According to the 2002 appeal judgement, Jeremy stated "After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window." There's no mention of how he opened that window.
-
We know Jeremy broke and entered back into the house for 'papers'.
By most people's standards, having been released on bail, this was a foolish act.
Police believe it was his last attempt to cover up some tracks, since he knew he was now a suspect.
Tracks such as leverage marks at the window (which if he had broken in AFTER the murders, he could plausibly explain).
Regarding the silencer, there's a lot of ways to go on that score...
IF he did it, he could have taken the silencer with him - but, if he was caught with it, it would look bad. If it was noticed missing - that would look bad. If ballistics showed a silencer was used, and it never turned up - it looks REALLY bad and suicide definitely didn't happen.
If the silencer is found at the house, then great this works for Jeremy, but not when it's in the cupboard.
IF the silencer was next to Sheila's body, that looks pretty good... Sheila uses the silencer, then removes it to kill herself (making it easier to reach under her chin).
If the silencer is found in the cupboard, this looks bad for Bamber, as it seems less likely Sheila would have put it away as part of the suicide.
One possible explanation is that he didn't want it to be discovered missing - so makes sense to leave in the house.
He didn't want to even look like it had been used - so makes sense to put it back in the cupboard (but would have to be sure it was clean OR hope nobody would examine it, since the scene looked like a suicide anyway, and there was lots of gun stuff around).
The down side to this theory though is that he had to place ultimate faith in forensics NOT being able to know a silencer was ever used. As soon as they know that, they'd look for it.
In the end, forensics didn't know a silencer was used, and when they considered the possibility that it had been, they still couldn't prove any bullet went through it.
So did Jeremy do a bad job of cleaning it? Could he have known that backspatter might put blood inside the relatively narrow end of the silencer?
Or was he just a 25 year old who thought he could beat the system - and lost.
-
I must revise that...
we don't know he 'broke' - a window MAY have been opened already - however unlikely.
(unless we can find evidence to the contrary).
I think I may have seen him admit he used the blade, but I'm really not sure of this at all, that could be the police's assumption entirely.
Either way, he wasn't thinking straight in doing that.
The only other reason I can think of him doing it is that he didn't want anybody to know he was going away / or where. Still, lousy judgment on his part. Just goes to show - he wasn't all that clear headed (or he was in a bit of a panic that they'd go back to the house and start looking at the murder angle in more detail)
-
The summary of the appellants evidence at trial states:
The appellant claimed to have returned to the farmhouse within a day or two of his release from the Police Station, i.e. a day or two from the 13 September, and gained entry via the downstairs bathroom window. He said he had done this because he had left his keys in London and needed some documents for his trip to the South of France. The appellant did not accept that that had been an unwise thing to do bearing in mind the circumstances nor that it would have been easy for him to have borrowed keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby.
-
The summary of the appellants evidence at trial states:
The appellant claimed to have returned to the farmhouse within a day or two of his release from the Police Station, i.e. a day or two from the 13 September, and gained entry via the downstairs bathroom window. He said he had done this because he had left his keys in London and needed some documents for his trip to the South of France. The appellant did not accept that that had been an unwise thing to do bearing in mind the circumstances nor that it would have been easy for him to have borrowed keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby.
This bit about 'refusing to accept it was unwise' (in my mind) only serves to enhance the notion that we thought himself untouchable.
What harm would there be in him saying "yes, looking back, it was a bit silly, but I wasn't thinking straight". To claim it wasn't unwise just seems either stupid, or intolerably arrogant.
-
This bit about 'refusing to accept it was unwise' (in my mind) only serves to enhance the notion that we thought himself untouchable.
What harm would there be in him saying "yes, looking back, it was a bit silly, but I wasn't thinking straight". To claim it wasn't unwise just seems either stupid, or intolerably arrogant.
If he did break in (and we only have JB's word that he did) then I suppose that he wouldn't want to be seen to acknowledge that he was really in the frame, complete and utter denial, which still stands to this day. I think arrogance is part of his character, not that that makes him guilty of course.
It's also a possibility that he only broke in on the 7th August and has lied about breaking in on the 13th-14th Sept, in order to explain the hacksaw blade and any other possible evidence that he entered that window at one time or another.
-
Personally I would sooner have broken in if it were easy to do than ask the housekeeper - who think I murdered my family - for keys. Doesn't anyone else think that?
Also, my understanding is that JB was quite immature even for a 24 year old man.
-
Personally I would sooner have broken in if it were easy to do than ask the housekeeper - who think I murdered my family - for keys. Doesn't anyone else think that?
Also, my understanding is that JB was quite immature even for a 24 year old man.
I don't know, I think you could view it either way, I'm not sure I'd want to go into the house so soon after those events regardless of entry method.
I'd like to know what these documents were that he need so badly.
-
Personally I would sooner have broken in if it were easy to do than ask the housekeeper - who think I murdered my family - for keys. Doesn't anyone else think that?
Also, my understanding is that JB was quite immature even for a 24 year old man.
I don't think most people being questioned about murder would start breaking into the murder scene. At best it will do nothing, at worst, make you look guilty, but it's never going to make you look any more innocent.
It would not surprise me if SOME aspects of Jeremy's personality where childish or at least naive. He had his own home paid for by his parents - decent car, access to money etc etc, so perhaps not 'street wise' in some aspects, but far more wise in others... he'd spent a couple of years abroad!
Different lifestyle than the majority of people, but certainly not VERY unusual. Perhaps a bit 'posh' in most people's eyes.
He was about to hop off to the South of France, so I think it's fair to say he wasn't without money or wherewithal. It's hard to see how he could fail to appreciate getting back into the house, esp via this technique, and being on bail after being questioned for murder.... MIGHT be seen as a tad suspect.
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.
At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.
At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).
Exactly. So what did Jeremy do? He went on holiday instead of trying to sort out why his ex had told the police he organised a mass murder. I don't get that at all.
Surely the police must have told him the information came from Julie.
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.
At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).
Exactly. So what did Jeremy do? He went on holiday instead of trying to sort out why his ex had told the police he organised a mass murder. I don't get that at all.
Surely the police must have told him the information came from Julie.
Does anyone remember at one point JB says he did try to see if he could speak to Julie? I remember reading he said it was too late, that she had gone into hiding, but I don't remember the context in which I read this or any detail, really.
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.
At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).
Exactly. So what did Jeremy do? He went on holiday instead of trying to sort out why his ex had told the police he organised a mass murder. I don't get that at all.
Surely the police must have told him the information came from Julie.
I have no idea what they told him, but it's perfectly possible they didn't tell him. Not even that they had the other guy in too... why tell him anything he doesn't need to know?
The only reason they should be giving him info at that stage are to gauge reaction, or lead him down a certain avenue. Certainly they should have kept what they'd been told to the bare minimum (and the same for the source) (IMO)
Two days worth of questioning though... that's heavy going. He must have known then it wasn't a casual chat with them. They were quite serious about him MAYBE being involved.
They'd certainly want those two days to get ALL they could out of him without him consulting Mugford. And, I suspect once bail had been granted, Mugford had to be isolated from him, possibly for her own safety, and also to prevent intimidation, or collusion.
-
Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think? At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving. The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm. I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.
Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.
At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).
Exactly. So what did Jeremy do? He went on holiday instead of trying to sort out why his ex had told the police he organised a mass murder. I don't get that at all.
Surely the police must have told him the information came from Julie.
Does anyone remember at one point JB says he did try to see if he could speak to Julie? I remember reading he said it was too late, that she had gone into hiding, but I don't remember the context in which I read this or any detail, really.
I don't remember that but there might be some more info in SFJ - will go and look.
-
I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.
My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside
-
I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.
My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside
Crikey!!! I'd get that fixed right away. ;)
-
I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.
My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside
But you've not been murdered and she's not just been questioned for murdering your and your house isn't the scene of the crime.
I don't think many people thought much of Bamber having 'got into the house' when his parents were alive and well - the sort of thing a young lad might do...
But not in the circumstances in which he found himself!
-
I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.
My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside
But you've not been murdered and she's not just been questioned for murdering your and your house isn't the scene of the crime.
I don't think many people thought much of Bamber having 'got into the house' when his parents were alive and well - the sort of thing a young lad might do...
But not in the circumstances in which he found himself!
I think if he were in the habit of doing it - not being the most sensible of young men - he'd not have thought much of doing it by that point in spite of having been questioned by the police. (That's just my opinion at the present time).
-
On the question of Jeremy's bail, I refer again to Colin Caffell's book, 1994.
Page 98
"At an appearance in court he was released on bail, despite police objections. Apparently the money had been put up by members of his family - obviously not those who condemned him - so they weren't all against him".
I was always under the impression the whole of his surviving family was against him?
Interesting. Do you mean the first time he was arrested or the second? I assumed he'd been remanded in custody after the second arrest.
-
This was the 13th September 85, his first arrest. On page 99 it says that Stan Jones phoned just before midnight Sunday 29th Sept to say that Jeremy had been arrested at Dover.
I see. I assumed that Jeremy had been bailed from the police station on 13th September because they didn't have enough evidence. He hadn't been in court at that stage had he? I didn't think you had to put up bail money in those circumstances. Surely they wouldn't have let him go abroad either.
-
He was Police Bailed (not the same as Court Bail)
Fairly sure no money is required. He's not been charged yet.
-
Police Bail is simply "We will need to speak to you again, so we are officially telling you think, make yourself available to us on the date we've agreed, or you're in trouble"
I don't believe any security (money) is required.
They would have had 24 hours to question him (possibly reported as 'two days' since it would effectively cross two days).
They will have the least cautioned him (prior to questioning, because they are required to do so) - that's basically informing him that any interview is potentially being used as evidence. The probably arrested him, but can't be sure.
I'm not sure what the law was in 1985 with regard to Police Bail and Arrest. I think the Bail implies an arrest was made - but needs to be verified.
-
So you're saying Colin was wrong when he said that the money had been put up by members of the family?
Not at all, we are trying to determine WHICH bail / which arrest.
He was questioned in the 11th (poss 12th) and released on Police Bail on the 13th... (after which he broke into WHF, then went on holiday to South of France).
When he returned, he was arrested and charged.
These days, a suspect facing a murder charge is VERY unlikely to be granted bail, and if so has to be done by a crown court judge. Back in 1985, I 'think' a Magistrate could do so. (the law changed to prevent magistrates doing so, but I can't recall the precise dates)
AND, because it's in a book that Colin said so and so, doesn't mean Colin DID say that. He could have said they were prepared to put up bail....
I don't know either way, we're just trying to piece together bits of information and rule out what cannot be true, and keep in what could be true (some stuff can be proven to be wrong sometimes)
-
So you're saying Colin was wrong when he said that the money had been put up by members of the family?
Not at all, we are trying to determine WHICH bail / which arrest.
He was questioned in the 11th (poss 12th) and released on Police Bail on the 13th... (after which he broke into WHF, then went on holiday to South of France).
When he returned, he was arrested and charged.
These days, a suspect facing a murder charge is VERY unlikely to be granted bail, and if so has to be done by a crown court judge. Back in 1985, I 'think' a Magistrate could do so. (the law changed to prevent magistrates doing so, but I can't recall the precise dates)
AND, because it's in a book that Colin said so and so, doesn't mean Colin DID say that. He could have said they were prepared to put up bail....
I don't know either way, we're just trying to piece together bits of information and rule out what cannot be true, and keep in what could be true (some stuff can be proven to be wrong sometimes)
According to the Appeal document, he was arrested on 8th September and questioned over the next three days. He was bailed from the police station on 13th September. It's not clear if he was in custody or not all that time.
I don't think he would have had to put up bail, so maybe there's some confusion about what happened.
-
Perhaps the Dickinson report might clarify what happened - it's quite a lengthy document. It's on SFJ but it only goes up to 6th September on there.
-
Perhaps the Dickinson report might clarify what happened - it's quite a lengthy document. It's on SFJ but it only goes up to 6th September on there.
------------------
Dickinson report contents - will be published here, in due course...
-
Bail
Does this relate to bail for the robbery at the Caravan park?
Hacksaw
Just want to remind everyone...
By the time they went to trial, JB and his defence team were aware that he had been placed under surveillance. When the question of the hacksaw came up, JB gave an approximate date that fitted with the surveillance dates as he assumed that the police had covertly witnessed him breaking in and was uncertain where the line of questioning was going.
The date JB gave disagreed with the date he had given in his statement to the police.
Had the prosecution been wide awake, they would have pinned him into a 'liar's corner'.
Fortunately for JB, the prosecution was primarily concerned with the admission of hacksaw use/breaking in and didn't identify the inconsistency in his answer.
Since the trial, realising the police surveillance had not witnessed him breaking in to WHF, the date has changed yet again.
This is moulding stories to fit known facts, rather than the truth...