Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 08, 2011, 08:29:PM
-
Theory about re-enactment for consideration?
The detail contained in the police radio message logs about what armed officers found once they got into the farmhouse (two bodies found upon a entry to the scene, one dead male, one dead female, and a further three bodies upstairs by 8:10am, does not match with the details given by the members of the raid team, who claim to have carried out the original raid...
Log details, versus, Statement accounts, do not match or tally...
The reason for this, could be because the identities of the original members of the raid team which first went into the farmhouse, in compliance with the details of the police radio message logs, have been substituted for the other officers who actually carried out the re-enactment...
The disclosed witness statements, purporting to have been made by the armed police officers at just after 7:30am, may not be the original version of events, but rather part of the re-enactment that was performed between 9:00 and 9:22am, that morning...
For some bizarre reason, none of the armed police officers who claim they went into the building originally, make any timed references to any of the actions they performed inside the farmhouse at all...
Is the identity of the original officers who went into the farmhouse being deliberately withheld?
-
Contents of police radio message logs, and Raid Teams witness statements, to appear here
The detail contained in these six documents, provides a detailed insight into what was talking place at the scene, on the morning of 7th August 1985. In particular, with regard to the fact that police found two bodies which they believed / assumed to be dead, one a murder and the other a suicide, upon entering the building at just after 7:30am:-
Points to take into consideration by referral to attached (six) documents...
(Document one)
7:30hrs - bodies - + female
(Document One )
7:38hrs - request Ch Supt. - to be advised. DCI to attend scene, SOC. Coroners officer informed. Police surgeon to attend
(Document Six )
7:38hrs - One dead male, One dead female, found on entry to premises. Request 1), SOC to attend, 2), Ch Supt. Divisional to attend, 3), Divisional DCI attend, 4), Police surgeon attened, 5), Coroners officer informed only...
(Document Two )
7:40hrs From Det / Insp I/R. Police entered premises male dead, 1 female dead
(Document Three )
7:43hrs - PC Wright, Corners officer informed only...
(Document Three )
7:45hrs - Ds Davidson informed and attending ETA 1/2 hr @ CD
(Document Three )
7:45hrs - DS Davidson informed by Leslie that police at whf are dealing with a murder and a suiicde
(Document Three)
7:47hrs - police surgeon requested via CW
(Document Five )
7:48hrs - will you call out your police surgeon to attend white house farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy, to examine two bodies. Please reply with ETA and name of doctor...
(Document Three )
8:08hrs - Dr Craig attending within 5 - 10 minutes (Via CW)
(Document Three )
8:10hrs - Have now been thoroughly searched by firearms team. Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found - five dead in total (Info from Duty Inspector HQIR)
-
hmmmm
just hmmmmm
BUT....
the 're-enactment' title got me thinking. Did anybody ever do a re-enactment (of the whole crime)?
I for one have looked at Google Earth many times (but it's not ideal) to get a feel for this 'across the fields' theory.
I know much speculation revolved around his mother's bike and that possibly being used, but riding over a field on such a bicycle would be interesting to test (and time).
esp in the dark!
-
I don't get why people keep calling it a "re-enactment". Perhaps someone could define what that means.
-
I don't get why people keep calling it a "re-enactment". Perhaps someone could define what that means.
------------------------------
A re-run of the raid into the farmhouse...
-
Why oh why in that text are there just two errors scribbled out...
and can you guess the area?
Yep - body in the kitchen.
It's like the bloody X-Files this case.
If ONLY someone had written, "woman wasn't found" or they could now 'see' what it was that made them suspect a woman but having entered, could see it was his pyjamas, or something.
I think you know what I mean...
"Suspected woman's foot now visible, belonging to a male. Confirming, two body issue resolved" blah blah blah.
-
Contents of police radio message logs, and Raid Teams witness statements, to appear here
The top document only states 'body' not bodies as in plural?
-
Contents of police radio message logs, and Raid Teams witness statements, to appear here
The top document only states 'body' not bodies as in plural?
My God, I think I'm turning into Mike Tesko!!! BUT....
If you look at the bottom of the page where he describes entry in the kitchen and finding a male.... the first scribbled out word actually looks like 'Bodies' (zoom in of you can). It looks like it's crossed out and replaced with the word 'entry'.
-
That's right. The first word appears to be "Bodies" crossed out, and at the end of the line it can be seen that "+ Female" or "& Female" has been scribbled out (where "&" is a symbol more like "+" that is commonly used as an easier to write form of a true ampersand).
-
I will add the other records, by attaching them onto the back of the earlier posts:-
-
Contents of police radio message logs, and Raid Teams witness statements, to appear here
The top document only states 'body' not bodies as in plural?
My God, I think I'm turning into Mike Tesko!!! BUT....
If you look at the bottom of the page where he describes entry in the kitchen and finding a male.... the first scribbled out word actually looks like 'Bodies' (zoom in of you can). It looks like it's crossed out and replaced with the word 'entry'.
(It wont let me zoom in). I still dont get it though. Why would write bodies at the begining of a line on the page and then write male + female on the end of that same line. What's written in between those two entries doesn't make sense when trying to fit it in with those two ends. Or am I being thick? ???
-
Presumably the message was originally going to be "Bodies of a male ...", but was restarted to clarify the circumstances at the start of the sentence. That meant that "bodies found" might be expected in the reworded sentence, but "bodies found" can easily be misheard as "body found".
-
Anyone who reads the contents of the attached six documents can't help but notice that there appears to be a significant amount of continuity contained in all of these messages, which focus upon the fact that two bodies were discovered upon entry to the premises, on e was a dead male, and the other a dead female, and one which was a murder and the other as suicide...
Two bodies were found downstairs(One dead male and one dead female) from 7:30am, and only three bodies found upstairs (June and the two children) by 8:10am...
-
Anyone who reads the contents of the attached six documents can't help but notice that there appears to be a significant amount of continuity contained in all of these messages, which focus upon the fact that two bodies were discovered upon entry to the premises, on e was a dead male, and the other a dead female, and one which was a murder and the other as suicide...
Two bodies were found downstairs(One dead male and one dead female) from 7:30am, and only three bodies found upstairs (June and the two children) by 8:10am...
Even though that line I mentioned is a bit strange, I can accept Readers' suggestion for a possible explanation, as this is a radio log. I think the mistake would have been corrected, if it was a mistake. Police may have been dealing with an intense situation unfolding but surely a mistake like that would be corrected with a bit more detail? mike are there any other original logs / pocket books which have not been displayed? (i.e. that are currently available to the defence and not missing or PII)
-
I will add the other records, by attaching them onto the back of the earlier posts:-
Mike, the top line of the second document is missing, or so it appears. A line above "PC Wright, coroners office, informed only".
-
What is the document entitled "Sequence of Events"? Can you post anymore of it?
It reads "0745 07/08/85. I was at home when I received a telephone call from CD Control (Lesley) who requested I turn out as they were dealing with a murder and a suicide."
Is there another document which refers to a murder and a suicide? Recently I mentioned on the forum having seen a document which referred to "one murder, one suicide" but couldn't recall what it was and no-one else seemed to either so I wondered whether I could have misremembered something, but perhaps it was this document.
Could they have been talking about a suicide as early as 7:45am? What is this document? How long after the event was it written?
-
I will add the other records, by attaching them onto the back of the earlier posts:-
Mike, the top line of the second document is missing, or so it appears. A line above "PC Wright, coroners office, informed only".
-----------------------
I will try to lay my hands upon a clearer copy if possible and post it, if and when I come across it...
-
What is the document entitled "Sequence of Events"? Can you post anymore of it?
It reads "0745 07/08/85. I was at home when I received a telephone call from CD Control (Lesley) who requested I turn out as they were dealing with a murder and a suicide."
Is there another document which refers to a murder and a suicide? Recently I mentioned on the forum having seen a document which referred to "one murder, one suicide" but couldn't recall what it was and no-one else seemed to either so I wondered whether I could have misremembered something, but perhaps it was this document.
Could they have been talking about a suicide as early as 7:45am? What is this document? How long after the event was it written?
---------------------------------
It mentions in DS Davidson notebook that he wrote up on 7th August 1985, that he was called out from home because police were dealing with a murder suicide at whf...
-
(It won't let me zoom in).
Almost any image can be enlarged. What browser are you using that seems not to do that for you?
-
AVG Reader. Was zooming in yesterday, maybe that was google
-
AVG Reader. Was zooming in yesterday, maybe that was google
I have to right-click on the image and copy the image/link location and then paste into a new tab before I can zoom in, whereas it used to be possible here just to click and it would open in a new window.
-
AVG Reader. Was zooming in yesterday, maybe that was google
I have to right-click on the image and copy the image/link location and then paste into a new tab before I can zoom in, whereas it used to be possible here just to click and it would open in a new window.
cheers, i'll try that tomorrow. getting dry eyes off this forum. it's too addictive. :P
-
AVG Reader. Was zooming in yesterday, maybe that was google
I have to right-click on the image and copy the image/link location and then paste into a new tab before I can zoom in, whereas it used to be possible here just to click and it would open in a new window.
cheers, i'll try that tomorrow. getting dry eyes off this forum. it's too addictive. :P
Or just hold down ctrl and roll the mouse wheel forward and back to zoom in/out.
-
AVG Reader. Was zooming in yesterday, maybe that was google
I have to right-click on the image and copy the image/link location and then paste into a new tab before I can zoom in, whereas it used to be possible here just to click and it would open in a new window.
cheers, i'll try that tomorrow. getting dry eyes off this forum. it's too addictive. :P
Or just hold down ctrl and roll the mouse wheel forward and back to zoom in/out.
Of course! I'd forgotten how to do that.
Well done - that makes it a lot easier to read stuff.
Cheers.
;D