Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: TheBrilliantMistake on March 12, 2011, 01:46:PM
-
WPC Jeapes gave evidence in her testimony that prior to the Armed Response Unit going into the house, she was position to give cover and observation at the front side of the house (they colour coded the sides, so if you read testimony be careful of 'white side' and 'green side' etc)
She states that she thought she saw would COULD have been a gun up against the window in the front left set bedroom window (the main/master bedroom).
Now, one should take care to note that she says it COULD have been a gun, and that that was her interpretation of what it was. So much so she sought fit to say so in her testimony... so we have to give some consideration to her observation.
If it wasn't a gun, what was it?
Curtain shading? seam?
Glass imperfection in the light?
Reflections / shadow caused by the mullions (vertical bars)?
Of course, it could have been what she suspected. A gun!
Now, since she wasn't certain -
- Is there any record of her informing her colleagues of this prior to entry into the house?
- Why didn't she seek confirmation from a colleague who was stood a few feet away? (would it not be wise to get this checked out if your colleagues are entering a house with a weapon potentially being wielded?
- Given the photos of the actual gun at the window taken from the bedroom door (commonly available photo), the body of the gun only just rises above the sill of the window leaving only the barrel (and possibly silencer) clearly visible over the sill height (hope I'm describing this well enough).
From Jeapes' position at ground level (approx 12ft lower than the window) the angle she could see would almost certainly stop her being able to see the body of the gun. But the barrel would be visible (in theory). If the bedroom light were on, then I'd expect it to be much more visible, if the lights were off, then it would be significantly harder to accurately identify.
- Could her plain English version of "I saw what could have been a gun" just that - a polite version of "I saw a gun"? and too much being made of the 'could' aspect.
What are the thoughts on this?
She WAS a trained firearms officer, so ought to have good eyesight and observational skills.
But she said by her own admission, she only thought it COULD have been a gun
And why are there no records (that we've seen) detailing this significant (in my eyes) observation
-
Think there was already a recent thread startedby mike about this which had a copy of her statement on it. Would it be better to use that thread?
-
Think there was already a recent thread startedby mike about this which had a copy of her statement on it. Would it be better to use that thread?
Mike tends to put forward assertions as fact and it's downright misleading.
I personally much prefer (if possible) a fairer layout of the evidence and a discussion.
It's neither she was right, or wrong - just 'what do we make of it' and can we break it, or secure it?
-
Think there was already a recent thread startedby mike about this which had a copy of her statement on it. Would it be better to use that thread?
Mike tends to put forward assertions as fact and it's downright misleading.
I personally much prefer (if possible) a fairer layout of the evidence and a discussion.
It's neither she was right, or wrong - just 'what do we make of it' and can we break it, or secure it?
--------------
its a bit like the assertions which have been put down bhy others in support of the prosecution case, and of course that is downright misleading as well...
-
Think there was already a recent thread startedby mike about this which had a copy of her statement on it. Would it be better to use that thread?
Mike tends to put forward assertions as fact and it's downright misleading.
I personally much prefer (if possible) a fairer layout of the evidence and a discussion.
It's neither she was right, or wrong - just 'what do we make of it' and can we break it, or secure it?
--------------
its a bit like the assertions which have been put down bhy others in support of the prosecution case, and of course that is downright misleading as well...
Not really, because I'm trying to state both sides of the case and use terms like 'IF' and present multiple scenarios the support both sides.
I will often say "if Jeremy did it, then...." followed by a counter of "if Sheila did it, then..."
I think that's quite different indeed.
-
Think there was already a recent thread startedby mike about this which had a copy of her statement on it. Would it be better to use that thread?
Mike tends to put forward assertions as fact and it's downright misleading.
I personally much prefer (if possible) a fairer layout of the evidence and a discussion.
It's neither she was right, or wrong - just 'what do we make of it' and can we break it, or secure it?
--------------
its a bit like the assertions which have been put down bhy others in support of the prosecution case, and of course that is downright misleading as well...
Not really, because I'm trying to state both sides of the case and use terms like 'IF' and present multiple scenarios the support both sides.
I will often say "if Jeremy did it, then...." followed by a counter of "if Sheila did it, then..."
I think that's quite different indeed.
--------------------
From your point of view, perhaps, but not from my point of view...