Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 17, 2011, 12:58:PM
-
EP were desperately trying to identify a male suspect, who was seen by PC Myall at 3.45am...
-
Who could this unidentified male person have been?
-
Who could this unidentified male person have been?
Mike
Is your view that this was Nevill, or do you think it was someone else?
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
Suddenly, everything's been fast forwarded 10 minutes...
Even accepting that, on my reckoning they didn't exit the cars until 3.52am (4.02am)?
-
Who could this unidentified male person have been?
Hmm, i wonder.
-
Who could this unidentified male person have been?
The Phantom of the Opera maybe?
-
Nobody thought to ask him who he was? or give chase?
Sounds about right... let him go, then ask for him to come forward in the morning. Policing at its best.
Are you sure he didn't see a 'shady figure' - in which case it could have been any of 30 police officers ;-)
-
Who could this unidentified male person have been?
The Phantom of the Opera maybe?
;D
-
One minute these pesky coppers are architects of a cover up, the next they are credible witnesses who saw events that support Jeremy.
I've ever so confused.
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.
Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
-
It's all a bit like the boy who cried wolf isn't it? There have been so many red herrings, so much speculation presented as fact, and so many unrealistic claims that if some new evidence does actually come up it may well be ignored.
Perhaps the defence is hoping that if the appeal goes ahead, the judges will release Jeremy just to get some peace. ;D
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.
It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.
Someone...
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.
It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.
Someone...
I'll go first then. ;)
Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.
Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)
I entirely agree . I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal. If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF. His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely. The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits. On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer. In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction. The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted.
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.
It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.
Someone...
I'll go first then. ;)
Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.
OK, I will do it... a brand new thread, but one where the opening few posts are ALWAYS the 'master' description. Might take me a while though and I'll need input!
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.
It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.
Someone...
I'll go first then. ;)
Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.
OK, I will do it... a brand new thread, but one where the opening few posts are ALWAYS the 'master' description. Might take me a while though and I'll need input!
You're a star! :)
Agree re 'Master' post.
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.
Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)
I entirely agree . I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal. If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF. His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely. The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits. On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer. In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction. The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted.
I agree - the silencer has been the sticking point for the defence all the way. It was the sticking point 26 years ago, and it still is now, despite the subsequent DNA evidence.
The problem is that I can't see how the silencer evidence can be discounted without pointing the finger at the relatives. There was human blood on and in that silencer - I don't think there is much doubt about that.
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
----------------------
Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?
So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...
The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
----------------------
Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?
So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...
The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...
Well obviously someone got their times mixed up. That's not exactly unusual is it?
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.
Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)
I entirely agree . I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal. If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF. His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely. The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits. On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer. In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction. The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted.
I agree - the silencer has been the sticking point for the defence all the way. It was the sticking point 26 years ago, and it still is now, despite the subsequent DNA evidence.
The problem is that I can't see how the silencer evidence can be discounted without pointing the finger at the relatives. There was human blood on and in that silencer - I don't think there is much doubt about that.
On the point of the silencer
The Police missed the silencer when searching the gun cupboard.
The keys to White House Farm were given to Ann Eaton (I beleive I read in 'Blood Relations' Jeremy did not want the keys and had appointed / was going to appoint Ann Eaton's husband as farm manager)
Jeremy had admitted to gaining access to White House Farm via a window after the murders.
The relatives when in White House Farm find the silencer (which they knew existed) some days after the tragedy.
A counter argument / explantion to the issues surrounding silencer from the prosecution perspective could easily be............... maybe Jeremy put the silencer back in the gun cupboard between the time of the murders and the time Ann Eaton returned to White House Farm in possession of the keys. The silencer would be missed by the relatives if it was not there.
As such a time it was the case that to all intense and purposes the tragedy was accepted by the Police as being four murders and a suicide.
I think I have read somewhere that Jeremy's explanation for gaining access to White House Farm via the window was to get his passport for a holiday abroad in September....... but Jeremy went to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett just after the murders. Please correct if incorrect.
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
----------------------
Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?
So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...
The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...
Well obviously someone got their times mixed up. That's not exactly unusual is it?
----------------------
Yes, they got their times mixed up alright, and it will be their undoing...
CA7 and its occupants were at the scene by 3:38am, not 3:48am...
PC Myall could not have made his report about the unidentified male he saw at the scene at 3:45am, if he and the other police officers (Bews and Saxby) were not already there at the scene before 3:45am...
Its simple...
What this means, is that the reference to the arrival at the scene of CA7 at 3:48am, is incorrect, by ten minutes...
This means that there is a very good likelihood that all the other timed references which form part of the Bonnet log, were also out of synchronization by the same ten minutes...
If PC Myall made the sighting he made at 3:45am, there is no other alternative ex[pl;nation other than to accept that CA7 and its occupants, and JB, all arrived there at the scene, ten minutes before the times allotted to those events...
Here is evidence, that Bonnets log and timed events was out of synchronization by the same ten minutes that PC West sought to rely upon when suggesting that JB's call had been received by him at 3:26am, not 3:36am?
This suggests in the strongest possible terms, that the timings in the Bonnet logs, and PC West's log, were all wrong, and needed to be adjusted by the same ten minute adjustment principle...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
----------------------
Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?
So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...
The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...
Well obviously someone got their times mixed up. That's not exactly unusual is it?
----------------------
Yes, they got their times mixed up alright, and it will be their undoing...
CA7 and its occupants were at the scene by 3:38am, not 3:48am...
PC Myall could not have made his report about the unidentified male he saw at the scene at 3:45am, if he and the other police officers (Bews and Saxby) were not already there at the scene before 3:45am...
Its simple...
What this means, is that the reference to the arrival at the scene of CA7 at 3:48am, is incorrect, by ten minutes...
This means that there is a very good likelihood that all the other timed references which form part of the Bonnet log, were also out of synchronization by the same ten minutes...
If PC Myall made the sighting he made at 3:45am, there is no other alternative ex[pl;nation other than to accept that CA7 and its occupants, and JB, all arrived there at the scene, ten minutes before the times allotted to those events...
Here is evidence, that Bonnets log and timed events was out of synchronization by the same ten minutes that PC West sought to rely upon when suggesting that JB's call had been received by him at 3:26am, not 3:36am?
This suggests in the strongest possible terms, that the timings in the Bonnet logs, and PC West's log, were all wrong, and needed to be adjusted by the same ten minute adjustment principle...
So now Malcolm Bonnet is also lying according to you. Any more liars out there?
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
You don't have that document then. I thought not.
I'm getting mightily tired of the bullshit on this forum ...
-
And so, here we have it, the cat is out of the bag - an official EP document which confirms that PC Myall, saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, on the morning of 7th August 1985. Here at last, is proof positive, that the police did see a person at the bedroom window, not only a person, or as the case may be, a trick of light, or the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window (Bews) but whatever they saw, PC Myall saw enough of the figure to warrant a report being made by him, inwhich he describes the figure as an unidentified male person...
An UNIDENTIFIED MALE PERSON?
imagine that...
So much weight was placed upon this sighting made by PC Myall, that EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was, or could have been?
Hence, one of the reasons why they seized the answer phone and the audio tapes from JB's cottage...
-
And so, here we have it, the cat is out of the bag - an official EP document which confirms that PC Myall, saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, on the morning of 7th August 1985. Here at last, is proof positive, that the police did see a person at the bedroom window, not only a person, or as the case may be, a trick of light, or the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window (Bews) but whatever they saw, PC Myall saw enough of the figure to warrant a report being made by him, inwhich he describes the figure as an unidentified male person...
An UNIDENTIFIED MALE PERSON?
imagine that...
So much weight was placed upon this sighting made by PC Myall, that EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was, or could have been?
Hence, one of the reasons why they seized the answer phone and the audio tapes from JB's cottage...
Still waiting for that proof.
-
It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.
I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.
The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.
There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.
I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.
I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.
----------------------
Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?
So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...
The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...
Well obviously someone got their times mixed up. That's not exactly unusual is it?
----------------------
Yes, they got their times mixed up alright, and it will be their undoing...
CA7 and its occupants were at the scene by 3:38am, not 3:48am...
PC Myall could not have made his report about the unidentified male he saw at the scene at 3:45am, if he and the other police officers (Bews and Saxby) were not already there at the scene before 3:45am...
Its simple...
What this means, is that the reference to the arrival at the scene of CA7 at 3:48am, is incorrect, by ten minutes...
This means that there is a very good likelihood that all the other timed references which form part of the Bonnet log, were also out of synchronization by the same ten minutes...
If PC Myall made the sighting he made at 3:45am, there is no other alternative ex[pl;nation other than to accept that CA7 and its occupants, and JB, all arrived there at the scene, ten minutes before the times allotted to those events...
Here is evidence, that Bonnets log and timed events was out of synchronization by the same ten minutes that PC West sought to rely upon when suggesting that JB's call had been received by him at 3:26am, not 3:36am?
This suggests in the strongest possible terms, that the timings in the Bonnet logs, and PC West's log, were all wrong, and needed to be adjusted by the same ten minute adjustment principle...
So now Malcolm Bonnet is also lying according to you. Any more liars out there?
-------------------
Stop using that pathetic excuse every time you don't have an answer...
Get used to it, police do tell lies and they do fabricate evidence...
-
So the police were so convinced that there was a "hitman" in the house that they told everyone that Sheila killed them all and then herself. Yeah, right ....
-
And so, here we have it, the cat is out of the bag - an official EP document which confirms that PC Myall, saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, on the morning of 7th August 1985. Here at last, is proof positive, that the police did see a person at the bedroom window, not only a person, or as the case may be, a trick of light, or the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window (Bews) but whatever they saw, PC Myall saw enough of the figure to warrant a report being made by him, inwhich he describes the figure as an unidentified male person...
An UNIDENTIFIED MALE PERSON?
imagine that...
So much weight was placed upon this sighting made by PC Myall, that EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was, or could have been?
Hence, one of the reasons why they seized the answer phone and the audio tapes from JB's cottage...
Still waiting for that proof.
-------------------------
Keep waiting, and keep relying on those pathetic excuses that you keep coming up with...
-
So the police were so convinced that there was a "hitman" in the house that they told everyone that Sheila killed them all and then herself. Yeah, right ....
----------------------
You are getting more and more pathetic by the moment...
-
In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.
Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?
I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
-----------------------------
The police case is a ludicrous one...
-
PC Myall sees an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am - but if he didn't get there until 3:48am, how could he have?
Is that the best you can do?
Can't you get your brain into gear and work it out that he might just have got to the scene before 3:45am?
If he got there before 3:45am, then of course the timings in Bonnets log are wrong and inaccurate, and he appears to make the same mistake that PC West chooses to rely upon, with regard to the timings in his own phone log (3:36am)?
-
Still waiting for proof that Myall saw a male figure at a window at 3.45 ....
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
To Mike Tesko:
It has previously been asserted that JB, Myall and Bews arrived at WHF at a later time.
You are now stating the time was much earlier without providing proof of same.
Do you see our problem with that?
MIP
Are you able to post the MIP document?
If not, are you stating with certainty that this is in the possession of JB's defence team? Since when?
Or is this speculation as to what may be in the MIP?
Answerphone
The seizure must be documented. Do you and/or JB's defence have possession of this document? Since when? Can you post it?
Earlier in this thread you stated that the tapes were examined, so there should be a specialist's report, even if it is inconclusive. Do you and/or JB's defence have the report? Since when? Can you post it?
Thanks.
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
Hang on a second Mike, I believe you started the following thread
"Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls"
That thread includes the following -
Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls
Ralph Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Ralph calls Jeremy
(2) 03:26am - Ralph calls police
(3) 03:35am - Ca07 and occupants are deployed to the scene at whf
(4) 03:48am - CA07 arrives at whf
(5) 04:02am - CA07 makes a request from the scene for the firearms team to be deployed
Jeremy Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Jeremy receives call from Ralph
(2) 03:30am - Jeremy calls Julie Mugford
(3) 03:36am - Jeremy calls police
(4) 03:36am - CA06 deployed to scene at whf in response to Jeremy's call
(5) 03:45am - Jeremy leaves cottage to go to scene at whf
(6) 03:52am - Jeremy arrives at whf
(7) 04:00am - Jeremy and police see silhouetted figure at bedroom window of whf
(8) 04:23am - CA06 arrives at the scene, whf
Now you are saying…………
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
In my opinion, I am afraid the above include major contradictions and require some kind of a detailed explanation.
-
PC Myall's claim that he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, undermines the timings which have been recorded in Bonnets log (3:26am) in the same way that the timings in PC West's log (3:36am) are undermined by the excuse that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast - well, my point is this, now that we have established that the timings in both phone logs cannot be accurate, does it not suggest in the strongest possible terms that both West and Bonnet were relying upon the same clock, which was ten minutes out of synchronization?
I think so...
It would be asking too much to expect us to believe that there were two different clocks relied upon by Bonnet and West, and that both clocks were ten minutes out of synchronization...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
You don't have that document then. I thought not.
I'm getting mightily tired of the bullshit on this forum ...
------------------
yeah, what you keep relying upon...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
Hang on a second Mike, I believe you started the following thread
"Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls"
That thread includes the following -
Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls
Ralph Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Ralph calls Jeremy
(2) 03:26am - Ralph calls police
(3) 03:35am - Ca07 and occupants are deployed to the scene at whf
(4) 03:48am - CA07 arrives at whf
(5) 04:02am - CA07 makes a request from the scene for the firearms team to be deployed
Jeremy Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Jeremy receives call from Ralph
(2) 03:30am - Jeremy calls Julie Mugford
(3) 03:36am - Jeremy calls police
(4) 03:36am - CA06 deployed to scene at whf in response to Jeremy's call
(5) 03:45am - Jeremy leaves cottage to go to scene at whf
(6) 03:52am - Jeremy arrives at whf
(7) 04:00am - Jeremy and police see silhouetted figure at bedroom window of whf
(8) 04:23am - CA06 arrives at the scene, whf
Now you are saying…………
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
In my opinion, I am afraid the above include major contradictions and require some kind of a detailed explanation.
Good luck with that ....
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
You don't have that document then. I thought not.
I'm getting mightily tired of the bullshit on this forum ...
------------------
yeah, what you keep relying upon...
I'm not relying on your daft claims ....
-
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
From what I can gather, JB seems to have maintained a deliberate policy of always keeping some "new" evidence back from each review/appeal, so that he can always subsequently present something "new" to trigger further appeals.
This seems a little odd. I think if I was innocent and granted an appeal I'd want to throw everything I knew that might help me into that process so as to maximise my chances. I don't think I'd think of retaining some evidence so I could have another go at some later stage.
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
Hang on a second Mike, I believe you started the following thread
"Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls"
That thread includes the following -
Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls
Ralph Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Ralph calls Jeremy
(2) 03:26am - Ralph calls police
(3) 03:35am - Ca07 and occupants are deployed to the scene at whf
(4) 03:48am - CA07 arrives at whf
(5) 04:02am - CA07 makes a request from the scene for the firearms team to be deployed
Jeremy Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Jeremy receives call from Ralph
(2) 03:30am - Jeremy calls Julie Mugford
(3) 03:36am - Jeremy calls police
(4) 03:36am - CA06 deployed to scene at whf in response to Jeremy's call
(5) 03:45am - Jeremy leaves cottage to go to scene at whf
(6) 03:52am - Jeremy arrives at whf
(7) 04:00am - Jeremy and police see silhouetted figure at bedroom window of whf
(8) 04:23am - CA06 arrives at the scene, whf
Now you are saying…………
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
In my opinion, I am afraid the above include major contradictions and require some kind of a detailed explanation.
--------------------------
Hang on a minute, yourself - I am not saying that Bews, Saxby and Myall arrived at the scene on an earlier occasion - PC Myall is / does...
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
Hang on a second Mike, I believe you started the following thread
"Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls"
That thread includes the following -
Timetable of Events - Ralph / Jeremy phone calls
Ralph Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Ralph calls Jeremy
(2) 03:26am - Ralph calls police
(3) 03:35am - Ca07 and occupants are deployed to the scene at whf
(4) 03:48am - CA07 arrives at whf
(5) 04:02am - CA07 makes a request from the scene for the firearms team to be deployed
Jeremy Bamber
(1) 03:25am - Jeremy receives call from Ralph
(2) 03:30am - Jeremy calls Julie Mugford
(3) 03:36am - Jeremy calls police
(4) 03:36am - CA06 deployed to scene at whf in response to Jeremy's call
(5) 03:45am - Jeremy leaves cottage to go to scene at whf
(6) 03:52am - Jeremy arrives at whf
(7) 04:00am - Jeremy and police see silhouetted figure at bedroom window of whf
(8) 04:23am - CA06 arrives at the scene, whf
Now you are saying…………
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
In my opinion, I am afraid the above include major contradictions and require some kind of a detailed explanation.
Good luck with that ....
---------------------
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
-
I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.
From what I can gather, JB seems to have maintained a deliberate policy of always keeping some "new" evidence back from each review/appeal, so that he can always subsequently present something "new" to trigger further appeals.
This seems a little odd. I think if I was innocent and granted an appeal I'd want to throw everything I knew that might help me into that process so as to maximise my chances. I don't think I'd think of retaining some evidence so I could have another go at some later stage.
-----------------------
Yes, well at the last appeal (2002) that approach didn't work at all, so there is the problem...
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Nothing, because it's bullshit ....
-
Mike your post says 'Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...'
and includes the comment 'its a nailed on certainty.....'
This, to me, is you saying they were there by 3.45am
-
PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.
-------------------------
Oh, yes he was...
Oh no he wasn't ...
----
Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...
Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...
How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?
Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...
The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...
These are the FACTS...
It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...
This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...
Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.
-----------------------
I am afraid the only person making anything up, is you...
You don't have that document then. I thought not.
I'm getting mightily tired of the bullshit on this forum ...
------------------
yeah, what you keep relying upon...
I'm not relying on your daft claims ....
---------------------
Rely on your own daft claims then...
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Nothing, because it's bullshit ....
---------------------------
You describe your views very well...
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Could you just post a copy of the document that shows this Mike then the issue would be resolved. Cheers.
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Nothing, because it's bullshit ....
---------------------------
You describe your views very well...
Ha!
So you don't have the document which proves your bullshit claim then.
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Could you just post a copy of the document that shows this Mike then the issue would be resolved. Cheers.
Of course he can't.
-
Mike your post says 'Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...'
and includes the comment 'its a nailed on certainty.....'
This, to me, is you saying they were there by 3.45am
--------------------------
Well, if there exists a MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT document which states that at 3:45am, PC Myall saw an unidentified Male at whf, where else do you suppose that PC Myall and the others were, at that time? Please don't try and suggest that they were en route to the scene in CA7, because if that was the case, PC Myall could not have seen the unidentified male, he claims that he saw at whf, at 3:45am?
It is not me saying PC Myall was there, it is PC Myall...
If Myall was there at or before 3:45am, then the others were there also...
Do you see the problem?
At the time of the sighting of this unidentified male at whf, JB was in the grounds with PC Myall and PS Bews, so why is PC Myall saying he saw an unidentified male, whereas, PS Bews talks about a trick of light (first version) and the moon reflecting on the glass of the bedroom window (second version)?
-
Mike
You write 'Well, if there exists a MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT document which states that at 3:45am,...'
Does the document exist, if so where is it?
If you have a copy............ share.
If not, this whole thread is a waste of time and in my opinion, for what it is worth, you are in real danger of discrediting everything you have done
-
Yes, I have just dealt with it - PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am...
What more is there to say?
Nothing, because it's bullshit ....
---------------------------
You describe your views very well...
Ha!
So you don't have the document which proves your bullshit claim then.
You don't know what you are trying to talk about, and you will not pressurize me to post anything that I don't want to, by adopting the approach you have. I know the document exists, and I know and PC Myall and EP know that PC Myall claims to have seen an unidentified male at the scene (whf) at 3:45am...
If JB was the killer, who was that unidentified male inside whf, at 3:45am?
If it was RB, then how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times, in the kitchen?
-
My problem is that Nevill ringing at 3.26am, whoever answers that call needs to take the details, radio the location to the car in Witham. That car drives from Witham, arrives, parks up down Pages Lane and then PC Myall gets out and spots an unidentified male person. This all happens in 19 minutes. Any car is going to struggle to do that journey in 19 minutes. I will go and try and do it now if you want?
-
Mike
You write 'Well, if there exists a MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT document which states that at 3:45am,...'
Does the document exist, if so where is it?
If you have a copy............ share.
If not, this whole thread is a waste of time and in my opinion, for what it is worth, you are in real danger of discrediting everything you have done
-------------------------------------------
Well, it does exist, and PC Myall claims to have seen an unidentified male at whf at 3:45am - now if he is telling the truth, then he could not have still been travelling to the scene in CA7, along with PS Bews and PS Saxby, if Myall was there at the scene by 3:45am, then so was Bews and Saxby...
The very first entry in the MIP relates to this sighting by PC Myall at whf at 3:45am, and EP were trying desperately to identify who that / this person was / is?
I will not be pressurized by anybody, either to post or not to post anything in my possession - I will decide if and when I will / can / or may post anything...
-
My problem is that Nevill ringing at 3.26am, whoever answers that call needs to take the details, radio the location to the car in Witham. That car drives from Witham, arrives, parks up down Pages Lane and then PC Myall gets out and spots an unidentified male person. This all happens in 19 minutes. Any car is going to struggle to do that journey in 19 minutes. I will go and try and do it now if you want?
-----------------------
Ok, go and do it, but make the start time of RB's call at 3:16am, instead of 3:26am?
That 19 minutes, suddenly turns into 29 minutes...
I think it could be done / was done...
-
It's just rubbish - it's all made up in order to confuse everyone and to move the goal posts yet again.
-
By a reliance upon the first entry in the MIP, PC Myall sees the unidentified male at whf at 3:45am - which serves to seriously undermine the timings which are recorded in Bonnets (3:26am) phone log, which shows the arrival time of CA7 as being 3:48am...
In so far as the other phone log, (3;36am) is concerned, the one made by PC West, the timings are undermined by his claim that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast...
Seems to me, that whatever clock either Bonnet or West was relying upon, that it was out of synchronization by ten minutes...
I am saying that the timings referred to by Bonnet in his 3:26am phone log, about the time of arrival at the scene by CA7 (3:48am) cannot be true or accurate, if PC Myall was seeing the unidentified male at whf by 3:45am? Furthermore, because JB arrived at the scene three / four minutes after CA7 arrived there, JB was at the scene by as late as 3:42am, in good time to enable him to be in the grounds along with Myall and Bews, to enable Myall to see the unidentified male at the bedroom window...
-
It's just rubbish - it's all made up in order to confuse everyone and to move the goal posts yet again.
-----------------------
You will never know how wrong you are because you don't want to bring yourself to believe that JB was framed for these murders by his relatives and EP with the help of the DPP / CPS...
I am not moving any goal posts, I am pointing out the things which are wrong with the so called evidence in this case, which does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
The only person moving the goal posts, is you...
-
It's just rubbish - it's all made up in order to confuse everyone and to move the goal posts yet again.
-----------------------
You will never know how wrong you are because you don't want to bring yourself to believe that JB was framed for these murders by his relatives and EP with the help of the DPP / CPS...
I am not moving any goal posts, I am pointing out the things which are wrong with the so called evidence in this case, which does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
The only person moving the goal posts, is you...
You are moving them. You've spent ages saying that Jeremy called the police at 3.36, and that Neville called them at 2.36. Now you've changed all that because you now claim that Myall was there at 3.45. You haven't mentioned that until recently, and I think you're playing a strange game here because you have a habit of suddenly introducing something nobody ever heard before - and you refuse to back any of it up.
I just don't think I have any alternative but to ignore your posts from now on. I think you're probably a nice guy but your constant adding up of 2+2 to make 5 is getting on my nerves, and so is your habit of suddenly introducing something new which makes a mockery of everything you've previously said.
-
The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then the circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
-
It's just rubbish - it's all made up in order to confuse everyone and to move the goal posts yet again.
-----------------------
You will never know how wrong you are because you don't want to bring yourself to believe that JB was framed for these murders by his relatives and EP with the help of the DPP / CPS...
I am not moving any goal posts, I am pointing out the things which are wrong with the so called evidence in this case, which does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny...
The only person moving the goal posts, is you...
You are moving them. You've spent ages saying that Jeremy called the police at 3.36, and that Neville called them at 2.36. Now you've changed all that because you now claim that Myall was there at 3.45. You haven't mentioned that until recently, and I think you're playing a strange game here because you have a habit of suddenly introducing something nobody ever heard before - and you refuse to back any of it up.
I just don't think I have any alternative but to ignore your posts from now on. I think you're probably a nice guy but your constant adding up of 2+2 to make 5 is getting on my nerves, and so is your habit of suddenly introducing something new which makes a mockery of everything you've previously said.
---------------------------------------------
Here then, endeth the lesson...
-
Did the car come from Witham or was it just called out from Witham?
---------------------------
I don't profess to know the answer to that question, sorry...
-
The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then th circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
But EP initially set out a suicide/murderers - as documented to the world wide press.
Suicide questioned later by silencer, SC's forensic results etc.
If the contention is that EP arrived at WHF and from the off they (and all subsequently associated professionals + family etc) decided it was get JB year... then supporting evidence must be posted.
To Mike Tesko - you state we are pressuring you. The only person pressuring you is you, due to asserting new certainities that contradict your old certainties.
If you are forbidden from posting certain documents say so, but confirm who has them and when they received them.
It just seems strange if you are allowed to quote material yet not post it - can you see that?
It would also be unfair as it is only natural that you'd want to share any exciting/new developments, but being unable to post make you a sitting target.
-
The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then th circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
But EP initially set out a suicide/murderers - as documented to the world wide press.
Suicide questioned later by silencer, SC's forensic results etc.
If the contention is that EP arrived at WHF and from the off they (and all subsequently associated professionals + family etc) decided it was get JB year... then supporting evidence must be posted.
To Mike Tesko - you state we are pressuring you. The only person pressuring you is you, due to asserting new certainities that contradict your old certainties.
If you are forbidden from posting certain documents say so, but confirm who has them and when they received them.
It just seems strange if you are allowed to quote material yet not post it - can you see that?
It would also be unfair as it is only natural that you'd want to share any exciting/new developments, but being unable to post make you a sitting target.
I don't see what would be wrong in Mike saying:
I believe I have evidence to the contrary that when I am granted permission to expose will change your assertions, but until I can do so, based on the available evidence, you're right".
It seems so difficult for him to say.
I do accept Mike has access to much material most of us don't (or have not had years to collect), but still, that does not grant license to expect everybody to believe every word and take it all at face value.
Given the assertions being made when there IS evidence, and still there's too much ambiguity it give me not faith at all that stuff we can't see is being interpreted any better.
I'm currently of the opinion that Mike's not really faced a concerted opposition, or evaluation of his assertions, and now that's happening, much is found wanting.
Mike's unwavering view of JB's innocence (tainted by his own unfortunate experiences with the Police) are causing him to interpret evidence only in ways that might help reach his conclusion, rather than form a conclusion based on the evidence.
It's a crying shame really, because as cynical as I am, I can still see a slim hope for JB. It's small mercy Mike's not representing him. They'd both end up in a cell and quite possibly, one of them would be padded.
-
*chuckles*
-
As I say, PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at whf at 3:45am - and what is more, EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was? One thing is absolutely sure, and that is that that person was not Jeremy Bamber...
According to another version of the evidence, Myall, Bews and Saxby, were not at the scene, and did not arrive there, until, 3:48am...
Which version are we to believe?
-
The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then th circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
But EP initially set out a suicide/murderers - as documented to the world wide press.
Suicide questioned later by silencer, SC's forensic results etc.
If the contention is that EP arrived at WHF and from the off they (and all subsequently associated professionals + family etc) decided it was get JB year... then supporting evidence must be posted.
To Mike Tesko - you state we are pressuring you. The only person pressuring you is you, due to asserting new certainities that contradict your old certainties.
If you are forbidden from posting certain documents say so, but confirm who has them and when they received them.
It just seems strange if you are allowed to quote material yet not post it - can you see that?
It would also be unfair as it is only natural that you'd want to share any exciting/new developments, but being unable to post make you a sitting target.
I don't see what would be wrong in Mike saying:
I believe I have evidence to the contrary that when I am granted permission to expose will change your assertions, but until I can do so, based on the available evidence, you're right".
It seems so difficult for him to say.
I do accept Mike has access to much material most of us don't (or have not had years to collect), but still, that does not grant license to expect everybody to believe every word and take it all at face value.
Given the assertions being made when there IS evidence, and still there's too much ambiguity it give me not faith at all that stuff we can't see is being interpreted any better.
I'm currently of the opinion that Mike's not really faced a concerted opposition, or evaluation of his assertions, and now that's happening, much is found wanting.
Mike's unwavering view of JB's innocence (tainted by his own unfortunate experiences with the Police) are causing him to interpret evidence only in ways that might help reach his conclusion, rather than form a conclusion based on the evidence.
It's a crying shame really, because as cynical as I am, I can still see a slim hope for JB. It's small mercy Mike's not representing him. They'd both end up in a cell and quite possibly, one of them would be padded.
The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then th circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
But EP initially set out a suicide/murderers - as documented to the world wide press.
Suicide questioned later by silencer, SC's forensic results etc.
If the contention is that EP arrived at WHF and from the off they (and all subsequently associated professionals + family etc) decided it was get JB year... then supporting evidence must be posted.
To Mike Tesko - you state we are pressuring you. The only person pressuring you is you, due to asserting new certainities that contradict your old certainties.
If you are forbidden from posting certain documents say so, but confirm who has them and when they received them.
It just seems strange if you are allowed to quote material yet not post it - can you see that?
It would also be unfair as it is only natural that you'd want to share any exciting/new developments, but being unable to post make you a sitting target.
I don't see what would be wrong in Mike saying:
I believe I have evidence to the contrary that when I am granted permission to expose will change your assertions, but until I can do so, based on the available evidence, you're right".
It seems so difficult for him to say.
I do accept Mike has access to much material most of us don't (or have not had years to collect), but still, that does not grant license to expect everybody to believe every word and take it all at face value.
Given the assertions being made when there IS evidence, and still there's too much ambiguity it give me not faith at all that stuff we can't see is being interpreted any better.
I'm currently of the opinion that Mike's not really faced a concerted opposition, or evaluation of his assertions, and now that's happening, much is found wanting.
Mike's unwavering view of JB's innocence (tainted by his own unfortunate experiences with the Police) are causing him to interpret evidence only in ways that might help reach his conclusion, rather than form a conclusion based on the evidence.
It's a crying shame really, because as cynical as I am, I can still see a slim hope for JB. It's small mercy Mike's not representing him. They'd both end up in a cell and quite possibly, one of them would be padded.
TBM
That's not quite fair. Mike T would make a lousy silk but a fantastic gofer/investigator for the team.
They would just need to drink lots of coffee!
Does anyone worry that he's set up as a 'fall guy' to test new theories?
Liking the developing 'Master' pages.
One concern - paranoid schizophrenia is not curable, but can be controlled with medication. Perhaps the wording needs to be a little stronger for the sake of balance.
My youngest sister's a psychiatric nurse (mother was for 30 years - lots of famous people for patients!). I'll try and get my sister to post, perhaps one evening when she has time to answer any questions.
-
Ok, i have had my brother out and about. He drives a VW Passat and i have had him driving different routes that EP could have taken that night. He drove as quickly as possible breaking speed limits, is a Class 1 driver. He says there was no traffic. Witham Police station Newland street to Pages lane- 21 minutes. He says that was the route he belived EP would have taken. He knows the area well and says on a different route that locals would know, he did it in 16 minutes.
Didn't the Police park away from the farmhouse and walk down Pages Lane. I would assume this would take a couple of minutes. My brother and I personally think it would be very hard to receive a call at 3.16am, take all the details, deploy a car from Witham and spot someone 29 minutes later at WHF. In our opinion.
-
Hi Bro and others
Yes,just been out driving the various routes from Witham-Tollesbury, but having read this thread, a pointless excercise.
So let me get this straight, are we bothered about timings, or what the police might have seen?
So the gunmen shoots the old man whilst in the kitchen on the phone, then waits around for 30 minutes to wave to the police from the bedroom window? Or, does the sister blow her brains out after waving to the police from the bedroom window, but the shots were not heard from ouside?
The police that were first on the scene, would have been so jumpy, that the slightest shadow or noise would have been a potential gunman/gunwoman.
There were no people alive in the house when the police arrived IMHO.
-
Hi Bro and others
Yes,just been out driving the various routes from Witham-Tollesbury, but having read this thread, a pointless excercise.
So let me get this straight, are we bothered about timings, or what the police might have seen?
So the gunmen shoots the old man whilst in the kitchen on the phone, then waits around for 30 minutes to wave to the police from the bedroom window? Or, does the sister blow her brains out after waving to the police from the bedroom window, but the shots were not heard from ouside?
The police that were first on the scene, would have been so jumpy, that the slightest shadow or noise would have been a potential gunman/gunwoman.
There were no people alive in the house when the police arrived IMHO.
Welcome PaulG.
SimonG must be a cruel brother to entice you here.
Run!
-
Now I really dont want to upset the applecart here but I feel I need to back MT up.I too have recently seen PC Myalls Incident Report Project (I think thats what it was called)It is somewhere on line.I will try to find it again and post it up. I cant remember the times but it did clearly state - Unidentified Person at location whf.There were two further times underneath both which stated Unidentified Person at location Pages Lane.
-
PC Myall claims he saw an unidentified male at whf at 3:45am - and what is more, EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was?
That's incorrect. You stated that a police document (MIP for short) gives the time as 3.45am. However, that document was constructed well after the event. You have relied on this time given in the document being correct, but it's possible that it isn't, either deliberately or accidentally. Posting the MIP here wouldn't change that. There is no available document written by Pc Myall in which he times his sighting as occurring at 3.45, and he didn't give that time at Jeremy's trial. The available pages of the wireless message log start at 4.02am, so no corroboration there either. What EP did to try to identify the person has no bearing on when the sighting occurred.
-
Yes,I think the police officers and JB got out of the car to approach the house at 04.02am.Would I be correct on that?
-
Aaaah.I have it in front of me ???
Major Incident Project
It states - 0345 S11 MYALL UNIDENT MALE 0001 WHITE HSE FM
-
Where was that posted?
-
Where was that posted?
Ive just been looking for it all over the internet,and it was in front of me all that time (doh)!There is a photograph of it in Scott Lomaxs book.The thing is,it is not dated.It looks more like some kind of survelliance thing to me because it is in columns.Here is what is underneath PC MYALLS sighting as in previous post....
2011 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0029 PAGES LN
2015 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0038 PAGES LN
-
Ok, i have had my brother out and about. He drives a VW Passat and i have had him driving different routes that EP could have taken that night. He drove as quickly as possible breaking speed limits, is a Class 1 driver. He says there was no traffic. Witham Police station Newland street to Pages lane- 21 minutes. He says that was the route he belived EP would have taken. He knows the area well and says on a different route that locals would know, he did it in 16 minutes.
Didn't the Police park away from the farmhouse and walk down Pages Lane. I would assume this would take a couple of minutes. My brother and I personally think it would be very hard to receive a call at 3.16am, take all the details, deploy a car from Witham and spot someone 29 minutes later at WHF. In our opinion.
... First thing - CA7 was deployed to the scene at 3.35am, according to the timing recorded on Bonnets phone log, so using that as a marker, and based on the timings you have supplied, at best CA7 would / could have arrived at the scene in a window of opportunity, betweem, 3.46am and 3.56am - too late for PC Myall to have made his sighting of the unidentified male at the scene by 3.45am. But, a sighting nevertheles was made at that time - so, we can be sure that CA7 and its occupants, including PC Myall must have been / were deployed to the scene beforehand, long before 3.35am. It doesn't matter what PC Myall saw or not, what actualky matters, is the fact that PC Myall was there at the scene, at 3.45am to see what he saw, and in order to see what he saw at that time, the timings on Bonnets phone log have to be wrong...
-
So, it appears that PC Myall did see an unidentified male at the scene, at 3.45am, afterall?
-
Where was that posted?
Ive just been looking for it all over the internet,and it was in front of me all that time (doh)!There is a photograph of it in Scott Lomaxs book.The thing is,it is not dated.It looks more like some kind of survelliance thing to me because it is in columns.Here is what is underneath PC MYALLS sighting as in previous post....
2011 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0029 PAGES LN
2015 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0038 PAGES LN
Chelmsley, does Scott Lomax state what this log is or where it's from?
If the reading of the Myall line is correct, does it follow that this 'log' has officer N94 seeing unidenitfied males at 8.11pm and 8.14pm in Pages Lane?
Do the N94 lines follow the Myall line?
Thanks.
-
69 ITEMS MAJOR INCIDENT REPORT PAGE 1 OF 2
ITEM SU FO AD
1. 0345 S11 MYALL UNIDENT MALE 0001 WHITE HSE FM
2. 2011 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0029 PAGES LN
3. 2015 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0038 PAGES LN
This is all that the photograph of the report shows unfortunately.Underneath photo it says -: The beginning of the Major Incident Report in the White House Farm Case,which records that PC MYALL claimed he saw the figure of a person inside White House Farm at 03:45 whilst Bamber was stood outside the building.
-
Why would PC Myall be saying he saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3.45am, if he hadn't?
-
It doesn't record that Pc Myall claimed his observation was made at that time, since it doesn't state where the time was obtained from. Elsewhere, you claimed this police log was made as part of the second investigation (which started in September 1985).
-
As there is no date on it,Im wondering if it is just a survelliance log. Im pretty sure that they had JB under survelliance at sometime following the murders,once he was a suspect.Could the log just be referring to that?
-
69 ITEMS MAJOR INCIDENT REPORT PAGE 1 OF 2
ITEM SU FO AD
1. 0345 S11 MYALL UNIDENT MALE 0001 WHITE HSE FM
2. 2011 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0029 PAGES LN
3. 2015 N94 UNIDENT MALE 0038 PAGES LN
This is all that the photograph of the report shows unfortunately.Underneath photo it says -: The beginning of the Major Incident Report in the White House Farm Case,which records that PC MYALL claimed he saw the figure of a person inside White House Farm at 03:45 whilst Bamber was stood outside the building.
So why doesn't anything happen between 03.45am and 08.11pm? The numbers alongside are sequential 1-3, yet the officers are different, so this is not a list of Myall related events, which might explain the time differences.
Without a date, could it be said that this refers to the surveillance placed on JB in September? Or any other incident for that matter.
Why would PC Myall be saying he saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3.45am, if he hadn't?
Why shouldn't he say that if that is what he saw?
But
This 'MIP' does not state August 7th 1985.
Without further explanation, this log could relate to any date and any event before or after the murders at WHF.
Just seen other posts.
So, all of us agree that none of us know what we are looking at. It's come to that...
-
Details contained in the MPI, relate to all the suspects and motor vehicles, EP wanted to trace and identify in connection with this investigation - there are several pages of info'...
-
A rather big clue to what circumstance, or event, the reference to the 3.45am sighting of the unidentified male, can be found in 'Scot Lomax's' book, where he links it, to the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window...
-
Details contained in the MPI, relate to all the suspects and motor vehicles, EP wanted to trace and identify in connection with this investigation - there are several pages of info'...
In my opinion, the MPI cannot be dated 7th August if it relates to all the suspects and motor vehilces etc.
To all intents and purposes and on that date the Police were under the impression 'Sheila was going beserk with a gun.' The only suspect was known as identified in Jeremy's telephone call to the Police.
-
Not only does the MIP give details of the 3.45am sighting, by PC Myall, but the entry is dated, 7th August 1985...
-
Not only does the MIP give details of the 3.45am sighting, by PC Myall, but the entry is dated, 7th August 1985...
Where does it detail '7th August 1985' on what has been posted on this thread?
I am sorry if I have missed it so please point it out.
-
Not only does the MIP give details of the 3.45am sighting, by PC Myall, but the entry is dated, 7th August 1985...
Where does it detail '7th August 1985' on what has been posted on this thread?
I am sorry if I have missed it so please point it out.
... I am not trying to catch you, or anyone out, by not posting the document in question, I am unable to post it at the moment, until after CCRC makes its final decision in a few weeks time. However, what I can say, is that the individual entries in the MIP, are all dated, and timed events.,
-
Is this sighting in relation to the sighting of someone at the window?
Is this sighting in relation to JB arriving at the scene?
-
Not only does the MIP give details of the 3.45am sighting, by PC Myall, but the entry is dated, 7th August 1985...
Where does it detail '7th August 1985' on what has been posted on this thread?
I am sorry if I have missed it so please point it out.
... I am not trying to catch you, or anyone out, by not posting the document in question, I am unable to post it at the moment, until after CCRC makes its final decision in a few weeks time. However, what I can say, is that the individual entries in the MIP, are all dated, and timed events.,
In my opinion, if you are not prepared to post the evidence in support of a statement then it is unfair on all in a discussion forum........... It becomes a bit like playing poker with a banker who only allows each player 2 cards from the outset.
-
Is this sighting in relation to the sighting of someone at the window?
Is this sighting in relation to JB arriving at the scene?
You mean arriving at White House Farm, which he was requested to do as a result of his telephone call to the Police, before he identifies himself...........
-
Is this sighting in relation to the sighting of someone at the window?
Is this sighting in relation to JB arriving at the scene?
You mean arriving at White House Farm, which he was requested to do as a result of his telephone call to the Police, before he identifies himself...........
Yes.
WHF is unlit, so any unidentified male would have to be a few feet away to be given a sex.
-
Is there a separate entry in this log regarding the individual seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police arrived that morning?
-
I thought they over took him, and ascertained it was JB after the event? Or did they stop before WHF, and have a discussion?
-
I thought the police recognized JB when they overtook him?
There's mention of at least one copper recognising him from a previous motoring incident in which he was involved. But in terms of the overtaking:
1) It was very early in the morning, so they'd certain notice a car on the roads (which they overtook).
2) It's not clear if they actually knew it was Jeremy at that very moment (although the closer to the house, the more likely it would be).
3) Upon the police arriving, and subsequently Jeremy arriving, it would have been evident at that point that the person they passed was indeed Jeremy.
When they come to write their logs, they state "we passed Jeremy on the way" - which makes sense (even if they didn't know it was Jeremy at that specific moment)
-
It was Pc Saxby who already knew Jeremy. There was a newspaper article that mentioned a "hunched up scruffy looking man" seen walking away from WHF. That is the individual I was referring to. Is he mentioned in the log being discussed here?
-
That link just takes me to the main page of that site. I am not a member on that site.
-
STATEMENT FROM MALCOLM BONNETT: PAGE 1
-
STATEMENT FROM MALCOLM BONNETT: PAGE 2
-
Ok, i have had my brother out and about. He drives a VW Passat and i have had him driving different routes that EP could have taken that night. He drove as quickly as possible breaking speed limits, is a Class 1 driver. He says there was no traffic. Witham Police station Newland street to Pages lane- 21 minutes. He says that was the route he belived EP would have taken. He knows the area well and says on a different route that locals would know, he did it in 16 minutes.
Didn't the Police park away from the farmhouse and walk down Pages Lane. I would assume this would take a couple of minutes. My brother and I personally think it would be very hard to receive a call at 3.16am, take all the details, deploy a car from Witham and spot someone 29 minutes later at WHF. In our opinion.
www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2818&hilit=major+incident+log
Refers to calling a 'mobile police car' CA7. Does this indicate that CA7 was out and about/in the vicinity, rather than at a station?
If Jeremy was told at 3.36 that a car (CA5) would be sent out from Witham...
The mobile police vehicle would likely be parked/patrolling the Witham area. I'll need to check with the local police, but i don't think east of the river Blackwater comes under Witham polices usual jurisdiction. The 13 minutes is consistent with a police car travelling at speed from northern Witham area. Although i broke several speed limits doing the journey, with the aid of flashing blue lights, and the knowledge that i wouldn't get nicked, i could have wiped a few minutes off the time.
This is all useless information as far as i'm concerned, as the unidentified male could well be JB arriving at WHF. I assume that JB's arrival would be logged, and would be unidentified at the time.
The place is unlit, so any identified male would only be a few feet away to be given a sex. The police would aprehend any persons within the vicinity, especially if they're close enough to be given a sex.
And back to the original post, are/was EP looking for an unidentified male, or was the OP just using the log to raise doubts?
And if a highly skilled hitman has killed 5 people, set the scene to look like a suicide, but knew that one victim had made a phone call, would they really wait around to be seen...nah i don't think so.
-
To be fair, I can't see Bamber hiring a highly skilled hitman.
Local thug? MAYBE
Not hitman's going to kill a family like that in the James Bond style. And certainly not with a crappy weapon like that.
And the trouble with a local nutter doing the job is that it's just prone to ending up a mess.
That's really why I could never accept the hitman scenario, even though it's technically possible, and he/she was incredibly cunning in deliberately making it look a messy job.
I doubt Bamber would have the means socially or financially to engage such a person. Could be wrong though.
-
CA7 seems to be the 'official' car sent and it arrived first and CA7 did all the reporting from the scene
CA5 sent 1 minute later but arrived MUCH later
We don't know why, but in my mind it could be that CA5 'decided to attend too' but was much further away, or otherwise engaged.
CA5 also arrived with CA6 at the house (at the same time). CA6 was part of the Fire Arms escort and had rendezvoused with the Firearms team at a pub. Could it be that CA5 also rendezvoused with them?
Given them arriving at the same time, I suggest this is likely.
-
Does it really matter who got there first, and who spotted who?
This unidentified person would of had to know Jeremy Bambers phone number, and have the ability to mimic his step fathers voice... As Jeremy Bambers innocence depends on the ability to prove his sister did the murders, otherwise his story of events are just made up rubbish.
Would he recognise his step fathers voice? yes
Did his step father tell him his sister had gone beserk with a rifle? apparently yes
Would the unidentified male be able to fool his step father that he was Sheila, so much so, that he rang Jeremy convinced that the man in drag was Sheila? Highly unlikely.
-
Does it really matter who got there first, and who spotted who?
This unidentified person would of had to know Jeremy Bambers phone number, and have the ability to mimic his step fathers voice... As Jeremy Bambers innocence depends on the ability to prove his sister did the murders, otherwise his story of events are just made up rubbish.
Would he recognise his step fathers voice? yes
Did his step father tell him his sister had gone beserk with a rifle? apparently yes
Would the unidentified male be able to fool his step father that he was Sheila, so much so, that he rang Jeremy convinced that the man in drag was Sheila? Highly unlikely.
Great post +1 :)
-
I think MT though is telling us that the unidentified male was the person that was supposedly spotted in the upstairs window by PC BEWS,PC MYALL and JB.Assuming that MT believes the unidentified male was Ralph.But then was MT stating that the police were desperately trying to identify this unidentified male.............oh now I am confused ???
-
Does it really matter who got there first, and who spotted who?
This unidentified person would of had to know Jeremy Bambers phone number, and have the ability to mimic his step fathers voice... As Jeremy Bambers innocence depends on the ability to prove his sister did the murders, otherwise his story of events are just made up rubbish.
Would he recognise his step fathers voice? yes
Did his step father tell him his sister had gone beserk with a rifle? apparently yes
Would the unidentified male be able to fool his step father that he was Sheila, so much so, that he rang Jeremy convinced that the man in drag was Sheila? Highly unlikely.
Paulg - What about if the unidentified person had a gun to your head and said make this call and say these exact words (could be reading off a script). Risky .....in case they go off script and say the real story of whats going on. If i was the one with the gun in my hand back in 1985 I would have got Nevill to say the words into a cassette recorder and played it down the line as required. This prevents any risk of someone saying exactly whats going on if it dawns on them they are going to die anyway. You have a lot of power over someone with a gun to their head as well as their families. It's the way of modern bank robberies where you target individuals who work there and their families to get the access information etc - look at the Securitas heist in Kent a few years back.
-
Vortex. I used to have that same thought.But would that not be very very risky.If JB had decided to call 999 and there was a police car in the vincinity, that could attend quickly ,there would have been a very real risk that the killer could have been spotted or even caught?
-
Vortex. I used to have that same thought.But would that not be very very risky.If JB had decided to call 999 and there was a police car in the vincinity, that could attend quickly ,there would have been a very real risk that the killer could have been spotted or even caught?
I was thinking more of someone else involved trying to get Jeremy over to the house with the Nevill phone call (real time or recorded). Police cars never come quickly in the countryside - you have to be very unlucky / or lucky if you needed them.
-
Vortex. I used to have that same thought.But would that not be very very risky.If JB had decided to call 999 and there was a police car in the vincinity, that could attend quickly ,there would have been a very real risk that the killer could have been spotted or even caught?
I was thinking more of someone else involved trying to get Jeremy over to the house with the Nevill phone call (real time or recorded). Police cars never come quickly in the countryside - you have to be very unlucky / or lucky if you needed them.
Yes,I did realise that you meant as in "a third person".Thats what I meant too.The killer surely couldnt have known for sure that JB would take the bait and that instead of coming to the farm,that he would phone the police instead.In the end,thats exactly what JB did isnt it. Unless if it was a third person,then that was the plan?
-
Vortex
Whats the motive?
Mr Bamber, ring your step son, and tell him his sister has gone berserk with a gun...or, talk into this recorder and repeat the following....then i'll blow everyones brains out, and make it look like Jeremy's sister killed everyone, then killed herself....but i'm just a lunatic that stumbled on the farmhouse...And the only person to gain anything, is the person that inherits a fortune...oh, but the lunatic had a great time framing Bambers sister.
In the mean time, after making the call, i'll potter about, hoping the police get a chance to see me leaving the scene.
If Jeremy Bamber is going to prove he's innocent, he has to prove his sister did the killings. Having people suggest that a third party was involved, only adds to suspicion that a hit man was hired, and helped to give Jeremy Bamber an alibi via a phone call from the farmhouse.
-
And, if someone believes that a relative that has now benefitted could have set all this up, consider this.
They would be reliant on access to the rifle, bullets, and getting into the property without waking the family up. If the phone call was to get JB to the house, and kill him also, why not do it earlier that night when he was at the farmhouse.
-
Does it really matter who got there first, and who spotted who?
This unidentified person would of had to know Jeremy Bambers phone number, and have the ability to mimic his step fathers voice... As Jeremy Bambers innocence depends on the ability to prove his sister did the murders, otherwise his story of events are just made up rubbish.
Would he recognise his step fathers voice? yes
Did his step father tell him his sister had gone beserk with a rifle? apparently yes
Would the unidentified male be able to fool his step father that he was Sheila, so much so, that he rang Jeremy convinced that the man in drag was Sheila? Highly unlikely.
Paulg - What about if the unidentified person had a gun to your head and said make this call and say these exact words (could be reading off a script). Risky .....in case they go off script and say the real story of whats going on. If i was the one with the gun in my hand back in 1985 I would have got Nevill to say the words into a cassette recorder and played it down the line as required. This prevents any risk of someone saying exactly whats going on if it dawns on them they are going to die anyway. You have a lot of power over someone with a gun to their head as well as their families. It's the way of modern bank robberies where you target individuals who work there and their families to get the access information etc - look at the Securitas heist in Kent a few years back.
Is this the level of debate/"theory" we have come to?
Jesus H.
Maybe it really is time to sign off :(
-
Sorry mate, just trying to rule out the unidentified male. ;)
-
A hit-man cant be totally ruled out..........IF JB received a phonecall at all "allegedly" from Ralph,its also possible that it could have been a call from the hit-man telling JB "job done" could it not? There is still NO proof whatsoever if JB did in fact receive a call from Ralph.Im sure that if that was the case then JB would be a free man by now.
-
Well yes, but if thats the case, then as far as i'm concerned, JB can rot in jail until he dies.
In other words, he's maintained his innocence, in the knowledge that 3 adults, and 2 kids have been murdered whilst they slept...but he hired a hit man.
-
Well yes, but if thats the case, then as far as i'm concerned, JB can rot in jail until he dies.
In other words, he's maintained his innocence, in the knowledge that 3 adults, and 2 kids have been murdered whilst they slept...but he hired a hit man.
I agree Paulg.If that is the case then I will feel the same way.Trouble is that none of us know for sure either way.Thats what we are all on here for isnt it?To find out the truth.I can understand your frustration because I often feel that way too :(
-
EP went out of their way to try and identify who that male person was
That is exactly the type of language that mike tesko has used previously in reference to what EP did regarding the "hunched up scruffy looking man" allegedly seen walking away from WHF later on. At 03.45, at most three officers were available, and if they failed to identify someone, it wasn't Jeremy, as Pc Saxby knew him. There was nothing they could do at that time to identify someone seen inside the house, so it seems quite possible that 03.45 was simply an incorrectly recorded time at which the "scruffy looking man" was spotted.
-
A hit-man cant be totally ruled out..........IF JB received a phonecall at all "allegedly" from Ralph,its also possible that it could have been a call from the hit-man telling JB "job done" could it not? There is still NO proof whatsoever if JB did in fact receive a call from Ralph.Im sure that if that was the case then JB would be a free man by now.
Yep, that's why I've said we can't totally rule it out, it's a theoretical possibility.
I still think it's a hard push to get hit men to kill families though - with 2 kids too. Gangland? yes, but unlikely for a family issue like this (I'd think).
Even if hired by Bamber, he gets the same sentence anyway (but it would be nice to round up a hitman too if there ever was one)
-
Does it really matter who got there first, and who spotted who?
This unidentified person would of had to know Jeremy Bambers phone number, and have the ability to mimic his step fathers voice... As Jeremy Bambers innocence depends on the ability to prove his sister did the murders, otherwise his story of events are just made up rubbish.
Would he recognise his step fathers voice? yes
Did his step father tell him his sister had gone beserk with a rifle? apparently yes
Would the unidentified male be able to fool his step father that he was Sheila, so much so, that he rang
Jeremy convinced that the man in drag was Sheila? Highly unlikely.
Paulg - What about if the unidentified person had a gun to your head and said make this call and say these
exact words (could be reading off a script). Risky .....in case they go off script and say the real story of whats going on. If i was the one with the gun in my hand back in 1985 I would have got Nevill to say the words into a cassette recorder and played it down the line as required. This prevents any risk of someone saying exactly whats going on if it dawns on them they are going to die anyway. You have a lot of power over someone with a gun to their head as well as their families. It's the way of modern bank robberies where you target individuals who work there and their families to get the access information etc - look at the Securitas heist in
Kent a few years back.
Is this the level of debate/"theory" we have come
Jesus H.
Maybe it really is time to sign off :(
Hi Bob, in over 25 years nobody has been able to say exactly what happened at WHF that night so what level of theory debate are you looking for? Endless talk of the telephone call / timings or more detail on the silencer? So far it's got us no further forward. So Bob, what do you think actually happened? What's your theory? Do you think Ralph Neville is significant? His car was in the drive that night / morning and returned to SA by September 1985.
Show me some real evidence that would work in a court today that proves JB's guilt (or innocence for that matter while we at it). We won't fall out if I don't agree with your views - I'm much more grown up than that.