Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 19, 2011, 12:44:PM
-
City of London Police (COLP) serve notices on DS Davidson, and DC Hammersley
DC Hammersley had an emotional breakdown when he was served with a notice of intent to interview him, on the 24th April 1991, by COLP :-
You will remember that DC Hammersley was one of the exhibit officers at the scene?
As you will see, by reference to comments he made, at the time to COLP (1991) that he was anxious to mention that he did not find something or other, without even being asked about anything - something was clearly playing on his mind...
-
This is very interesting! I wonder what the complaints against them were about, and why DC Hammersley was so distressed.
-
I thought Mike said that DS Hammersley was not at the scene on the day of the murders. ???
-
Alarm bells are ringing for me. Very loud ones as well. What the hell went on for someone to be so uncomfortable talking about it. The interview was going to cause him that much distress he wanted it straight away because the wait would be too much to bear. What didn't he discover? Any ideas.
-
I thought Mike said that DS Hammersley was not at the scene on the day of the murders. ???
------------------------
What do you think DC Hammersley was so upset about?
-
I thought Mike said that DS Hammersley was not at the scene on the day of the murders. ???
------------------------
What do you think DC Hammersley was so upset about?
What did he say when he was interviewed ?
-
I thought Mike said that DS Hammersley was not at the scene on the day of the murders. ???
------------------------
What do you think DC Hammersley was so upset about?
What did he say when he was interviewed ?
--------------------------
Never been disclosed....
But I do have DS Davidsons interview notes...
-
Love to see them Mike. This is all very disturbing
--------------------------------------------------
These interview notes are very revealing - they include reference to why a paint a sample was taken from the kitchen mantelpiece at whf, on 8th August 1985 (two days before silencer was allegedly found in gun cupboard by relatives on 10th August 1985) and it is during this interview of DS Davidson, that it comes to light that EP seized a gun at the scene from somewhere downstairs that had pint ingrained onto the end of its barrel, and that this was not, and is not a reference to the silencer...
It is important to identify this gun, and to establish where at th e scene it was found, and any examination at the lab' to confirm that paint found upon its barrel, was the same as that on the mantelpiece?
Marks which were obviously present on the mantelpiece by 8th August 1985, were matched to a guns barrel, but this information was covered up, to enable the silencer evidence to be incorporated...
I will be posting DS Davidson's interview by COLP shortly on a separate thread...
-
"I didn't discover it..." The investigation of whatever 'it' was clearly frightened the daylights out of Hammersley and, according to DH, damaged his marriage. Interesting. Thanks for this, Mike
-
for mike: will you be posting davidsons interview notes today?
-
I don't suppose this would be the same David Hammersley? I've no evidence that it is - just a random web search find...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4292197.stm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Man,+49,+found+in+sea.-a0129235578
-
for mike: will you be posting davidsons interview notes today?
-------------------------
Please be patient, they will be posted soon...
-
I don't suppose this would be the same David Hammersley? I've no evidence that it is - just a random web search find...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4292197.stm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Man,+49,+found+in+sea.-a0129235578
Now that really would be a moment for twilight zone background music
-
I don't suppose this would be the same David Hammersley? I've no evidence that it is - just a random web search find...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4292197.stm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Man,+49,+found+in+sea.-a0129235578
Now that really would be a moment for twilight zone background music
It's not entirely implausible though is it, given that we're told the man was having a breakdown at the time of his interview?
-
Look, EP found a weapon downstairs that had paint on its barrel that they believed was used during the struggle in the kitchen between RB and his killer - yet identity of this gun has been deliberately withheld...
-
I don't suppose this would be the same David Hammersley? I've no evidence that it is - just a random web search find...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4292197.stm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Man,+49,+found+in+sea.-a0129235578
Now that really would be a moment for twilight zone background music
It's not entirely implausible though is it, given that we're told the man was having a breakdown at the time of his interview?
Agree Bob. Would have thought it may have been mentioned on here already if it was the same man. Is there no way of checking further?
-
Rochford.wouldnt have thought so.Man in report is described as being a bachelor and Hammersley was married wasn't he?
-
Rochford.wouldnt have thought so.Man in report is described as being a bachelor and Hammersley was married wasn't he?
Yes well spotted. I remember when bob found this. Whoever it was, sounds like there's a sad story behind it. Not our Hammersley though (unless maybe the bachelor status is an error*)
* My local wrag is notorious for its' numerous petty errors, which actually turn out to have serious consequences on occasions.
-
Rochford.wouldnt have thought so.Man in report is described as being a bachelor and Hammersley was married wasn't he?
Yes well spotted. I remember when bob found this. Whoever it was, sounds like there's a sad story behind it. Not our Hammersley though (unless maybe the bachelor status is an error*)
* My local wrag is notorious for its' numerous petty errors, which actually turn out to have serious consequences on occasions.
----------------
In a witness statement dated, 1985, DC Hammersly describes his DOB as "over 21", which in 2005 would make him, over 41 years...
-
In Adams COLP interview he describes leaving whf to head back (presumably to a police station and passing an oncoming car with DI Jone in it and another officer he seems less sure about but thinks was Hammersley.
In Davidsons COLP interview Davidsons polcie notebook is referred to an an entry made claiming he was at the office with Hammersley at 8.15.
here it seems to get dodgy as though things are skipped as surely if the 2 buddies of Davidson and Hammersley were together at the office they would travel to the crime scene together.
onto a later bit of COLP interview and we are told Hammersley is at the scene but Davidson is not sure whether DI Jone was there at the time he arrived or whether he arrived later.
all getting a bit fishy here! maybe that Adams claimed thinking he saw Hammersley is an attempt at placing him at the scene while at the same time not committing to it in case its proven to be false and Adams ends up in hot water for it.
a quick look at Hammersley's statement and he does not seem to describe how he got to whf on the 7th of august...rather odd .
Davidson also seems to mess things up a bit as well as to where he was in regards to the 8.15 claim as he seems to have changed story ..at one point he seems he was going to say one thing then realises he was slipping up so changes story rapidly.
Davidson says he arrived at the scene(whf) at 9.16 according to his notebook.
Hammersley in statement gives 9.16 as being when he was at whf. He claims "I was on duty in company with ...Davidson... he does not state categorically he arrived there with him but it is suggested by how he phrases this matter.
-
One of the logs reports DI Jones arriving at the scene at 8.54 am with Clarke.
This makes the claim by Adams about thinking seeing Hammersley in a vehicle with Jones is wrong.
Adams reports on leaving the scene at 8.45 am though he stopped briefly to pass condolences onto JB.
It seems feasible then that if Adams was heading away from the scene shortly after 8.45 am he could well have seen Jones on his way to arrive at the scene at 8.54 am . The passing point on the road seemingly not too far away...only a few minutes drive.
This seems to rule out Hammersley as having travelled with DI Jones quite conclusively.
Davidson after speaking about Hammersley and Jones et al then speaks of "we" travelling to the scene in seperate vans.
Oddly in one log there are 2 mentions of Davidson leaving CD ...At different times. One on his own and then another mention with Hammersley a little later on.
-
Hartley.... (and / or Ann Eaton if she is online at the moment) we have yet another area of mystery and / or missing key information in the case (I've looked at this area before so it is by no means a new to me). If everybody including family and Essex Police had turned up and did their jobs properly and with honest intent we would not have situations where a Police officer is behaving in the way Hammersley did when interviewed. This included making some very strange statements that really need more explanation:
Why (or what possible reason) would:
1) DC Hammersley be VERY EMOTIONAL when interviewed? (makes no sense at all - why why why??)
2) Why would he have TEARS RUNNING DOWN HIS FACE? (bit extreme when explaining a factual situation in a work environment - there must be a pretty serious reason WHY?)
3) Be very keen to have action taken against him STRAIGHT AWAY? (what could be so stressful that it was so painful to wait any longer?)
4) DC Hammersley states that THIS HAS CAUSED THE BREAKDOWN OF MY MARIAGE? (what is he talking about - this sounds so much deeper than something that was all in a days work for a Policeman)
5) DC Hammersley states I DIDN'T DISCOVER IT, I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON TAPE TODAY (it can't wait this has caused him so much pressure, stress and anguish - what could it possibly be?)
This isn't something that is made up by Jeremy Bamber or the pro bamber side nor is it "a play on words" like some people like to claim anything that can't be explained is (if it doesn't fit their JB is guilty stance). This is a factual statement by Essex Police and the contents are very revealing and instantly raise further questions which seem unanswered. What exactly was DC Hammersly referring to when he says "I Didn't Discover It"? It has quite obviously caused him significant distress over a number of years. Hartley as someone who is so sure of JB's guilt does this statement not make you question anything? I can't possibly think of a genuine explanation to this scenario. Can you?
Where is Hammersley now - can he help answer the above.
-
I agree with you totally, VORTEX!
What on earth is he referring to with his statement:
"I DIDN'T DISCOVER IT."
What exactly was "IT"? ???
-
Here's an interesting titbit for the conspiracy minded amongst you (apologies if this is already public knowledge but I hadn't seen it before)...
David Hammersley, and Bob Miller both retired within 5 days of each other (25/8 & 31/8), in 1996.
Which I believe also happens to be the year a load of evidence and docs were destroyed?
Might have to cue the Twilight Zone music after all...
http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/thelaw/n_9608lw.pdf
-
Does anyone know what a form 39a is?
Could it be this:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/parliamentary-business/written-ministerial-statement/police-pursuits-code-wms/?view=Standard&pubID=890413
It still doesn't explain what 'IT' is.
-
Does anyone know what a form 39a is?
Could it be this:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/parliamentary-business/written-ministerial-statement/police-pursuits-code-wms/?view=Standard&pubID=890413
It still doesn't explain what 'IT' is.
the Davidson COLP item that was a major reason for one of the dp action was the silencer so that stands a good chance of being the "IT".
-
Adams claim about possibly seeing Hammersley on his way to whf when he was not does raise the issue of why he went out on a limb to make this claim. Was Adams trying to cover Hammersleys dodgy story? If this is what Adams was doing in the knowledge that Hammersley did not attend whf that morning its a very serious issue. Adams to an extent plays safe by saying he only thought it was Hammersley and by using the dead DCI Jones as the other person seen in the vehicle he was safe that in that Jones being dead he could not contradict Adams claim.
-
" IT" may have been a physical object such as a gun or perhaps equally a situation...
-
According to his notebook entry Hammersley ended up at the police office at 8.20 am after receiving a call at 7.45 am at home.
at 8.40 he claims to leave for whf with Davidson mentioning CP 4.
CP 4 may well be a vehicle reference or similar identification number.
he puts down being at the scene as being 9.00am to 11.00 am ..which seems to be a rough estimate.
it certainly shoots down any claim by Adams about seeing Hammersley in a van with DCI Jones.
-
Smiffy, this is possibly the wrong thread, but it IS a genuine question. What is your theory on the sequence of events in the house? Do you think that Sheila started shooting upstairs, with the boys and June, or downstairs, with Ralph?
-
Smiffy, this is possibly the wrong thread, but it IS a genuine question. What is your theory on the sequence of events in the house? Do you think that Sheila started shooting upstairs, with the boys and June, or downstairs, with Ralph?
Would rather stick to hammering Hammersley here...
any discussion on order of shooting should be on another thread as it would get long winded.
-
OK, smiffy. I'll leave it with you.
-
CD to WHF travelling time may be helpful in this case to know how long it would typically travel from one spot to the other.
Davidson claims to speak with DCI Jones at CD about 8.15 am..so if Jones left shortly after (8.20 approx) to arrive at whf at 8.54 am it gives a travelling time of about 35 minutes.
Davidson is reported as leaving at 2 different times...which is rather odd.
the later one of 8.40 am approx and claiming to arrive at 9.16am gives 36 minutes which ties up nicely with the time it took Jone.
however other accounts have Davidon leave CD at 8.20 am and for a 9.16am arrival this is far too long...
Hammersley claimed to travel with Davidson.
If taken as an 8.20 leaving time we would expect an arrival at about 9.00 am.
Later on in his diary Hammersley gives the same time as Davidson as to leaving WHF as being 12.45 and arrives at CD at 1.35pm...
This journey seems to have taken longer at 50 minutes...
so it seems clear that the travelling time was worked out /known so was thought about and could be applied to false claims to tie up loosed ends for a cover story.
It is Davidson that claims he phoned from his home to Hammersleys home to let him know about the case.
In Davidsons COLP there is a mention of someone's home (not detailed as to who) which was a matter of concern.
Davidson does not seem to state anywhere though that Hammersley actually travelled with him. Use of I and we is not consistent in the COLP version giving grounds to suspect deception as to whether Davidson and Hammersley were together as claimed.
-
In the COLP interview Davidson is shown forms purportedly filled in on the 7th of august when at whf gathering and listing evidence.
Davidson admits he filled in the form...which more or less makes it fairly clear he was actually there.
he states "I filled these in, Dave Hammersley is the searcher".
Statement analysis comes into play here...the present tense "is" being used strongly supports this claim to be a deception. Davidson should have used the past tense "was".
This supports the view that Hammersley was not searching at all because he was not there.
oh ,just prior to this Davidson had said he had found and located the articles and that Hammersley filled the form in...when shown the form he changed his mind as it was in Davidsons writing.
This supports the view that Davidson was both doing the finding of articles and writing them down and covering for the absent Hammersley.
-
Hartley.... (and / or Ann Eaton if she is online at the moment) we have yet another area of mystery and / or missing key information in the case (I've looked at this area before so it is by no means a new to me). If everybody including family and Essex Police had turned up and did their jobs properly and with honest intent we would not have situations where a Police officer is behaving in the way Hammersley did when interviewed. This included making some very strange statements that really need more explanation:
Why (or what possible reason) would:
1) DC Hammersley be VERY EMOTIONAL when interviewed? (makes no sense at all - why why why??)
2) Why would he have TEARS RUNNING DOWN HIS FACE? (bit extreme when explaining a factual situation in a work environment - there must be a pretty serious reason WHY?)
3) Be very keen to have action taken against him STRAIGHT AWAY? (what could be so stressful that it was so painful to wait any longer?)
4) DC Hammersley states that THIS HAS CAUSED THE BREAKDOWN OF MY MARIAGE? (what is he talking about - this sounds so much deeper than something that was all in a days work for a Policeman)
5) DC Hammersley states I DIDN'T DISCOVER IT, I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON TAPE TODAY (it can't wait this has caused him so much pressure, stress and anguish - what could it possibly be?)
This isn't something that is made up by Jeremy Bamber or the pro bamber side nor is it "a play on words" like some people like to claim anything that can't be explained is (if it doesn't fit their JB is guilty stance). This is a factual statement by Essex Police and the contents are very revealing and instantly raise further questions which seem unanswered. What exactly was DC Hammersly referring to when he says "I Didn't Discover It"? It has quite obviously caused him significant distress over a number of years. Hartley as someone who is so sure of JB's guilt does this statement not make you question anything? I can't possibly think of a genuine explanation to this scenario. Can you?
Where is Hammersley now - can he help answer the above.
Could Hartley or Vidvic answer any of these question's ?
-
Could Hartley or Vidvic answer any of these question's ?
I doubt they would know the answers. Regarding the 'It'. Logic suggests that 'it' must have been something that DC Hammersley had been portrayed as having 'found'. That makes 'it' sound like an exhibit which at one time was attributed to DC Hammersley? Or somebody has dobbed Hammersley in it as being the finder of an exhibit that was not officially attributed to him?
Alas, ambiguity reigns once more.
-
I doubt they would know the answers. Regarding the 'It'. Logic suggests that 'it' must have been something that DC Hammersley had been portrayed as having 'found'. That makes 'it' sound like an exhibit which at one time was attributed to DC Hammersley? Or somebody has dobbed Hammersley in it as being the finder of an exhibit that was not officially attributed to him?
Alas, ambiguity reigns once more.
I was thinking more along the line's , that they know ex EP and they have explained it to them since , or to somebody in the family , if they have never asked or been told , they simply could say so !!
If you was one of the family upon reading this , do you not think you would be making inquiries ?
-
I understand that notices were served on Davidson and Hammersley as an outcome of complaints made from Jeremy to the IPCC. I cannot remember what the nature of the complaints were,but there is information regarding it somewhere.
-
I understand that notices were served on Davidson and Hammersley as an outcome of complaints made from Jeremy to the IPCC. I cannot remember what the nature of the complaints were,but there is information regarding it somewhere.
Who was it who changed part of Colin's statement?
-
Who was it who changed part of Colin's statement?
I think it was DS "Stan" Jones, who changed the wording and meaning of Colin Caffells witness statement...
Could someone please correct me, if I am wrong...
-
Some interesting points regarding DS Davidson, and DC Hammersley here also!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.0.html