Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 12, 2014, 08:40:PM
-
This was found several weeks after the massacre. But near the bathroom window.
Why an earth would a hacksaw be found in that area ? There was no reason why any of the family or farm workers would use one. Or leave it there.
Interestingly the marks on the bathroom window matched the hacksaw blades.
Jeremy informed the police (when questioned) that he could get into WHF through windows. However he never said he could do this quietly.
It seems that hacksaw was used prior to the massacre to ensure a quiet entry on the night. It worked.
-
It should have been tested regardless of how long it was before it was discovered.
-
This was found several weeks after the massacre. But near the bathroom window.
Why an earth would a hacksaw be found in that area ? There was no reason why any of the family or farm workers would use one. Or leave it there.
Interestingly the marks on the bathroom window matched the hacksaw blades.
Jeremy informed the police (when questioned) that he could get into WHF through windows. However he never said he could do this quietly.
It seems that hacksaw was used prior to the massacre to ensure a quiet entry on the night. It worked.
Perhaps but there is no proof it was used that night could it simply be it was lying around a farm worker leaving it there .
-
Perhaps but there is no proof it was used that night could it simply be it was lying around a farm worker leaving it there .
Also I think even Jeremy would have had the noddle to go back to the farmhouse to collect it ::)
-
Adam - I think if you search your own posts you have already covered this subject ?
This is from an old thread about misdirection by the judge.
The police did not find it when they originally inspected the house/windows and no marks either .
"Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? This point was volunteered by Jeremy himself. He was being honest as he could easily have denied it. The judge unwisely used this against Jeremy".
-
I don't know? Every silly little thing is being seen as having some connection with the murders. I simply cannot believe that they can match up a hacksaw blade with marks on a window? How different was this hacksaw blade to any other. I perceive a bit of exageration in this thread in suggesting this rediculous suggestion that Jeremt used this on the night of the murders? For one thing there were no signs that the window was forced, end of. ::)
-
Perhaps but there is no proof it was used that night could it simply be it was lying around a farm worker leaving it there .
Why would a farm worker use a hacksaw on the bathroom window (the marks matched the blades). Then dump it outside ?
A more simple question. Why would a farm worker use a hacksaw at all ?
-
Me too.It's generally known as clutching at straws. ;D
-
Adam - I think if you search your own posts you have already covered this subject ?
This is from an old thread about misdirection by the judge.
The police did not find it when they originally inspected the house/windows and no marks either .
"Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? This point was volunteered by Jeremy himself. He was being honest as he could easily have denied it. The judge unwisely used this against Jeremy".
The judge in his summing up did say Jeremy had gained access to WHF via windows both before and after the massacre.
He asked the jury to consider whether he gained access on the night.
-
I don't know? Every silly little thing is being seen as having some connection with the murders. I simply cannot believe that they can match up a hacksaw blade with marks on a window? How different was this hacksaw blade to any other. I perceive a bit of exageration in this thread in suggesting this rediculous suggestion that Jeremt used this on the night of the murders? For one thing there were no signs that the window was forced, end of. ::)
Well there might be thousands of those hacksaws around the country. But the bathroom window marks matched the hacksaw found a few yards away.
I agree the hacksaw was not used on the night. But beforehand to ensure a quiet entry.
-
This was found several weeks after the massacre. But near the bathroom window.
Why an earth would a hacksaw be found in that area ? There was no reason why any of the family or farm workers would use one. Or leave it there.
Interestingly the marks on the bathroom window matched the hacksaw blades.
Jeremy informed the police (when questioned) that he could get into WHF through windows. However he never said he could do this quietly.
It seems that hacksaw was used prior to the massacre to ensure a quiet entry on the night. It worked.
The hacksaw was used on the 16th of September. Prior to that forensics did two extensive examinations of the windows and found nothing. It was after Jeremy had accessed this window that a 3rd examination took place. Its my opinion that they might have know he had gained access, because he might have been followed; as at the time he was under suspicion.
The police had the silencer from the 12th August. The police had Julie's statement on the 8th of September, yet they waited till the 29th of September to arrest him. Nor did they stop him from leaving the Country.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The hacksaw was used on the 16th of September. Prior to that forensics did two extensive examinations of the windows and found nothing. It was after Jeremy had accessed this window that a 3rd examination took place. Its my opinion that they might have know he had gained access, because he might have been followed; as at the time he was under suspicion.
The police had the silencer from the 12th August. The police had Julie's statement on the 8th of September, yet they waited till the 29th of September to arrest him. Nor did they stop him from leaving the Country.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
It is quite possible the blade was there all along and police just didn't piece together it could have been used to gain access so ignored it and payed no mind. Unless I knew a window could be opened by using something slim to slip inside I would not give it a second thought besides thinking it was junk.
-
It is quite possible the blade was there all along and police just didn't piece together it could have been used to gain access so ignored it and payed no mind. Unless I knew a window could be opened by using something slim to slip inside I would not give it a second thought besides thinking it was junk.
Do you not think it odd then that when this piece of metal was found, it was immediately claimed to be the implement used to gain access to the bathroom window?
-
Do you not think it odd then that when this piece of metal was found, it was immediately claimed to be the implement used to gain access to the bathroom window?
Not really.
If it was found near the window and marks on the window matched the hacksaw.
Jeremy could have been gaining access for years. The hacksaw was used for some fine tuning prior to the night.
-
Do you not think it odd then that when this piece of metal was found, it was immediately claimed to be the implement used to gain access to the bathroom window?
No because at the time they found it they knew Jeremy used thin metal objects to open the lock so at that point they knew what to look for. Prior to that they didn't so might have simply ignored it.
-
No because at the time they found it they knew Jeremy used thin metal objects to open the lock so at that point they knew what to look for. Prior to that they didn't so might have simply ignored it.
How did they know?
Out of all the junk that was outside on the farm. How did they know instantly that this was the implement used to open the window.
-
Although Adam thinks the hacksaw blade was matched to scratches on the window, I've not seen evidence to back that up. Also, although Jeremy may well have got in via a window on previous occasions, I've not seen evidence that he admitted using the hacksaw blade at all. It would make more sense that he took a suitable implement with him (a hacksaw blade is not a particularly suitable instrument) rather than hoping that some hacksaw blade would still be around.
-
How did they know?
Out of all the junk that was outside on the farm. How did they know instantly that this was the implement used to open the window.
What is suspicious about it is -
It was found outside the bathroom window.
The marks on the window matched the hacksaw blade.
Jeremy had been getting in and out of WHF for years. Even Julie and the relatives knew of ways to get in and out of WHF.
The most plausible explanation is it was used just before the massacre night. To ensure a smooth and quiet entry.
-
It is possible it was used on the night and dumped.
But that is surely too risky and loud. Better to loosen beforehand.
-
What is suspicious about it is -
It was found outside the bathroom window.
The marks on the window matched the hacksaw blade.
Jeremy had been getting in and out of WHF for years. Even Julie and the relatives knew of ways to get in and out of WHF.
The most plausible explanation is it was used just before the massacre night. To ensure a smooth and quiet entry.
Yes Adam everybody knew how to get in so maybe everyone used the same hacksaw blade and those marks were from years ago....lol
-
How did they know?
Out of all the junk that was outside on the farm. How did they know instantly that this was the implement used to open the window.
At that point in time they were aware he used thin metal objects to open the lock and low and behold there is a thin metal object not far from the window...
Jeremy's defense team maintained the hacksaw blade could have been used anytime before or after the murders so was of no consequence. If there burden were beyond a reasonable doubt such argument could made a difference but not when they just had to prove there were ways for Jeremy to have gotten in and out not to prove which one he used beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The window had been examined earlier without any marks being found. I gather the window had been painted not long before, so any marks would have been quite easy to spot.
-
Although Adam thinks the hacksaw blade was matched to scratches on the window, I've not seen evidence to back that up. Also, although Jeremy may well have got in via a window on previous occasions, I've not seen evidence that he admitted using the hacksaw blade at all. It would make more sense that he took a suitable implement with him (a hacksaw blade is not a particularly suitable instrument) rather than hoping that some hacksaw blade would still be around.
There might be something in the COA. My dads hobby was turning wood. I remember as child using the hacksaw blade on balsa wood...If not used correctly the balde would bend quite easily. I can't see a blade of that nature forcefully lifting a catch, its more likely to break or bend. I could be wrong I suppose. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At that point in time they were aware he used thin metal objects to open the lock and low and behold there is a thin metal object not far from the window...
Jeremy's defense team maintained the hacksaw blade could have been used anytime before or after the murders so was of no consequence. If there burden were beyond a reasonable doubt such argument could made a difference but not when they just had to prove there were ways for Jeremy to have gotten in and out not to prove which one he used beyond a reasonable doubt.
How were they aware he had used it? Anybody could have used it prior to the tragedies. It was found leaning up against the wall, near the window he is supposed to have gained entry. So in theory you are saying that Jeremy used the hacksaw blade to gain entry then once he gained entry he then placed the blade up against the wall, then went back to climb through the window? It was also said that the blade was rusty, yet it bared similar marks to that found on the catch. The same catch which taken on the 28th RWC/8 but the COA was told that it was Elliot that had found the catch on the 1st of October. Surely there is something not right with this evidence and that it deemed to be unsafe. We also have the two extensive forensic examinations that revealed nothing....Are we saying that the forensic teams that were sent in, were hopeless, because they could not find any evidence to support the fact that anyone had gained entry trough the windows... Then convienently someone finds an hacksaw blade and says. "Aup this is what was used to get in the window" "And remarkably the blade matches the marks on the catch" 8)
-
Sash window catches usually need to be rotated to lock or unlock, which would be difficult to accomplish by use of a hacksaw blade, especially without leaving marks.
-
How were they aware he had used it? Anybody could have used it prior to the tragedies. It was found leaning up against the wall, near the window he is supposed to have gained entry. So in theory you are saying that Jeremy used the hacksaw blade to gain entry then once he gained entry he then placed the blade up against the wall, then went back to climb through the window? It was also said that the blade was rusty, yet it bared similar marks to that found on the catch. The same catch which taken on the 28th RWC/8 but the COA was told that it was Elliot that had found the catch on the 1st of October. Surely there is something not right with this evidence and that it deemed to be unsafe. We also have the two extensive forensic examinations that revealed nothing....Are we saying that the forensic teams that were sent in, were hopeless, because they could not find any evidence to support the fact that anyone had gained entry trough the windows... Then convienently someone finds an hacksaw blade and says. "Aup this is what was used to get in the window" "And remarkably the blade matches the marks on the catch" 8)
The Court of Appeals simply botched it and didn't realize that Elliott was examining the things in the lab that had been taken a few days earlier. Perhaps they did actually go to look at the sill and the court of Appeals didn't realize the catch was already taken to the lab earlier.
-
Not really.
If it was found near the window and marks on the window matched the hacksaw.
Jeremy could have been gaining access for years. The hacksaw was used for some fine tuning prior to the night.
The police found no marks on the window the day of the murders. The marks were found later. In any case it is just assuption on your part to state that the hacksaw was used by Jeremy on the night of the murders. The only reason that all these "theories" as that is all they are as to how Jeremy got into and/or out of the house is that you simply do not know and for the record neither does anybody else either, period.
-
Sash window catches usually need to be rotated to lock or unlock, which would be difficult to accomplish by use of a hacksaw blade, especially without leaving marks.
The window that Bamber was supposed to have got in was not a sash window. As Hartley went to the trouble of demonstrating, it was actually a window that opened outward and the catch was at the side. So all folk are doing in this thread is wasting their time fumbling around in the dark about something that cannot be verified.
-
The window that Bamber was supposed to have got in was not a sash window. As Hartley went to the trouble of demonstrating, it was actually a window that opened outward and the catch was at the side. So all folk are doing in this thread is wasting their time fumbling around in the dark about something that cannot be verified.
Hi Grahame
Hartley was mistaken. The documents relate to the widow as being a sash cord window...There is a photo of the bathroom window in the archives. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Grahame
Hartley was mistaken. The documents relate to the widow as being a sash cord window...There is a photo of the bathroom window in the archives. ;D ;D ;D ;D
No way could a sash window be self locking neither can the catch can fall to make it look locked. They must be referring to another window and not the one that Bamber was supposed to have accessed?
-
Sash window catches have to be screwed shut as they're not self-locking.
-
This is the bathroom window, you can see the black pipe coming out of the wall at the bottom of the photo. This is the window that Jeremy is supposed to have got through. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal.
The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.
On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.
271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.
-
Ooooh,doesn't the brickwork look rickety at the side of the window ? I bet that was a damp corner.
What am I like ? ;D They should have been engineering bricks on that property. I love old properties though,full of character and interesting.
-
I thought the familly said he had used the kitched window - because they observed things had mysteriously ( not the police then when they were cleaning up ) had moved by the sink.
-
Yes,it was said that Jeremy had moved things on the sill to get in and out.
-
I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal.
The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.
On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.
271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.
So apparently he is amalgamating to windows here? The bathroom window from which he claims to have taken the catch and the kitchen window where Jean Boutwell says that the washing up liquid is usually kept on the right and that the plastic drainer was always in the down position? So which window is Bamber supposed to have entered and exited by?
-
I thought the familly said he had used the kitched window - because they observed things had mysteriously ( not the police then when they were cleaning up ) had moved by the sink.
I think they said that he used the bathroom window to gain entry and used the kitchen window to get out. I will post a photo of the kitchen window for it is very small....Let me know what you think?
-
So apparently he is amalgamating to windows here? The bathroom window from which he claims to have taken the catch and the kitchen window where Jean Boutwell says that the washing up liquid is usually kept on the right and that the plastic drainer was always in the down position? So which window is Bamber supposed to have entered and exited by?
Hi Mr G. :) He is supposed to have gained access via the bathroom window and left from the tiny kitchen window. This is what the jury was made to believe. I think! :) :) :) :)
-
Anyone who's about 9 stone or less can get through that window---------in thin clothing. Above that,they'd struggle a bit. ;D
-
With a birdbath to give you a bit of oomph.
-
Anyone who's about 9 stone or less can get through that window---------in thin clothing. Above that,they'd struggle a bit. ;D
This is what I have always said Lookout. I know I am a pain with the windows, doors and lights lol
But the jury were not taken to WHF and I think that it was crucial for them to understand not only the layout of the property, but to be shown the windows he was supposed to have used, plus the experiment on how to lock that kitchen window from the outside.
It is OK for to say that Jeremy admitted he could get in. Millions of people can get into their own property, its not that unusual if one becomes locked out. I as a teenager used to get into my home when my parents went out for the evening. I was made to stay with my grandparents even at the age of 13. I'd bang on the small window at the back of the house and this loosened the long side catch which had 3 holes at the bottom which was secured onto a wooden prong sticking out of the side of the window. I would get in through that window open the door which had a drop latch on it and invite my friends in for an omelette. I would then secure the window and left through the door and dropped the latch so it would lock. My mum bless her always knew I had been in because she could smell cooking, plus 6 eggs were missing...lol This small window was similar to the one Bamber is supposed to get through. It must have been a struggle for him to have used this window without leaving any fibers or finger prints or any other sort of evidence. None were found. One of the raid team opened that window and moved the fairy liquid...
I forgot what I wanted to say now...lol Will be back later.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I remember the small window I used to get in through too,much the same as the one shown. This is why I mentioned the 9 stone and under because as a teen,even less than 9 stone,I struggled getting through,caught on the catch and the odd graze,and yes,fibres galore unless I'd stripped off.
Couldn't quite see Jeremy having to strip off to squeeze his way through such a small opening.
-
I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal.
The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.
On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.
271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.
All that proves is those writing the Court of Appeal decision were sloppy in their rendition.
Elliott tested the catch in the lab and either also tested other things taken or actually went to the scene to look at the window trim. The Court was simply sloppy in how is described such.
You have no evidence that the Court was told Elliott went to the scene to test the catch. Nor does this site have any statement for Elliott regarding the testing of anything related to the windows posted. The court used mainly the statements and court testimony in summarizing the facts of the case.
-
What they should have done by way of testing was to have picked out a guy the same size as Jeremy to try it out.
-
Hi Mr G. :) He is supposed to have gained access via the bathroom window and left from the tiny kitchen window. This is what the jury was made to believe. I think! :) :) :) :)
head first? looks pretty difficult to me with an uncomfortable landing.
-
head first? looks pretty difficult to me with an uncomfortable landing.
Jeremy admitted he used these windows and he was even stupid enough to allow police to witness him use the bathroom window.
It takes extraordinary bias to try pretending it would not be possible to use windows he admitted he used and was even seen using.
The jury quite clearly wasn't biased like those Jeremy supporters who want to ignore reality and close their eyes to it.
We are at the appellate stage which means the burden is higher. At this stage just saying you doubt Jeremy could have gotten in and out is not enough.
You have to demonstrate Jeremy lied about being able to use the windows, that police lied about seeing him use them and prove with storng evidence that it would physically be impossible to use them. Your skepticism which is driven by bias merely would not even start to approach what would be required to establish Jeremy could not have used these windows and thus that the jury was deceived.
Why would Jeremy lie though about being able to use the windows? It is a statement against interest. The defense would have been able to argue at trial he didn't fit in the windows and never used them if they wanted to. So it would not be new evidence that could not have been argued a trial and thus could not be raised on appeal anyway.
-
Jeremy admitted he used these windows and he was even stupid enough to allow police to witness him use the bathroom window.
It takes extraordinary bias to try pretending it would not be possible to use windows he admitted he used and was even seen using.
The jury quite clearly wasn't biased like those Jeremy supporters who want to ignore reality and close their eyes to it.
We are at the appellate stage which means the burden is higher. At this stage just saying you doubt Jeremy could have gotten in and out is not enough.
You have to demonstrate Jeremy lied about being able to use the windows, that police lied about seeing him use them and prove with storng evidence that it would physically be impossible to use them. Your skepticism which is driven by bias merely would not even start to approach what would be required to establish Jeremy could not have used these windows and thus that the jury was deceived.
Why would Jeremy lie though about being able to use the windows? It is a statement against interest. The defense would have been able to argue at trial he didn't fit in the windows and never used them if they wanted to. So it would not be new evidence that could not have been argued a trial and thus could not be raised on appeal anyway.
Perhaps he was the village idiot? ;D
-
Jeremy admitted he used these windows and he was even stupid enough to allow police to witness him use the bathroom window.
It takes extraordinary bias to try pretending it would not be possible to use windows he admitted he used and was even seen using.
The jury quite clearly wasn't biased like those Jeremy supporters who want to ignore reality and close their eyes to it.
We are at the appellate stage which means the burden is higher. At this stage just saying you doubt Jeremy could have gotten in and out is not enough.
You have to demonstrate Jeremy lied about being able to use the windows, that police lied about seeing him use them and prove with storng evidence that it would physically be impossible to use them. Your skepticism which is driven by bias merely would not even start to approach what would be required to establish Jeremy could not have used these windows and thus that the jury was deceived.
Why would Jeremy lie though about being able to use the windows? It is a statement against interest. The defense would have been able to argue at trial he didn't fit in the windows and never used them if they wanted to. So it would not be new evidence that could not have been argued a trial and thus could not be raised on appeal anyway.
he never said that he could get in and out of certain windows- what he said was they would not LOCK from the outside . I did not specify which windows.
I would say it was pretty unlikely that the top kitchen widow would have been viable as indicated .
-
Perhaps he was the village idiot? ;D
Because the real one was missing so they chose him,as he looked a bit of a patsy. ;D
-
yes here you are mr policeman - heres the moderator I used , I will show you how I got in and out and also tell my girlfriend so she can tell you. I will also make up a ridiculous call and then stand next to you at the murder scene - just so you can see how I am pooing myself because I made a mistake on shooting the suicide victim twice . simples ;)
-
yes here you are mr policeman - heres the moderator I used , I will show you how I got in and out and also tell my girlfriend so she can tell you. I will also make up a ridiculous call and then stand next to you at the murder scene - just so you can see how I am pooing myself because I made a mistake on shooting the suicide victim twice . simples ;)
;D
-
yes here you are mr policeman - heres the moderator I used , I will show you how I got in and out and also tell my girlfriend so she can tell you. I will also make up a ridiculous call and then stand next to you at the murder scene - just so you can see how I am pooing myself because I made a mistake on shooting the suicide victim twice . simples ;)
He may as well have said that for all the bother they took in investigating. He wouldn't have been any worse treated.
-
You know what I find amazing. The family complained that the cops made a shamble of the investigation and many have said they didn't treat the scene as a crime scene. But the way some people speak of them and the smart way in which they caught Bamber and the fast way in which they sent the silencer off to the lab and the accuracy with which they meticulously counted the bullets and their cases, you'd think they were the best cops in the world. ::) But lets be honest they behaved like chimps at a tea party.
-
Perhaps he was the village idiot? ;D
Or perhaps someone so busy plotting he outsmarted himself in the process.
He did that with his phonecall afterall. The call was meant to place himself at home and ended up proving he had knowledge he coudl have otherwise denied having when the lab figured out Sheila had been shot with the moderator attached.
The defense argued the damage was done to the window and hacksaw blade used after he murders. They used his entry through the window after the murders as evidence. So it is possible he did it on purpose to create the excuse that such could have been after the murders. It could be another of his ideas that backfired.
But it is always possible he was not thinking about the ramifications when he admitted it and thus just being an idiot
-
Head first? Looks pretty difficult to me with an uncomfortable landing.
It's theoretically possible to exit via the kitchen window. It's also possible to cause the latch to drop into place from outside. Exiting could be head first or feet first. Jeremy was thin enough to do either, but both methods are quite awkward. Feet first is safer when exiting, so as to avoid falling head first to the ground. I would think that nobody has ever demonstrated such an exit unaided.
-
I'm sure Jeremy would have leapt through the window after killing all his family. ::) He was brimming over with energy.
Apologies for being facetious but I can't accept some of these theories.
-
I'm sure Jeremy would have leapt through the window after killing all his family. ::) He was brimming over with energy.
Apologies for being facetious but I can't accept some of these theories.
Well basically lookout when you have a blank canvas such as this one you can make up as many theories as you can and still make Bamber look guilty. Because you can take any piece of insignificant action or material and morph it into vital evidence to make him appear as guilty as hell, when in actual fact it is just a rusty old hacksaw blade that was left lying around. Have seen the state of the place in the yard around that window? It's a wonder that didn't find a whole woodworking tool kit in that load of junk let alone a rusty old hacksaw blade that Jeremy "OBVIOUSLY" used to break into the house. ::) I find all these theories rather funny actually. ;D
-
Well basically lookout when you have a blank canvas such as this one you can make up as many theories as you can and still make Bamber look guilty. Because you can take any piece of insignificant action or material and morph it into vital evidence to make him appear as guilty as hell, when in actual fact it is just a rusty old hacksaw blade that was left lying around. Have seen the state of the place in the yard around that window? It's a wonder that didn't find a whole woodworking tool kit in that load of junk let alone a rusty old hacksaw blade that Jeremy "OBVIOUSLY" used to break into the house. ::) I find all these theories rather funny actually. ;D
Yes,I did notice the mess by the window. ;D It looks as though if you'd risked standing on that old wood,you'd have ended up in the cellar. ;D Even inside,the cellar entrance was a bit dodgy.Didn't one of the cops nearly vanish by stepping on the wooden stair ?
Those areas hadn't been touched for ages. You wouldn't dare take any chances where wood's rotten like that. Wet rot,dry rot and woodworm-------recipe for disaster.
Jeremy wouldn't have risked poking around there.
-
Yes,I did notice the mess by the window. ;D It looks as though if you'd risked standing on that old wood,you'd have ended up in the cellar. ;D Even inside,the cellar entrance was a bit dodgy.Didn't one of the cops nearly vanish by stepping on the wooden stair ?
Those areas hadn't been touched for ages. You wouldn't dare take any chances where wood's rotten like that. Wet rot,dry rot and woodworm-------recipe for disaster.
Jeremy wouldn't have risked poking around there.
Just remember the dog outside. He wouldn't know who it was breaking in. Do people really think that Jeremy could break into that house without 2 dogs, one inside the house and one outside would remain silent? Of course not. To suggest such a thing is rediculous.
-
Just remember the dog outside. He wouldn't know who it was breaking in. Do people really think that Jeremy could break into that house without 2 dogs, one inside the house and one outside would remain silent? Of course not. To suggest such a thing is rediculous.
The dogs would have been first on the hit list I'm afraid. It stands to sense and reason. Who'd want to go on a " shooting spree " with two dogs,in-situ,barking their heads off ? For Gods' sake !
When I made a remark about being unbelievably thick--------I meant it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes,I did notice the mess by the window. ;D It looks as though if you'd risked standing on that old wood,you'd have ended up in the cellar. ;D Even inside,the cellar entrance was a bit dodgy.Didn't one of the cops nearly vanish by stepping on the wooden stair ?
Those areas hadn't been touched for ages. You wouldn't dare take any chances where wood's rotten like that. Wet rot,dry rot and woodworm-------recipe for disaster.
Jeremy wouldn't have risked poking around there.
so which window did he go in when he went to get his passport - and left a note for BW telling her as the window was not locked? Also I thiught they put an alarm in AFTER the murders so how come that did not go off?
-
so which window did he go in when he went to get his passport - and left a note for BW telling her as the window was not locked? Also I thiught they put an alarm in AFTER the murders so how come that did not go off?
I thought it was the bedroom window, but I can't be sure?
-
I thought it was the bedroom window, but I can't be sure?
Jeremy said it was the bathroom window. That wa sused by the defense as an excuse for hwo the bathroom window got damaged.
-
Why didn't Jeremy cut the telephone wires with the hacksaw ? Silly boy,he didn't think when he set out to murder 5 people that all were capable of dialling 999. ::)
-
Why didn't Jeremy cut the telephone wires with the hacksaw ? Silly boy,he didn't think when he set out to murder 5 people that all were capable of dialling 999. ::)
Because that would give away they were all murdered by someone from outside the house. He instead removed the bedroom phone ad that worked, no one was able to dial 999 before being killed.
If Sheial planned to committ murder suicide it would make no difference even if they managed to call police. By the time police could arrive it would be too late.
Only someone who planned to escape form the scene and try to avoid liability for the crime would cut a phone line and fear being outed to police.
-
All victims had more than two gunshot wounds - how daft do you have to be to stage a two-shot victim as a suicide?
-
And if it was by accident then he would have been crapping himself when the police went in because he would have thought they would have known it was not suicide IMMEDIATLEY - that and the alleged "staged scene" and those experienced officers would have been on to him.
-
That's another thing if he'd been guilty standing outside with the police,he'd have suffered an involuntary movement of bladder/bowels with the thought that Sheila might not be dead.
-
That's another thing if he'd been guilty standing outside with the police,he'd have suffered an involuntary movement of bladder/bowels with the thought that Sheila might not be dead.
If he'd gone to the trouble of shooting her twice, I imagine he'd have known, beyond a shadow of doubt, that life was extinct
-
Why would a farm worker use a hacksaw on the bathroom window (the marks matched the blades). Then dump it outside ?
A more simple question. Why would a farm worker use a hacksaw at all ?
I mentioned a farm worker I never said who , but Jeremy was a farm worker so he could had left it there either forgetting or not bothering to return from obtained, a close up image of the blade would tell volumes as to when it was last used.
-
All victims had more than two gunshot wounds - how daft do you have to be to stage a two-shot victim as a suicide?
Either she moved and screwed up his first shot or he messed up and held the gun almost level at her neck which resulted in the bullet going from the front to back of her neck.
Her holding the gun level at her neck at non-contact range certainly makes no sense and would be difficult to pull the trigger. If one is honest and unbiased it is one of the things indicating someone else shot her. The lack of GSR is another. The moderator even more powerful and then the fact she cna't have moved her own body after she shot herself.
But biased people suggest the impossible happened and also Jeremy would never make such a mistake...
-
Reading the judges summing up again, I did not remember that Bamber admitted using the hack saw. Saying he used it after the massacre.
The judge quite rightly asked the jury to consider whether he used it prior to the massacre. To ensure a quiet entrance.
-
It does seem more likely he would use the found hacksaw pre massacre. To ensure a quiet entry on the night.
Rather than use it in the short period after the massacre and before the police found it.
After the massacre he could have just got the keys from BW, AE or Stan Jones. Or had another set of keys cut for him.
-
I thought Bamber told police he knew lots of ways to get into WHF. Through locked and unlocked windows using just a pen knife.
So why would he need a hacksaw after the massacre ?
-
I mentioned a farm worker I never said who , but Jeremy was a farm worker so he could had left it there either forgetting or not bothering to return from obtained, a close up image of the blade would tell volumes as to when it was last used.
If you check the photos there was lots of old rubbish around the farmhouse . Especially under one of the windows.
-
The found hack saw is very damaging for Jeremy.
He said he had used it to gain entrance into WHF after the massacre. But he had previously told the police he could get into WHF through locked and unlocked windows just by using a pen knife. However could he do this quietly ?
After the massacre he could have just asked someone for the keys. Or got a set of keys cut. Or got into WHF making a noise.
It seems much more likely he used the hack saw pre massacre. To ensure he could get into WHF at a future date. With minimum noise.
-
Why didn't Jeremy cut the telephone wires with the hacksaw ? Silly boy,he didn't think when he set out to murder 5 people that all were capable of dialling 999. ::)
Silly boy , fancy showing the police after the murders how he got in and out of the house , and fancy leaving the hacksaw there as well . Very silly .
Oh but of course he did readily tell the police he and other members of the family did go in and out of the windows when they came in late - But the windows did not LOCK from the outside. Not as if he was hiding anything . Oh and he left a note for BW asking her to lock the windows as well. How kind.
-
This thread badly needs Jan to fire fight. The found hacksaw points squarely at a guilty Jeremy.
Sadly it all became a bit too much for her.
-
This thread badly needs Jan to fire fight. The found hacksaw points squarely at a guilty Jeremy.
Sadly it all became a bit too much for her.
No it doesn't, it was a farm, there would have been all kinds of stuff on the ground, it could have come from anywhere at anytime.
-
The found hack saw is very damaging for Jeremy.
He said he had used it to gain entrance into WHF after the massacre. But he had previously told the police he could get into WHF through locked and unlocked windows just by using a pen knife. However could he do this quietly ?
After the massacre he could have just asked someone for the keys. Or got a set of keys cut. Or got into WHF making a noise.
It seems much more likely he used the hack saw pre massacre. To ensure he could get into WHF at a future date. With minimum noise.
-
No it doesn't, it was a farm, there would have been all kinds of stuff on the ground, it could have come from anywhere at anytime.
-
Why would he use the found hack saw after the massacre ?
He could get into locked and unlocked windows at WHF with just a knife, he told police. Or he could have asked for the keys. He did tell BW at WHF 'I'm in charge now'.
-
Why would he use the found hack saw after the massacre ?
He could get into locked and unlocked windows at WHF with just a knife, he told police. Or he could have asked for the keys. He did tell BW at WHF 'I'm in charge now'.
Why would he use a hacksaw at all, if he could use a knife? I don't think he would leave the hacksaw behind for someone to find. How s a hacksaw any quieter then knife?
-
Why would he use a hacksaw at all, if he could use a knife? I don't think he would leave the hacksaw behind for someone to find. How s a hacksaw any quieter then knife?
Wouldn't a hacksaw be very dangerous to use and wouldn't it have looked a little fishy if he'd been seen trying to make a window accessible when there was a perfectly adequate door?
-
Well he said he used the found hacksaw on the bathroom window. Of that there is no dispute.
The most logical reason was to loosen the window pre massacre to ensure a quiet entrance.
He would not need it after the massacre as he knew how to get into locked and unlocked windows at WHF without it. Or he could use keys. People have been known to use them.
-
Wouldn't a hacksaw be very dangerous to use and wouldn't it have looked a little fishy if he'd been seen trying to make a window accessible when there was a perfectly adequate door?
Perhaps he did it when no one was looking. WHF was very remote.
-
Well he said he used the found hacksaw on the bathroom window. Of that there is no dispute.
The most logical reason was to loosen the window pre massacre to ensure a quiet entrance.
He would not need it after the massacre as he knew how to get into locked and unlocked windows at WHF without it. Or he could use keys. People have been known to use them.
How does that ensure a quiet entrance?
-
How does that ensure a quiet entrance?
Re post 85. What sort of idiot would go to the trouble of loosening a window with a hacksaw to do a massacre when he already was able to get in and out of certain windows with a knife!!!
-
How does that ensure a quiet entrance?
You know how. The window has been loosened. So there will be no noise when opening it in the dead of night.
It's called preparation.
-
You know how. The window has been loosened. So there will be no noise when opening it in the dead of night.
It's called preparation.
Huh? What's been loosened?
-
Huh? What's been loosened?
The window.
-
The window.
Which part of the window? The catch? The hinges? What could he loosen with hacksaw? AND why not just undo the catch from the inside before he left for home?
-
Which part of the window? The catch? The hinges? What could he loosen with hacksaw? AND why not just undo the catch from the inside before he left for home?
You would have to ask Jeremy that. He said he used the hacksaw on the bathroom window to gain entrance into WHF.
I assume Neville locked all doors and windows before bed. You never know who will try to get into a remote farm house late at night. Jeremy leaving the window open and hoping it is still open when returning is risky.
-
This thread badly needs Jan to fire fight. The found hacksaw points squarely at a guilty Jeremy.
Sadly it all became a bit too much for her.
Or not?
-
You would have to ask Jeremy that. He said he used the hacksaw on the bathroom window to gain entrance into WHF.
I assume Neville locked all doors and windows before bed. You never know who will try to get into a remote farm house late at night. Jeremy leaving the window open and hoping it is still open when returning is risky.
You mean like leaving a rifle out and expecting it not to be put away? ;D
You said he used the hacksaw to loosen the window which proves he must have done it pre-murders and that it was done to reduce noise. However, you can't explain what was loosened or how it would reduce noise. This is just your opinion and an opinion which you haven't really thought through.
-
You mean like leaving a rifle out and expecting it not to be put away? ;D
You said he used the hacksaw to loosen the window which proves he must have done it pre-murders and that it was done to reduce noise. However, you can't explain what was loosened or how it would reduce noise. This is just your opinion and an opinion which you haven't really thought through.
Yes Jeremy did he left the rifle out for Sheila.
I can't explain what was loosened and how. Probably a part of a window. That is what hacksaws are for, cutting things off or loosening things.
-
I can't explain what was loosened and how. Probably a part of a window. That is what hacksaws are for, cutting things off or loosening things.
A hacksaw is JUST for cutting things (metal usually) and IF that had been done, it would still have been loose or cut off ;D ;D ;D and you/we would know what was loosened or cut off because it would be on record.
-
Very strange that if Jeremy did use a hacksaw to get into the building that morning then he was a very silly billy for leaving it there for the cops to find.
-
Mr Gee just like the silly boy who left the silencer in the cupboard ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam, Re post 96. You appear to be saying that basically, as you don't seem to know what a hacksaw is used for, you haven't a clue and you're just guessing.
-
Mr Gee just like the silly boy who left the silencer in the cupboard ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well there was no reason the police would find the silencer in the first three days. I will find the thread. And they didn't.
Jeremy was not expecting the relatives to go snooping around and find a silencer hidden at the back of the gun cupboard. Hence his trips to deluxe hotels.
Is it true there was only one silencer for that rifle at WHF ?
-
Well there was no reason the police would find the silencer in the first three days. I will find the thread. And they didn't.
Jeremy was not expecting the relatives to go snooping around and find a silencer hidden at the back of the gun cupboard. Hence his trips to deluxe hotels.
Is it true there was only one silencer for that rifle at WHF ?
Yes
-
Yes
So taking the silencer away with him could also be counter productive.
-
So taking the silencer away with him could also be counter productive.
Maybe CLEANING the silencer before putting it away would have been the most obvious solution or d'you think Jeremy saw the blob of blood with the hair sticking to it and thought ..... whatever, who cares about a bit of blood and a grey hair possibly from his father's head?
-
Maggie you are forgetting as it was a suicide/murders Jeremy would not have paid attention to the blob of jam sorry blood and the grey hair shoved the lot in a box and threw it to the back of the cupboard nobody would look there. This is why I think he was rather silly :)
-
Maybe CLEANING the silencer before putting it away would have been the most obvious solution or d'you think Jeremy saw the blob of blood with the hair sticking to it and thought ..... whatever, who cares about a bit of blood and a grey hair possibly from his father's head?
Well my understanding is they noticed blood when returning to AE's house. So doubtful it was a blob. It would have been back splatter blood inside the silencer.
-
He believed he had lead the police into a direction and they would not bother looking inside small boxes at the back of gun cupboards. He should have been an actor. You know what, he was right.
Damn those interfering relatives.
-
Maggie you are forgetting as it was a suicide/murders Jeremy would not have paid attention to the blob of jam sorry blood and the grey hair shoved the lot in a box and threw it to the back of the cupboard nobody would look there. This is why I think he was rather silly :)
I don't go with that susie because there cannot possibly have been a blob of jam on the silencer three days later, the blood would have dried and fallen off by then, Caroline proved that with her experiment, as for the hair!! well, to me it's farcical, cannot believe it happened the way we were told and there were various different stories by different people. To me it's a none starter. ::)
-
Maggie sorry I am extracting the urine thought you knew me by now :'( :'( :'( I do not believe one word about the silencer it was all invented by others .
-
Maggie sorry I am extracting the urine thought you knew me by now :'( :'( :'( I do not believe one word about the silencer it was all invented by others .
Oh!! thank goodness, see how tolerant I am ;D ;D ;D ;D thought you'd changed your mind ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So taking the silencer away with him could also be counter productive.
Not really, if it wasn't there, it couldn't be forensically tested and no one could prove he took it.
-
Maggie sorry I am extracting the urine thought you knew me by now :'( :'( :'( I do not believe one word about the silencer it was all invented by others .
Do you think the police told the lab technicians to expertly put incriminating blood in the silencer ?
-
Maggie phew thought you may ban me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Do you think the police told the lab technicians to expertly put incriminating blood in the silencer ?
No
-
Adam I will be totally honest with you I don't know what the police told anyone but I firmly believe the silencer was not used in the murders.
-
No
Thank you. But I was asking Susan as she said she did not believe a word about it.
-
Adam I will be totally honest with you I don't know what the police told anyone but I firmly believe the silencer was not used in the murders.
Did you agree with my thread saying it was impossible for the relatives to frame him with the silencer ?
-
Adam of course I agree with you.
-
Adam of course I agree with you.
You believe Jeremy is guilty. Do you not think it would better if he used a silencer ?
-
Adam I don't think him or an accomplice used a silencer it would all be over too quickly this also applies to Sheila if she had murdered her family she would not have used a silencer that evidence would not stand up in Court today it was contaminated handled by all and sundry Taff Jones used it as a paper weight.
-
Thank you. But I was asking Susan as she said she did not believe a word about it.
You didn't specify but as it's a discussion board, you also don't get to control who answers.
-
Adam I don't think him or an accomplice used a silencer it would all be over too quickly this also applies to Sheila if she had murdered her family she would not have used a silencer that evidence would not stand up in Court today it was contaminated handled by all and sundry Taff Jones used it as a paper weight.
I have no idea whether the silencer would be submitted as evidence at trial now.
Evidence for criminal trials can be found weeks or months after a crime and presented at trial. Evidence can be found by anyone.
There is no deadline and no one knows when new evidence will be found.
-
I assume Jeremy has tried to get the silencer evidence thrown out at appeals.
He has tried everything else with it.
-
Adam I agree but this silencer was passed from pillar to post the relatives had taken it home and IMO cannot be treated with any credence whatsoever :'(
-
Adam I agree but this silencer was passed from pillar to post the relatives had taken it home and IMO cannot be treated with any credence whatsoever :'(
Well they took the silencer and lots of other things home. Then handed it to the police.
-
Adam they did not hand it to the police straight away they should not have removed it from the property but informed the police of their find and let them deal with it. It is not correct for relatives to be removing evidence from the scene of the crime.
-
Adam they did not hand it to the police straight away they should not have removed it from the property but informed the police of their find and let them deal with it. It is not correct for relatives to be removing evidence from the scene of the crime.
Oh well. They took it home. Nothing sinister in that.
-
Adam big mistake on the part of the relatives you just can't remove evidence from a crime scene as how can it be proved that is where it came from in the first place.
-
Adam big mistake on the part of the relatives you just can't remove evidence from a crime scene as how can it be proved that is where it came from in the first place.
Well Basil Cock and BW were also at WHF. Together with the relatives. The silencer fitted the rifle. There had to one at WHF.
-
Well Basil Cock and BW were also at WHF. Together with the relatives. The silencer fitted the rifle. There had to one at WHF.
Neither of them saw the silencer in question, or the finding of it.
-
That wouldn't be permitted in court today.
1) Contamination.
2) The police didn't find it.
-
That wouldn't be permitted in court today.
1) Contamination.
2) The police didn't find it.
Not all the evidence has to be found by police but what is suspicious is that only the day previous they had mentioned the silencer, Jeremy had been question about a silencer - then low and behold ..... they find the silencer. It's a bit like the 'Holy Grail' (the Monty Python version!).
-
Not all the evidence has to be found by police but what is suspicious is that only the day previous they had mentioned the silencer, Jeremy had been question about a silencer - then low and behold ..... they find the silencer. It's a bit like the 'Holy Grail' (the Monty Python version!).
Who did the relatives mention the silencer to the day before ? Have you got a source please ?
Finding the silencer for a WHF rifle inside WHF is no mystery.
-
Who did the relatives mention the silencer to the day before ? Have you got a source please ?
Finding the silencer for a WHF rifle inside WHF is no mystery.
Common knowledge for those who can be bothered to read AE's statements.
-
Common knowledge for those who can be bothered to read AE's statements.
No need to be rude.
I will read the statement.
The last time you gave me two sources ( Wilkes's book/Julie's WS) I checked them both. You lied.
-
No need to be rude.
I will read the statement.
The last time you gave me two sources ( Wilkes's book/Julie's WS) I checked them both. You lied.
I don't need to lie - you need to concentrate more and read the WHOLE thing!!!!
-
I don't need to lie - you need to concentrate more and read the WHOLE thing!!!!
:o :o Caroline I understand we are on different sides of the fence - but how can he accuse you of telling lies . I would think you have more in depth knowledge of the documents than most of us .You probably know the case inside out.
What a cheek. >:(
-
:o :o Caroline I understand we are on different sides of the fence - but how can he accuse you of telling lies . I would think you have more in depth knowledge of the documents than most of us .You probably know the case inside out.
What a cheek. >:(
Thank you Jan :). Lots of these things are common knowledge but not to Adam :). The fact that he can't find the answers doesn't make me a liar, it just shows he doesn't research things properly :).
-
Thank you Jan :). Lots of these things are common knowledge but not to Adam :). The fact that he can't find the answers doesn't make me a liar, it just shows he doesn't research things properly :).
Well I asked you politely for a source. People exchange information on forums.
Anyway fair play, you have changed from innocent to guilty after reading up more on the case. Nice letters from Jeremy does not make him innocent.
-
Well I asked you politely for a source. People exchange information on forums.
Anyway fair play, you have changed from innocent to guilty after reading up more on the case. Nice letters from Jeremy does not make him innocent.
Who said it did?
And what do you mean by 'exchange'? Things seem pretty one sided from where I'm sitting ;D ;D ;D
-
Well he said he used the found hacksaw on the bathroom window. Of that there is no dispute.
That's incorrect. Jeremy didn't say he used the hacksaw. Had he done so, you would have quoted his evidence to that effect. You haven't even quoted any police evidence claiming that he had said it.
-
Point 16:
Judges summing up. His main points
Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?
Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?
Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole.
Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ?
The jury should ignore the media.
Every witness in the trial is equal.
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ?
Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ?
Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ?
The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence.
Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ?
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ?
There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction.
Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ?
The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ?
Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place.
Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ?
If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.
If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes.
Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.
Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons.
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.
The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night.
The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ?
The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard.
The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party.
-
Interestingly the judge also says Jeremy says the 21 month relationship with Julie was 'coming to a close'. In police interviews he said the relationship had been in decline for six months.
Seems more and more likely he whisked her over on that gruesome morning & took her here there & everywhere to keep her out of mischief. Once he thought he was clear he could start asking other women out.
-
Interestingly the judge also says Jeremy says the 21 month relationship with Julie was 'coming to a close'. In police interviews he said the relationship had been in decline for six months.
Seems more and more likely he whisked her over on that gruesome morning & took her here there & everywhere to keep her out of mischief. Once he thought he was clear he could start asking other women out.
It is statements like this from the judge that indicates to me as least that he certainly gave the wrong signals to the jurors. He was by not unbiased in his summing up and the fact that you have posted this as someone who believes Bamber to be guilty shows this to be true. In fact there are not many supporters who quote the judge. Why is that? Because the judge was clearly biased.
I have found this in judges in my own experience whilst serving on a jury many years ago. The judge at that time didn't like a case that in his estimation should not have been in a crown court so he directed the jury to give a not guilty verdict. In my opinion the man was clearly guilty. After the court was cleared he gave the defense counsel a good dressing down for bringing that case to his court.
-
Those who've spouted such bilge are in for a rude awakening. We even have " antis' disagreeing with each other,whatever next ?
I refer to the lawmakers as well as the posters !
-
No need to be rude.
I will read the statement.
The last time you gave me two sources ( Wilkes's book/Julie's WS) I checked them both. You lied.
Adam - please do not accuse another member of being a liar without very strong grounds. Such grounds do not exist here.
-
Adam - please do not accuse another member of being a liar without very strong grounds. Such grounds do not exist here.
Thanks NGB, Adam likes others to do his research for him..
-
Adam - please do not accuse another member of being a liar without very strong grounds. Such grounds do not exist here.
My apologies NGB.
Caroline must have just been mistaken when she abruptly went off topic and accused me of being wrong on a post of mine several pages back, on another thread. About Jeremy wearing make up at the funeral. Or not.
Confidently giving me two sources and no doubt feeling pleased with herself. But you know what, I checked the sources.
Sadly both sources didn't show what she claimed.
But we all make mistakes. But better to not make them when saying other people are wrong, eh ?
-
Adam I am intrigued by your apologies that turn out not to be apologies after all, but rather excuses. ::)
-
Thanks NGB, Adam likes others to do his research for him..
I always provide sources upon request. Without making snide comments. Or saying 'find it yourself' like Lookout says. Or saying f--k you like another poster said.
A discussion forum is about transferring knowledge to each other.
I rarely ask for sources as I am well read on the case. It's tempting for people to make things up to support/not support Jeremy. When I first joined this forum I received a PM, the poster warned me about another poster who makes up things. So it does happen.
Anyway AE's WS is quite inconclusive as well. But will re read.
-
My apologies NGB.
Caroline must have just been mistaken when she abruptly went off topic and accused me of being wrong on a post of mine several pages back, on another thread. About Jeremy wearing make up at the funeral. Or not.
Confidently giving me two sources and no doubt feeling pleased with herself. But you know what, I checked the sources.
Sadly both sources didn't show what she claimed.
But we all make mistakes. But better to not make them when saying other people are wrong, eh ?
Adam, do you have any friends?
-
I always provide sources upon request. Without making snide comments. Or saying 'find it yourself' like Lookout says. Or saying f--k you like another poster said.
A discussion forum is about transferring knowledge to each other.
I rarely ask for sources as I am well read on the case. It's tempting for people to make things up to support/not support Jeremy. When I first joined this forum I received a PM, the poster warned me about another poster who makes up things. So it does happen.
Anyway AE's WS is quite inconclusive as well. But will re read.
So you came to the forum with pre-conceived ideas then? You gave us the impression when you joined that you were undecided as to Bamber's guilt. It appears that you were, erm....."making it up"? ::) The thing that most annoys me about you Adam is your seemingly incurable self righteousness. Which is so inbred into you that even in your apologies you endeavour to justify your bad actions against others.
-
Adam, do you have any friends?
My teddy bear is my friend.
-
My teddy bear is my friend.
Are you Mr. Bean? ;D
-
Common knowledge for those who can be bothered to read AE's statements.
-
She started it :P
-
So you came to the forum with pre-conceived ideas then? You gave us the impression when you joined that you were undecided as to Bamber's guilt. It appears that you were, erm....."making it up"? ::) The thing that most annoys me about you Adam is your seemingly incurable self righteousness. Which is so inbred into you that even in your apologies you endeavour to justify your bad actions against others.
Well I read up on the case before joining. So had a view beforehand. Doesn't everyone ? Only Susan has said she joined without doing any reading.
-
I always provide sources upon request. Without making snide comments. Or saying 'find it yourself' like Lookout says. Or saying f--k you like another poster said.
A discussion forum is about transferring knowledge to each other.
I rarely ask for sources as I am well read on the case. It's tempting for people to make things up to support/not support Jeremy. When I first joined this forum I received a PM, the poster warned me about another poster who makes up things. So it does happen.
Anyway AE's WS is quite inconclusive as well. But will re read.
Yadda, yadda, yadda!! ::)
-
She started it :P
nah, nah, nah, nah, nah! :P
Oh and I wasn't mistaken - you're just not reading the right statements or only half reading them!! :P
-
Adam you are quite right I read nothing before I joined and that would have been obvious to all the other members :'(
-
Adam you are quite right I read nothing before I joined and that would have been obvious to all the other members :'(
What made you join if you knew nothing about the case?
-
Alias I watched a documentary on the TV and as my laptop was a new thing to me I thought I would investigate further and ended up here. Prior to this I investigated the tragedy of Neil Moss a young potholer who was trapped deep in a cave and died in situ and his body was left as they could not move it. :'(
-
Well I read up on the case before joining. So had a view beforehand. Doesn't everyone ? Only Susan has said she joined without doing any reading.
That's not what I said is it.
-
Someone should create a thread -
'Why I joined'.
-
Adam go on I dare you ;D ;D ;D
-
Someone should create a thread -
'Why I joined'.
Think the foyer introduction should fulfil that Adam.
-
I always provide sources upon request.
Point 16:
Point 16 of what? (Please provide source.)
Judges summing up. His main points
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation.
Incorrect. Please provide your source for the trial judge saying that Jeremy had said that, or for Jeremy ever having said that.
-
Point 16 of what? (Please provide source.)
Judges summing up. His main points
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation.
Incorrect. Please provide your source for the trial judge saying that Jeremy had said that, or for Jeremy ever having said that.
Page 260 of Wilkes's book.
It is pretty clear that the found Hacksaw was used prior to the massacre by Bamber. To ensure a quiet entry on the night.
Bamber admitted using the found hacksaw after the massacre to gain entrance. Although he did not say in police interviews he needed a hacksaw to get into locked or unlocked windows at WHF.
-
Rubbish.
-
Page 260 of Wilkes's book.
It is pretty clear that the found Hacksaw was used prior to the massacre by Bamber. To ensure a quiet entry on the night.
Bamber admitted using the found hacksaw after the massacre to gain entrance. Although he did not say in police interviews he needed a hacksaw to get into locked or unlocked windows at WHF.
Hi Adam, Patti has researched the windows in depth, windows are her thing ;D she found the forensic examination carried out just after the murders showed the windows hAd been newly painted shortly before the massacre and no scratches, marks etc pointing to forced entry were found on any windows at that time. Am almost sure that later in September, after the police had seen Jeremy enter WHF via a window, they were examined again and scratches were found where he had used a 'penknife' I think. Am sure Patti will give you all the details when she has time. Wilkes comments were only his opinion just as yours are.
-
Hi Adam, Patti has researched the windows in depth, windows are her thing ;D she found the forensic examination carried out just after the murders showed the windows hAd been newly painted shortly before the massacre and no scratches, marks etc pointing to forced entry were found on any windows at that time. Am almost sure that later in September, after the police had seen Jeremy enter WHF via a window, they were examined again and scratches were found where he had used a 'penknife' I think. Am sure Patti will give you all the details when she has time. Wilkes comments were only his opinion just as yours are.
Wilkes was quoting the judges summing up.
-
Wilkes was quoting the judges summing up.
The facts tell a more interesting story, Adam. It's noticeable that you dont't show any interest in Patti's gathered facts about how the windows were tested forensically and the results which infers you're nt interested in forming your own opinions but prefer to just quote other people.
-
Patti put in a lot of thought about the windows,as is her speciality,and has studied them all,so any question about them has already been answered by her good self.
-
Perhaps a certain person should be asked to go away and find the judges full summing up and the relevant section rather than a quote from a book . Where there are documents in existence we should
be able to discuss the actual document.
-
Unfortunately neither Wilkes nor any other author can be counted as a "source" for proof.
-
Patti put in a lot of thought about the windows,as is her speciality,and has studied them all,so any question about them has already been answered by her good self.
Windows who'[s mentioned windows ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Windows who'[s mentioned windows ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Your favourite subject,Patti. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Your favourite subject,Patti. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahahaha Lookout it sure is. Have you had a nice Christmas? Got any snow up there? Plenty down here.....Had to go for a walk in it last night, felt like a big kid....made a few snow balls. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahahaha Lookout it sure is. Have you had a nice Christmas? Got any snow up there? Plenty down here.....Had to go for a walk in it last night, felt like a big kid....made a few snow balls. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A noisy Christmas with all the kiddies,but lovely,thankyou. Hope you did too.x ;D ;D
Bit of a snow shower where I am,but short-lived on account of the salty air. Been more or less dry today and sunny at times. Bitterly cold now though. 8)
Always bad where you are.Nice to look at,but that's about all. :(
-
Hello Patti where you been snowed in ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D always have an extra bottle in for these events;D
-
A noisy Christmas with all the kiddies,but lovely,thankyou. Hope you did too.x ;D ;D
Bit of a snow shower where I am,but short-lived on account of the salty air. Been more or less dry today and sunny at times. Bitterly cold now though. 8)
Always bad where you are.Nice to look at,but that's about all. :(
Had a grand Christmas thank you. Had all the 4 grandchildren over to stay on the 23rd and my daughter and husband came on the 24th had a fab time. They all went home Christmas Eve night then I had my step father for Christmas dinner and now got the youngest two grandchildren with me till tomorrow...so its been hectic, but loved every minute of it. We have just had supper and now off to watch the Grinch for the 3rd time...Hhahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Patti where you been snowed in ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D always have an extra bottle in for these events;D
Hi Susan hope you have a nice Christmas....Had plenty on snowballs with cherries....love em! Off now to watch the Grinch....love him too. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
off topic I know but I see that wills are now available to see on line for a small fee. June and Nevilles wills could be interesting?
-
Jan think it is about £10 for each will. Guess Adam will pay hahaha
-
Jan think it is about £10 for each will. Guess Adam will pay hahaha
Umm unless he has turned over a new leaf I doubt it :)
Hope you all had a lovely Christmas by the way.
-
Jan very quiet they tend to make more of the New Year in this area hope you had a good one :)
-
off topic I know but I see that wills are now available to see on line for a small fee. June and Nevilles wills could be interesting?
Hi Jan :)
Strange you should mention this as I saw an advert about it recently.
Wills have always been available, but as you know we have had to fill in forms in order to get copies.
Find a will is now searchable online, on our Gov.uk website which is a big help in identifying the probate court and the probate date.
I recently sent for one and it took about 5 weeks to arrive. When applying it is best to ask for both Will and Grant of Administration otherwise it might cost you £20.00
Ralph Nevill Bamber of Whitehouse Farm Tolleshunt D'arcy died 7th August 1985 probate Ipswich 31st December 1985 effects £388837
June Bamber Probate 13th December £235827
Obviously this is only the free searchable bit and a must for genealogists. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
They cost £10.00 and you're not allowed to publish them in any way unless it's with the permission of the relatives. Not sure how that would stand in this case. I guess it would mean the relative that actually inherited and they're hardly likely to agree.
-
Jeremy when interviewed said had used a knife to open the downstairs toilet window on several occasions.
-
They cost £10.00 and you're not allowed to publish them in any way unless it's with the permission of the relatives. Not sure how that would stand in this case. I guess it would mean the relative that actually inherited and they're hardly likely to agree.
If that is so then why do you often see the wills of people in the newspaper? Or is that they are allowed to publish the general overview of the will, but not the details?
-
Jeremy when interviewed said had used a knife to open the downstairs toilet window on several occasions.
So why do you think that if he committed the murders he volunteered that information Adam? It just seems to be a silly thing to do to me if a person was guilty?
-
So why do you think that if he committed the murders he volunteered that information Adam? It just seems to be a silly thing to do to me if a person was guilty?
He didn't volunteer this information. The police had to extract this information from him, over one month later after his arrest.
-
He didn't volunteer this information. The police had to extract this information from him, over one month later after his arrest.
How did they do that, Adam. Did they use the waterboard technique or perhaps resort to the tried and tested thumb screw method?
-
If that is so then why do you often see the wills of people in the newspaper? Or is that they are allowed to publish the general overview of the will, but not the details?
These are now public on the internet - I think to anyone who pays £10 . I thought it might just be interesting to see the full explanation of Jeremy being tied to the farm in order to inherit . It is always easy to take out extracts of something that do not give the full story :)
-
How did they do that, Adam. Did they use the waterboard technique or perhaps resort to the tried and tested thumb screw method?
No. That is illegal. Bamber had his lawyer present at all times.
They asked asked him. Several times.
-
No. That is illegal. Bamber had his lawyer present at all times.
They asked asked him. Several times.
So "they had to extract it" was a TAD strong. He volunteered the information MAY have been more correct.
-
As far as I can see from the interviews he answered each question when it was asked. It was a month later and he had not like AE written notes about timings and what had happened. Why should he if he was innocent.
now if he was guilty and thought he might be questioned at some stage you would think he would have got all his answers and details 100% spot on. Because he would have been ready for any eventuality.
even if you were witness to something extremely traumatic I expect most people if asked a month later may get confused about details about timings - probably not about what they saw - because it can be engrained in your mind - I think that is the case with most people - but how long something took or peoples exact words ? I think they can become blurred.
He readily said he and OTHER members of the family knew how to get in an out ( and anyone who knew about sash windows I should think) - but that old chestnut of the windows locking from the outside rears its ugly head again.
It was never physically proven that a window that was big enough for Jeremy to get out of would "lock" from the outside . Only the family said it would. perhaps if the house still has the same windows they could send us a video to prove this once and for all . Still does not mean it happened on the night though but at least we would know it was possible. Knowing sash windows I don't believe it.
-
No. That is illegal. Bamber had his lawyer present at all times.
They asked asked him. Several times.
In actual fact he didn't. In his first interviews we refused the use of a duty solicitor I believe? Although I an prepared to be corrected on this.
-
In actual fact he didn't. In his first interviews we refused the use of a duty solicitor I believe? Although I an prepared to be corrected on this.
I think you are correct - and we have very few documents showing the interviews on here . I am sure there must have been more.
-
In actual fact he didn't. In his first interviews we refused the use of a duty solicitor I believe? Although I an prepared to be corrected on this.
Well when he was first arrested in London, Bruce Bowler was with him for the interviews.
-
In actual fact he didn't. In his first interviews we refused the use of a duty solicitor I believe? Although I an prepared to be corrected on this.
He wouldn't have thought a solicitor necessary Mr G,as in Jeremys' mind,why would he need one if he hadn't done anything ? A BIG mistake on Jeremys' part,I think,as he DIDN'T have a solicitor.
-
As far as I can see from the interviews he answered each question when it was asked. It was a month later and he had not like AE written notes about timings and what had happened. Why should he if he was innocent.
now if he was guilty and thought he might be questioned at some stage you would think he would have got all his answers and details 100% spot on. Because he would have been ready for any eventuality.
even if you were witness to something extremely traumatic I expect most people if asked a month later may get confused about details about timings - probably not about what they saw - because it can be engrained in your mind - I think that is the case with most people - but how long something took or peoples exact words ? I think they can become blurred.
He readily said he and OTHER members of the family knew how to get in an out ( and anyone who knew about sash windows I should think) - but that old chestnut of the windows locking from the outside rears its ugly head again.
It was never physically proven that a window that was big enough for Jeremy to get out of would "lock" from the outside . Only the family said it would. perhaps if the house still has the same windows they could send us a video to prove this once and for all . Still does not mean it happened on the night though but at least we would know it was possible. Knowing sash windows I don't believe it.
In his police interviews he comes over as an innocent man in my opinion. Unfortunately all his mistakes are treated as lies by some and all Mugford's lies were treated as if they were Bamber's lies and not her own. Strange bit of illogical reasoning if you ask me?
-
Bambers police interviews were deeply damaging to him.
His WS and court testimony were no better.
Three threads created.
-
Bambers police interviews were deeply damaging to him.
His WS and court testimony were no better.
Three threads created.
In what way Adam?
-
In what way Adam?
I won't say what Lookout says - 'find it yourself'.
But there are three threads created by me on each. I explain how they do Bamber no favours.
-
In his police interviews he comes over as an innocent man in my opinion. Unfortunately all his mistakes are treated as lies by some and all Mugford's lies were treated as if they were Bamber's lies and not her own. Strange bit of illogical reasoning if you ask me?
I agree - he came over a bit cocky because he thought the police were being stupid even thinking he had done it - then I think he began to realise they could be serious.
Its like when people accuse him of grasping at straws to get himself out - of course he is - because he does not know what went on in the house . He has no idea. Other than what is presented by EP.
-
I won't say what Lookout says - 'find it yourself'.
But there are three threads created by me on each. I explain how they do Bamber no favours.
Well they couldn't have been very convincing threads then as they passed me by without even the slightest disturbance in the force?
-
I agree - he came over a bit cocky because he thought the police were being stupid even thinking he had done it - then I think he began to realise they could be serious.
Its like when people accuse him of grasping at straws to get himself out - of course he is - because he does not know what went on in the house . He has no idea. Other than what is presented by EP.
Not only that. They kept lying to him by telling him that certain people had said such and such, when that was not so. In that way they turned words around so that they came out all lilly white. Awell know police tactic.
-
I won't say what Lookout says - 'find it yourself'.
But there are three threads created by me on each. I explain how they do Bamber no favours.
Here's another of my sayings--------------------Bog Off !
-
Here's another of my sayings--------------------Bog Off !
Crikey lookout - that's quite polite for you . You must be mellowing. :)
-
Well they couldn't have been very convincing threads then as they passed me by without even the slightest disturbance in the force?
Maybe you were not posting.
I have found two for you and re posted a post on his interview transcripts.
-
Maybe you were not posting.
I have found two for you and re posted a post on his interview transcripts.
Ok thank you Adam.
-
Crikey lookout - that's quite polite for you . You must be mellowing. :)
I don't want a ban for the New Year,Jan. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't want a ban for the New Year,Jan. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No that would not have been a good start.
-
It was never physically proven that a window that was big enough for Jeremy to get out of would "lock" from the outside. . . . Knowing sash windows I don't believe it.
Neither did the relatives, so they suggested he exited via the kitchen window, where it's hinged, not sash.
-
Neither did the relatives, so they suggested he exited via the kitchen window, where it's hinged, not sash.
It appears to me that they tried to work it out among themselves as to how Jeremy got in and out of WHF? In other words they made it up between themselves.
-
I would have said that those who were trying to fathom this one out,were unhinged.I don't know about the windows. ::)
-
Neither did the relatives, so they suggested he exited via the kitchen window, where it's hinged, not sash.
So what kind of lock was on that hinged window?
-
Here's a modern copy of what I had in mind.
-
Yes that is the sort of locking arm I had in mind. ;D
-
Thanks.
So by banging the window that latch would land on the appropriate section and lock itself.
Should have been easy to prove.
-
Thanks.
So by banging the window that latch would land on the appropriate section and lock itself.
Should have been easy to prove.
Yes, if you were lucky, but if you were on the outside hoping it would lock I don't think it could be guaranteed.
-
Yes, if you were lucky, but if you were on the outside hoping it would lock I don't think it could be guaranteed.