Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 13, 2015, 11:31:AM
-
FACTS...
(1) - PC Bird took the photographs showing the position and location of the 5 victims bodies, after 10 O' clock on the morning of 7th August 1985...
(2) - police log message timed at 7.37am, reads, "the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female found upon entry"...
(3) - police log message timed at 7.38am, reads, "one dead male, one dead female"...
(4) - police message log timed at 7.42am, reads, "can someone contact the police surgeon and coroners officer regarding two bodies"...
(5) - police message, timed at 7.45am, reads, "can you come into the office because police are dealing with an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide"...
(6) - police message log timed at 8.10am, reads, "after a thorough search a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total"...
-
At the trial stage, PC Bird was called to testify, confirming the order with which he took the crime scene photographs contained in (a) THE COURT ALBUM, consisting of 50 photographs. He also produced a schedule showing the sequence with which these photographs were taken from amongst (b) THE MASTER COPY ALBUM, consisting of 223 photographs...
The gist of what PC Bird had to say, was to confirm that SOCO did not take control of the scene until 10 O' clock that morning, and therefore he did not start taking any photographs at the scene, until sometime after 10 O' clock...
-
There was no mention, and no reference to (c) THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM, consisting of 581 photographs.Many of these photographs contained in this album were still images taken from the crime scene video footage, taken by DS Davidson at the scene between 9 and 10 O' clock that morning. The crime scene video was recorded in two parts, marked (1) and (2)...
-
It remains possible, that DS Davidson commenced the duty of video recording the crime scene 10 to 15 minutes sooner than 9 O' clock, say at around 8.45am, or very soon after DR Craig had pronounced all 5 victims dead at 8.44am. This may have happened as a result of disparity in time keeping between one or more police clocks being out of sequence when measured against the clocks in the control and incident rooms...
-
None of the firearms officers responsible for entering the farmhouse at just after 7.30am, who passed radio messages at 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, and 8.10am, were called to testify and be cross examined during the trial, to confirm that the position and location of the 5 bodies as shown by PC Birds photographs taken at the scene after 10 O' clock accurately reflected where the bodies had been found by them...
This was because many of the firearms officers refused to attend court and be put in the position of having to delibrrately lie about that / this / it...
-
Police explanation using PC Collins to try and explain away the confusion surrounding where inside the farmhouse the bodies of victims had been found, does not stand up to scrutiny...
-
Police explanation using PC Collins to try and explain away the confusion surrounding where inside the farmhouse the bodies of victims had been found, does not stand up to scrutiny...
Collins deals with the sighting of a dead female behind a door, before entry was made via the rear external entry door, whereas Collins explanation seeks to justify that he made a mistake by claiming that once he got into the farmhouse, he realised his mistake. But this does not accord with the spoken word recorded in the police logs. Since, in these logs, it clearly states that no such mistake could have taken place, because the logs confirm that the bodies of one dead male, and one dead female, were found upon entry, and this is reaffirmed during two further messages passed over the next 5 minutes (7.37 - 7.42am). Finally, the fact that 2 bodies and not one body, had been found downstairs by police entering the farmhouse is further confirmed by reference in the logs to a message (8.10am) passed, confirming discovery of only 3 further bodies upstairs, totalling 5 dead in total...
If there had been the mistake in misidentifying one body for two upon entry in accordance with Collins explanation, this mistake would surely have been rectified by the time police completed the first search of the premises by 8.10am, yet 33 minutes after the discovery of 2 bodies downstairs (7.37am) only a further 3 bodies are discovered upstairs (8.10am). No explanation has ever been forthcoming to account for the absent 4th body upstairs in the police logs...
-
FACTS...
(1) - PC Bird took the photographs showing the position and location of the 5 victims bodies, after 10 O' clock on the morning of 7th August 1985...
(2) - police log message timed at 7.37am, reads, "the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female found upon entry"...
(3) - police log message timed at 7.38am, reads, "one dead male, one dead female"...
(4) - police message log timed at 7.42am, reads, "can someone contact the police surgeon and coroners officer regarding two bodies"...
(5) - police message, timed at 7.45am, reads, "can you come into the office because police are dealing with an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide"...
(6) - police message log timed at 8.10am, reads, "after a thorough search a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total"...
Fact: Bird and all crime scene police say photos were taken of the bodies before they moved he bodies in any way.
Fact: Collins looked in the window and reported seeing an elderly female body in the kitchen.
Fact: Upon entry Collins and the other raid team members discovered it was Nevill and reported it was Nevill.
Fact: Such was incorrectly reported to the dispatcher keeping the log as 2 bodies being discovered in the kitchen
Fact: No one suggested a gun was found in the kitchen or a gun near the body of anyone found in the kitchen
Fact: No one suggested a young woman's body was ever in the kitchen
Fact: No one suggested the body in the kitchen was Sheila
Fact: All eyewitnesses say there was a single body in the kitchen and that it was the location where Nevill's body was found
Fact: the only blood was near Nevill's body there was no blood or other evidence in the room to indicate a body was elsewhere than the location where Nevill's was found
Fact: it is a lie that the log indicates 3 further bodies were found upstairs. The log simply indicates three further bodies found:
(http://s30.postimg.org/4tl496gk1/log1.jpg)
The log doesn't expressly state a male and female were found in the kitchen either. The log states police entered and 2 bodies were found 1 male 1 female. Jeremy supporters suggest this must mean 2 bodies were instantly found in the kitchen but it doesn't expressly state such and doesn't necessarily mean that. It is quite possible that by the time the dispatcher was notified of the entry that Nevill and June had both been found by police and the dispatcher was being notified of such. Police saw June's body by using a mirror before they actually went into the rooms. She was in the doorway so they could see her body and reported the find before they actually went in and thoroughly investigated the room.
(http://s16.postimg.org/pm5xcrx85/log2.jpg)
the log was written by someone with no personal knowledge of anything. The testimony of the eyewitnesses and physical evidence is what matters and such evidence proves beyond question that Sheila's body was found by police in the bedroom. The dry pool of blood that formed from the blood that went down the side of her neck dried by the time police got there and that is where all police say her body was including the doctor who declared her dead.
-
Just to reiterate the known facts of the matter:-
(1)- none of the firearm officers who first entered the farmhouse, attended the trial to repeat the contents written in the witness statements made in thier names. They did not attend, and in any event none of them were prepared to testify in court under sworn oath that Sheila's body was first and foremost found upon entry to the upstairs bedroom, because to do so would have resulted in all of them being prosecuted for telling blatent lies about that matter, as per the content of the written citation at the commencement of thier false witness statements, which stipulates that if they have stated anything which they know to be false, or if they include anything which they know not to be true, they shall be liable to prosecution if the statement in question was to ever be tended into evidence...
Hence, the reason why none of them had the courage to attend the trial and repeat the nonsense in the witness statements made in thier names...
-
It is not the content of witness statements that is evidence, it is the actual giving of that evidence in court under oath that counts. Furthermore, if a witness is summoned to testify during court proceedings, and they give a different version of the evidence than is given in the witness statement made in thier name, they are most likely to face prosecution, particularly if they agree whilst testifying that the contents if their witness statement is false, or they accept that they know parts contained within it are not true...
This is why many witnesses who make witness statements, don't attend court to testify, because they are not prepared to lie and get themselves prosecuted...
-
Let's get the facts right, if PS Adams had attended the trial in October 1986, and had been presented with the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, from 10 O' clock onward, Adams would almost certainly have said that the position of Sheila Caffells head in relation to its position measured against the bedside cabinet in Birds photographs, was closer to the bedside cabinet when Bird took the photographs, than the distance away from the same bedside cabinet at the time he (Adams) viewed Sheila's body at around 9am, that same morning. Furthermore, PS Adams would have testified if he had been given the opportunity, to the effect that at the time he viewed Sheila's body in the bedroom, that there had not been any weapon resting on her body, by that stage.
Is that an accurate analysis of what PS Adams would have said, if he had been summoned to attend the trial held in October 1986, to testify?
Of course it is..,
-
Just to reiterate the known facts of the matter:-
(1)- none of the firearm officers who first entered the farmhouse, attended the trial to repeat the contents written in the witness statements made in thier names. They did not attend, and in any event none of them were prepared to testify in court under sworn oath that Sheila's body was first and foremost found upon entry to the upstairs bedroom, because to do so would have resulted in all of them being prosecuted for telling blatent lies about that matter, as per the content of the written citation at the commencement of thier false witness statements, which stipulates that if they have stated anything which they know to be false, or if they include anything which they know not to be true, they shall be liable to prosecution if the statement in question was to ever be tended into evidence...
Hence, the reason why none of them had the courage to attend the trial and repeat the nonsense in the witness statements made in thier names...
Few police were called to testify at the trial. The prosecution didn't need all of them to testify. The defense didn't call them to testify because the defense knew they had nothing helpful to Jeremy they could ask them.
Trying to suggest that because they were not called this means their statements are false is sheer nonsense. It seems that the only thing you are able to raise in support of Jeremy is nonsense though so little surprise...
-
Few police were called to testify at the trial. The prosecution didn't need all of them to testify. The defense didn't call them to testify because the defense knew they had nothing helpful to Jeremy they could ask them.
Trying to suggest that because they were not called this means their statements are false is sheer nonsense. It seems that the only thing you are able to raise in support of Jeremy is nonsense though so little surprise...
if you stop being disrepectful I might respond to your opinions...
-
Let's get the facts right, if PS Adams had attended the trial in October 1986, and had been presented with the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, from 10 O' clock onward, Adams would almost certainly have said that the position of Sheila Caffells head in relation to its position measured against the bedside cabinet in Birds photographs, was closer to the bedside cabinet when Bird took the photographs, than the distance away from the same bedside cabinet at the time he (Adams) viewed Sheila's body at around 9am, that same morning. Furthermore, PS Adams would have testified if he had been given the opportunity, to the effect that at the time he viewed Sheila's body in the bedroom, that there had not been any weapon resting on her body, by that stage.
Is that an accurate analysis of what PS Adams would have said, if he had been summoned to attend the trial held in October 1986, to testify?
Of course it is..,
The actual facts are that Adams didn't see the bodies until after the raid team was done clearing the scene. He stayed outside with the bigwigs including Montgomery who was his superior. He ran through quickly so he could spend maximum time with the big wigs before he departed the scene. By the time he gave his statement he could not remember if the gun was on her body or not and didn't notice how many wounds she had. Since Adams didn't pay much attention and was uncertain he would not have been able to help establish ALL the police were lying about where her body was. Nor would his uncertain testimony have been able to rebut the blood evidence proving she was on the floor.
The claim there were photos taken of her on bed is simply made up by you along with your nonsense story of seeing such photos, stealing 1 and mailing it to Jeremy.
-
if you stop being disrepectful I might respond to your opinions...
When people make up nonsense claims I state such. I don't give respect to made up nonsense. Respect is earned.
-
Let's get the facts right, if PS Adams had attended the trial in October 1986, and had been presented with the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, from 10 O' clock onward, Adams would almost certainly have said that the position of Sheila Caffells head in relation to its position measured against the bedside cabinet in Birds photographs, was closer to the bedside cabinet when Bird took the photographs, than the distance away from the same bedside cabinet at the time he (Adams) viewed Sheila's body at around 9am, that same morning. Furthermore, PS Adams would have testified if he had been given the opportunity, to the effect that at the time he viewed Sheila's body in the bedroom, that there had not been any weapon resting on her body, by that stage.
Is that an accurate analysis of what PS Adams would have said, if he had been summoned to attend the trial held in October 1986, to testify?
Of course it is..,
if Adams had testified under oath, he would almost certainly have stated that the bible was not resting against the upper part of Sheila's right arm, when he viewed Sheila's body at around 9 O'clock in the bedroom. Lets hit the nail on the head, he would have testified to the effect, that the bible was in a different position in relation to the different position he had seen Sheila's body in, at around 9am, as compared to where her body and the bible were photoraphed by PC Bird after 10 O 'clock - who in gods good name would dispute this?
-
In his COLP interview, I do not think it is clear that he mentions seeing Sheila's body on the bed, or on the bedroom floor, but I could be wrong. What matters is that he said that in the images he saw on the video at the debrief, held on evening of 7th August 1985, that the bible was positioned closer to a different part of Sheila's body in the video image, than it had been when he entered the main bedroom at around 9 O'clock, because he says to COLP that the bible at that stage was closer to Sheila's hip, than to the upper part of her right arm...
Now, have I reported the facts right, or not?
-
Collins deals with the sighting of a dead female behind a door, before entry was made via the rear external entry door, whereas Collins explanation seeks to justify that he made a mistake by claiming that once he got into the farmhouse, he realised his mistake. But this does not accord with the spoken word recorded in the police logs. Since, in these logs, it clearly states that no such mistake could have taken place, because the logs confirm that the bodies of one dead male, and one dead female, were found upon entry, and this is reaffirmed during two further messages passed over the next 5 minutes (7.37 - 7.42am). Finally, the fact that 2 bodies and not one body, had been found downstairs by police entering the farmhouse is further confirmed by reference in the logs to a message (8.10am) passed, confirming discovery of only 3 further bodies upstairs, totalling 5 dead in total...
If there had been the mistake in misidentifying one body for two upon entry in accordance with Collins explanation, this mistake would surely have been rectified by the time police completed the first search of the premises by 8.10am, yet 33 minutes after the discovery of 2 bodies downstairs (7.37am) only a further 3 bodies are discovered upstairs (8.10am). No explanation has ever been forthcoming to account for the absent 4th body upstairs in the police logs...
1) You keep claiming logs kept by someone off scene trump the testimony of those who actually were inside the scene and witnessed the bodies.
2) You keep claiming logs kept by someone off scene trump the physical evidence at the scene- there was zero physical evidence to support another body in the kitchen but is blood evidence which establishes Sheila's body was on the floor where it was found while she was still bleeding.
3) You keep distorting what the logs actually say. I posted the exact portions related to the bodies. The person recorded a call from a Deputy Insp saying police entered and so a male body had been found and a female body. A subsequent message said 3 further bodies were found. Neither entry recorded where the bodies were found. Neither said the last 3 were upstairs and the first 2 downstairs. The entries were not very specific.
4) Your claim there has been no explanation given is sheer nonsense.
There are 2 different possibilities that were given.
A) That the person keeping the log was informed about Collins seeing an elderly female body in the kitchen and then being told about Nevill being found in the kitchen after entry and it being incorrectly assumed this meant 2 bodies were found in the kitchen- a male and female.
B) That after police found Nevill and June's bodies this was relayed to the police car outside and the police car then relayed to the person keeping the log that police entered and so far found a male body and female body resulting in this entry:
(http://s16.postimg.org/pm5xcrx85/log2.jpg)
Then after the house was totally cleared and it was reported to those outside that 3 other bodies were found then that was related to the IR room resulting in this entry:
(http://s30.postimg.org/4tl496gk1/log1.jpg)
---------
The logs have been fully explained. You keep ignoring it because you have nothing legitimate to raise in Jeremy's defense.
-
In any event, if PS Adams had attended the trial in October 1986, and testified to this effect, then would everyone agree that it was odds on that police had moved Sheila's body into the position PC Bird had eventually photographed it in, and that since the time PS Adams had viewed the body of Sheila, (around 9am) the rifle had been added by police to the body, and the bible had clearly been repositioned against the upper part of Sheila's right arm?
Would that be an accurate description of what PS Adams would have testified about, if he had been called to testify during the trial in October 1986?
-
In any event, if PS Adams had attended the trial in October 1986, and testified to this effect, then would everyone agree that it was odds on that police had moved Sheila's body into the position PC Bird had eventually photographed it in, and that since the time PS Adams had viewed the body of Sheila, (around 9am) the rifle had been added by police to the body, and the bible had clearly been repositioned against the upper part of Sheila's right arm?
Would that be an accurate description of what PS Adams would have testified about, if he had been called to testify during the trial in October 1986?
Of course it would, and everyone knows that PS Adams would have stuck to his guns so to speak if he had been called to testify during the trial...
-
Based on what PS Adams had the potential to testify about, surely it would have been a racing certainty that the jury at the time of the trial in October 1986, would have come to the inevitable conclusion that police had in effect restaged Sheila's body themselves by 10 O'clock, and that the photographs taken by PC Bird after 10 am, onward, did not in any way reflect the position of Sheila's body, or other exhibits placed upon the body or around it, as it had been discovered upon entry almost two and a half hours previously upon entry into the premises by the firearms team?
Would that be an accurate assessment, of the now known facts?
Of course it would...
-
With the evidence of Ps Adams in the bag, so to speak, concerning the movement of Sheila's body, and the rifle, and the bible, this would then be measureable against the contents of all firearms officers witness statement contents where mention has been made of the position and the occation in which it is stated in witness statement format, where her body was initially found, whether or not there was a rifle upon Sheila's body upon discovery of her body (where ever), and where abouts in relation to her body, a bible was positioned?
-
Now, before I go any further, we can all see where this scenario is going to end up, do you all agree?
-
What we would end up with, prey tell, is the Commander of the first part of the firearms operation, disagreeing with his own officers if they agreed that Sheila's body had been found by them, exactly as PC Bird had photographed it (them), from 10 O' clock , onward...
-
Whether any of you consider me to be mentally ill or not, would you agree with my analysis, or disagree with it?
-
Every single one of you know, that what I am saying, is true
..
-
The police, stage managed Sheila's body, they put the rifle onto her body, they rearranged her hands upon and around the rifle, they repositioned the bible against her upper right arm, they rolled her body over from the recovery position resting upon its right side, and they set the scene by 10 O' clock, so that anyone viewing the photographs taken by PC Bird from 10 O'clock that morning, would provisionally believe that Sheila must have taken her own life...
But upon closer inspection of the known facts, come to realise that police had deliberately set the scene with the intention of making observers come to that conclusion, whilst in reality it was a stage managed crime scene, stage managed by no-one else other than the police themselves, designed to make people think, that Sheila had taken her own life...
-
Everybody, has been decieved by Essex police, who were responsible for adopting these tactics...
-
Jeremy Bamber is not clever enough to pull the wool over my eyes, I know he thinks he's the bees knees, and that he knows best, but the bottom line is that he is just a normal everyday John, who has been had over by the police, and the criminal justice system, who themselves have been influenced by unscrupolous relatives, intent on getting thier hands on the parents huge booty, at Jeremys expense...
-
In his COLP interview, I do not think it is clear that he mentions seeing Sheila's body on the bed, or on the bedroom floor, but I could be wrong. What matters is that he said that in the images he saw on the video at the debrief, held on evening of 7th August 1985, that the bible was positioned closer to a different part of Sheila's body in the video image, than it had been when he entered the main bedroom at around 9 O'clock, because he says to COLP that the bible at that stage was closer to Sheila's hip, than to the upper part of her right arm...
Now, have I reported the facts right, or not?
There was no video presented at the debriefing. WHen the police were giving their statements a month later they asked ot see the photos to help them prepare their statements and that is when they saw photos.
One of the allegations made that Adams was asked to address was about the position of the body. It was alleged Miller among others said the body was slightly different in photos they saw.
This suggests he was enumerating the problems made by them and telling COLP to query Delgado and Collins because they would be the best ones in a position to know:
(http://s13.postimg.org/g8ohawds7/adamscolp1.jpg)
You and other Jeremy supporters instead suggest he was saying he personally had no recollection of where the gun was, wondered if her head was too close to the nightstand, wondered about the angle of her head, and whether the Bible was at her waist.
If true these were things he wondered about it is not of any consequence. Saying in 1991 that he had no recollection of where the gun was, was unsure of the angle of her head and thought maybe it moved and thought the Bible had been at her waist this doesn't prove a thing. The Bible had blood stains proving it was sitting in the pool of blood where it was found. The only way for that pool to have been by her waist would have been if he was sitting up against the nightstand. Quite clearly he doesn't suggest such was the case nor does anyone else the cops say she was lying down.
That pool of blood was dry by the time police entered so there is no way they pushed the Bible from a lower location to that one. Some wondered if the Bible had been higher up in the room not lower they suspected it was near the closet door and then pushed down but by the closet door would certainly not be near her waist it would be above her head.
Some Police who looked at the photos in September initially wondered if the photos were accurate but ultimately decided they were satisfied that she had not been moved and no items were moved.
Adams did recollect 2 gunshot wounds apparently according to his COLP testimony:
(http://s30.postimg.org/babl8z9ap/adamscolp2.jpg)
It appears his memory was faulty because he though Ins Montgomery held the debriefing and said he didn't think DCI Jones was there but Jones was the one in charge so Jones is the one likely who told him 2 pulls of the trigger probably caused it.
His COLP testimony also mentions that Montgomery was suspicious by the cleanliness of Sheila's feet and entire body given the fight Nevill endured and so was the entire firearms team as they talked on their drive away from the scene saying that there were problems with the suicide murder theory:
(http://s24.postimg.org/47gso3ved/adamscolp3.jpg)
(http://s7.postimg.org/kjwtp8rhn/adamscolp4.jpg)
Furthermore he mentions how the person conducting the briefing (who he didn't realize was DCI Jones) declared that a statement from Adams and the rest of his team would not be necessary just statements from Collins and Delgado was requested DCI Jones felt that would be sufficient. So Jones didn't ask for the firearms member's to use their experience to help him and didn't even want to know all their observations just to hear from the first 2 who entered the house.
(http://s16.postimg.org/w0c20etbp/adamscolp5.jpg)
So DCI Jones didn't care about trying to get the opinions of the Firearms officers he simply decided it was a murder suicide and he was proceeding on that basis without regard to what others might think.
-
I am returning to the UK tomorrow, it has been an eventful week for us, we have made some headway, because The retired officer, has met with Cyclops members, and they have questioned him, and been privy to the facts other members of the forum have not yet been privy too. No doubt from here on in, members of team Cyclops and the retired officer will be in touch with one another without any further involvement from me, for this I am truly gratefull, since it has released a huge burden from my mind, and conscience...
-
Whether any of you consider me to be mentally ill or not, would you agree with my analysis, or disagree with it?
I don't consider you mentally ill others think that as a result of your post I simply view you as dishonest and out for attention.
I disagree with your analysis completely because you distort the evidence and when distorting is not enough to help you then you make up evidence like a photo of Sheila in the bed.
Police who wondered if her body was moved wondered if it had been moved a little on the floor, none of them suggested her body was moved from the bed. There is zero evidence to support her body being in the bed, no accounts from anyone, no physical evidence, no plausible reason why they would move her body to the floor... the only allegations you can make that would be even slightly plausible would be that her body was moved a little while she was on the floor. That is the best one can try to allege based on questions by select police about whether he head had been slightly different.
For going beyond such and making allegations that have no evidentiary support at all and thus making up the claims out of this air I don't consider you insane simply dishonest. To make those allegations and yet be honest one has to admit there is no evidence and that it was made up by you but you suspect it happened despite zero evidence to prove it because...
Obviously that would end up carrying little weight so you instead engage in subterfuge including making up photos that police can't have taken, never would have taken even if they could have and would have destroyed if they had taken them.
-
I don't consider you mentally ill others think that as a result of your post I simply view you as dishonest and out for attention.
I disagree with your analysis completely because you distort the evidence and when distorting is not enough to help you then you make up evidence like a photo of Sheila in the bed.
Police who wondered if her body was moved wondered if it had been moved a little on the floor, none of them suggested her body was moved from the bed. There is zero evidence to support her body being in the bed, no accounts from anyone, no physical evidence, no plausible reason why they would move her body to the floor... the only allegations you can make that would be even slightly plausible would be that her body was moved a little while she was on the floor. That is the best one can try to allege based on questions by select police about whether he head had been slightly different.
For going beyond such and making allegations that have no evidentiary support at all and thus making up the claims out of this air I don't consider you insane simply dishonest. To make those allegations and yet be honest one has to admit there is no evidence and that it was made up by you but you suspect it happened despite zero evidence to prove it because...
Obviously that would end up carrying little weight so you instead engage in subterfuge including making up photos that police can't have taken, never would have taken even if they could have and would have destroyed if they had taken them.
for the record, I am not dishonest, and I do not make things up...
-
Goodnight...
-
for the record, I am not dishonest, and I do not make things up...
How do you reconcile this comment of yours:
"police message log timed at 8.10am, reads, "after a thorough search a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total""
with the actual log entry:
(http://s30.postimg.org/4tl496gk1/log1.jpg)
There was nothing about 3 bodies being found upstairs, simply 3 further bodies found. The first entry said they entered the house and 2 bodies were found so far thus call for a doctor to attend and arrange for crime scene officers to come to the scene to deal with the bodies. The next said the search was complete and said 3 further bodies found 5 in total.
-----
Much like Thomas refused to believe Jesus rose without seeing him and being able to feel his spear wound in his side and nail marks I will never believe you saw photos of a moderator with a SJ/1 label on it or of Sheila in bed unless I see them myself. Nor will I believe one of the officers handling the case is an informant feeding information to you unless such person actually admitted to it- which still would not prove his claims true but would prove he made allegations and you didn't simply make the claim up.
Some of your claims can be honest errors but you always stand by them in the face of evidence proving them wrong and that rises to the level of dishonesty. Certain claims like the photos you say you saw and this informant go beyond the pale and need concrete evidence.
-
How do you reconcile this comment of yours:
"police message log timed at 8.10am, reads, "after a thorough search a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total""
with the actual log entry:
(http://s30.postimg.org/4tl496gk1/log1.jpg)
There was nothing about 3 bodies being found upstairs, simply 3 further bodies found. The first entry said they entered the house and 2 bodies were found so far thus call for a doctor to attend and arrange for crime scene officers to come to the scene to deal with the bodies. The next said the search was complete and said 3 further bodies found 5 in total.
-----
Much like Thomas refused to believe Jesus rose without seeing him and being able to feel his spear wound in his side and nail marks I will never believe you saw photos of a moderator with a SJ/1 label on it or of Sheila in bed unless I see them myself. Nor will I believe one of the officers handling the case is an informant feeding information to you unless such person actually admitted to it- which still would not prove his claims true but would prove he made allegations and you didn't simply make the claim up.
Some of your claims can be honest errors but you always stand by them in the face of evidence proving them wrong and that rises to the level of dishonesty. Certain claims like the photos you say you saw and this informant go beyond the pale and need concrete evidence.
Your idea that the other 3 bodies were not found upstairs, is insane. If the point you are trying to make, or to prove, is that those additional 3 bodies could have also been found downstairs, then there would have been 5 bodies found downstairs, not 2. The content of the message logs are clear, TWO OF THE 5 BODIES WERE FOUND DOWNSTAIRS WITHIN MINUTES OF ENTRY, the other 3 bodies were most definately found upstairs 23 minutes later...
-
Has any body got any idea which 3 bodies were found at 8.10am?
-
Let's look at the sources avaiilable to police to help them to know what was happening inside the farmhouse once the raid team entered?
(1) - open phone line from kitchen phone at scene patched through by operator to the incident room...
(2) - open microphones carried with first 6 firearms officers into premises, info' relayed to Commander PS Adams who was located at a nearby barn..
(3) - occupants of CA07 performing communication duties between police at scene, and police back in incident room...
(4) - senior officers in the incident room sending messages to officers at the scene via occupants of CA07...
-
Thier is no reason why any party who was privy to the information coming from within the farmhouse, to be misunderstood, and record inaccurate information, without someone taking responsibility for the mistake, and passing a new message clarifying the situation...
-
Two bodies found downstairs, from 7.37am, and a further three bodies found by 8.10am, is self explanetary. Nobody at all in the chain of communication makes mention of only one body having been found downstairs, nor any reference to discovery of a fourth body upstairs. What I am saying is that if there had been a mix up as alleged by the Collins account, at the beginning of the operation, the situation would have been rectified by 8.10 am. not continued as though two bodies had been discovered downstairs, leaving only three more bodies to find...
-
If only 1 body had been found upon entry at 7.37am, why was it felt necessary to reconfirm that the body of a dead male, and a dead female (7.38am) had been found? Why was a request sent from the scene at 7.42am, requesting that the police surgeon, and Coroners officer be contacted regarding two bodies, not one? You do not continue as if the mix up had not occurred, if it had by informing the police surgeon and the coroners officer that 2 bodies had been found...
Furthermore, back in the incident room...
Within 3 minutes of the request to inform the police surgeon and coronors officer about two bodies, a female employee stationed in the incident room, received information from another source confirming that 1 of the 2 dead bodies was a murder, whilst the other body was a suicide...
-
Linda, contacted DS Davidson at his home at 7.45am, requested him to attend the office because police who were attendinding an incident at whf, involving a murder and a suicide. ..
-
You do not have all this information, if there was some sort of an error involving one dead body getting mixed up for another, yet still provide sensitive information naming one of the bodies being described as male and a female, nor do you go a step further, by declaring that the same body was a murder, and a suicide?
-
Ralph Bamber did not commit suicide, he was murdered, so the reference to a person having committed suicide could not have been a reference to his body having been mistakenly identified as the body of a female who had committed suicide ; there must have been a second body downstairs, and the Collins explanation is a trick introduced later...
-
Ralph Bamber did not commit suicide, he was murdered, so the reference to a person having committed suicide could not have been a reference to his body having been mistakenly identified as the body of a female who had committed suicide ; there must have been a second body downstairs, and the Collins explanation is a trick introduced later...
The Collins explanation dies not sit well at all with the known and established sequence of events, since his account commences with the potential for Ralphs body to have been mistakenly identified as the body of a dead female before police had even got unto the farmhouse. A mistake he says not confirmed until after police had entered the main kitchen. This explanation is problematic for a number of different reasons. Firstly, according to Jeremy's interpretation of what Collins said he did, Collins looked through the wrong window to enable him to misidentify Ralphs body, a fact which Jeremy maintains was eventually found in the main kitchen, not the back kitchen...
-
Your idea that the other 3 bodies were not found upstairs, is insane. If the point you are trying to make, or to prove, is that those additional 3 bodies could have also been found downstairs, then there would have been 5 bodies found downstairs, not 2. The content of the message logs are clear, TWO OF THE 5 BODIES WERE FOUND DOWNSTAIRS WITHIN MINUTES OF ENTRY, the other 3 bodies were most definately found upstairs 23 minutes later...
You are distorting in order to further your agenda.
Account from the raid team:
Nevill upon entry into the main kitchen police found Nevill's body in the location the body was seen by Collins through the window. Raid team then proceeded to the stairs and went up and used a mirror to view both hallways. In the process they saw June's body in the doorway of the bedroom.
This information was fed to those outside. The fact entry was effected and so far a male and female body were found so far was then fed to the HQ Information room with a request for a doctor to be sent to the scene and crime scene officers because the dead bodies required such.
The raid team continued to clear the house and then found Sheila who could not be seen until police actually entered the bedroom and walked to the other side of the bed because the bed hid her body. They then cleared the remaining rooms finding the boys.
After finishing clearing the entire house word was passed that the entire house was clear and 3 more bodies were found so 5 total were found. This was then passed to the HQ Information room.
The log entries don't make any mention of where the bodies were found you pretend they do because you have an agenda, to insist Jeremy didn't kill Sheila, and you know that the evidence proves Sheila didn't kill herself so you made up ridiculous allegations about police shooting her in the kitchen. Sometimes you imply she walked upstairs herself after being shot other times you claim police carried her up there. You pretend the log entries above contradict the police and support you by pretending they state a male and female body were found immediately in the kitchen and 3 more bodies found upstairs but the entries don't actually state such. You are distorting to further your agenda. simple look at the entries comports with the raid team's progress.
They found Nevill in the kitchen, found June shortly thereafter and this was reported to the HQ IR room so they could notify the proper people who needed to be sent as a result of bodies being found. Upon clearing the remainder of the house including actually going into the master bedroom and clearing it they found the other 3 bodies. Then it was reported they finished clearing the house 3 more bodies found. This FULLY comports with the raid team's statements of how the house was cleared. You manufactured a false conflict by misrepresenting that the log states the male and female bodies were found as soon as they got inside the door they broke down and 3 more upstairs. It doesn't actually state that and indeed there were no bodies inside the door that was broken down. They had to go into the main kitchen to see the first body. It doesn't state whether any bodies were upstairs or downstairs the information fed was just how many bodies had been located by the time of each update. Update one was conveyed to those outside the house after June had been found but before they actually entered the master bedroom to find Sheila. Update 2 was after the entire house was cleared. The controversy is entirely contrived by distorting what the log states.
Even if the entries did state such what you claimed though it would not matter because the people relaying the information to the HQ Information room and the people logging the information were not witnesses and could have been wrong. The people outside could have gotten the story wrong and fed it to the IR room wrong or the IR room could have misunderstood the message being passed to them and misrecorded it. They can't trump the claims of the actual eyewitnesses.
You want to use logs to refute the physical evidence and testimony of the actual participants. This is absurd. If you actually had the photos you made up of Sheila in bed there would not have been any need to distort the log contents and pretend they stated 2 bodies were found downstairs and 3 found upstairs because the photo would be the strongest proof available. The logs were distorted because that distortion is all Jeremy supporters could do to try to pretend that police relocated a body from the kitchen. Even that distortion only suggests a female body which could mean June or Sheila. Naturally a further distortion insists they saw Sheila though the only other comment about a female in the kitchen concerned an elderly female so there is more support for June. But anything that refutes the nonsense distortions are totally disregarded because the entire things is simply a farce driven by an agenda to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
-
Has any body got any idea which 3 bodies were found at 8.10am?
3 bodies were not found at 8:10am. By 8:10am the entire house had been cleared and an update was reported to the IR room explaining that the house was fully cleared and 5 bodies total were found including the 2 previously reported during the first update that they entered the house and so far found 2 bodies.
The order in which bodies were found was:
1) Nevill
2) June
3) Sheila
4 and 5) the twins.
So the first 2 bodies referenced were Nevill and June the latter 3 bodies found were Sheila and the twins.
-
If only 1 body had been found upon entry at 7.37am, why was it felt necessary to reconfirm that the body of a dead male, and a dead female (7.38am) had been found? Why was a request sent from the scene at 7.42am, requesting that the police surgeon, and Coroners officer be contacted regarding two bodies, not one? You do not continue as if the mix up had not occurred, if it had by informing the police surgeon and the coroners officer that 2 bodies had been found...
Furthermore, back in the incident room...
Within 3 minutes of the request to inform the police surgeon and coronors officer about two bodies, a female employee stationed in the incident room, received information from another source confirming that 1 of the 2 dead bodies was a murder, whilst the other body was a suicide...
The raid team entered at 7:30. By the time the update was sent to the HQ IR room the raid team had already found both Nevill and June's bodies. The raid team reported a man and female body found to date and this was fed to the HQ Information Room. The only problem is one made up by you and other supporters who set out to distort.
You are outright lying about reports of murder suicide while the house was being cleared. There were no claims made about murder suicide simply notations regarding bodies found. In 1991 Davidson told COLP he thinks he was told in the initial call to turn out that he was to report for a murder suicide. He made a mistake he simply failed to remember many years later what he was told and was not even sure of the exact time he was notified. He said he fed what he was told to Hammersley and Hammersely didn't recall him telling him about a murder suicide. That is why the sole source used for such is Davidson's COLP statement. The logs don't contain any such references.
-
The raid team entered at 7:30. By the time the update was sent to the HQ IR room the raid team had already found both Nevill and June's bodies. The raid team reported a man and female body found to date and this was fed to the HQ Information Room. The only problem is one made up by you and other supporters who set out to distort.
You are outright lying about reports of murder suicide while the house was being cleared. There were no claims made about murder suicide simply notations regarding bodies found. In 1991 Davidson told COLP he thinks he was told in the initial call to turn out that he was to report for a murder suicide. He made a mistake he simply failed to remember many years later what he was told and was not even sure of the exact time he was notified. He said he fed what he was told to Hammersley and Hammersely didn't recall him telling him about a murder suicide. That is why the sole source used for such is Davidson's COLP statement. The logs don't contain any such references.
This response appears to accept that upon entry to the premises you agree that two bodies were in fact found, albeit you claim that mention of a dead female, at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 7.42am, was a reference to the body of a dead female, which was June Bamber, not Sheila Caffell. But, this does not sit well with the suggestion that June Bambers death could possibly be described as a suicide...
-
I am currently returned home back to a Barnsley, in South Yorkshire, from Spain (Majorca)...
-
This response appears to accept that upon entry to the premises you agree that two bodies were in fact found, albeit you claim that mention of a dead female, at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 7.42am, was a reference to the body of a dead female, which was June Bamber, not Sheila Caffell. But, this does not sit well with the suggestion that June Bambers death could possibly be described as a suicide...
Upon immediate entry no bodies were found. This is where they were upon immediate entry:
(http://s23.postimg.org/9ct2q5vbf/WHFbackdoor.jpg)
After some police entered the main kitchen they found Nevill. Some went into the office others into the kitchen. Shortly thereafter they went up the stairs and used a mirror on the end of the rifle to look around. The door to the master bedroom was open and they could see June in the doorway. Nothing else could be seen from the landings. They had to actually go inside the various rooms to see the other bodies.
Before they went any further this information was relayed outside the house. While the police outside were busy relaying it to the police car which then relayed it to the HQ Information Room the raid team was busy clearing the rest of the house. They found Sheila and the boys. It was relayed outside that the search was complete and 3 more bodies found and this was relayed to the police vehicle and then the HQ Information room.
There is no mystery in the log entries, nothing sinister just accounts which comport with the progression of the raid team's work.
-
You are talking nonsense, the raid team got as far as the main kitchen on that downstairs side of the farmhouse, they did not venture beyond the main kitchen until the back kitchen, downstairs office (known as the den), the so called gun cupboard situated there, and all the rooms up the back stairs which lead to a locked storeroom door which had to be forced open (key was in lock on inside of that door), and the upstairs office. Nobody went beyond the main kitchen downstairs until all the downstairs rooms and all the upstairs rooms on that side of the farmhouse were checked and made secure. Police had to force the locked storeroom door, and remove a loft cover situated in its ceiling which gave access to a loft space, and a sky light window which provided access to the roof. Once all these duties had been completed, all the officers bar one (who was left in the upstairs office) returned to the point of entry downstairs, and joined other officers in the main kitchen...
From that location, police searched all other rooms on the ground floor of the farmhouse, including the lounge, and the dining room. Progress further into the farmhouse was somewhat delayed whilst officers dealt with a locked cellar door, which upon being bashed open by use of brute force, one of the firearms officers fell down the cellar steps and injured himself...
All of this took longer than 7 minutes to unfold.
-
The firearms officers who entered whf worked together as one unit, they searched all the downstairs rooms on the back kitchen side of the house, and up the back stairs including the locked storeroom door and the loft space, and then the upstairs office, before returning back downstairs to the internal door leading into the main kitchen. The reason why the raid team took this action was because immediately upon entry they found that internal door blocked, there was something very heavy behind it preventing the door being opened. Six firearms officers queuing up in that small area, was not tenable for longer than 20 / 30 seconds or more, so the officers who had rushed in once the back external door had been smashed open by use of a sledge hammer, over spilled into the back kitchen, the downstairs office, and up the set of stairs known as the back stairs. There was in fact a 6 or 7 minute hold up whilst two officers managed to push the inner kitchen door open, inch by inch, allowing PS Woodcock to start squeezing himself through a gap created by them gradually pushing at that particular door. As Woodcock went through that gap his riffle barrel pointing to the right hand side of his body, in effect pointing in the general direction of the outer wall of the main kitchen. The door itself swung open upon its hinges from right to left leaving that gap to the right of the door frame. Woodcock entered the kitchen blindly, he could not see what was beyond that door and the barrel of his rifle was grabbed by Sheila before he even got chance to see who had tried to take control of his weapon. The weapon was fitted with a sound moderator. At the time Sheila grabbed at the barrel the end of the silencer came into contact with the wall and scratched and gouged it...
-
You are talking nonsense, the raid team got as far as the main kitchen on that downstairs side of the farmhouse, they did not venture beyond the main kitchen until the back kitchen, downstairs office (known as the den), the so called gun cupboard situated there, and all the rooms up the back stairs which lead to a locked storeroom door which had to be forced open (key was in lock on inside of that door), and the upstairs office. Nobody went beyond the main kitchen downstairs until all the downstairs rooms and all the upstairs rooms on that side of the farmhouse were checked and made secure. Police had to force the locked storeroom door, and remove a loft cover situated in its ceiling which gave access to a loft space, and a sky light window which provided access to the roof. Once all these duties had been completed, all the officers bar one (who was left in the upstairs office) returned to the point of entry downstairs, and joined other officers in the main kitchen...
From that location, police searched all other rooms on the ground floor of the farmhouse, including the lounge, and the dining room. Progress further into the farmhouse was somewhat delayed whilst officers dealt with a locked cellar door, which upon being bashed open by use of brute force, one of the firearms officers fell down the cellar steps and injured himself...
All of this took longer than 7 minutes to unfold.
You are the one making up nonsense as you always do. You have no evidence to refute the raid team's account that they passed a message outside that they found June and Nevill and then after fully clearing the house passed the second message.
You just make it up that they only got as far as the kitchen in 7 minutes in order to pretend the first 2 bodies were in the kitchen. The raid team had 11 men it didn't take 11 men 7 minutes just to clear the kitchen and back kitchen. You make up things without any evidentiary basis and worse make up nonsense to boot.
The body reported initially was an elderly woman and June was the second body found. Clearly if there had been a female body in the kitchen it would have been June. But there was only one body in the kitchen. If there were 2 bodies in the kitchen police would have left both there not moved 1 to upstairs.
The dry pool of blood on the bedroom floor proves that is where Sheila 's body was when police entered.
These claims are such nonsense that they could not be made to the CCRC even. There are the arguments made within the legal system and then the totally absurd claims made to the public in an attempt to fool us and this is one of them.
-
The firearms officers who entered whf worked together as one unit, they searched all the downstairs rooms on the back kitchen side of the house, and up the back stairs including the locked storeroom door and the loft space, and then the upstairs office, before returning back downstairs to the internal door leading into the main kitchen. The reason why the raid team took this action was because immediately upon entry they found that internal door blocked, there was something very heavy behind it preventing the door being opened. Six firearms officers queuing up in that small area, was not tenable for longer than 20 / 30 seconds or more, so the officers who had rushed in once the back external door had been smashed open by use of a sledge hammer, over spilled into the back kitchen, the downstairs office, and up the set of stairs known as the back stairs. There was in fact a 6 or 7 minute hold up whilst two officers managed to push the inner kitchen door open, inch by inch, allowing PS Woodcock to start squeezing himself through a gap created by them gradually pushing at that particular door. As Woodcock went through that gap his riffle barrel pointing to the right hand side of his body, in effect pointing in the general direction of the outer wall of the main kitchen. The door itself swung open upon its hinges from right to left leaving that gap to the right of the door frame. Woodcock entered the kitchen blindly, he could not see what was beyond that door and the barrel of his rifle was grabbed by Sheila before he even got chance to see who had tried to take control of his weapon. The weapon was fitted with a sound moderator. At the time Sheila grabbed at the barrel the end of the silencer came into contact with the wall and scratched and gouged it...
Your lies just serve to make you a joke. The raid team only used the sledgehammer on the outside door. Collins and Delgado entered the main kitchen with ease and rapidly. No police indicated Collins and Delgado had a problem entering the kitchen on their own. After they entered the main kitchen then other officers were able to enter the house. Neither Collins nor Delgado ever claimed they had difficulty entering the kitchen and need to use a sledgehammer you simply made this up like so many things you post:
(http://s17.postimg.org/7089jfgbz/woodcockentry.jpg)
It did not take them long to clear the bottom floor of the house. Before they even went upstairs Collins used a mirror to locate June's body and thus they reported both June and Nevill's body when they reported their progress before going upstairs.
(http://s21.postimg.org/z9xgf4c1z/woodockjune.jpg)
There was no rifle in the kitchen nor was Sheila there she was murdered hours earlier in the bedroom.
Sheila was not shot with a Mini-14 she was shot with Nevill's 22LR Anschutz 525 rifle. The Mini-14 used by police was not fitted with a moderator. If she had been shot by the police while trying to grab one of their weapons it would have been a good shooting and the police would not have had anything to hide. They would not have had any need to move her body anywhere. So on top of the evidence being squarely against you, so is logic because your assertions of them moving her body would make no sense even if your baseless allegations had been true.
Bringing her to the bedroom and sticking the murder weapon on her body and shooting her with it again to make it appear she killed herself would not be able to conceal the police bullet. The bullets used by police were much larger and were jacketed so it would be impossible to confuse with an unjacketed 22LR bullet and travels at 3 times the velocity so the wound would obviously have not been consistent with 22LR either.
It is bad enough you keep making things up without any evidence to support your allegations but worse what you make up makes zero sense. All you are doing is harming your own credibility.
-
None of the extracts taken from typed versions of witness statements were 'signed', by named officers, in other words these mickey mouse witness statements count for nothing unless the named officers attended the trial in October 1986, and gave the same testimony. Let's get the facts right dick head, unless they testified during the trial and repeated what someone else wrote in their witness statements, and the named witnesses stood up to scrutiny of cross examination from the defence, then I am afraid what you seek to rely upon is very dodgy evidence, indeed..,
-
Many of the raid team officers (totalling 8) witness statement contents were drafted up by another senior officer, the named officers in who's name these witness statements were introduced, are basically a sordid pack of lies...
-
None of the extracts taken from typed versions of witness statements were 'signed', by named officers, in other words these mickey mouse witness statements count for nothing unless the named officers attended the trial in October 1986, and gave the same testimony. Let's get the facts right dick head, unless they testified during the trial and repeated what someone else wrote in their witness statements, and the named witnesses stood up to scrutiny of cross examination from the defence, then I am afraid what you seek to rely upon is very dodgy evidence, indeed..,
More nonsense. The officers signed their statements the fact the ones on this site are simply copies from the file doesn't mean there is no signed original. Harters among others demonstrated there were signed copies long ago when you raised this desperate babble.
-
Many of the raid team officers (totalling 8) witness statement contents were drafted up by another senior officer, the named officers in who's name these witness statements were introduced, are basically a sordid pack of lies...
None of the police officers in question assert the statements are fake and were made up. In fact there are handwritten originals confirming they wrote them. You posted many of the statements in question and asserted they were genuine. After they were used against you then you made up the nonsense about them being fake. In so doing you just embarrass yourself. It would be like me posing documents that I attempt to rely on then if someone else finds something damaging in them to respond saying the documents are fake. I would never do that because aside from being dishonest it would be transparent what I was attempting to do and therefore only making matters worse.
-
The 8 firearms officers which consisted of the raid team, all refused to attend the trial, and testify, because they knew that the contents of witness statements made in their names, would undoubtedly have been tended into evidence, and the contents recorded there challenged, exposing this group of officers to the very strong possibility that they themselves might be prosecuted. It is also very interesting and pertinent to note, that none of PC Birds photographs have been shown to any of these 8 raid team members, and therefore none of them have confirmed that the position of the bodies (in particular, Sheila's body) was photographed where they were originally found? More interestingly, the COLP investigators themselves did not carry out this task, so for 30 years, that aspect of the case has never yet been tested by asking any of the 8 firearms officers whether or not PC Birds photographs which he took after 10am, represent the original untouched, unmoved bodies of the victims?
-
The fact of the matter is, that when police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor they laid her in the recovery position on her right side. Exactly how the rifle ended up on top of her body once police rolled her body back over into the supine position afterwards doesn't take too much effort to think about. She didn't cling onto the rifle whilst her body was in the recovery position on her right side, and the bible wasn't resting in its eventual position whilst she was laid on her right side, then rolled onto her back - police put her body on the floor from the bed, they placed her body on its right side, there was no rifle near her body, there was no bible near her body at this time, police put the rifle onto her body, and they put the bible against her body, and the police, no-one else set the scene showing her body on the bedroom floor with the gun on her body, police introduced that gun onto her body, and the police readjusted Sheila's nightdress, after movement of her body from the bed to the floor, and from a position of her body being laid upon its right side, ending up being rolled over onto her back and the general position of her body ended up alongside the edge of the bed. This is the truth, she was not shot at all whilst her body was sat or laid by the edge of that bed, or against or near to that bedside cabinet...
No firearms residue was found on the edge of the bed or the bedside cabinet, confirming that either of the 2 shots, either collectively, or individually, had been inflicted whilst Sheila was in that part of the bedroom...
She was shot by the police, and the true circumstances of how they shot her, and killed her, has at last been solved - police have even got video footage confirming exactly how the fatal shot beneath the chin was administered. It's all there recorded on the 2nd video tape taken at the crime scene. Police have spent decades trying to conceal the existence of a crime scene video, but now its existence is out in the open, Essex police will have their work cut out trying to keep a lid on it..,
-
The only people who moved Sheila's body, and staged managed it, were the police themselves, nobody else...
-
The 8 firearms officers which consisted of the raid team, all refused to attend the trial, and testify, because they knew that the contents of witness statements made in their names, would undoubtedly have been tended into evidence, and the contents recorded there challenged, exposing this group of officers to the very strong possibility that they themselves might be prosecuted. It is also very interesting and pertinent to note, that none of PC Birds photographs have been shown to any of these 8 raid team members, and therefore none of them have confirmed that the position of the bodies (in particular, Sheila's body) was photographed where they were originally found? More interestingly, the COLP investigators themselves did not carry out this task, so for 30 years, that aspect of the case has never yet been tested by asking any of the 8 firearms officers whether or not PC Birds photographs which he took after 10am, represent the original untouched, unmoved bodies of the victims?
The prosecutor and defense attorney decide who will be called to testify at trial. If there is a dispute the court ultimately decides whether testimony can be compelled. Your claim police refused to attend is false. Those who didn't testify were not called to testify. You make up one nonsense claim after the next. There is nothing to contradict the statements of the officers that Sheila was found on the master bedroom floor. Thus you made up that their statements were not signed and were written by others. All you are doing is demonstrating yourself to be thoroughly dishonest and that you have nothing valid to raise so have to resort to deception to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
-
The fact of the matter is, that when police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor they laid her in the recovery position on her right side. Exactly how the rifle ended up on top of her body once police rolled her body back over into the supine position afterwards doesn't take too much effort to think about. She didn't cling onto the rifle whilst her body was in the recovery position on her right side, and the bible wasn't resting in its eventual position whilst she was laid on her right side, then rolled onto her back - police put her body on the floor from the bed, they placed her body on its right side, there was no rifle near her body, there was no bible near her body at this time, police put the rifle onto her body, and they put the bible against her body, and the police, no-one else set the scene showing her body on the bedroom floor with the gun on her body, police introduced that gun onto her body, and the police readjusted Sheila's nightdress, after movement of her body from the bed to the floor, and from a position of her body being laid upon its right side, ending up being rolled over onto her back and the general position of her body ended up alongside the edge of the bed. This is the truth, she was not shot at all whilst her body was sat or laid by the edge of that bed, or against or near to that bedside cabinet...
No firearms residue was found on the edge of the bed or the bedside cabinet, confirming that either of the 2 shots, either collectively, or individually, had been inflicted whilst Sheila was in that part of the bedroom...
She was shot by the police, and the true circumstances of how they shot her, and killed her, has at last been solved - police have even got video footage confirming exactly how the fatal shot beneath the chin was administered. It's all there recorded on the 2nd video tape taken at the crime scene. Police have spent decades trying to conceal the existence of a crime scene video, but now its existence is out in the open, Essex police will have their work cut out trying to keep a lid on it..,
The fact of the matter is that police had no reason to move Sheila's body from the bed had it been there and would have left it there but all those who entered the house say her body was on the master bedroom floor. A dried pool of blood confirms that is where her body was left by the killer. The evidence proves she was shot and killed by the Anschutz rifle hours before police entered the house she was already in full rigor by the time she was autopsied and the stomach contents in her stomach proves she died by 3am. You make up wild tales of police shooting her and the police bullet being swapped out for a 22LR bullet though you have zero evidence to support such and in fact though the Vanezis described the bullet as 22LR, reported no jacket remnants found (as would be the case from a full metal jacket police bullet), described the wound as wound consistent with being made by a .22 not a high powered police rifle and though the xray of the bullet matches the .22LR bullet fragment produced at trial. You ignore the evidence and simply make things up without any evidentiary basis and in fact with a reckless disregard for the truth.
-
There is no way, that police would not have been able to tell that Sheila's body had been laid upon its right side after the fatal shot under the chin, and that someone had rolled her body back over into the supine position, and then put the rifle on top of her body, adjusted her hands upon and around the rifle to try and give a general impression that she might have shot herself, if police had found her body exactly as it is displayed in PC Birds Crime scene photographs taken after 10 O'clock that morning...
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that Sheila had been shot hours and hours before PC Bird took photographs after 10 am, none whatsoever...
She was definitely still alive inside the bedroom after 9 am, as confirmed by the events recorded on part (2) of the crime scene video footage...
-
Police involved in this cover up are amongst some of the most vile and disgusting corrupt police officers that have ever walked upon the earth. They framed Jeremy to save face in the public domain...
Nobody, but the police shot and killed Sheila Caffell, that is a stone cold fact...
Police moved her body from the bed to the floor, and they made the big mistake of laying her body upon its right hand side when they first moved her body from the bed to the floor. At that time, with her body upon its right side, the rifle could not have been on top of her body, it would have been impossible for the rifle to be anywhere upon her body whilst her body was rolled over on its right hand side. Everybody knows and accepts that her body had been laid upon its right side on the floor, before she ended up on her back alongside the edge of the bed on the floor by 10 O'clock with the rifle now on top of her body. Wholaced that rifle there on top of her body, after her body was rolled onto its back, from the recovery position? That person could only have been a police officer, no-one else. It had to have been the police, since who else could have done it?
-
Suddenly, the reality of the situation must surely be dawning upon everybody, that it was the police who put Sheila's body into the recovery position on the bedroom floor, before her body was rolled over onto its back? Sheila didn't roll herself over into that now accepted fact that her body had without question been laid upon its right side, prior to it being rolled onto its back on the floor almost parallel with the edge of the bed...
Sheila didn't put herself in the recovery position on the floor after being instantly killed by that fatal shot under the chin, how could she have if she was already dead? Even more bizzare, how had she then rolled herself back into the supine position on the floor, as described? She didn't move her own body about in that / this sequence, how could she have if by the time of the second shot she was already dead?
Why would Jeremy have laid his sisters body in the recovery position on the bedroom floor, laying it upon her right hand side, to try to give her the best possible chance of recovery, if his intention as the killer, had been to kill her? He wouldn't have done, he didn't do...
Police put her into the recovery position on the bedroom floor after they shot her, because they wanted to give her the best chance of survival after they shot her under the chin whilst her body was on top of the bed, not on the floor beside it...
-
That is not the only factor which now points the finger of guilt at the police themselves, rather than Sheila herself committing suicide, or Jeremy having shot her and he having rolled her body into the recovery position, and then back over into the supine position. Since, once you start to look at the available evidence contained in PC Birds crime scene photographs, it becomes clear that in addition to the problem of somebody having placed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, upon its right hand side, before resetting her body upon its back near the edge of the bed, but ask yourselves where had Sheila's body been before someone had placed her body on the bedroom floor upon its right side?
It had to have been somewhere else, other than in the recovery position. She did not inflict the fatal shot beneath the chin, whilst she was laid on the bedroom carpet in the recovery position, everybody must accept that as being true? If she had been laid in the recovery position upon her right side and she had indeed shot herself with use of the rifle, how did the rifle end up on top of her body with the wooden butt of the rifle smack in between her kegs and the barrel of the rifle close to the shot in her neck which had killed her, and the palm of her right hand end up onto of the trigger mechanism? Somebody deliberately place that rifle on top of her body, after she had been laying on the bedroom floor with the shot beneath the chin already inflicted, that is a stone cold fact. What's more, with Sheila's body 100% having been laid upon its right side in the recovery position before it was rolled over into the supine position closer to the bed, the palm of her right hand could not have possibly been upon that part of the rifles trigger mechanism, where police had later positioned it, because if you reversed the movement from recovery position on the floor into the supine position on the floor, by going from the supine position back into the recovery position which her body had previously been in, the palm of her right hand would have been underneath the gun whilst she was in the recovery position, not on top of it. Now if the palm of her right hand had been on top of the rifle whilst in the recovery position it would probably have been beneath the rifle once whoever had rolled her body into the supine position - this is another factor which helps to prove that Sheila's body was deliberately stage managed, as well as other factors which I shall be alluding to in due course...
Now, if police had discovered Sheila's body as shown by PC Birds crime scene photographs taken at the scene after 10 O'clock, then what I am saying, is that no police officer worth his weight in corruption would fail to have noticed these fundamental clues. They could not have arrived at the conclusion that she had killed herself because of the two factors I have drawn your attention too...
-
Of course, the usual cronies will say that what I am talking about us nothing but nonsense, and that I am lying, I am a liar, and so on and so forth, that's the only response the cronies can keep coming up with, I'm not even bothered about what they say about me now, they are pathetic evil lying scumbags....
-
Sheila's body was moved by police, the rifle was moved by police, and the bible was moved by police...
-
There is obviously now going to be another independent police investigation on the back of these revelations that I have in very recent days brought to your attention. Any new independent police investigation will have to deal with the fact that Sheila was still alive inside the farmhouse when the original 6 man raid team entered the building. That she confronted PS Woodcock downstairs as he was coming through a tight gap in the door. How she was shot in that struggle and the fact that she appeared to have pulled the muzzle of the silenced barrel of Woodcocks weapon in towards her own throat at the time Woodcock inadvertently activated the trigger. How Sheila's body was left unsupervised downstairs in the kitchen, how she managed to get herself upstairs into the main bedroom onto the bed, and convince the police into thinking she was dead again? How the rifle from the window was brought to her body during a training exercise for the purpose of trying to establish that she could have taken her own life by use of that, or a similar gun. How the rifle which had been brought from the window onto her body in those circumstances, had still been loaded, which led to Sheila receiving the so called 2nd shot underneath her chin which had killed her. How police immediately moved her body from the bed to the floor and placed her body in the recovery position upon its right side, before rolling her body back over into the supine position. How police planted the rifle onto her body once it had been rolled into the supine position, from the recovery position, etc, etc, etc..,
-
There will then be the inevitable comparison of imagery recorded in the crime scene videos that were taken at the scene between 9am and 10 am, against the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, at the scene from 10 O'clock, onwards. This exercise Aline, will prove, (a) that police did shoot Sheila with use of the rifle from the window, and (b) that police moved her body from on top of the bed immediately after the shot beneath the chin was inflicted, they transferred her body from the bed onto the bedroom floor by placing it in the recovery position upon its right side, before rolling the body onto its back in the supine position, before loading the body by placing the rifle on top, and using the bible to try to conceal blood on the carpet which in all probability got there when Sheila's body was moved into the recovery position upon its right side...
-
There is no way, that police would not have been able to tell that Sheila's body had been laid upon its right side after the fatal shot under the chin, and that someone had rolled her body back over into the supine position, and then put the rifle on top of her body, adjusted her hands upon and around the rifle to try and give a general impression that she might have shot herself, if police had found her body exactly as it is displayed in PC Birds Crime scene photographs taken after 10 O'clock that morning...
She was shot and killed while seated. The blood thus went down her shoulder and breast area. She was subsequently moved flat in order to place the gun across her body to make it appear she killed herself. The blood at that point flowed down the side of her neck to the floor where it pooled, down the sides of her mouth and some blood on her upper arm that wasn't dry went down the side of her arm,
DCI Jones totally missed the significance of this as did the other investigators who clearly knew little about guns because they didn't use firearms and lacked blood interpretation training.
Vanezis failed to appreciate the significance either, it was only during the course of the appeal that blood experts assessed the significance of such. The Court of Appeals found such evidence potent but refused to allow it to be considered because the prosecution could have had experts assess such for the trial but didn't. Only if there were a new trial could they raise such.
Sheila was moved shortly after she died and that movement was to move her from a seated position to flat. Your made up claims about her being in the bed and the kitchen are just that made up and have no evidentiary support whatsoever.
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that Sheila had been shot hours and hours before PC Bird took photographs after 10 am, none whatsoever...
She was definitely still alive inside the bedroom after 9 am, as confirmed by the events recorded on part (2) of the crime scene video footage...
There was no crime scene video footage you just keep making up nonsense. The evidence proves Sheila died long before police ever entered. She died by 3am thus the foot she ate earlier was still in her system and she was in full rigor when examined by Vanezis. She was shot with the Anschutz 525 while the moderator was attached and the killer put it away in the closet before leaving thus why it was in the closet instead of on the weapon. After removing the moderator he dragged her body flat then stuck the wepaon on top of her. A pool of blood formed on the floor and the Bible was placed in such blood while it was still wet. By the time police entered it was dry. She was dead long before police entered which is why the blood on her face was dry when Dr Craig declared her dead at 8:45. It's bad enough to make up she was still alive when police entered but to make up she was still alive after she was declared dead is even more absurd.
You ignore all the evidence and just make up nonsense.
-
There is obviously now going to be another independent police investigation on the back of these revelations that I have in very recent days brought to your attention. Any new independent police investigation will have to deal with the fact that Sheila was still alive inside the farmhouse when the original 6 man raid team entered the building. That she confronted PS Woodcock downstairs as he was coming through a tight gap in the door. How she was shot in that struggle and the fact that she appeared to have pulled the muzzle of the silenced barrel of Woodcocks weapon in towards her own throat at the time Woodcock inadvertently activated the trigger. How Sheila's body was left unsupervised downstairs in the kitchen, how she managed to get herself upstairs into the main bedroom onto the bed, and convince the police into thinking she was dead again? How the rifle from the window was brought to her body during a training exercise for the purpose of trying to establish that she could have taken her own life by use of that, or a similar gun. How the rifle which had been brought from the window onto her body in those circumstances, had still been loaded, which led to Sheila receiving the so called 2nd shot underneath her chin which had killed her. How police immediately moved her body from the bed to the floor and placed her body in the recovery position upon its right side, before rolling her body back over into the supine position. How police planted the rifle onto her body once it had been rolled into the supine position, from the recovery position, etc, etc, etc..,
Your revelations are all made up. The 1991 COLP investigation took care of all your tripe back in 1991 and there won't be anymore attention to this case paid by the police. The defense will just keep spinning its wheels trying to find a way to pretend Jeremy is innocent but will never be able to establish such to objective rational people let alone any Court.
-
By the way 9 men raided the house not 6, 6 were selected to be the initial raid team and 3 more reinforced them.
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Hall
Manners
Woodcock
Mildinhall
Rozga
Webb
All of these only saw one body in the kitchen- Nevill.
The upstairs bodies were found by:
Collins
Delgado
Woodcock
Hall
Manners
Webb (did not enter the master bedroom so only saw June could not see the floor where Sheila was because it was blocked by the bed)
4 supervisors wen in after the house was cleared
Gibbons
Harris
Montgomery
Adams
Dr Craig also went inside and declared all the victims dead.
Miller, DS Jones, and DCI Jones and Clark entered soon thereafter. Bird, Hammersley, Cook, and Davidson subsequently arrived.
For the earliest witnesses to the last Sheila was on the floor on Nevill's side of the bed.
-
If Sheila's death had occurred in anything like the circumstances described above, Essex police would have noticed the clues saying as much. Instead, they ignored the tell tale clues which prove that somebody stage managed her body, after it had been removed from the bed and placed in the recovery position upon its right side. Then, as I say her body was rolled back into the supine position and the rifle added to her body. Even the keystone cops would have noticed these fundament clues. The triangular bloodstain at the top right hand side of Sheila's nightdress (front) and the tell tale runs of blood which are present on her right arm, give testimony to the fact that she was put into the recovery position after having been shot beneath the chin. There is also the bloodied finger marks on the front lower right hand side of the same nightdress, all in all, the dopuest copper in the whole wide world could not have failed to take notice of such evidence and come to the inevitable conclusion that if Sheila's body had not been on the bed, if the police had not brought the rifle from the window to her body upon the bed, if that rifle had been checked and made safe beforehand, if the police had not introduced that loaded weapon to her body, if the trigger had not been activated, if the police had not transferred her body from the bed onto the floor in the aforementioned recovery position, then checked for a pulse in her neck and tried to stem the blood flow from the 2nd wound underneath the chin, if they had not then rolled her over onto her back, introduced the rifle on top of her body, adjusted her hands around and upon the gun, had not tried to conceal the pool of blood on the bedroom carpet by use of the bible, then they would have almost certainly knew from the very first moment of seeing her body in the position later photographed in by PC Bird, that she had been killed by someone else...
-
When someone appears to be dead,or is confirmed dead on entry,why the need to feel for a pulse ?? Didn't the police know a dead body when they saw one----------------or had she only just died ? ???
A body which has lain for "several hours" does NOT require examination by feeling for a pulse.
-
When someone appears to be dead,or is confirmed dead on entry,why the need to feel for a pulse ?? Didn't the police know a dead body when they saw one----------------or had she only just died ? ???
A body which has lain for "several hours" does NOT require examination by feeling for a pulse.
Mike made up that police checked the bodies for a pulse. No police said they did such (they all denied touching the bodies except the crime scene officers after photographing them) nor did Dr Craig ever claim he did such. One of those who was with Dr Craig said Dr Craig only touched one body (Daniel) and did so in order to ascertain the gender because the back of the body was facing him and he could not tell the gender from behind.
(http://s10.postimg.org/scxv30yk9/woodcockdrcraig.jpg)
-
If Sheila's death had occurred in anything like the circumstances described above, Essex police would have noticed the clues saying as much. Instead, they ignored the tell tale clues which prove that somebody stage managed her body, after it had been removed from the bed and placed in the recovery position upon its right side. Then, as I say her body was rolled back into the supine position and the rifle added to her body. Even the keystone cops would have noticed these fundament clues. The triangular bloodstain at the top right hand side of Sheila's nightdress (front) and the tell tale runs of blood which are present on her right arm, give testimony to the fact that she was put into the recovery position after having been shot beneath the chin. There is also the bloodied finger marks on the front lower right hand side of the same nightdress, all in all, the dopuest copper in the whole wide world could not have failed to take notice of such evidence and come to the inevitable conclusion that if Sheila's body had not been on the bed, if the police had not brought the rifle from the window to her body upon the bed, if that rifle had been checked and made safe beforehand, if the police had not introduced that loaded weapon to her body, if the trigger had not been activated, if the police had not transferred her body from the bed onto the floor in the aforementioned recovery position, then checked for a pulse in her neck and tried to stem the blood flow from the 2nd wound underneath the chin, if they had not then rolled her over onto her back, introduced the rifle on top of her body, adjusted her hands around and upon the gun, had not tried to conceal the pool of blood on the bedroom carpet by use of the bible, then they would have almost certainly knew from the very first moment of seeing her body in the position later photographed in by PC Bird, that she had been killed by someone else...
The police handling the investigation had no firearms knowledge or experience and ignored all evidence that didn't comport with Jeremy's claims instead choosing to simply believe Jeremy. The firearms officers perceived numerous problems with the murder suicide theory proposed by Taff Jones but they were not handling the investigation and were not even asked to give their opinions. Taff Jones didn't even want statements from most of them only after Taff Jones was replaced did the lead investigator request statements from all those involved. During the COLP investigation Sgt. Adams noted his indignity and disbelief that DCI Jones didn't speak to him or ask him for a statement. He noted he was in charge of the scene for hours including responsible for the raid so felt he should have been consulted.
The original investigation centered around looking for evidence linking Sheila and ignored all evidence that contradicted Jeremy's claims. A new investigation was done in order to handle it correctly. The actions of the original police in failing to follow leads and just making a snap assessment is one of the things that can lead to MOJs. Numerous MOJs feature police zeroing in on 1 suspect and not following the evidence that exonerates the suspect and leads elsewhere.
Some of the key evidence was adduced weeks later. The lab didn't figure out Sheila's blood was inside the moderator until weeks later. Julie didn't tell the full truth until weeks later. They did the right thing and changed the theory of the crime based on such evidence and other evidence that squarely showed the killer was Jeremy. It wasn't appreciated right away that Nevill was shot in the bedroom with June and subsequently went in the kitchen but could not speak at that point because of his vocal chord injury. Police are supposed to follow evidence and change theories when evidence leads elsewhere and they ultimately did so.
-
It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Jeremy caused the police to treat the shootings as 4 murders and a suicide, exactly how did he manage to do that then when he had very little if any contact with the senior officers at the scene and elsewhere? All the senior police officers who were present at the scene, and back in the control room, or at home in bed until later in the day never spoke to Jeremy personally and so I find it hard to accept that he somehow affected the decisions they made without there being any physical contact between him and any of them - and these senior officers were supposed to be the best detectives and police officers to work for Essex police in that era..,
The police made their own decisions, they did not need any prompting from anyone else, in particular from Jeremy Banner..,
-
It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Jeremy caused the police to treat the shootings as 4 murders and a suicide, exactly how did he manage to do that then when he had very little if any contact with the senior officers at the scene and elsewhere? All the senior police officers who were present at the scene, and back in the control room, or at home in bed until later in the day never spoke to Jeremy personally and so I find it hard to accept that he somehow affected the decisions they made without there being any physical contact between him and any of them - and these senior officers were supposed to be the best detectives and police officers to work for Essex police in that era..,
The police made their own decisions, they did not need any prompting from anyone else, in particular from Jeremy Banner..,
More absurdity from you.
Who Jeremy fed his BS to:
1) West and his BS claim that Nevill phoned him stating Sheila was going crazy with the rifle was fed to everyone down the line
2) To Bews, Saxyby and Myall who then spread such down the line
3) To Adams and various members of the firearms team
4) To Mercer
5) To Montgermery, Dr. Craig, Clark and Jones and potentially others who were never identified as speaking to Jeremy at the scene in the various documents released by the defense to date but who did so. We don't have all the statements, testimony and all parts of the various reports that the defense was provided copies of but know based on what was released he spoke to the above.
This is just who he spoke with directly. Everything he said was passed down the line as mentioned in the Dickinson Report:
(http://s29.postimg.org/x1vtl82nr/dickinsonreport.jpg)
Trying to pretend that Jeremy's claims had no impact on the assessments made by the police is a laugh.
-
As I say, there is no direct evidence to prove that Jeremy influenced any of the senior officers involved in the case at the scene or elsewhere...
-
PC West and Malcolm Bonnetts logs do not accurately reflect what Jeremy and Ralph Bamber told them. They ommitted significant exchanges of conversation, which identified Ralph as one caller (3.26am), and Jeremy as the other caller (3.36am)....
-
The occupants of CA07 performed important communication duties at the scene once the raid team set off to enter the farmhouse at 7.30am. In particular, it is now known that they were involved in relaying news about the discovery of two bodies found upon entry into the premises, one dead male, and one dead female, from the scene to the control room.Two of the occupants of CA07 had been accompanying Jeremy on a recce of the farmhouse when they saw a silhouetted figure moving around inside the main bedroom. You should all bear this earlier incident in mind, when considering the news they relayed to the control room, from the scene, and later that day the suggestion that there had only been one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs by 10 O'clock...
-
The occupants of CA07 performed important communication duties at the scene once the raid team set off to enter the farmhouse at 7.30am. In particular, it is now known that they were involved in relaying news about the discovery of two bodies found upon entry into the premises, one dead male, and one dead female, from the scene to the control room.Two of the occupants of CA07 had been accompanying Jeremy on a recce of the farmhouse when they saw a silhouetted figure moving around inside the main bedroom. You should all bear this earlier incident in mind, when considering the news they relayed to the control room, from the scene, and later that day the suggestion that there had only been one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs by 10 O'clock...
When Jeremy gave his witness statements to Jones and Clark, on the 7th and 8th August 1985, he talked about the recce of the house made by police and himself, when the silohetted figure was moving around in the upstairs bedroom, which sent the police and himself racing back to the patrol car parked up in nearby Pages Lane, at which point PS News passed a situation report regarding the fact that somebody was moving around in one of the bedrooms and that this person could be armed, so could the firearms team be sent out? This detail was committed from the typed version of Jeremy's witness statements....
-
As I say, there is no direct evidence to prove that Jeremy influenced any of the senior officers involved in the case at the scene or elsewhere...
Jeremy's claims that he left the gun, loaded magazine and bullets out, that Sheila knew how to use it and Nevill phoned and had a gun was of instrumental significance in senior officers assessing Sheila killed everyone and then killed herself.
Trying to pretend otherwise is futile.
Obviously dragging her body flat and, removing the moderator and sticking the gun on her also played a big role.
-
PC West and Malcolm Bonnetts logs do not accurately reflect what Jeremy and Ralph Bamber told them. They ommitted significant exchanges of conversation, which identified Ralph as one caller (3.26am), and Jeremy as the other caller (3.36am)....
The claim Nevill phoned police is simply a made up fairytale. Nevill was shot along with June in the master bedroom which had no phone in it because Jeremy removed it in advance. Had Nevill been able to phone police he would have indicated Jeremy was attacking them.
-
When Jeremy gave his witness statements to Jones and Clark, on the 7th and 8th August 1985, he talked about the recce of the house made by police and himself, when the silohetted figure was moving around in the upstairs bedroom, which sent the police and himself racing back to the patrol car parked up in nearby Pages Lane, at which point PS News passed a situation report regarding the fact that somebody was moving around in one of the bedrooms and that this person could be armed, so could the firearms team be sent out? This detail was committed from the typed version of Jeremy's witness statements....
Police didn't see any figure they moved their heads and thought they saw movement but realized it was just the impression of movement by virtue of moving their heads. They had nothing to mention in their statements since they knew they hadn't seen anyone.
-
Senior officers were not influenced by anything what Jeremy had said to other bit part players...
These senior officers were highly trained, intelligent people, and they would not have been influenced in the slightest by what anyone else might have said at any stage. Plus, they knew the truth that the police had shot Sheila and killed her...
-
June Bambers blood trail, confirmed that she had walked across the bedroom window from one side of the bedroom, to the other, and back again. The sighting of the silhouetted figure must have been June Bamber moving about inside that bedroom. Evidence of her blood trail on the bedroom carpet as described, is capable of establishing that June Bamber was not yet dead by the time Bews, Myall and Bamber caught sight of the silihetted figure through the upstairs main bedroom window. Furthermore, that since she was not yet dead, that the person who had later shot June Bamber between the eye must also have been a lived inside the farmhouse, so that makes at least two of the 5 victims which Jeremy Bamber could not have had involvement in those two deaths...
-
June Bambers blood trail, confirmed that she had walked across the bedroom window from one side of the bedroom, to the other, and back again. The sighting of the silhouetted figure must have been June Bamber moving about inside that bedroom. Evidence of her blood trail on the bedroom carpet as described, is capable of establishing that June Bamber was not yet dead by the time Bews, Myall and Bamber caught sight of the silihetted figure through the upstairs main bedroom window. Furthermore, that since she was not yet dead, that the person who had later shot June Bamber between the eye must also have been a lived inside the farmhouse, so that makes at least two of the 5 victims which Jeremy Bamber could not have had involvement in those two deaths...
Jeremy has the perfect alibi, he was outside in the grounds of the farmhouse, when at least 2 of the 5 victims were still alive inside.The 2 victims still alive at that stage were June Bamber and Sheila Caffell. PS Bews situation report that he passed via the police radio to the control room, requesting armed back up because there may have been someone armed and dangerous inside was accurate. Sheila was the armed occupant. She used the anshuzt rifle to shoot June between the eyes a matter of feet away from where police and Jeremy had seen the silohetted figure. The rifle she had used to shoot June between the eyes with, was later placed at the bedroom window, where it remained until spotted there by WPC Julia Jeapes at around 7.15am. How could that very same rifle have been on top of Sheila's body on the floor next to the bed when the raid team entered the farmhouse at around 7.30am, and yet still be leaning against the bedroom window from 15 minutes prior to entry by them into the premises?
-
The period between the timing of Ralph Bambers call to police (3.26am), and the sighting of the silhouetted figure moving about in the main bedroom, provides ample opportunity for Sheila to have gone downstairs to shoot and kill him, before returning back upstairs to shoot June between the eyes...
-
Senior officers were not influenced by anything what Jeremy had said to other bit part players...
These senior officers were highly trained, intelligent people, and they would not have been influenced in the slightest by what anyone else might have said at any stage. Plus, they knew the truth that the police had shot Sheila and killed her...
They were heavily influenced by Jeremy's claim that Nevill phoned him to report Sheila running amok with the rifle. Sheila was murdered with the Anschutz before Jeremy called the police, the police never discharged their weapons.
-
June Bambers blood trail, confirmed that she had walked across the bedroom window from one side of the bedroom, to the other, and back again. The sighting of the silhouetted figure must have been June Bamber moving about inside that bedroom. Evidence of her blood trail on the bedroom carpet as described, is capable of establishing that June Bamber was not yet dead by the time Bews, Myall and Bamber caught sight of the silihetted figure through the upstairs main bedroom window. Furthermore, that since she was not yet dead, that the person who had later shot June Bamber between the eye must also have been a lived inside the farmhouse, so that makes at least two of the 5 victims which Jeremy Bamber could not have had involvement in those two deaths...
Jeremy made up seeing someone move, he knew they were all dead he would have freaked out if he thought he messed up and someone was actually still alive. The police thought they might have seen movement after he claimed such but realized moving their heads caused them to simply think they may have seen movement.
-
Jeremy has the perfect alibi, he was outside in the grounds of the farmhouse, when at least 2 of the 5 victims were still alive inside.The 2 victims still alive at that stage were June Bamber and Sheila Caffell. PS Bews situation report that he passed via the police radio to the control room, requesting armed back up because there may have been someone armed and dangerous inside was accurate. Sheila was the armed occupant. She used the anshuzt rifle to shoot June between the eyes a matter of feet away from where police and Jeremy had seen the silohetted figure. The rifle she had used to shoot June between the eyes with, was later placed at the bedroom window, where it remained until spotted there by WPC Julia Jeapes at around 7.15am. How could that very same rifle have been on top of Sheila's body on the floor next to the bed when the raid team entered the farmhouse at around 7.30am, and yet still be leaning against the bedroom window from 15 minutes prior to entry by them into the premises?
Everyone was dead before the police ever arrived that is why no shots were heard and nothing else from the house heard except the dog barking.
The gun wasn't in the window it was on Sheila. You keep using an account from Jeapes where she indicating she saw something int he boxroom window that appeared like it could have been the barrel of a rifle as proof that the Anschutz was in the window of the bedroom though Jeapes was talking about the boxroom window and never saw the object move. The object she saw was still there when the Anschutz was observed on Sheila's body so it can't have been the Anschutz.
Nothing you claim holds up to scrutiny or has any evidentiary support.
-
If shots had been fired inside any of the rooms where victims had been found upon entry by use of the anshuzt rifle, these would not necessarily have been heard by anyone in the vicinity of the farmhouse or by anyone situated as close as the nearby barn, or in pages lane, or even necessarily by anyone in a different part of the farmhouse. The sound of a .22 rifle like the anshuzt being discharged using let's say for arguments sake .22 subsonic ammunition weighing 35 grain, in one room of the huge farmhouse, being heard by anyone else in another room on the other side of the house, or as the case may be, if fired in a downstairs room, be heard upstairs in a bedroom, or vice versa. The sound made ordinarily by a .22 rifle being discharged isn't really very loud at all. Your suggestion that if any shots had been fired after the arrival at the scene of News, Myall, Saxby, and Bamber between 3.48 and 3.52am is not really a valid one, because everybody knows that the walls of the farmhouse, and furnishings, curtains, and doors would absorb the impact of any sound made when that .22 rifle had been discharged. You are trying to give an impression that the sound of a .22 rifle being fired, would be equivalent to the sound of a 12 bore shot gun going off, which it is not. So, once again, here is another example of you trying to distort the truth. On the other hand, I would once again draw everybody's attention to the existence of an officers report which deals with ' THE SHOOTING INCIDENT IN THE KITCHEN', why would such a report be in existence at all, if either such a shot had not been heard, seen or occurred whilst police were at the scene?
As for your other points, refer to previous replies made by me about such matters...
No time of death was given for any of the 5 victims, so you can't realistically say or allege that any of the 5 victims had been shot, or had died before or after 3.52am...
You have nothing whatsoever to prove that anyone was even dead inside the farmhouse before police with Jeremy arrived on the scene...
-
On the contrary, everything I speak about does stand up to scrutiny in the sense that everything points to a cover up of the circumstances which led to the killing of Sheila Caffell inside the farmhouse by police. Jeremy himself complained to PS Saxby as such upon being told that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead. He accused the men with the guns who had gone into the farmhouse, of shooting all his family dead. Not only that / this, but Jeremy confided in another person after that morning that the police had not told him the truth about what must have happened once the police had got into the farmhouse. He told this person that he thought police might have shot at least one member of his family dead, and that that person they had shot dead could possibly have been his sister.,,
-
If shots had been fired inside any of the rooms where victims had been found upon entry by use of the anshuzt rifle, these would not necessarily have been heard by anyone in the vicinity of the farmhouse or by anyone situated as close as the nearby barn, or in pages lane, or even necessarily by anyone in a different part of the farmhouse. The sound of a .22 rifle like the anshuzt being discharged using let's say for arguments sake .22 subsonic ammunition weighing 35 grain, in one room of the huge farmhouse, being heard by anyone else in another room on the other side of the house, or as the case may be, if fired in a downstairs room, be heard upstairs in a bedroom, or vice versa. The sound made ordinarily by a .22 rifle being discharged isn't really very loud at all. Your suggestion that if any shots had been fired after the arrival at the scene of News, Myall, Saxby, and Bamber between 3.48 and 3.52am is not really a valid one, because everybody knows that the walls of the farmhouse, and furnishings, curtains, and doors would absorb the impact of any sound made when that .22 rifle had been discharged. You are trying to give an impression that the sound of a .22 rifle being fired, would be equivalent to the sound of a 12 bore shot gun going off, which it is not. So, once again, here is another example of you trying to distort the truth. On the other hand, I would once again draw everybody's attention to the existence of an officers report which deals with ' THE SHOOTING INCIDENT IN THE KITCHEN', why would such a report be in existence at all, if either such a shot had not been heard, seen or occurred whilst police were at the scene?
As for your other points, refer to previous replies made by me about such matters...
No time of death was given for any of the 5 victims, so you can't realistically say or allege that any of the 5 victims had been shot, or had died before or after 3.52am...
You have nothing whatsoever to prove that anyone was even dead inside the farmhouse before police with Jeremy arrived on the scene...
All you are doing is demonstrating you are a lying apologist who wants people to falsely believe Jeremy is innocent. You have nothing legitimate to raise so lie instead and that signals you know he is guilty but wish he wasn't don't want to admit it and will make up any nonsense you can to avoid facing the truth.
There is no way Sheila loaded the gun, shot anyone else or beat Nevill. Had she done these things then she would have had evidence on her body and clothing. There is no way she killed herself. She was murdered with the Anschutz while seated then her body was dragged flat, the moderator removed and hidden in the closet and the Bible placed in her blood. She was killed by 3AM thus the food she ate while she was in the kitchen before going to bed was still in her stomach and that is why she was already in full rigor by the time she was autopsied.
Making up nonsense about police shooting her then moving her body and having the lab switch bullets is not only absurd but evidence establishes this didn't happen such as xrays that show the bullet used at trial matched the xray of her throat.
Police would have heard shots they were listening attentively and there is no way ANY of the victims killed themselves which is solid proof they were all dead before the police entered. Nevill had no ability to make the call Jeremy claimed and he lied about many other things as well plus his ex ended up ratting him out. Jeremy is guilty as sin. Nothing you make up has even the remote ability to establish otherwise you have no ability to refute the evidence you just make up things.
-
On the contrary, everything I speak about does stand up to scrutiny in the sense that everything points to a cover up of the circumstances which led to the killing of Sheila Caffell inside the farmhouse by police. Jeremy himself complained to PS Saxby as such upon being told that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead. He accused the men with the guns who had gone into the farmhouse, of shooting all his family dead. Not only that / this, but Jeremy confided in another person after that morning that the police had not told him the truth about what must have happened once the police had got into the farmhouse. He told this person that he thought police might have shot at least one member of his family dead, and that that person they had shot dead could possibly have been his sister.,,
Nothing points to a cover-up and you have zero evidence of one. Your suggestion police killed Sheila is not only unsupported but rather contradicted by all the evidence. If police had shot Sheila then they would not have needed to hide it. They would not have had any reason to move her body and if they engaged in a cover-up pretending she killed herself they would have stuck with it not suddenly decided to frame Jeremy. You realize your claims are unsupported so make up evidence such as your bogus photos of Sheila in the bed and bogus police informant who meets you periodically... In making such up you are admitting you have nothing legitimate to raise and effectively rendering your position untenable.
-
PC Birds photograph (23) showing the rifle used to inflict the fatal beneath the chin shot of Sheila, was leaning against the bedroom window, according to PC Birds testimony, and he did not know who had put it there. He told the court that he had taken photograph (23) after the first time he had taken photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, but examination of the sequential negatives made available to Bamver and his legal team almost three decades later, establishes as a fact that PC Bird had taken photograph (23) before he had taken any disclosed photographs of Sheila's body in the main bedroom. However, 8 consecutive negatives have been cut out and are missing and as yet, almost 30 years later have still not yet been accounted for. These missing negatives are believed to be the very negatives showing Sheila's body laid on the bed with no rifle on her body, or anywhere near her body at that time. The closest the anshuzt rifle was to her body at the time these photographs were taken, was that the rifle was at that stage already leaning against that bedroom window, and subsequently brought from that window and put to the body. Bird did not know or see who had in fact placed that rifle there at the window, but depending upon which officer you choose to believe, either Cook, Montgomery, or Woodcock all say they were responsible for removing the rifle from the body and placing the rifle at the bedroom window. Three dirty lying no good scumbag police officers all claiming to have done the self same thing, at the same time. All I can say is that that anshuzt rifle must have been too heavy for one officer to handle all by himself...
-
The police have covered up the true circumstances of how Sheila died at the scene. They could not continue with the cover up once relatives introduced the evidence of the silencer. This was because police knew that the first shot inflicted across her neck when she was downstairs in the kitchen had been fired from a rifle belonging to them which was fitted with a sound moderator. The rifle they placed upon Sheila's body from the window was not fitted with a silencer. Police had possession of the actual silencer used in that shooting if Sheila in the kitchen, which was not ever fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle during the shootings. So, once relatives started pushing for the evidence of the silencers in their possession to be part of the investigation, police had no option but to frame Jeremy for the murders in line with the thoughts and beliefs of relatives, which ended up with the wrong silencer being thrust to the forefront of the police investigation from there on, in..,
Police had every reason to cover up the circumstances of her death and how she had been shot by police using a police issue weapon fitted with a silencer, because they planted the wrong rifle on her body that did not have a silencer fitted to it's barrel, and the rifle police planted in Sheila's body, had inky fired one of the two bullets received by her. So, stop trying to pretend that police would not have any reason to cover up her death. Of course they had cause to want to fund some way out of the position they themselves had gotten themselves into - they shouldn't have put the wring unsilenced rifle on her body when stage managing her body to make out a false case that she had in fact taken her own life. But then again, the only other option open to them in the heat if the moment would have been to put both rifles in her body at the same time, but that was the only way the circumstances of her death could have been explained, which excluded suicide. So, there it is, spelt out in black and white, Sheila killed at the scene by use of two differently configured weapons, one with a silencer, one without a silencer. One if the two original bullets (PV/20) had to be replaced by a test fired .22 rifle to try and make it into a one gun crime. They could never have got away with putting either of the two guns used to shoot her on her body, because one of the guns used in her shooting inky fired one if the two shots inflicted. This is why they covered up the true circumstances of her death - police stage managed her body, got OC Bird to photograph it, and presented a false set if photographs contained in a mickey mouse photo' album claiming that this was how her body had been discovered upon entry. Police were caught up in quandery, two guns used to shoot and kill her in two different parts of the house, downstairs and upstairs. They couldn't stage her body upstairs with the rifle and silencer used to shoot her downstairs in the kitchen at a time when she only had been shot once, neither could they have stage managed her body downstairs in the kitchen once she had been shot and killed upstairs by the use of the second rifle when she had thus been shot twice, since she was only shot once whilst downstairs in the kitchen. They were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, and whichever way they decided to go, their best chance it seems was to go along with the 4 murders and a suicide explanation, but all that changed once relatives started to like their noses into affairs, seeking to introduce the evidence of a different silencer..,
-
PC Birds photograph (23) showing the rifle used to inflict the fatal beneath the chin shot of Sheila, was leaning against the bedroom window, according to PC Birds testimony, and he did not know who had put it there. He told the court that he had taken photograph (23) after the first time he had taken photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, but examination of the sequential negatives made available to Bamver and his legal team almost three decades later, establishes as a fact that PC Bird had taken photograph (23) before he had taken any disclosed photographs of Sheila's body in the main bedroom. However, 8 consecutive negatives have been cut out and are missing and as yet, almost 30 years later have still not yet been accounted for. These missing negatives are believed to be the very negatives showing Sheila's body laid on the bed with no rifle on her body, or anywhere near her body at that time. The closest the anshuzt rifle was to her body at the time these photographs were taken, was that the rifle was at that stage already leaning against that bedroom window, and subsequently brought from that window and put to the body. Bird did not know or see who had in fact placed that rifle there at the window, but depending upon which officer you choose to believe, either Cook, Montgomery, or Woodcock all say they were responsible for removing the rifle from the body and placing the rifle at the bedroom window. Three dirty lying no good scumbag police officers all claiming to have done the self same thing, at the same time. All I can say is that that anshuzt rifle must have been too heavy for one officer to handle all by himself...
This is just more fairytale nonsense. There is nothing to establish the photo of the gun against the chair predated other photos Bird took. Furthermore, Bird did not take photos until hours after the raid so his photos would not have any ability to demonstrate the gun was not on Sheila as the raid team, Dr Craig and the other police who saw her body claim it was.
If the gun had been found against the wall it would have been even more proof Sheila was murdered and police would have used it for such purpose against Jeremy.
-
If as you say,that Bird took photo's well after the raid,the one of Sheila didn't look as though it had been taken hours after the raid--------------or she'd have appeared peuce in colour !! She wasn't,she was comparatively pale,which would indicate a couple of hours deceased when her pic was taken.
-
PC West and Malcolm Bonnetts logs do not accurately reflect what Jeremy and Ralph Bamber told them. They ommitted significant exchanges of conversation, which identified Ralph as one caller (3.26am), and Jeremy as the other caller (3.36am)....
Interesting. We now have Neville phoning Jeremy circa 3am "sounding panicked". He then calls the police himself at 3.26 -we must assume HE,having sounded panicked, didn't wade through the phone book to find a local station which was open but did the logical thing, given that his daughter had gone mad and had got hold of a gun!!! and dialled 999- but it took Jeremy -even though he said his father had sounded panicked, approximately 30 minutes to make a local call which had to have lasted more than seconds because he was put on hold- so it leaves one at a loss as to how he managed to get himself to WHF at the time he did having been seen to be driving a a snail's pace!!!
-
If as you say,that Bird took photo's well after the raid,the one of Sheila didn't look as though it had been taken hours after the raid--------------or she'd have appeared peuce in colour !! She wasn't,she was comparatively pale,which would indicate a couple of hours deceased when her pic was taken.
She was already long dead by the time she was declared dead by Dr Craig which is why the pool of blood on the floor, blood on her face and on her gown was dry. She was murdered before Jeremy ever called the police which is why the food she ate 8-9:30 was still in her stomach and why rigor was already fully established when she was autopsied. It is not possible for one of the other victims to have killed Sheila and then to have committed suicide themselves. This means someone else who fled the scene is the one who shot them all including Sheila. Then after killing her her body was dragged flat, the moderator was removed and put in the closet while the gun was placed on her body and the Bible was placed in a pool of blood that formed after her body was moved flat. None of the victims did these things to her. No one slipped out of the house after police arrived who could have done it so that means these things happened before police ever arrived.
-
PC West and Malcolm Bonnetts logs do not accurately reflect what Jeremy and Ralph Bamber told them. They ommitted significant exchanges of conversation, which identified Ralph as one caller (3.26am), and Jeremy as the other caller (3.36am)....
So Nevill left the phone off the hook twice then? Jeremy tried to call his father back just after 03:10 and it was engaged then so what was Nevill doing with the phone for around 15 minutes before using it again to call the police at 03:26? Then (according to both you (and now Jeremy)), Nevill calls the police and STILL the phone remains off the hook, when the call ends?
I think the phone was off the hook because Jeremy didn't want to alert the police that (supposedly) immediately after the call from his father (who hadn't mentioned anything about anyone being shot or even injured), there was no one able to answer the phone.
-
If as you say,that Bird took photo's well after the raid,the one of Sheila didn't look as though it had been taken hours after the raid--------------or she'd have appeared peuce in colour !! She wasn't,she was comparatively pale,which would indicate a couple of hours deceased when her pic was taken.
She is discoloured and the blood from her mouth is dried and cracking.
-
So Nevill left the phone off the hook twice then? Jeremy tried to call his father back just after 03:10 and it was engaged then so what was Nevill doing with the phone for around 15 minutes before using it again to call the police at 03:26? Then (according to both you (and now Jeremy)), Nevill calls the police and STILL the phone remains off the hook, when the call ends?
I think the phone was off the hook because Jeremy didn't want to alert the police that (supposedly) immediately after the call from his father (who hadn't mentioned anything about anyone being shot or even injured), there was no one able to answer the phone.
Those Jeremy supporters who claim Nevill called typically claim Jeremy was wrong about the time Nevill phoned and that it was actually after 3:20am. They say that Nevill immediately called police after Jeremy so that is why Jeremy got a busy signal. Of course there is zero evidence to support a call by Nevill to police and all of this including altering the time Jeremy allegedly received the call is simply contrived by biased people who know they have nothing legitimate to raise and raise this horse crap to try to fool the public. They lack any evidence to use to make these arguments to a court so these claims are of no legal value they are used simply for propaganda purposes.
Jeremy took the phone off the hook for 2 reasons. First, he claimed the call was disconnected before he could ask any questions and any rational person would either: A) rush over; B) call 999 or C) try calling their father back to get clarification and more details of precisely what was going on. He knew this and thus claimed he tried to call back but could not get through. The intended implication being Nevill was attacked while on the phone with Jeremy. The phone being left off the hook was critical to such but what he didn't realize was that he would not be able to use his own phone for several minutes if that had occurred.
The secondary reason for leaving it off the hook is police would definitely know something was wrong if they tried calling but no one answered. That would be an indication no one was able to answer. Leaving it off the hook prevented West from calling the house. Police were scared to knock on the door themselves and instead called for armed personnel to come handle things. This caused a delay which helped prevent police from seeing the bodied immediately and that helped prevent police from being able to see the bodies and determine they died sooner than Jeremy claimed he received the call. Jeremy had no idea if they could tell such or not so needed a delayed reaction from them.
-
Those Jeremy supporters who claim Nevill called typically claim Jeremy was wrong about the time Nevill phoned and that it was actually after 3:20am. They say that Nevill immediately called police after Jeremy so that is why Jeremy got a busy signal. Of course there is zero evidence to support a call by Nevill to police and all of this including altering the time Jeremy allegedly received the call is simply contrived by biased people who know they have nothing legitimate to raise and raise this horse crap to try to fool the public. They lack any evidence to use to make these arguments to a court so these claims are of no legal value they are used simply for propaganda purposes.
Jeremy took the phone off the hook for 2 reasons. First, he claimed the call was disconnected before he could ask any questions and any rational person would either: A) rush over; B) call 999 or C) try calling their father back to get clarification and more details of precisely what was going on. He knew this and thus claimed he tried to call back but could not get through. The intended implication being Nevill was attacked while on the phone with Jeremy. The phone being left off the hook was critical to such but what he didn't realize was that he would not be able to use his own phone for several minutes if that had occurred.
The secondary reason for leaving it off the hook is police would definitely know something was wrong if they tried calling but no one answered. That would be an indication no one was able to answer. Leaving it off the hook prevented West from calling the house. Police were scared to knock on the door themselves and instead called for armed personnel to come handle things. This caused a delay which helped prevent police from seeing the bodied immediately and that helped prevent police from being able to see the bodies and determine they died sooner than Jeremy claimed he received the call. Jeremy had no idea if they could tell such or not so needed a delayed reaction from them.
I just said that ;D ;D
-
She is discoloured and the blood from her mouth is dried and cracking.
The grainey pic accentuates the poor quality which others will see as the real thing. Whereas other pics that are shown, i.e. coloured,show them entirely different. Were the jury shown these as opposed to others we've seen ?
-
The grainey pic accentuates the poor quality which others will see as the real thing. Whereas other pics that are shown, i.e. coloured,show them entirely different. Were the jury shown these as opposed to others we've seen ?
Lookout, I agree that the picture is of extremely poor quality but the blood is definitely dried and cracking, and the side of her face is definitely discoloured. I would have thought that pictures of a better quality would enhance these facts rather than detract from them.
-
Lookout, I agree that the picture is of extremely poor quality but the blood is definitely dried and cracking, and the side of her face is definitely discoloured. I would have thought that pictures of a better quality would enhance these facts rather than detract from them.
Hi April,it does make you wonder which are more true.Whichever fit the bill of the debate,I suppose. ;)
-
Hi April,it does make you wonder which are more true.Whichever fit the bill of the debate,I suppose. ;)
Lookout, I think many of the pictures we see are probably reprints of reprints and there ARE those which I suspect have been frankly bogus. The newer, coloured ones may be clearer but one suspects a degree of enhancement as in bright red blood which appears to be free flowing.....................you ain't the only sceptic here 8)
-
Hi April,it does make you wonder which are more true.Whichever fit the bill of the debate,I suppose. ;)
Body photos are considered prejudicial usually. Most defense lawyers try to keep them out. The testimony regarding the blood being dry is what matters anyway. Most court evidence is adduced through testimony of witnesses.
You are ignoring that the defense didn't try to argue that Sheila died later than everyone else, the defense made no attempt to argue Sheila died many hours later since they had no evidence to use to suggest such.
Since we are not limited to the rules of evidence that exist in court we can make any claims we want no matter how ridiculous or lacking in any evidentiary foundation. Thus Mike can make all the wild claims he desires. Rational objective people though still require evidence to prove such claims including the allegations to actually make sense.
Police needing to conceal they shot Sheila because she attacked them upon entry makes no sense. If police had shot her but wanted to lie and pretend She killed herself it would not be necessary to move her body upstairs. They could pretend she killed herself in the kitchen just as easily. So moving her makes no sense. Mike doesn't worry about his claims making sense though he already stated to me damn the torpedoes full speed ahead. With the same attitude he ignores that the Xray matches the shape of the .22LR bullet fragment (PV/20) that was produced at trial and insists Vanezis lied about it being 22LR and that after it was removed by Vanezis the lab substituted a 22LR fragment in place of a jacketed .223/5.56mm police bullet.
His claims are not credible they are just wild unsupported allegations that make no sense and thus these claims were neither made at the trial nor to any Appeal Courts. These claims are made hoping that people who never saw the Xray and are generally unaware of the facts and evidence will simply buy the unsupported claims.
I don't really understand the whole propaganda effort. I care about things that have legal utility. I don't know what purpose the propaganda effort it is suppose to serve in the end- it seems to at most to be trying to help out Jeremy's legacy by trying to make sure their is an asterisk by his name noting some believe he was innocent and a victim of a MOJ.
-
The grainey pic accentuates the poor quality which others will see as the real thing. Whereas other pics that are shown, i.e. coloured,show them entirely different. Were the jury shown these as opposed to others we've seen ?
This is the same picture Lookout.
-
As is this
-
Senior officers were not influenced by anything what Jeremy had said to other bit part players...
These senior officers were highly trained, intelligent people, and they would not have been influenced in the slightest by what anyone else might have said at any stage. Plus, they knew the truth that the police had shot Sheila and killed her...
Mike, I don't think you could be more wrong here. Which person, at the scene, knew the family better than anyone else there? It was Jeremy. Without his initial input, the police were in the dark. It's an indisputable fact that when we are devoid of knowledge we believe what we learn from the person we perceive as having knowledge. MOST here fell into that category when they first joined the forum. Somewhere down the line, as they did their own research and gained more knowledge, many began to doubt what they'd initially accepted and went on to form their own opinions. Once the police were able to set aside what Jeremy had told them, they were able to view the scene rather differently.
-
Lookout, I think many of the pictures we see are probably reprints of reprints and there ARE those which I suspect have been frankly bogus. The newer, coloured ones may be clearer but one suspects a degree of enhancement as in bright red blood which appears to be free flowing.....................you ain't the only sceptic here 8)
A lot of EVERYTHING has been doctored I suspect,April.
-
This is the same picture Lookout.
Even on the grainey one,the flash has highlighted what appears to be " wet blood ",whereas,if Sheila had been dead for a number of hours,there'd have been no " bounceback " from dried blood anyway.
-
Even on the grainey one,the flash has highlighted what appears to be " wet blood ",whereas,if Sheila had been dead for a number of hours,there'd have been no " bounceback " from dried blood anyway.
Anything can be highlighted, Lookout.
-
Even on the grainey one,the flash has highlighted what appears to be " wet blood ",whereas,if Sheila had been dead for a number of hours,there'd have been no " bounceback " from dried blood anyway.
The picture in question is a picture of a picture. The light from the flash has reflected against the sheen on the photograph - not wet blood. The blood around her mouth is both oxidised and cracking. The mottled skin colour shows she has been dead for quite some time.
-
Police shot Sheila, police set the scene to make it look like Sheila had taken her own life, but the stage managing of her body by police, dropped a booboo, she had been shot by way of two different guns, but police stage managed her body with use of one of these two guns - hence why the had to switch the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, with a whole test fired one...
-
Police shot Sheila, police set the scene to make it look like Sheila had taken her own life, but the stage managing of her body by police, dropped a booboo, she had been shot by way of two different guns, but police stage managed her body with use of one of these two guns - hence why the had to switch the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, with a whole test fired one...
There is no evidence of Sheila's first shot being fired by a police weapon. A 5.56mm jacketed bullet is a high powered bullet that does different damage than a low powered 22LR bullet. Vanesis said the wound was consistent with a 22LR wound, Vanesis found not remains of a jacket in the wound, the Xray matched the exact shape of the 22LR fragment that Vanezis says he removed, the wound was a contact wound and Sheila's blood was found inside Nevill's moderator indicating the wepaon that was used to shoot her had Nevill's moderator attached, all 25 casings were fired by the Anschutz, police all insist no shots were fired while they were on scene, Sheial's stomach contents and state of rigor reveal she died before police arrived at the scene.
You have nothing at all to suggest police shot Sheila you simply made up the suggestion without regard to the evidence that exists in this case.
-
What is more, the COLP investigators established that 2 samples of extreme importance were taken at the beginning of the original investigation (SC/688/85) which were not subsequently accounted for. One was a pair of paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) taken at the scene on 8th August 1985, and handed to DS Davidson by Ron Cook, the other was a third blood sample taken from the body of Sheila Caffell during autopsy, on afternoon of 7th August 1985...
-
What is more, the COLP investigators established that 2 samples of extreme importance were taken at the beginning of the original investigation (SC/688/85) which were not subsequently accounted for. One was a pair of paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) taken at the scene on 8th August 1985, and handed to DS Davidson by Ron Cook, the other was a third blood sample taken from the body of Sheila Caffell during autopsy, on afternoon of 7th August 1985...
Were these samples of paint from the aga, and blood from Sheila, used to deliberately to contaminate one of the family owned parker hale silencers?
Isn't the truth of the matter, that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove or to support the case for a silencer to have been fitted to the gun barrel which had fired the shot underneath Sheila's chin?
Did the police mistakenly contaminate the wrong parker hale sound moderater?
-
What is more, the COLP investigators established that 2 samples of extreme importance were taken at the beginning of the original investigation (SC/688/85) which were not subsequently accounted for. One was a pair of paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) taken at the scene on 8th August 1985, and handed to DS Davidson by Ron Cook, the other was a third blood sample taken from the body of Sheila Caffell during autopsy, on afternoon of 7th August 1985...
There were no paint samples taken on August 8 this is just more nonsense you made up. You made up such because you have nothing legitimate to raise. Cook's exhibits bore the RWC prefix not RC which didn't exist and are thus made up by you.
-
Were these samples of paint from the aga, and blood from Sheila, used to deliberately to contaminate one of the family owned parker hale silencers?
Isn't the truth of the matter, that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove or to support the case for a silencer to have been fitted to the gun barrel which had fired the shot underneath Sheila's chin?
Did the police mistakenly contaminate the wrong parker hale sound moderater?
The police didn't contaminate any moderator and the only moderator collected in connection with the case prior to the trial is the one Nevill purchased.
-
Everyone contaminated that moderator. It was handled by DB and thrown into the boot of the car driven by SJ.
The case should NOT have been allowed to have continued using contaminated evidence !!
Even Douglas Hurd said there had been errors made. Imagine saying a thing like that with a case as big as it was. Shame on the lot of them.
-
Everyone contaminated that moderator. It was handled by DB and thrown into the boot of the car driven by SJ.
The case should NOT have been allowed to have continued using contaminated evidence !!
Even Douglas Hurd said there had been errors made. Imagine saying a thing like that with a case as big as it was. Shame on the lot of them.
Contaminated it with what? The defense needed to prove they contaminated it with the paint found on it and the blood found on it and inside of it in order to have the moderator evidence discounted. Picking it up would not transfer the paint or blood to it, carrying it to Oak Farm and storing it there would not contaminate it with paint and the blood. At most they could contaminate it with their own prints and cause evidence that had been on it to be lost. The police lost the hair that was on it which is the loss of evidence not contaminating it with additional evidence.
There was no way for the moderator to be innocently contaminated with the paint and blood the only way for it to be contaminated would be by purposely spraying blood inside using some device and taking the moderator and intentionally scratching the mantle with it. The defense has zero evidence that such intentional planting occurred though.
That leaves the defense is in a very unenviable position.
-
Lets approach this matter, on the basis that there was only ever just the one silencer, and that it had all these different exhibit references, (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 and or DRB/1) and lab' item no.'s 22 and 23, in whatever permutation that occurred, 22 to 23, and back to 22. Lets imagine that this silencer had been sent to the lab' and examined by experts on all those / these different occasions (13th August, 30th August, and 20th September 1985). Lets pretend that it got fingerprinted by DS Davidson on 9th August 1985, and by DS Eastwood and DS Davidson on the 13th September 1985, and by Ronny Crook, on 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Now, consider the following:-
There was no documented records to show or prove that this silencer was ever placed into secure storage between 13th and 30th August 1985, no safeguards put into place to ensure that this silencer could not possibly be contaminated innocently or accidentally. No, Sir, instead what we had was Ronny Crook carrying this silencer around with him, inside his grubby coat pocket everywhere this scumbag went for the entire duration of that / this 18 day period. Crooky even returned to the crime scene on 14th August carrying that silencer around with him in his grubby disgusting coat pocket. it was not in any protective packaging, it was just tossed into his coat pocket inside which he had often plonked his contaminated grubby hands at one time or another whilst touching, moving and collecting exhibits at the scene. Lets not forget that Crooky admitted to moving Sheila's bloodstained right hand and her bloodied right arm when sheila's body was insitu, so that PC Bird could photograph the bloodied hand impression upon the front lower right hand side of her nightdress.
Don't overlook that Crooky did not wear any gloves when moving the rifle from Sheila's body and he having placed that blood stained rifle back at the bedroom window where WPC Jeapes had seen it resting prior to entry by police, into the farmhouse, was surely contaminated in one way or another by performing these and similar duties at the scene on 7th and 8th August 1985...
Lets put it this way, not even the keystone cops would be daft enough to carry what turns out to be arguably the most important exhibit in the entire investigation, around in their pockets for 18 continuous days and nights. Think about it, what a truly bizarre set of circumstances, why would a DI go to such lengths. I have to say, that I do not for one minute believe that Ronny the Crook did, he is and was a lying scumbag, no police officer worth their own weight in corruption would have dared go to such lengths. Crooky, has definitely made up a story about the only silencer in the entire investigation not being placed into storage at all between 13th and 30th August 1985, but rather he chooses to take full responsibility for carting this sole silencer everywhere he goes during those / these 18 days and nights, until he finally sends it off under the guise of exhibit reference DB/1 to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under lab' item reference 23, without so much as any explanation how he came to change the exhibit reference, and the lab' item reference number, from SJ/1 (or whatever) lab' iten 22, on 13th August 1985, into exhibit reference DB/1, lab' item reference number 23, 18 days later, whilst all the while that / this lone silencer was being carted around like a badly reused durex, it was inside his coat pocket with his bogified handkerchief...
Give us all a break, the geezers having a laugh, isn't he?
-
Contaminated it with what? The defense needed to prove they contaminated it with the paint found on it and the blood found on it and inside of it in order to have the moderator evidence discounted. Picking it up would not transfer the paint or blood to it, carrying it to Oak Farm and storing it there would not contaminate it with paint and the blood. At most they could contaminate it with their own prints and cause evidence that had been on it to be lost. The police lost the hair that was on it which is the loss of evidence not contaminating it with additional evidence.
There was no way for the moderator to be innocently contaminated with the paint and blood the only way for it to be contaminated would be by purposely spraying blood inside using some device and taking the moderator and intentionally scratching the mantle with it. The defense has zero evidence that such intentional planting occurred though.
That leaves the defense is in a very unenviable position.
Contaminated because those who handled exhibits did so without gloves. Even swabs at the lab were deemed impaired after being mixed with someone else's.
-
Contaminated because those who handled exhibits did so without gloves. Even swabs at the lab were deemed impaired after being mixed with someone else's.
Which at most would contaminate it with fingerprints as I noted to you already. You need to prove they contaminated it with the blood and paint by simply picking it up and handling it which of course would not occur. There is no way for blood and paint from the mantle to innocently get on it from simple handling which is why Fletcher testified that the only way for the evidence to get there would be through committing the murders with the moderator on the weapon or intentional planting. Innocent transfer was ruled out.
-
I wonder how many other silencers he had in his pockets?
Perhaps, he could have produced them like a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat...
If the jury had heard about Crookys activities the silencer evidence would have been disregarded as an unreliable exhibit, upon which to place such a large amount of trust. Crooky even dismantled this / that silencer on the 29th August 1985, and even after he had done that / this, Crooky did not see any blood in the silencer before he immediately rebuilt it, and proceeded to put the rebuilt silencer at risk of being further contaminated when he screwed the uncontaminated silencer directly onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
Why would Crooky have done that /this?
-
Then, as if matters could not get any worse, there are the unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle with use of control ammunition, with the silencer fitted to the barrel. These test fired rounds were used in a substitution program, where at least one of these test fired rounds was used to replace the badly fragmented original pieces of bullet PV/20, with a whole test fired one...
Crooky and DS Jones must have been in at the time this deception occurred and took place....
-
I wonder how many other silencers he had in his pockets?
Perhaps, he could have produced them like a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat...
If the jury had heard about Crookys activities the silencer evidence would have been disregarded as an unreliable exhibit, upon which to place such a large amount of trust. Crooky even dismantled this / that silencer on the 29th August 1985, and even after he had done that / this, Crooky did not see any blood in the silencer before he immediately rebuilt it, and proceeded to put the rebuilt silencer at risk of being further contaminated when he screwed the uncontaminated silencer directly onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...
Why would Crooky have done that /this?
He didn't take it apart this is just something else that was made up. It was taken to the lab and the lab dismantled it.
-
He didn't take it apart this is just something else that was made up. It was taken to the lab and the lab dismantled it.
YOU LIE...
-
Then, as if matters could not get any worse, there are the unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle with use of control ammunition, with the silencer fitted to the barrel. These test fired rounds were used in a substitution program, where at least one of these test fired rounds was used to replace the badly fragmented original pieces of bullet PV/20, with a whole test fired one...
Crooky and DS Jones must have been in at the time this deception occurred and took place....
The test firing with the moderator attached was reported that is how you know about it. This occurred in early 1986.
-
The test firing with the moderator attached was reported that is how you know about it. This occurred in early 1986.
YOU LIE...
The unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, control ammunition and with silencer fitted occurred prior to 12th September 1985, and this FACt is well documented upon numerous LAB/ GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, bearing Fletchers, and DS Stan Jones signatures...
-
YOU LIE...
Post proof he dismantled it. No evidence of such was discussed in the COLP investigation or at trial or in his pocketbook. What basis do you have to assert this at all?
-
Post proof he dismantled it. No evidence of such was discussed in the COLP investigation or at trial or in his pocketbook. What basis do you have to assert this at all?
-
YOU LIE...
The unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, control ammunition and with silencer fitted occurred prior to 12th September 1985, and this FACt is well documented upon numerous LAB/ GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, bearing Fletchers, and DS Stan Jones signatures...
Produce documents that assert testing occurred with the moderator attached prior to the 12th. What one finds is the saying they did testing it in early 1986 to determine if there were any marking left by use of the moderator.
-
YOU LIE...
Someone supportive of Jeremy, perhaps even you, added the inscription, "on 29/8/85". That doesn't prove the claim is true. This photo was taken after the lab dismantled it. Cook was at the lab as they were doing so and he was photographing some of their work.
-
You show how the original photo of the dissembled moderator has no writing on it at all. Someone wrote on it that it was taken by DI Cook and someone else wrote a date on which they claim he took it. All this proves is someone alleges he took it and someone else alleges he did so on August 29. It is quite possible he took it since he was at the lab taking photos and watching the lab take it apart and analyze it. But no actual proof has been offered to establish he took it himself. Jeremy supporters simply writing such on it is not proof. Proof is an official statement or record indicating he is the one who took it and similarly documentation of that sort would be needed to establish the date the photo was actually taken.
Official document including stamp number showing it was part of a document production:
(http://s7.postimg.org/83wr5ltx7/originalschematic.jpg)
This is after having been doctored by writing by unknown Jeremy supporters after being turned over to Jeremy:
(http://s12.postimg.org/k6cauhjal/doctoredschematic.jpg)
-
Someone supportive of Jeremy, perhaps even you, added the inscription, "on 29/8/85". That doesn't prove the claim is true. This photo was taken after the lab dismantled it. Cook was at the lab as they were doing so and he was photographing some of their work.
Mr Sutherst examined photo negatives, and had access to the order photographs were taken in, I have no reason to lie...
Contact Jeremy and speak to him about it, better still contact Mr Sutherst to get the answer you don't want to hear, and when you get those replies, start calling them liars in the same way you do with everybody else...
Ronny Crook dismantled the silencer before the silencer DB/1 (23) got sent to the lab' to be examined on 30th August 1985. Now how can there be no flake of blood falling out from between the separated baffles when Ronny the Crook tampered with this silencer, but if this was / is the very same silencer which you keep harping on about, how could the key flake of blood mysteriously materialise between baffle plates 1 and 2, by the next time this same silencer gets dismantled by Fletcher and Hayward, on the 12th September 1985?
Think about that scenario before you open your gob, because no matter how many times you call me a liar, first and foremost I am not a liar, secondly, at the end of the day Ronny the Crook did dismantle this silencer before the silencer that got sent to the lab on the 30th August 1985, got sent there under another guise. Crooky, well he certainly tampered with the internal settings of the baffle plates on that occasion. He does not say that he saw any blood at all on any of these separated baffle plates, which is strange considering that by 12th September 1985, as many as 8 baffle plates are supposed to have been heavily bloodstained, and in addition the key loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, had not been there 13 days previously. You can accuse me all you like regarding this matter, it will not matter one jot what you have to say about me, but one thing you and anybody else will not be able to change, is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, and he rebuilt it, and then lo and behold he screwed in directly onto the thread of the anshuzt rifle, before the rebuilt silencer was sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under the guise of exhibit reference DB/1, lab' item reference 23, so that Fletcher and his mob could dismantle it again. We know that Fletcher and Hayward dismantled that silencer at the lab' on 12th September 1985, because his hand written notes say so, and he dated and signed his notes, so that is in the bag, there is nothing you, or anybody can do about that, or this, no matter how many times you claim I am lying, or talking nonsense, because the truth is I am telling the truth, and as I say that fact is in the bag...
There is one slight glitch that I suppose I should mention regarding the actual date that Crook dismantled the silencer, rebuilt it, and screwed the rebuilt silencer to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and that is this. Jeremy claims the dismantling, rebuilding and screwing of it to the rifle took place on the 28th August, rather than the 29th, but if he is right and I am wrong, it matters not, since Crooky tampered with that silencer as described in any event before the silencer in the guise of DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985 for Fletcher to deal with...
-
Ask yourself where the negative references for the three photographs posted originated from?
Do you think, somebody just made these up?
There were actually 4 photographs taken by Crooky on that date, and the negative references for all 4 follow on from one another in sequence, the last of the 4 photographs which Crooky took, shows the rebuilt silencer that Crooky dismantled, screwed firmly onto the thread on the end of the anshuzt rifle barrel, in its rebuilt condition. This was done before the silencer under the guise of DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab', no doubt about it. Any body with an ounce of intelligence will realize that when this uncontaminated silencer was rebuilt by Crooky, and he screwed it onto the thread of the anshuzt rifle, that any blood on the thread of the anshuzt barrel would almost certainly have been forced backwards into the bottom end of the silencer, and adequately accounts for the possible presence of the loose flake 13 days later trapped between baffles 1 and 2...
-
Mr Sutherst examined photo negatives, and had access to the order photographs were taken in, I have no reason to lie...
You have every reason to lie who are you trying to kid? You are not a disinterested objective party with no reason to lie. You are a biased Jeremy advocate. Why you should not lie aside from it being wrong to lie is because it harms your credibility and haring your credibility DOESN'T help you.
Contact Jeremy and speak to him about it, better still contact Mr Sutherst to get the answer you don't want to hear, and when you get those replies, start calling them liars in the same way you do with everybody else...
Ronny Crook dismantled the silencer before the silencer DB/1 (23) got sent to the lab' to be examined on 30th August 1985. Now how can there be no flake of blood falling out from between the separated baffles when Ronny the Crook tampered with this silencer, but if this was / is the very same silencer which you keep harping on about, how could the key flake of blood mysteriously materialise between baffle plates 1 and 2, by the next time this same silencer gets dismantled by Fletcher and Hayward, on the 12th September 1985?
Think about that scenario before you open your gob, because no matter how many times you call me a liar, first and foremost I am not a liar, secondly, at the end of the day Ronny the Crook did dismantle this silencer before the silencer that got sent to the lab on the 30th August 1985, got sent there under another guise. Crooky, well he certainly tampered with the internal settings of the baffle plates on that occasion. He does not say that he saw any blood at all on any of these separated baffle plates, which is strange considering that by 12th September 1985, as many as 8 baffle plates are supposed to have been heavily bloodstained, and in addition the key loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, had not been there 13 days previously. You can accuse me all you like regarding this matter, it will not matter one jot what you have to say about me, but one thing you and anybody else will not be able to change, is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, and he rebuilt it, and then lo and behold he screwed in directly onto the thread of the anshuzt rifle, before the rebuilt silencer was sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under the guise of exhibit reference DB/1, lab' item reference 23, so that Fletcher and his mob could dismantle it again. We know that Fletcher and Hayward dismantled that silencer at the lab' on 12th September 1985, because his hand written notes say so, and he dated and signed his notes, so that is in the bag, there is nothing you, or anybody can do about that, or this, no matter how many times you claim I am lying, or talking nonsense, because the truth is I am telling the truth, and as I say that fact is in the bag...
There is one slight glitch that I suppose I should mention regarding the actual date that Crook dismantled the silencer, rebuilt it, and screwed the rebuilt silencer to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and that is this. Jeremy claims the dismantling, rebuilding and screwing of it to the rifle took place on the 28th August, rather than the 29th, but if he is right and I am wrong, it matters not, since Crooky tampered with that silencer as described in any event before the silencer in the guise of DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985 for Fletcher to deal with...
Sutherst was working from photos not negatives that was one of his problems. The negatives would not indicate who took photos anyway.
You take allegations and just mash them with other disproved allegations of multiple moderators into a giant web that makes no sense and has no evidentiary basis. Anyone can make up any allegations they desire- such allegations are meaningless when they lack proof.
-
Sutherst had access to hundreds of photographic negatives, and photographs. I am not even going to bother arguing this point, because everybody except you knows that what I am saying is true. He was able to establish which photographs were taken before other photographs by reference to the negative strips, in some cases even when police had cut up the original negative strips turning the negatives into single rather than multiple images on one strip. He is regarded as one of the worlds leading experts in his field, and he was able to establish that 8 negatives had been cut out and removed at the time Sheila's body was being photographed. He had no reason to make anything up. Anyway, I'm not bothered what you think about this, because at the end of the day I am telling the truth, and Mr Sutherst knows what he is talking about...
-
No-one has doctored anything, the truth of the matter is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, which you and others on that side of the fence, have been claiming was only ever just the one silencer, on all occasions, bearing this exhibit reference (SBJ/1), then that exhibit reference (DB/1) and then the following exhibit reference of DRB/1, with different lab' item numbers, 22 to 23, and back to 22, so you are now trapped by your own claims that there was only ever one silencer. So, the silencer Crooky dismantled on 29th August 1985, had to be the same silencer inside which all the bloodstaining and the loose flake later turned up in (after 29th August 1985). If 8 of the baffles had bloodstaining on them, and the loose flake had been in and on the baffles of the silencer when Crooky dismantled it on 29th August, he would have been the witness who found the blood evidence inside the silencer, not Fletcher and Hayward, some 13 days later...
-
Sutherst had access to hundreds of photographic negatives, and photographs. I am not even going to bother arguing this point, because everybody except you knows that what I am saying is true. He was able to establish which photographs were taken before other photographs by reference to the negative strips, in some cases even when police had cut up the original negative strips turning the negatives into single rather than multiple images on one strip. He is regarded as one of the worlds leading experts in his field, and he was able to establish that 8 negatives had been cut out and removed at the time Sheila's body was being photographed. He had no reason to make anything up. Anyway, I'm not bothered what you think about this, because at the end of the day I am telling the truth, and Mr Sutherst knows what he is talking about...
Sutherst made blow ups from photos precisely because he didn't have the negatives to use for such photos so clearly he didn't have all the negatives in the case. As I already pointed out negatives would not indicate who took a photo or when you need to use other evidence to establish such. So the claim he could ascertain such by examining the negatives is not true.
-
No-one has doctored anything, the truth of the matter is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, which you and others on that side of the fence, have been claiming was only ever just the one silencer, on all occasions, bearing this exhibit reference (SBJ/1), then that exhibit reference (DB/1) and then the following exhibit reference of DRB/1, with different lab' item numbers, 22 to 23, and back to 22, so you are now trapped by your own claims that there was only ever one silencer. So, the silencer Crooky dismantled on 29th August 1985, had to be the same silencer inside which all the bloodstaining and the loose flake later turned up in (after 29th August 1985). If 8 of the baffles had bloodstaining on them, and the loose flake had been in and on the baffles of the silencer when Crooky dismantled it on 29th August, he would have been the witness who found the blood evidence inside the silencer, not Fletcher and Hayward, some 13 days later...
You have no evidence he dismantled it. You simply took a photocopy of a photo that someone in Jeremy's camp wrote on making the allegation Cook took such photo on August 29. The police say the photo was taken at the lab after the lab took it apart. You have no proof to counter their claims someone in the Jeremy camp writing an allegation on it simply proves someone in the Jeremy camp made such allegation it doesn't prove the allegation to be true.
Your claim that Sutherst could tell who took the photo and the date by looking at the negatives is not true and you have not even produced evidence he saw the negative anyway, he had no access to many negatives which is something that was used to negate his efforts by the CCRC.
-
No-one has doctored anything, the truth of the matter is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, which you and others on that side of the fence, have been claiming was only ever just the one silencer, on all occasions, bearing this exhibit reference (SBJ/1), then that exhibit reference (DB/1) and then the following exhibit reference of DRB/1, with different lab' item numbers, 22 to 23, and back to 22, so you are now trapped by your own claims that there was only ever one silencer. So, the silencer Crooky dismantled on 29th August 1985, had to be the same silencer inside which all the bloodstaining and the loose flake later turned up in (after 29th August 1985). If 8 of the baffles had bloodstaining on them, and the loose flake had been in and on the baffles of the silencer when Crooky dismantled it on 29th August, he would have been the witness who found the blood evidence inside the silencer, not Fletcher and Hayward, some 13 days later...
Why didn't Crooky make a witness statement or a police report stating that when he had dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, that he discovered 8 baffle plates stained with blood, and why didn't he report finding the loose flake which some 13 days later (12th September 1985) miraculously appeared as if by magic, between baffles 1 and 2, once the silencer fell into the hands of Fletcher and Hayward at the lab?
The blood on those 8 baffles, and the flake found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, got into the silencer by other means, after 29th August 1985, and prior to the re-dismantling of the same rebuilt silencer on 12th September 1985. None of that blood could possibly have got into the silencer at the time of the shootings on 7th August 1985, otherwise surely to god almighty, Crooky would have found it when he dismantled that silencer on the 29th August 1985, would you agree?
Of course you don't agree, but your refusal to accept established FACTS like these only adds to the already diabolical state of the criminal justice in this country and elsewhere around the world in other Countries....
-
You have no evidence he dismantled it. You simply took a photocopy of a photo that someone in Jeremy's camp wrote on making the allegation Cook took such photo on August 29. The police say the photo was taken at the lab after the lab took it apart. You have no proof to counter their claims someone in the Jeremy camp writing an allegation on it simply proves someone in the Jeremy camp made such allegation it doesn't prove the allegation to be true.
Your claim that Sutherst could tell who took the photo and the date by looking at the negatives is not true and you have not even produced evidence he saw the negative anyway, he had no access to many negatives which is something that was used to negate his efforts by the CCRC.
Stop twisting what I said, or how I meant it to be read, I have never claimed anyone can tell who took a photograph by reference to photographic negatives. You must be bonkers to believe that I said that. This is one of your major faults, you alter things by claiming so and so said this, when if the truth be known, they never said such a thing in the way you presented it. Sutherst is an Expert, he has means and ways of telling in which order a photograph was taken by reference to unique markings retained on the strips of negatives. This is helpful to someone like Mr Sutherst because when a negative strip is chopped up, like in this particular case, with the intention of withholding photographs which might have proved very damaging to the prosecutions case, Mr Sutherst can piece the cut negatives into something of a sequential order for that particular reel of photographic negatives. By use of these means, he was able to confirm that a total of 8 negatives had been removed in sequential order, at a time in sequence with the first photographs taken before Sheila was photographed on the bedroom floor. Anyway, that is the gist of what Mr Sutherst can tell us, he is the expert, and rather than trying to criticise me, direct your criticism toward him, because he knows exactly what he's talking about, I'm not the expert, he is in that particular field...
-
Mr Sutherst never got access to all the photographs or the negative strips, since according to Jeremy, in addition to the aforementioned 8 missing negatives and corresponding photographs, hundreds of other photographs, and photographic negatives were still yet not disclosed...
-
Why didn't Crooky make a witness statement or a police report stating that when he had dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, that he discovered 8 baffle plates stained with blood, and why didn't he report finding the loose flake which some 13 days later (12th September 1985) miraculously appeared as if by magic, between baffles 1 and 2, once the silencer fell into the hands of Fletcher and Hayward at the lab?
The blood on those 8 baffles, and the flake found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, got into the silencer by other means, after 29th August 1985, and prior to the re-dismantling of the same rebuilt silencer on 12th September 1985. None of that blood could possibly have got into the silencer at the time of the shootings on 7th August 1985, otherwise surely to god almighty, Crooky would have found it when he dismantled that silencer on the 29th August 1985, would you agree?
Of course you don't agree, but your refusal to accept established FACTS like these only adds to the already diabolical state of the criminal justice in this country and elsewhere around the world in other Countries....
There is no evidence that Cook took it apart on August 29. Why would they make a statement mentioning he did so if it didn't happen? Since you admit there are no statements or documents stating he took it apart on the 29th or that he took it apart at all you are hard pressed to produce any evidence that backs up the allegation written by Jeremy supporters on the photocopy alleging Cook took a photo of it dismantled on August 29. The authorities say the photo was taken when it was disassembled at the lab and you have produced nothing to refute such claims.
You produced a photo that contains an unsupported allegation written by some unknown Jeremy supporter. That is not evidence of anything except that someone made an unsupported allegation.
A notebook entry by Cook, a statement by Cook, verbal testimony by Cook saying he took it apart on a certain date and photographed it or testimony/documents from some specified person who claims to have been present and seen Cook take the phone on a specific date and be able to explain where would be evidence that Cook took the photo on a specific date. You have none of this just an allegation made by someone who had no evidence to back up their allegation. You need to go back to the drawing board.
-
Mr Sutherst never got access to all the photographs or the negative strips, since according to Jeremy, in addition to the aforementioned 8 missing negatives and corresponding photographs, hundreds of other photographs, and photographic negatives were still yet not disclosed...
All you are doing is confirming what I said about him not having access to all the negatives and thus needing to prove he had access to the negative of the photo in question. After establishing he had access you would need to provide proof he determined the negatived prove Cook took it on a particular date and how they prove such.
-
All you are doing is confirming what I said about him not having access to all the negatives and thus needing to prove he had access to the negative of the photo in question. After establishing he had access you would need to provide proof he determined the negatived prove Cook took it on a particular date and how they prove such.
All I am doing is not confirming what you said you told me, all I am actually doing is telling the truth. It is documented somewhere in the file that Crooky did dismantle the silencer, rebuild it, and screw it to the barrel of the rifle, and that he did this before the silencer bearing the identifying mark DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. Accompanying this information is a hand written note in Crooky's hand writing, addressed to Malcolm (Fletcher) which says something along the lines, "Here are the photographs I took with regard to the rifle that I spoke to you about", and there is mention in Fletchers own hand written notes, dated, and signed, that he received these photographs from Crooky. Now, that is the truth, and in any event I don't have to prove anything. I can talk about anything I want to, and leave all the proving to others...
-
The bottom line is that if Crooky did dismantle the silencer on or about the 28th / 29th August 1985, if he did all the things I am saying he did with that silencer, and the rifle, and he did these things before he sent silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and these photographs which I have posted up, show the state of play when Crooky tampered with that silencer, then why wasn't it Crooky who found the blood staining on the 8 internal baffle plates, and why wasn't it Crooky who found the loose flake of blood inside that silencer when he dismantled it 13 days before Fletcher and Hayward re-dismantled it on the 12th September 1985? What I saying is that when those representing Jeremy Bambers interests get around to obtaining the proof to establish these facts, then it will be as plain as a pike staff that the sudden materialisation of blood staining on the 8 baffles, and the loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, in time for Fletcher and Hayward to discover them on 12th September 1985, could only have got there by contamination, in one form or another, nothing could be clearer...
-
All I am doing is not confirming what you said you told me, all I am actually doing is telling the truth. It is documented somewhere in the file that Crooky did dismantle the silencer, rebuild it, and screw it to the barrel of the rifle, and that he did this before the silencer bearing the identifying mark DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. Accompanying this information is a hand written note in Crooky's hand writing, addressed to Malcolm (Fletcher) which says something along the lines, "Here are the photographs I took with regard to the rifle that I spoke to you about", and there is mention in Fletchers own hand written notes, dated, and signed, that he received these photographs from Crooky. Now, that is the truth, and in any event I don't have to prove anything. I can talk about anything I want to, and leave all the proving to others...
You need to find where in the file it claims this was done and post it to establish there is evidence in the file establishing such. Cook was asked nothing about this by COLP so COLP wasn't aware of such claim and no allegations were made to COLP from Jeremy concerning such. If it actually is alleged somewhere in the file it could simply be the result of another clerical error. The nature of the evidence is key. Most evidence requires questioning witnesses such as COLP did to figure out why Davidson wrote things he wrote that turned out to be wrong. That is why courts have live witnesses who can be cross examined by the other side.
-
The bottom line is that if Crooky did dismantle the silencer on or about the 28th / 29th August 1985, if he did all the things I am saying he did with that silencer, and the rifle, and he did these things before he sent silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and these photographs which I have posted up, show the state of play when Crooky tampered with that silencer, then why wasn't it Crooky who found the blood staining on the 8 internal baffle plates, and why wasn't it Crooky who found the loose flake of blood inside that silencer when he dismantled it 13 days before Fletcher and Hayward re-dismantled it on the 12th September 1985? What I saying is that when those representing Jeremy Bambers interests get around to obtaining the proof to establish these facts, then it will be as plain as a pike staff that the sudden materialisation of blood staining on the 8 baffles, and the loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, in time for Fletcher and Hayward to discover them on 12th September 1985, could only have got there by contamination, in one form or another, nothing could be clearer...
There wasn't a loose flake floating around. The flake of blood was attached to the metal and the blood on the upper baffles was stick to the baffles. The blood had to be scraped off it didn't simply fall off. The blood dried to the metal and thus there were still microscopic traces for the defense expert to find in 1986.
Just opening the moderator would not cause the blood to fall off they had to scrape it off. So even if Cook had opened it before taking it to the lab this would not mean the lab would not have been able to find the blood they say they removed. There is no reason why Cook would take it apart though prior to taking it to the lab and having them do it his sole work was to fingerprint the outside. If he did take i apart he could have caused some blood to be lost by accidentally scraping some off so at best the argument is maybe there was even more blood than the lab found that he caused to be lost but there is no evidence of this.
You haven't provided evidence he took it apart on his own before taking it to the lab and decided to play with it and caused some blood to be lost. Your suggestion that all the blood would have to be lost by opening it doesn't follow either.
-
You need to find where in the file it claims this was done and post it to establish there is evidence in the file establishing such. Cook was asked nothing about this by COLP so COLP wasn't aware of such claim and no allegations were made to COLP from Jeremy concerning such. If it actually is alleged somewhere in the file it could simply be the result of another clerical error. The nature of the evidence is key. Most evidence requires questioning witnesses such as COLP did to figure out why Davidson wrote things he wrote that turned out to be wrong. That is why courts have live witnesses who can be cross examined by the other side.
Well, as I say I don't have to prove anything, this is not a court of law, and I do not have the authority to quash any convictions, or to impose any sentences. Others will have to do the work of gathering all the evidence which proves and establishes what I am saying to be true, is in actual fact true. I am simply paving the way for others who have followed in my footsteps and who are championing Jeremys plight as we speak. Crooky did dismantle, rebuild, and screw the rebuilt silencer onto the thread of the anshuzt rifle, and he did then send silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' to be examine by Fletcher and Hayward, which culminated in the discovery of the 8 badly bloodstained baffles, and the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2...
If I am right, and I am 100% certain that I am right, then it falls to be considered why Crooky did not see or find any blood in the silencer he dismantled and rebuilt on 28th / 29th August. but that 13 days later, Fletcher and Hayward did?
-
There wasn't a loose flake floating around. The flake of blood was attached to the metal and the blood on the upper baffles was stick to the baffles. The blood had to be scraped off it didn't simply fall off. The blood dried to the metal and thus there were still microscopic traces for the defense expert to find in 1986.
Just opening the moderator would not cause the blood to fall off they had to scrape it off. So even if Cook had opened it before taking it to the lab this would not mean the lab would not have been able to find the blood they say they removed. There is no reason why Cook would take it apart though prior to taking it to the lab and having them do it his sole work was to fingerprint the outside. If he did take i apart he could have caused some blood to be lost by accidentally scraping some off so at best the argument is maybe there was even more blood than the lab found that he caused to be lost but there is no evidence of this.
You haven't provided evidence he took it apart on his own before taking it to the lab and decided to play with it and caused some blood to be lost. Your suggestion that all the blood would have to be lost by opening it doesn't follow either.
He did take it a part, he dismantled it, he separated the baffles, he did not see any evidence of any blood staining, of any description on the baffles of that silencer. I believe the missing unaccounted for third samples of blood, taken from the victims may have been deliberately poured into the baffles of the silencer by Crooky before Fletcher and Hayward examined it on 12th September 1985...
-
He did take it a part, he dismantled it, he separated the baffles, he did not see any evidence of any blood staining, of any description on the baffles of that silencer. I believe the missing unaccounted for third samples of blood, taken from the victims may have been deliberately poured into the baffles of the silencer by Crooky before Fletcher and Hayward examined it on 12th September 1985...
You keep wavering between saying you believe he took it apart and insisting he did, insisting he saw not blood inside and that it was planted. When you insist something is a fact you need evidence. It doesn't matter if this is a court or not the same rules apply of needing to prove claims with evidence or they simply are unsupported allegations. You have not produced any evidence from Cook asserting he took it apart and can confirm no blood was inside of it before he took it to the lab.
Sheila's third blood sample was not unaccounted for it was destroyed along with June and Nevill's unused samples. There is nothing to establish any blood from the various samples was missing and potentially planted anywhere.
-
You keep wavering between saying you believe he took it apart and insisting he did, insisting he saw not blood inside and that it was planted. When you insist something is a fact you need evidence. It doesn't matter if this is a court or not the same rules apply of needing to prove claims with evidence or they simply are unsupported allegations. You have not produced any evidence from Cook asserting he took it apart and can confirm no blood was inside of it before he took it to the lab.
Sheila's third blood sample was not unaccounted for it was destroyed along with June and Nevill's unused samples. There is nothing to establish any blood from the various samples was missing and potentially planted anywhere.
Yes, there is evidence in the file confirming that Crooky did do everything I am saying he did, before silencer DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Others who are following in my footsteps will be able to gather all the necessary proof require to force the court of appeal to quash these convictions, on the grounds that the silencer, blood and paint evidence is unreliable. Another big mistake police have made, is that they have transformed all these different silencers, into one. It has been a very interesting exercise to argue that there was all these different parker hale silencers, sent to the lab' on different occasions, and you arguing that all these different silencers were one and the same. And now, your argument has come back to bite your backside, because of the silencer Crooky dismantled, rebuilt, and screwed onto the barrel of the gun, which had no blood upon it, or inside it, as of 28th / 29th August . If that is right, and as I say, I know it is right, then prey advise where all the blood then turned up upon the 8 baffle plates from, within 13 days, of none at all being present?
I don't accept that Crooky would not necessarily have ignored the presence of any blood there, if there had in fact been any blood there. This then brings me onto where the blood that was used to sanitize the 8 baffles after 28th / 29th August 1985, originated from? The most obvious solution has to be these 3rd samples of blood taken from the 5 victims during autopsy. I do not accept that these samples were simply destroyed, since the sudden materialisation of all this blood inside the silencer on the aforementioned 8 baffles requires a source from whence the blood originated...
-
Then Of course, we have another ballistic anomaly, we have comparison tests between test fired control bullets and ammunition belonging to the batch of crime scene ammunition, an exercise which was carried out over several dates between 12th and the 19th September 1985. Now, what is odd about this, is that many of these comparison tests were carried out before the official test fire of the anshuzt rifle, control ammunition and a silencer, which incidentally did not get under way until 20th September 1985, terminating as late as 2nd October 1985...
-
Yes, there is evidence in the file confirming that Crooky did do everything I am saying he did, before silencer DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Others who are following in my footsteps will be able to gather all the necessary proof require to force the court of appeal to quash these convictions, on the grounds that the silencer, blood and paint evidence is unreliable. Another big mistake police have made, is that they have transformed all these different silencers, into one. It has been a very interesting exercise to argue that there was all these different parker hale silencers, sent to the lab' on different occasions, and you arguing that all these different silencers were one and the same. And now, your argument has come back to bite your backside, because of the silencer Crooky dismantled, rebuilt, and screwed onto the barrel of the gun, which had no blood upon it, or inside it, as of 28th / 29th August . If that is right, and as I say, I know it is right, then prey advise where all the blood then turned up upon the 8 baffle plates from, within 13 days, of none at all being present?
I don't accept that Crooky would not necessarily have ignored the presence of any blood there, if there had in fact been any blood there. This then brings me onto where the blood that was used to sanitize the 8 baffles after 28th / 29th August 1985, originated from? The most obvious solution has to be these 3rd samples of blood taken from the 5 victims during autopsy. I do not accept that these samples were simply destroyed, since the sudden materialisation of all this blood inside the silencer on the aforementioned 8 baffles requires a source from whence the blood originated...
You just keep repeating the same allegations and claiming the file contains proof but you don't produce any such proof we are just supposed to accept your word such proof exists. It doesn't work that way and given how all your past claims have ended up falling apart there is no reason to believe this issue will be any different.
-
You just keep repeating the same allegations and claiming the file contains proof but you don't produce any such proof we are just supposed to accept your word such proof exists. It doesn't work that way and given how all your past claims have ended up falling apart there is no reason to believe this issue will be any different.
First of all, you should cease from spreading your lies that everything I have said has been proved wrong, or whatever. The fact is, you have "NOT" proved or showed that anything I have ever said was wrong, or a lie. It's all in your head. If anything, and if the truth be known, you have been digging yourself into a deep hole, that you have fallen into. You are a victim of your own nonsense and your own lies. Despite your continual claims that everybody but you is a liar and talking nonsense, I should repeat remind you that I have got access to 50,000 documents, and records, which can be relied upon to support everything I have ever spoken about. What have you got, only what I have permitted you to see thus far. Now, if documents, photographs and records exist in the file, to support all my claims irrespective of whether or not, some of the things I have talked about city ntradict what I have said previously, or vice versa, how can anybody in their right mind call me a liar?
I am not the liar you are wrongly making me out to be, on the contrary I am telling the truth...
-
. . . having been seen to be driving a a snail's pace!!!
By whom? None of the officers in the car that overtook his on the way to WHF said that he was driving at a snail's pace. For example, Ps Bews stated that Jeremy was doing about 30 mph in his statement dated 16 August 1985, as did Pc Myall in his statement dated 15 August 1985. Have you read their statements?
-
By whom? None of the officers in the car that overtook his on the way to WHF said that he was driving at a snail's pace. For example, Ps Bews stated that Jeremy was doing about 30 mph in his statement dated 16 August 1985, as did Pc Myall in his statement dated 15 August 1985. Have you read their statements?
"Snail's pace" = Figure of speech. Jeremy's speed was relative to other traffic at the time ie a police car travelling at high speed. had it been moving slowly, Jeremy would have been seen as driving fast.
-
By whom? None of the officers in the car that overtook his on the way to WHF said that he was driving at a snail's pace. For example, Ps Bews stated that Jeremy was doing about 30 mph in his statement dated 16 August 1985, as did Pc Myall in his statement dated 15 August 1985. Have you read their statements?
By the police who said they were able to overtake him even though he had a sizable lead on them and even though he was only a mile from WHF at the time they passed his vehicle he took a long time to arrive and finally reach them. At trial the defense suggested he pulled over to put on a jacket because he was cold and this is why he arrived later than they expected.
The appeal decision even noted such:
"PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby drove from Witham Police Station passing the appellant in his car on their way to the farm. He was travelling at a speed very much slower than their vehicle. Ann Eaton's evidence was that the appellant was normally "a very, very fast driver"."
The clear implication is he was not driving fast like he usually did because he wanted police to arrive first. and see him arrive so they would think it takes him longer to travel to and from WHF than it truly does and to dissuade them from thinking he had been there all along.
-
"Snail's pace" = Figure of speech.
A phrase chosen to suggest that Jeremy was deliberately driving slowly. At what speed would you expect him to travel at night along a country road, knowing that a police car moving at high speed is going to overtake him after a few seconds?
-
A phrase chosen to suggest that Jeremy was deliberately driving slowly. At what speed would you expect him to travel at night along a country road, knowing that a police car moving at high speed is going to overtake him after a few seconds?
Jeremy should have been at WHF before police. He was already dressed before he even called the police and got off the phone with them by 3:40. He drove slowly on purpose and drove even slower after police passed him and gave the excuse he parked to put on a jacket because he was cold. You try making excuses all the time for Jeremy and it just demonstrates bias nothing more when you do such. Even the defense recognized the problem so asserted Jeremy parked to put on a jacket. To ignore a problem even the defense recognized says volumes.
-
C'mon,how would it have looked if Jeremy had been there before the police ?
It would then have been said that he got there well before them to make sure everyone was dead and also that he hadn't left his " calling card ",or anything that would significantly nail him on the spot.
-
C'mon,how would it have looked if Jeremy had been there before the police ?
It would then have been said that he got there well before them to make sure everyone was dead and also that he hadn't left his " calling card ",or anything that would significantly nail him on the spot.
If Jeremy was innocent why on EARTH would he have been concerned about how it looked if he got there first? This was an emergency, for God's sake. His father had sounded "panicked" -had asked him to come over quickly.
-
C'mon,how would it have looked if Jeremy had been there before the police ?
It would then have been said that he got there well before them to make sure everyone was dead and also that he hadn't left his " calling card ",or anything that would significantly nail him on the spot.
That is the kind of thought a guilty person would engage in. An innocent person would not be considering how things look to police and deciding how slow to drive they would just rush over and most likely bang on the door before police arrived or at least try spying inside the windows.
-
That is the kind of thought a guilty person would engage in. An innocent person would not be considering how things look to police and deciding how slow to drive they would just rush over and most likely bang on the door before police arrived or at least try spying inside the windows.
Think what you like. If he'd have hurtled there he'd have been guilty ( too eager )
Because he was slow,he was accused,so what was he to have done,shown them all what it was like going at bicycle speed ?
My personal thoughts on this are that he was scared.Not because he carried out the murders because he hadn't. He was scared of the unknown and what was happening inside. Disbelief made him initially blame the police.
-
By the police who said they were able to overtake him even though he had a sizable lead on them
None of the officers used the wording "even though he had a sizable lead on them", so that's something you made up. Jeremy and the police didn't start their journeys at the same time. The police logs indicate the police left for WHF about 6 minutes before Jeremy left home (assuming that Jeremy left at roughly 3:41, a time consistent with a 3:42 entry in Pc West's log for a telephone line check that occurred shortly after Jeremy's call ended), which is consistent with them overtaking Jeremy where and when they did, as the police had further to travel and would have needed up to about 14 minutes, depending on their speed.
We don't need those time estimates, though, as all three officers in the police car estimated Jeremy's speed: two estimated it as about 30 mph, and one estimated it as not more than 30 mph. None of those officers had any reason to make an accurate mental note of how long Jeremy took to drive his final mile, but they estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes, which is only slightly longer than the 2 minutes it would have taken him at 30 mph.
The police were presumably travelling as fast as they safely could, so it's hardly surprising that Jeremy was travelling considerably slower - they weren't racing against each other, and reducing speed is a natural reaction to noticing that a police car is about to pass you at high speed.
Ann Eaton may well have known that Jeremy was normally "a very, very fast driver", but I doubt that she had any experience of being driven by Jeremy at around 4am. The circumstances were not "normal". There is no clear implication that Jeremy was driving unduly slowly for some special reason of his own.
Jeremy . . . gave the excuse he parked to put on a jacket because he was cold.
The Appeal Court judgement makes no mention of this, so how do you know? The judgment states "The appellant's car arrived at the farmhouse 1-2 minutes after the police vehicle." It's unclear why it says this, as the relevant officers' statements say 3 to 4 minutes.
-
Think what you like. If he'd have hurtled there he'd have been guilty ( too eager )
Because he was slow,he was accused,so what was he to have done,shown them all what it was like going at bicycle speed ?
My personal thoughts on this are that he was scared.Not because he carried out the murders because he hadn't. He was scared of the unknown and what was happening inside. Disbelief made him initially blame the police.
OK, Lookout, what would have been your thoughts? You're in a police car going to an emergency shout and you pass a car in no hurry to get anywhere and shows no sign of hitting the accelerator after you pass. You arrive at the scene and minutes after this same car appears, its' occupant being the son of the family where the emergency. My first thought had ALREADY been that this person was in no hurry to get where they were going. WHY would I change my mind? Had he been speeding, under the circumstances, I'd have fully understood why. It would have seemed far more natural to me that he'd want to assist his parents by being there asap.
There is something which has been bugging me. I find it confusing for someone who is clearly suspicious by nature -and has admitted to being so- why you have NEVER been suspicious of anything regarding Jeremy.
-
OK, Lookout, what would have been your thoughts? You're in a police car going to an emergency shout and you pass a car in no hurry to get anywhere and shows no sign of hitting the accelerator after you pass. You arrive at the scene and minutes after this same car appears, its' occupant being the son of the family where the emergency. My first thought had ALREADY been that this person was in no hurry to get where they were going. WHY would I change my mind? Had he been speeding, under the circumstances, I'd have fully understood why. It would have seemed far more natural to me that he'd want to assist his parents by being there asap.
Okay,so Jeremy was known for putting his foot down normally. A show off. Always something lacking when a young man puts speed before anything else,but that's another theory/story. Because these young men feel the need for speed doesn't necessarily mean that their ordinary lives revolve around speed.In other words it was probably the only time that Jeremy put a spurt on when he was behind the wheel of a car,other than that he probably lounged around if he wasn't working,too idle to scratch himself.
However,being confronted about the unknown on the 7th of August,he probably had all kinds of things going through his mind,hence his reason for " crawling " along,plus,he didn't want to be seen overtaking a police car. If he'd bombed along at his normal speed it would have been wrong,in his mind,because as far as he was concerned at that point,he had no idea what had gone on. Nobody did,until hours later.
At the mention of his sister brandishing a gun,I don't think I'd have been in a hurry to have possibly been shot either. Jeremy was scared . He may have had visions of a rifle poking out of an open window,we don't know. He was being cautious and probably felt safe with the police around.
Even EP didn't make an attempt to barge along. In fact,what did they do for over 3 hours anyway ?
If Jeremy had gone like the clappers,shouting up at the farmhouse or through the letter box,he'd definitely have been shot,of that there's no doubt.
Even if Neville had phoned,saying that Sheila was shooting someone upstairs,Jeremy would only have gone so far.As it was,EP told him to hide behind a wall etc., so there was nothing he could have done.
Going as slow as he did is certainly not a punishable offence.Better to be a live coward than a dead hero.
-
By the police who said they were able to overtake him even though he had a sizable lead on them and even though he was only a mile from WHF at the time they passed his vehicle he took a long time to arrive and finally reach them. At trial the defense suggested he pulled over to put on a jacket because he was cold and this is why he arrived later than they expected.
The appeal decision even noted such:
"PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby drove from Witham Police Station passing the appellant in his car on their way to the farm. He was travelling at a speed very much slower than their vehicle. Ann Eaton's evidence was that the appellant was normally "a very, very fast driver"."
The clear implication is he was not driving fast like he usually did because he wanted police to arrive first. and see him arrive so they would think it takes him longer to travel to and from WHF than it truly does and to dissuade them from thinking he had been there all along.
On the telephone to the police, he was told to make his way to the scene where he would be met by police who had already been deployed. He was told not to approach the farmhouse alone if he arrived there before them, but instead wait there until they arrived - note that none of these instructions were recorded, in Ralph's phone log, timed at 3.26am...
-
On the telephone to the police, he was told to make his way to the scene where he would be met by police who had already been deployed. He was told not to approach the farmhouse alone if he arrived there before them, but instead wait there until they arrived - note that none of these instructions were recorded, in Ralph's phone log, timed at 3.26am...
No proof then that those words were ever said and getting there before the police wouldn't have meant that he had to go in. He could have followed alleged instructions and sat in the car and waited.
-
On the telephone to the police, he was told to make his way to the scene where he would be met by police who had already been deployed. He was told not to approach the farmhouse alone if he arrived there before them, but instead wait there until they arrived - note that none of these instructions were recorded, in Ralph's phone log, timed at 3.26am...
This is a perfect example of you asserting things not contained in the record. West doesn't claim he said such to Jeremy and Jeremy didn't allege such in any of his statements, during his interrogation or even at trial.
Instead the defense asserted he stopped to put on a jacket and this helped delay him.
-
None of the officers used the wording "even though he had a sizable lead on them", so that's something you made up. Jeremy and the police didn't start their journeys at the same time. The police logs indicate the police left for WHF about 6 minutes before Jeremy left home (assuming that Jeremy left at roughly 3:41, a time consistent with a 3:42 entry in Pc West's log for a telephone line check that occurred shortly after Jeremy's call ended), which is consistent with them overtaking Jeremy where and when they did, as the police had further to travel and would have needed up to about 14 minutes, depending on their speed.
We don't need those time estimates, though, as all three officers in the police car estimated Jeremy's speed: two estimated it as about 30 mph, and one estimated it as not more than 30 mph. None of those officers had any reason to make an accurate mental note of how long Jeremy took to drive his final mile, but they estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes, which is only slightly longer than the 2 minutes it would have taken him at 30 mph.
The police were presumably travelling as fast as they safely could, so it's hardly surprising that Jeremy was travelling considerably slower - they weren't racing against each other, and reducing speed is a natural reaction to noticing that a police car is about to pass you at high speed.
Ann Eaton may well have known that Jeremy was normally "a very, very fast driver", but I doubt that she had any experience of being driven by Jeremy at around 4am. The circumstances were not "normal". There is no clear implication that Jeremy was driving unduly slowly for some special reason of his own.
The Appeal Court judgement makes no mention of this, so how do you know? The judgment states "The appellant's car arrived at the farmhouse 1-2 minutes after the police vehicle." It's unclear why it says this, as the relevant officers' statements say 3 to 4 minutes.
Your efforts smack of the usual desperation.
The police said they whiffed by a slow moving car. They didn't say anything about the car being ahead of them for a period of time and them eventually deciding to pass it. They simply drove, came across a car in their path that was slow moving and passed it by.
They estimated it was moving no more than 20MPH when he was passed:
(http://s27.postimg.org/jw1xg95w3/20mph.jpg)/quote]
-
Okay,so Jeremy was known for putting his foot down normally. A show off. Always something lacking when a young man puts speed before anything else,but that's another theory/story. Because these young men feel the need for speed doesn't necessarily mean that their ordinary lives revolve around speed.In other words it was probably the only time that Jeremy put a spurt on when he was behind the wheel of a car,other than that he probably lounged around if he wasn't working,too idle to scratch himself.
However,being confronted about the unknown on the 7th of August,he probably had all kinds of things going through his mind,hence his reason for " crawling " along,plus,he didn't want to be seen overtaking a police car. If he'd bombed along at his normal speed it would have been wrong,in his mind,because as far as he was concerned at that point,he had no idea what had gone on. Nobody did,until hours later.
At the mention of his sister brandishing a gun,I don't think I'd have been in a hurry to have possibly been shot either. Jeremy was scared . He may have had visions of a rifle poking out of an open window,we don't know. He was being cautious and probably felt safe with the police around.
Even EP didn't make an attempt to barge along. In fact,what did they do for over 3 hours anyway ?
If Jeremy had gone like the clappers,shouting up at the farmhouse or through the letter box,he'd definitely have been shot,of that there's no doubt.
Even if Neville had phoned,saying that Sheila was shooting someone upstairs,Jeremy would only have gone so far.As it was,EP told him to hide behind a wall etc., so there was nothing he could have done.
Going as slow as he did is certainly not a punishable offence.Better to be a live coward than a dead hero.
People normally speed to an emergency situation. Jeremy was noted for speeding in general not just emergency situations. Instead of speeding like normal he decided in this emergency situation to take it very slow. That is SUSPICIOUS.
He didn't rush over or call 999 he called Julie and after a while looked up police numbers casually that is SUSPICIOUS.
He didn't knock on the door , try to look in the windows or try to get the police to do these things- that is SUSPICIOUS.
He was very calm and not worried- that is SUSPICIOUS given his claims.
He lied about Sheila firing all weapons in the house and being competent in their use- that is SUSPICIOUS.
He lied about leaving the gun and bullets int he kitchen- that is SUSPICIOUS.
He didn't call Pam or any of the other relatives to tell them there was trouble so they could come to be with him which would give him comfort but also because they had a right to know. That is SUSPICIOUS.
When you add all the evidence in with these suspicious things you see why the suspicious things were done.
-
Okay,so Jeremy was known for putting his foot down normally. A show off. Always something lacking when a young man puts speed before anything else,but that's another theory/story. Because these young men feel the need for speed doesn't necessarily mean that their ordinary lives revolve around speed.In other words it was probably the only time that Jeremy put a spurt on when he was behind the wheel of a car,other than that he probably lounged around if he wasn't working,too idle to scratch himself.
However,being confronted about the unknown on the 7th of August,he probably had all kinds of things going through his mind,hence his reason for " crawling " along,plus,he didn't want to be seen overtaking a police car. If he'd bombed along at his normal speed it would have been wrong,in his mind,because as far as he was concerned at that point,he had no idea what had gone on. Nobody did,until hours later.
At the mention of his sister brandishing a gun,I don't think I'd have been in a hurry to have possibly been shot either. Jeremy was scared . He may have had visions of a rifle poking out of an open window,we don't know. He was being cautious and probably felt safe with the police around.
Even EP didn't make an attempt to barge along. In fact,what did they do for over 3 hours anyway ?
If Jeremy had gone like the clappers,shouting up at the farmhouse or through the letter box,he'd definitely have been shot,of that there's no doubt.
Even if Neville had phoned,saying that Sheila was shooting someone upstairs,Jeremy would only have gone so far.As it was,EP told him to hide behind a wall etc., so there was nothing he could have done.
Going as slow as he did is certainly not a punishable offence.Better to be a live coward than a dead hero.
You maybe missing my point here. The police knew nothing of Jeremy's liking of speed, which under the circumstances would have been appropriate even if he'd slowed down to let the police go first. Are you really suggesting that the great coward would have let Sheila kill her -and HIS- family without lifting a finger?
-
No proof then that those words were ever said and getting there before the police wouldn't have meant that he had to go in. He could have followed alleged instructions and sat in the car and waited.
Don't jump the gun, information recorded elsewhere confirms that that was what Jeremy was told to do. The facts are that Police told Jeremy to go himself to the scene, he was told that he would be met there by police, he was told that police had already been deployed, he was told that in the event he should arrive at the scene before police arrived there, that under no circumstances should he approach the farmhouse alone but to wait until they got there. None of this was mentioned in Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log, but as an afterthought, police did record the details of the "sons call", made 10 minutes later (3.36am)...
-
Don't jump the gun, information recorded elsewhere confirms that that was what Jeremy was told to do. The facts are that Police told Jeremy to go himself to the scene, he was told that he would be met there by police, he was told that police had already been deployed, he was told that in the event he should arrive at the scene before police arrived there, that under no circumstances should he approach the farmhouse alone but to wait until they got there. None of this was mentioned in Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log, but as an afterthought, police did record the details of the "sons call", made 10 minutes later (3.36am)...
Mike, if they DID give him all that information during a 3.36 call in which he was kept waiting I'm surprised he made it to WHF before 4.30, driving as slowly as he was.
-
Don't jump the gun, information recorded elsewhere confirms that that was what Jeremy was told to do. The facts are that Police told Jeremy to go himself to the scene, he was told that he would be met there by police, he was told that police had already been deployed, he was told that in the event he should arrive at the scene before police arrived there, that under no circumstances should he approach the farmhouse alone but to wait until they got there. None of this was mentioned in Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log, but as an afterthought, police did record the details of the "sons call", made 10 minutes later (3.36am)...
Jeremy left his cottage in Goldhanger and arrived there at 3.52am. His call to police commenced at 3.36am, and lasted 9 or 10 minutes, let's for arguments sake say his call to police concluded at 3.46am, this gave him 6 minutes to put the phone down, get clothes on, get downstairs, locate car keys, leave cottage, jump into car, start it up, and get all the way to the scene by 3.52am. Now, I personally have made that same journey in daylight, and videoed that journey of mine which is posted up on you tube. I believe that from start to finish that Jeremy made that particular journey under 5 minutes. If that is anything to go on, and despite appearing to slow down whilst a police car with flashing lights coming into his rear view mirror, Jeremy must have been hurtling along above the speed limit until that cop car overtook him. This has to be the correct interpretation. I am not making up excuses for Jeremy, but when he left his cottage to go directly to the scene as instructed by police at With am, Jeremy would not have expected the police to be racing along the road he himself was travelling along at high speed because he must have thought police were being deployed from Witham, or Chelmsford, and would take awhile for them (whoever they were) to arrive at the scene so soon. When Jeremy first became aware of the blue flashing lights atop the police car behind him in the road, that he was about to be stopped for speeding. Jeremy has never said that the police car with flashing lights that overtook him end route to the scene, was end route to the scene because he saw it turn up into Pages Lane. He never same d that upon arrival himself at the scene, that the police car parked up in Pages Lane, had been the same patrol car which had overtaken him. This gives something of an insight into what took place, involving how quickly Jeremy actually got to the scene in under 5 minutes from his cottage, including the point where he must have thought police were about to stop him for driving at break neck speed during the first stage of that journey. It makes sense to me, that once the patrol car with flashing lights went passed him without stopping him, that Jeremy must have felt mightily relieved that he hadn't been done for speeding, that he slowed down after that. It makes complete sense, in my opinion, that Jeremy could not have believed that the speeding police car with flashing blue lights that hurtled up behind him and overtook him, was responding to his call to police which had ended 3 minutes earlier. He must have thought that the police car in question was responding to some other incident...
-
Don't jump the gun, information recorded elsewhere confirms that that was what Jeremy was told to do. The facts are that Police told Jeremy to go himself to the scene, he was told that he would be met there by police, he was told that police had already been deployed, he was told that in the event he should arrive at the scene before police arrived there, that under no circumstances should he approach the farmhouse alone but to wait until they got there. None of this was mentioned in Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log, but as an afterthought, police did record the details of the "sons call", made 10 minutes later (3.36am)...
Its not written in Jeremy's log either. Also why did Jeremy initially argue that the 03:36 time was incorrect?
-
Its not written in Jeremy's log either. Also why did Jeremy initially argue that the 03:36 time was incorrect?
The contents of Jeremys phone log were subject of cross examination during his trial at Chelmsford Crown court, in October 1986 - the recipient was questioned about the contents of a witness statement made by him, which were not duplicated in phone log 3.36am. It was therefore proven that the actual contents of phone log 3.36am, were not accurately recorded so as to identify Jeremy as being the source for that timed (3.36am) call. With this in mind, I do not feel that I need to prove anything further on that particular matter. All I can do, and all that I seek to do, is to tell the truth, even if on some occasions things that I choose to speak about may contradict something I may have said previously. All I can say is that when this has occurred, there is some evidence in the file to support the conflicting views...
I think it should be obvious why Jeremy said at one time or another that his call to police was later than they said, or as the case may be, sooner than the police said. I put this down to the tactics of the police who were trying to disorientate him, regarding the time he received the call from his father, the call he made to police, and the call he made to his girlfriend. You only have to read his interview notes, the police are saying he said he called his girlfriend after police, and before police, or vice versa. The truth in this matter is easily explained - this is because Jeremy had already called police at Witham but got no response, before he spent some minutes looking up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station. At the time these matters were being put to Jeremy, police based their line of questioning on the time of Jeremys phone call to police which he made at 3.36am, but Jeremy in his own mindset, knew that he had made two calls to the police after receiving the 3.25am call from his father (or thereabouts). Jeremy had tried to call his father back but each attempt was made by a constant engaged tone, so Jeremy tried phoning Witham police station but got no response. I believe that when Jeremy was trying to call his father back at the scene at say 3.26am / 3.27am, that his father was already speaking with police as per Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log contents. By this stage, Jeremy had been informed that something was happening back at the farm. He then for whatever reason telephoned his girlfriend at around 3.30am, informing her that something was not right at the farm, and his girlfriend told him in no uncertain terms, basically to go back to bed. Jeremy then made his own phone call to the police timed at 3.36am, as per the log with that time. This call lasted 9 or 10 minutes, so by 3.46am, Jeremy made the effort to get himself to the scene, and within 5 minutes he arrived in Pages Lane, at 3.52am...
He called his girlfriend before he made his 3.36am call to the police, but after his original attempt to call police at Witham, at around 3.26am / 3.27am...
This is the best explanation I can give after extensive research carried out by me into the matter. At 3.29am, somebody at the scene activated the panic alarm. This is believed to have been activated by Ralph Bamber...
-
The contents of Jeremys phone log were subject of cross examination during his trial at Chelmsford Crown court, in October 1986 - the recipient was questioned about the contents of a witness statement made by him, which were not duplicated in phone log 3.36am. It was therefore proven that the actual contents of phone log 3.36am, were not accurately recorded so as to identify Jeremy as being the source for that timed (3.36am) call. With this in mind, I do not feel that I need to prove anything further on that particular matter. All I can do, and all that I seek to do, is to tell the truth, even if on some occasions things that I choose to speak about may contradict something I may have said previously. All I can say is that when this has occurred, there is some evidence in the file to support the conflicting views...
I think it should be obvious why Jeremy said at one time or another that his call to police was later than they said, or as the case may be, sooner than the police said. I put this down to the tactics of the police who were trying to disorientate him, regarding the time he received the call from his father, the call he made to police, and the call he made to his girlfriend. You only have to read his interview notes, the police are saying he said he called his girlfriend after police, and before police, or vice versa. The truth in this matter is easily explained - this is because Jeremy had already called police at Witham but got no response, before he spent some minutes looking up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station. At the time these matters were being put to Jeremy, police based their line of questioning on the time of Jeremys phone call to police which he made at 3.36am, but Jeremy in his own mindset, knew that he had made two calls to the police after receiving the 3.25am call from his father (or thereabouts). Jeremy had tried to call his father back but each attempt was made by a constant engaged tone, so Jeremy tried phoning Witham police station but got no response. I believe that when Jeremy was trying to call his father back at the scene at say 3.26am / 3.27am, that his father was already speaking with police as per Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log contents. By this stage, Jeremy had been informed that something was happening back at the farm. He then for whatever reason telephoned his girlfriend at around 3.30am, informing her that something was not right at the farm, and his girlfriend told him in no uncertain terms, basically to go back to bed. Jeremy then made his own phone call to the police timed at 3.36am, as per the log with that time. This call lasted 9 or 10 minutes, so by 3.46am, Jeremy made the effort to get himself to the scene, and within 5 minutes he arrived in Pages Lane, at 3.52am...
He called his girlfriend before he made his 3.36am call to the police, but after his original attempt to call police at Witham, at around 3.26am / 3.27am...
This is the best explanation I can give after extensive research carried out by me into the matter. At 3.29am, somebody at the scene activated the panic alarm. This is believed to have been activated by Ralph Bamber...
Personally, I think he's now saying he called police at 03:36 because he's chancing his arm and trying to pass off one of the logs as a call from Nevill. No one will fall for it though. Oh and there was no panick alarm.
-
Don't jump the gun, information recorded elsewhere confirms that that was what Jeremy was told to do. The facts are that Police told Jeremy to go himself to the scene, he was told that he would be met there by police, he was told that police had already been deployed, he was told that in the event he should arrive at the scene before police arrived there, that under no circumstances should he approach the farmhouse alone but to wait until they got there. None of this was mentioned in Ralph Bambers 3.26am phone log, but as an afterthought, police did record the details of the "sons call", made 10 minutes later (3.36am)...
There is no Ralph Bamber log only a log of Jeremy Bamber's call and log created because of West's Call to Bonnett which was also attributable to Jeremy's call.
Neither log says anything about Jeremy being told to wait anywhere till police arrive. Your fable about Jeremy's call being recorded fell apart long ago only the calls to the HQ IR Information room were recorded (and only because they received 999 calls there) not the ordinary police station lines.
-
There is no Ralph Bamber log only a log of Jeremy Bamber's call and log created because of West's Call to Bonnett which was also attributable to Jeremy's call.
Neither log says anything about Jeremy being told to wait anywhere till police arrive. Your fable about Jeremy's call being recorded fell apart long ago only the calls to the HQ IR Information room were recorded (and only because they received 999 calls there) not the ordinary police station lines.
Exactly!
-
People normally speed to an emergency situation. Jeremy was noted for speeding in general not just emergency situations. Instead of speeding like normal he decided in this emergency situation to take it very slow. Not true, he got from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes from Goldhanger... That is SUSPICIOUS Getting from his cottage in Goldhanger to Pages Lane at the farmhouse in under 5 minutes is not suspicious. You try and do it in that time, see how you fare. Then along the way don't forget to slow down as though you have got a police car hurtling up behind you in the road with its blue lights flashing, and then drive at normal speed from that point on, whilst imagining the police car which overtook you a mile or so from the scene, continues to race ahead....
He didn't rush over Oh, Yes, he did...or call 999 There was no need for him to call 999...he called Julie Yes, he called Julie, after he failed to get a response from Witham police station, he has admitted doing that, and as far as I am concerned there was nothing wrong with him doing what he did in the sequence he did these things, because despite what you think, Jeremy did not know that anybody had been shot by that stage. All he knew, was that his father had called him around 3.25am, to tell him that "Sheila", or "She has" got the gun, and to come quickly... and after a while looked up police numbers casually No, he didn't behave casually. His girlfriend told Jeremy to go back to bed, but Jeremy phoned the police at 3.36am to report to them what he had been told by his father earlier. Jeremy did nothing wrong, in the sequence with which he went about his business in this matter, his behaviour was normal if there is such a thing as being normal in these circumstances... that is SUSPICIOUS.
He didn't knock on the door Come off it, why would Jeremy go and knock on the door when he was there with the police who took control of the incident after their arrival there at 3.48am..., try to look in the windows or try to get the police to do these things- that is SUSPICIOUS No, it was not suspicious, the police were in control of the incident, not Jeremy....
He was very calm why should he be worried, he didn't know anything had happened to anyone inside the farmhouse by that stage, and neither did the police... and not worried- that is SUSPICIOUS No, there is nothing suspicious in his behaviour or demeanure at that time of the proceedings. He was there with the police, and they were in control of the incident, not him..given his claims He hadn't made any claims of significance by that stage....
He lied about Sheila firing all weapons in the house Stpo being silly, he made no such claims at that stage that Sheila had fired all the shots. Get your facts right. Since, upon having the news broken to him that all his family were dead inside the farmhouse, Jeremy complained to PS Saxby that the men who had gone into the farmhouse had shot them all upon entry... and being competent in their use A child could have fired that Anshuzt rifle, stop exaggerating everything...- that is SUSPICIOUS No, its not suspicious, it is a fact that a child could easily fire a loaded rifle of that type. Go and look on You Tube, there is ample evidence to support what I am saying....
He lied about leaving the gun and bullets int he kitchen No, he didn't. This lie has come about because there were two rooms described inside the farmhouse, one was the main kitchen, and the other the back kitchen. there was a wooden bench which Jeremy has described as the settle in some instances, and as a table on other occasions. this bench is just inside the back door, beyond the internal main kitchen door, but in the general area of the back kitchen, not in the downstairs office. His case was that he placed the rifle there...- that is SUSPICIOUS No, its not, not when you know the true facts....
He didn't call Pam or any of the other relatives to tell them there was trouble Why should he, he distrusted them all... so they could come to be with him which would give him comfort Why should he, if he didn't even know that anyone had been shot until much later, and once he found out from PS Saxby, it wasn't long before those you have named came to Jeremys cottage to provide that comfort and support... but also because they had a right to know Well, they did get to know, they got to know not too long after Jeremy himself was told the awful news.... That is SUSPICIOUS Not at all suspicious to me, I'm afraid....
When you add all the evidence in with these suspicious things you see why the suspicious things were done. Your explanation is nonsense, since there is nothing at all suspicious in anything you are saying here...
-
Mike, if they DID give him all that information during a 3.36 call in which he was kept waiting I'm surprised he made it to WHF before 4.30, driving as slowly as he was.
I'm sorry, but no-one has interviewed Jeremy Bamber as much as me, no-one that I am aware of has spent so many years weighing everything up, no-one who has visited his cottage and pages lane, no-one knows what I know about that journey. How I came to my conclusions, was never going to be easy, but I am more than satisfied that Jeremy is telling the truth, he did not drive slowly during part of that journey to the scene, all the way from his cottage. He must have been driving like a raving lunatic prior to noticing the blue flashing lights of the police car behind him in the road. You don't get from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes, driving slowly all the way. He must have been doing over 100 mph on certain stretches of the journey, or at least at a very dangerously high speed until he saw the police car lights hurtling along up behind him, and thought his number was up, that he was going to get stopped for dangerous driving, and speeding...
-
Personally, I think he's now saying he called police at 03:36 because he's chancing his arm No, he has always maintained to me that he called police at 3.36am, as per the general contents of that particular log. Of course, you can choose to believe what you want, that is your prerogative... and trying to pass off one of the logs as a call from NevillJeremy wasn't aware of the second log details until relatively recently in the grand scheme of thuings.... No one will fall for it though Well, I'm not sure what you mean by, no one will fall for it though, because Ralph and Jeremy both made calls to police, as I'm sure all will be revealed in the not too distant future.... Oh and there was no panick alarm Yes, there was, that information is withheld under pii....
-
I'm sorry, but no-one has interviewed Jeremy Bamber as much as me, no-one that I am aware of has spent so many years weighing everything up, no-one who has visited his cottage and pages lane, no-one knows what I know about that journey. How I came to my conclusions, was never going to be easy, but I am more than satisfied that Jeremy is telling the truth, he did not drive slowly during part of that journey to the scene, all the way from his cottage. He must have been driving like a raving lunatic prior to noticing the blue flashing lights of the police car behind him in the road. You don't get from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes, driving slowly all the way. He must have been doing over 100 mph on certain stretches of the journey, or at least at a very dangerously high speed until he saw the police car lights hurtling along up behind him, and thought his number was up, that he was going to get stopped for dangerous driving, and speeding...
I don't think it's fair to suggest that just because you have spent longer looking at the case that it makes your opinion more valid. It was noted that he was driving slowly, you're making an 'assumption' that previous to being spotted, he drove like a lunatic. The fact that you don't get from his house to the scene in five minutes, highlights that he's lying about the time he called police and is making use of the time recorded by West (a time he initially disputed), in order to suggest Nevill called police. It's bad engineering and the wheels drop off at the first hurdle.
-
Personally, I think he's now saying he called police at 03:36 because he's chancing his arm No, he has always maintained to me that he called police at 3.36am, as per the general contents of that particular log. Of course, you can choose to believe what you want, that is your prerogative... and trying to pass off one of the logs as a call from NevillJeremy wasn't aware of the second log details until relatively recently in the grand scheme of thuings.... No one will fall for it though Well, I'm not sure what you mean by, no one will fall for it though, because Ralph and Jeremy both made calls to police, as I'm sure all will be revealed in the not too distant future.... Oh and there was no panick alarm Yes, there was, that information is withheld under pii....
Well, we will have to wait and see - I certainly don't believe it will ever happen. Both logs were mentioned in court and the log which is supposed to be Nevill's call was available to the jury. West read out his own log when questioned.
-
There is no Ralph Bamber log Yes, there was... only a log of Jeremy Bamber's call Not true...and log created because of West's Call to Bonnett which was also attributable to Jeremy's call Hang on a minute, the only mention of Jeremy in Ralphs log, is the addendum where the log is updated making mention that the son has contacted the police, which is in fact what did occur....
Neither log says anything about Jeremy being told to wait anywhere till police arrive Hooray, true, true, yippee, he can speak some of the truth, afterall.... Your fable about Jeremy's call being recorded fell apart long ago Listen Chummy, stop misquoting me, and telling lies about me, you have not undermined anything I have ever said about this case, and you never will, because yoiu are a pathetic liar yourself. My day is coming bafoon, and you will eat all the nasty untrue words you have ever spoken about me. You are a true scumbag, a lying scumbag who talks fucking nonsense. Keep digging that great big hole that you are already inside. You have no respect for anybody only your own bag of bullshit..only the calls to the HQ IR Information room were recorded Well, bozo, you had better take that issue up with the police then because it is them who are saying that Jeremy's call to police was recorded, but taped over. At least try to get your bullshit facts right, instead of making things up... (and only because they received 999 calls there) not the ordinary police station lines So, says you, the pied piper of liars...
[/color][/b].
-
I don't think it's fair to suggest that just because you have spent longer looking at the case that it makes your opinion more valid. It was noted that he was driving slowly, you're making an 'assumption' that previous to being spotted, he drove like a lunatic. The fact that you don't get from his house to the scene in five minutes, highlights that he's lying about the time he called police and is making use of the time recorded by West (a time he initially disputed), in order to suggest Nevill called police. It's bad engineering and the wheels drop off at the first hurdle.
He made his call at 3.36am, it lasted 9 or 10 minutes, he left his cottage by 3.46am at the latest, he arrived at the scene in Pages Lane at 3.52. Somewhere along this route, a speeding police car with blue flashing lights overtook him, Jeremy slowed down, he arrived at the scene 3 or 4 minutes behind the police. Find the distance between his cottage at head street, to the farmhouse, in Pages Lane, do the necessary calculations taking into account all the aforementioned factors - you will soon realise that Jeremy had not driven slowly all the way from his cottage to the farmhouse in Pages Lane. You will discover that he drove part of the way en route there at a very high speed which must have been in excess of the 30 MPH, 40 MPH, and 60 MPH speed limits in force at that time?
I can only report the known facts, I'll leave the assumption exercises to others in this matter...
-
He made his call at 3.36am, it lasted 9 or 10 minutes, he left his cottage by 3.46am at the latest, he arrived at the scene in Pages Lane at 3.52. Somewhere along this route, a speeding police car with blue flashing lights overtook him, Jeremy slowed down, he arrived at the scene 3 or 4 minutes behind the police. Find the distance between his cottage at head street, to the farmhouse, in Pages Lane, do the necessary calculations taking into account all the aforementioned factors - you will soon realise that Jeremy had not driven slowly all the way from his cottage to the farmhouse in Pages Lane. You will discover that he drove part of the way en route there at a very high speed which must have been in excess of the 30 MPH, 40 MPH, and 60 MPH speed limits in force at that time?
I can only report the known facts, I'll leave the assumption exercises to others in this matter...
I don't believe that he called police at 03:36, nor that Nevill called. How could he when he was already dead?
-
I don't believe that he called police at 03:36, nor that Nevill called. How could he when he was already dead?
Nobody has any proof that Ralph Bamber was already dead by 3.36am, and even if he was, he was most definitely still alive at around 3.25am, when he made the call to Jeremy, and at 3.26am, when he made his call to the police, and at 3.29am, when he activated the attack / panic alarm. There has been no time of death, and you can't just make one up to suit your arguments. There is no evidence regarding the time of Ralph Bambers death, and it is wrong to make one up without any evidence at all, used by the prosecution during the trial. But you can choose to believe whatever you want to, it's only an opinion, not factual...
-
So, DS Stan Jones, did find the silencer after all:-
PC Whiddon, makes a pigs ear of his attempted explanation for the existence of at least two different parker hale silencers, which he says had the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, lab' item 22, when it first came into his possession, then refers to it as exhibit DRB/1, but no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1 has ever been produced, hey presto, as if by magic its disappeared into thin air...
-
What a complete load of bollocks these police officers talk about - arguably, a part from the silencer itself, and the dodgy blood and paint evidence, associated to it, what happened to the all important cardboard tube that we hear so much about? Ds Jones speaks about it, Peter Eaton Speaks about it, and now Whiddon speaks about it, yet never do the experts at the lab' choose to examine it, or give it an exhibit reference, or a unique lab' item number...
And where the fuck is this cardboard tube when Whiddon is photographed holding the anshuzt rifle, and the unlabelled silencer in the following image:-
-
Nobody has any proof that Ralph Bamber was already dead by 3.36am, and even if he was, he was most definitely still alive at around 3.25am, when he made the call to Jeremy, and at 3.26am, when he made his call to the police, and at 3.29am, when he activated the attack / panic alarm. There has been no time of death, and you can't just make one up to suit your arguments. There is no evidence regarding the time of Ralph Bambers death, and it is wrong to make one up without any evidence at all, used by the prosecution during the trial. But you can choose to believe whatever you want to, it's only an opinion, not factual...
As is your assertion that Nevill called the police or that Sheila died much later. We can only have opinions because only Jeremy knows the truth for sure. However, unless Jeremy can PROVE that either call happened, he won't be going anywhere.
-
"People normally speed to an emergency situation. Jeremy was noted for speeding in general not just emergency situations. Instead of speeding like normal he decided in this emergency situation to take it very slow. That is SUSPICIOUS."
Not true, he got from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes from Goldhanger. Getting from his cottage in Goldhanger to Pages Lane at the farmhouse in under 5 minutes is not suspicious. You try and do it in that time, see how you fare. Then along the way don't forget to slow down as though you have got a police car hurtling up behind you in the road with its blue lights flashing, and then drive at normal speed from that point on, whilst imagining the police car which overtook you a mile or so from the scene, continues to race ahead.
Your claim he got there in under 5 minutes features your made up claim that he phoned police at 3:36 and got off the phone after 3:40 then rushed over. How long did he take to get dressed 5 seconds? The truth is that Jeremy was on the phone with police from around 3:23-3:35 and was then was to go to WHF and didn't need to dress because his claim he had been soundly sleeping was a lie. He took his time to make sure police beat him there.
"He didn't rush over"
Oh, Yes, he did...
He claimed Nevill phoned him at 3:10. He phoned Julie and then phoned the police and after police told him to meet him there he slowly drove over. On no planet is that rushing right over.
"He didn't call 999 he called Julie"
There was no need for him to call 999. Yes, he called Julie, after he failed to get a response from Witham police station, he has admitted doing that, and as far as I am concerned there was nothing wrong with him doing what he did in the sequence he did these things, because despite what you think, Jeremy did not know that anybody had been shot by that stage. All he knew, was that his father had called him around 3.25am, to tell him that "Sheila", or "She has" got the gun, and to come quickly...
You are just being a dishonest apologist. Jeremy never claimed he called Witham and then Julie and then Chelmsford. He told the initial responders he called Witham, then Chelmsford and finally Julie. Later he dropped the claim he called Witham and simply claimed he called Chelmsford then Julie. He lied he called Julie first then he tried calling the police. In no account did Julie claim Jeremy told her he tried to call the police but got no response from the so decided to call her so she doesn't support your revisionist account either you simply made it up. Julie is unsure of the exact time but 2 roommates who looked at their clocks said it was around 3AM. It is highly suspicious to call Julie period but especially before police and it appears he called her before the time he made up receiving a call from Nevill even!
The opinion of an apologist doesn't matter at all in assessing whether an objective person would find something suspicious. The fact of the matter is that someone receiving the call he claimed to have received either would have immediately rushed over as Nevill desired or would have called 999. That is what a normal person receiving such a distress call would do. Wasting time to call Julie is not what a normal person would do. Looking up numbers of stations is not what a normal person would do and if someone did make the stupid choice of looking up stations in the middle of the night after getting no response and realizing the phones were unmanned a person possessing average intelligence would certainly at that point dial 999 if there were actually an emergency to report. Little kids know to dial 999 and have done so saving the lives of adults in distress.[/quote]
"and after a while looked up police numbers casually that is SUSPICIOUS. "
No, he didn't behave casually. His girlfriend told Jeremy to go back to bed, but Jeremy phoned the police at 3.36am to report to them what he had been told by his father earlier. Jeremy did nothing wrong, in the sequence with which he went about his business in this matter, his behaviour was normal if there is such a thing as being normal in these circumstances...
Calling his girlfriend before police is something he denied doing, the fact he lied about the sequence says a lot. He recognized that if he were worried he would have immediately called police so he lied and said he immediately called police though he actually phoned Julie before the police. So he did something suspicious and LIED to pretend he didn't do such suspicious thing and thus did something even more suspicious. So his full story is Nevill called at 3:10 but the call was disconnected, he tried to call back but could not get through so got worried and called police then called Julie. You make things worse by claiming he didn't call police until 3:36. So you say he waited 26 minutes to call Chelmsford. Only a guilty person would wait that long. Waiting that long demonstrates no concern at all for his loved ones. During Cross examination of West, Jeremy's trial lawyers went out of their way to stress that 3:26 is when West phoned Bonnett and thus Jeremy called West prior to this to MINIMIZE the gap in time between when Jeremy claims Nevill phoned him and he phoned police. You stupidly want to enlarge the time. It is already suspicious enough to wait until after 3:20 to call police if he got the call at 3:10 but you want to enlarge the gap and do so saying the gap makes no difference it is not suspicious. That is not how an objective intelligent person looks at it which is why the trial defense tried to minimize the gap between allegedly receiving Nevill's call and calling police. An ordinary person receiving a distress call form their family about a crazy person running around with a gun would either call 999 right away or go over to try to help. They would not wake their boyfriend/girlfriend and then do nothing for a while and finally casually look up police station numbers. Jeremy well understood a rational person would call police right away so he lied and claimed that is what he did.
"He didn't knock on the door try to look in the windows or try to get the police to do these things- that is SUSPICIOUS"
Come off it, why would Jeremy go and knock on the door when he was there with the police who took control of the incident after their arrival there at 3.48am. No, it was not suspicious, the police were in control of the incident, not Jeremy.
When police don't act fast enough then concerned family prod them to act or try to act on their own and have to have police stop them from doing so. Jeremy didn't do any of the things a concerned family member would have done in the circumstances. He spent his time lying to police priming them with BS about Sheila being proficient with weapons so that they were scared to do anything themselves and needed to call armed officers and he did this so that when they finally went inside they would believe she did it.
"He was very calm and not worried- that is SUSPICIOUS given his claims"
why should he be worried, he didn't know anything had happened to anyone inside the farmhouse by that stage, and neither did the police. No, there is nothing suspicious in his behaviour or demeanure at that time of the proceedings. He was there with the police, and they were in control of the incident, not him. He hadn't made any claims of significance by that stage.
Your apologist efforts just make you look foolish. He claimed:
1) That Nevill was so panicked that he woke Jeremy up in the middle of the night telling him to come over to help disarm Sheila because she went crazy and grabbed the gun
2) He claimed he left the gun, its loaded magazine and extra bullets on the kitchen table.
3) He claimed the phone conversation got disconnected and he tried to phone back but could not get through so was worried
4) He claimed the house was full of firearms more than 1000 rounds of ammunition and that SHeial was capable of using them all
These are A LOT of claims. He called the police because supposedly he was concerned for their safety and yet at the scene he exhibited zero concern for their safety. Instead of asking police to knock on the door and try to look inside to see what was going on he discouraged them from doing so. The police even asked if Jeremy could potentially be able to calm Sheila down and thus it would be worth it having him knock on the door and Jeremy responded that it would make matters worse because Sheila didn't like him and he didn't like her! So they decided not to approach the house and try to knock or to look into the windows they decided to do NOTHING and call for armed personnel to come. Jeremy didn't plead with them to do something he was content talking to them about cars and guy stuff as the armed personnel were summoned.
"He lied about Sheila firing all weapons in the house and being competent in their use- that is SUSPICIOUS."
Stpo being silly, he made no such claims at that stage that Sheila had fired all the shots. Get your facts right. Since, upon having the news broken to him that all his family were dead inside the farmhouse, Jeremy complained to PS Saxby that the men who had gone into the farmhouse had shot them all upon entry... A child could have fired that Anshuzt rifle, stop exaggerating everything... No, its not suspicious, it is a fact that a child could easily fire a loaded rifle of that type. Go and look on You Tube, there is ample evidence to support what I am saying.
I have my facts straight. You are playing worthless games to try to deflect attention from my point and try to twist and pretend I made a different point because you have no ability to deal with my actual point.
My point was that Jeremy LIED to the police at the scene telling them that Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and was proficient with all of them so the police were in great danger and even claimed he trained her to use the Anschutz. Later when he was questioned by the detectives he told the detectives the complete opposite. He told the detectives he had not known her to ever fire a firearm. He lied to those at the scene about her proficiency with firearms that is SUSPICIOUS.
I didn't say anything about him telling police that shots had been fired you made up such babble as a strawman because my point is a very damaging one. As for you dribble about children using the Anschutz those children were taught how to fire the weapon and we given weapons already loaded and charged OR taught how to load them and how to chamber the first round manually. There are no videos of children or even adults who were handed an Anschutz 525 for the first time though they never used a semi-auto before and being told to figure out how to remove the magazine and how to load and operate it with no assistance from anyone. You inadvertently raised another problem. Sheila never used a semi auto period let alone the Anschutz and would not have had a clue that she needed to chamber the first round manually let alone how to do so and would not have known how to release the magazine work the safety etc either. This is why Jeremy lied and told those at the scene she had been taught how to operate it.
"He lied about leaving the gun and bullets int he kitchen that is SUSPICIOUS"
No, he didn't. This lie has come about because there were two rooms described inside the farmhouse, one was the main kitchen, and the other the back kitchen. there was a wooden bench which Jeremy has described as the settle in some instances, and as a table on other occasions. this bench is just inside the back door, beyond the internal main kitchen door, but in the general area of the back kitchen, not in the downstairs office. His case was that he placed the rifle there. No, its not, not when you know the true facts.
The facts are that he LIED about taking it out to shoot rabbits and leaving it in the kitchen. He made up the tale in order to pretend that there was a gun, loaded magazine and extra bullet supply for Sheila to find and use because she would not have gone to the closet to get the gun herself. He also made up the lie that he found it with the scope and moderator unattached because the gun could not be put away with them attached. The truth is that the scope was always attached until he removed it in anticipation of the murders because the scope would inhibit accurate shooting at close quarters. The moderator he left attached and used then removed it after and put it in the closet but made up the story about leaving it out without the moderator attached so police would not look for it and it worked. He staged 30 bullets in the kitchen after the murders and unfortunately for him this was too many for his lie to be true thus giving away he staged them later. You made up the fairytale that the gun was already loaded when he got it out but in all his statements he insisted the gun was empty when he got it and it was routinely stored empty so it would not be credible it had been put away loaded. If the gun had bullets in it he would have simply rushed outside with it because he said he was in a rush to get to the rabbits before they got away.
His story was never the same about how he encountered these rabbits. He claimed he heard them from the kitchen at one point, claimed he saw them from the kitchen but later put together a better lie and said he had gone outside to check on the barn and that is when he saw them. He reiterate din this account that the gun was empty when he found it:
(http://s2.postimg.org/5tgfwyn3d/jeremy2ndstatement.jpg)
So spare us the nonsense you make up about the gun already being loaded when Jeremy picked it up he claimed at all times including during the trial that it was empty because if it had bullets in it he would have rushed outside with it not taken bullets and the magazine to the kitchen to load.
"He didn't call Pam or any of the other relatives to tell them there was trouble so they could come to be with him which would give him comfort but also because they had a right to know That is SUSPICIOUS"
Why should he, he distrusted them all..Why should he, if he didn't even know that anyone had been shot until much later, and once he found out from PS Saxby, it wasn't long before those you have named came to Jeremys cottage to provide that comfort and support...Well, they did get to know, they got to know not too long after Jeremy himself was told the awful news... Not at all suspicious to me, I'm afraid.
It's highly suspicious to someone rational and objective. You make a good case for why his calling Julie at 3AM was so suspicious. Before he supposedly knew whether anything was actually wrong for sure he woke up Julie and her roommates. Why would he call her when he wasn't sure if anything was wrong? A normal person would go SEE if anything is wrong or call police to have them go check it out. Calling Julie made no sense, Julie didn't even care about his family anyway.
In contrast AP and his sister DID care about Nevill and Pam and her kids did care about June yet none of them were alerted. At 6AM when Jeremy called Julie AGAIN he was told by police that things didn't look good because no one was responding inside the house. That meant either they were being held hostage, to injured to respond or they were dead. Certainly Pam and the other relatives had a right to know this and to be there to find out what happens. He didn't alert any of them. He called Julie to tell her not to go to work because he would need her to speak to police and confirm he called her claiming he received a distress call so that she could bolster his bogus alibi.
"When you add all the evidence in with these suspicious things you see why the suspicious things were done."
Your explanation is nonsense, since there is nothing at all suspicious in anything you are saying here...
Your claim there is nothing suspicious is the nonsense. rational objective people say otherwise.
-
I'm sorry, but no-one has interviewed Jeremy Bamber as much as me, no-one that I am aware of has spent so many years weighing everything up, no-one who has visited his cottage and pages lane, no-one knows what I know about that journey. How I came to my conclusions, was never going to be easy, but I am more than satisfied that Jeremy is telling the truth, he did not drive slowly during part of that journey to the scene, all the way from his cottage. He must have been driving like a raving lunatic prior to noticing the blue flashing lights of the police car behind him in the road. You don't get from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes, driving slowly all the way. He must have been doing over 100 mph on certain stretches of the journey, or at least at a very dangerously high speed until he saw the police car lights hurtling along up behind him, and thought his number was up, that he was going to get stopped for dangerous driving, and speeding...
Most of what you say conflicts with what Jeremy testified to, put in his statements and told police verbally. You spend your time revising history and making up things to try to pretend that Jeremy is innocent. You misrepresent what police said in their statements and make up wild unsupported allegations about bullets and cases being switched, police shooting Sheila and other babble that has zero evidentiary foundation.
I doubt you spoke to Jeremy more than his lawyers but it makes no difference whether you did or not. You knew him after he was convicted and was busy trying to make up new lies since his old lies failed. It too late to make up new claims on appeal the record that exists consists of what he told police verbally, put in his statements and testified to. Changing his claims after conviction is not new evidence he should have told such stories at his trial. Changing his claims after conviction is simply self-serving and not credible. That being the case it doesn't matter what horse shit he told you he made up that horse shit too late. You make up plenty of you own there is no way to tell whether the horse crap you post is from you or him and it doesn't really matter because either way it is not credible and not able to be used by his lawyers to try to get his conviction overturned.
By way of example, yesterday you misrepresented that Davidson told the COLP investigators that 2 sets of paint samples were taken and that the first were taken on August 8 because the gun had paint on it.. In fact he said he screwed up in referring to the samples as RC/1 and 2 and that in fact they were actually RWC/1 and 2 so they are one and the same. Furthermore, he told COLP that he screwed up when he wrote the paint samples were taken on the 8th. At the time he filled out his paperwork he had no idea when they were taken because he wasn't with those who took the samples, he simply assumed everything the form that referenced them (6.11) was a continuation of a prior form (6.10) and thus used the date on form 6.10 for all items on both forms. Last Davidson admitted that in September or October he was eavesdropping as Cook was speaking to someone about the paint and he was unaware the moderator had been found so he assumed they were talking about paint found on a rifle. He had no idea they were talking about the murder weapon getting paint on it during the murders. He had taken part in the collection of the murder weapon and knew it had no paint so he assumed they were talking about some different weapon.
You totally distorted everything COLP found the complete opposite of what you claim. Either you are the dumbest man on Earth and totally misunderstood Davidson's COLP statement as a result or you intentionally distorted. You have routinely demonstrated dishonesty not stupidity so it is safe to say you didn't misunderstand but rather intentionally distorted. You do this on every single issue this is not a rare circumstance.
Since you lie and Jeremy lies we have no way of sorting out whether Jeremy told you various lies you attribute to him (though you refuse to characterize them as lies and say he is telling the truth) or you made them up.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter though whether he made them up or you simply made up that he told you these things because they are just bogus claims regardless.
Jeremy coming forward now to say he lied in his statements to police and at his trial is of no use legally. He can't get anew trial on such basis and is stuck with what he claimed in the past.
-
As is your assertion that Nevill called the police or that Sheila died much later. We can only have opinions because only Jeremy knows the truth for sure. However, unless Jeremy can PROVE that either call happened, he won't be going anywhere.
It is not just an opinion that Ralph Bamber called the police as per the contents of his 3.26am, it is supported by facts. The phone log itself is factual, it states, " My daughter has got one of my guns", and despite what you might think this version of the log was not disclosed during the trial. The contents of the other phone log (3.36am) were disclosed, but the time it was made altered to 3.26am. This can be proven by the cross examination of the prosecution during the trial. If Ralph's phone log had been disclosed as you and others assert, the defence would almost certainly have jumped at the opportunity to bring to the attention of the jury the fact that both versions of both logs support the case for one of the calls being made by Ralph and the other by Jeremy, by reference in one to " my daughter has got one of my guns", and in the other, "Sheila has got the gun, come quickly". Since, Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, as per the contents of the 3.26am log, and the second log requests Jeremy to come to the farmhouse quickly...
The existence of the 3.26am log confirms that Ralph was still alive at that time, and he was alive a moment earlier when he made the call to Jeremy, and he was alive at 3.29am when he activated the attack / panic alarm...
-
You can all change the time references as much as you like to suit your arguments, as I can - your versions do not prove that I have lied, or that I am a liar. Whereas, you continue to use these timing discrepancies to argue that I am dishonest. Give us a break, why does everything you say have to right? The way I see it, when you accuse me of lying by your timed reference arguments, all you are doing is reinforcing how dishonest your own approach is. Whereas in my case, all I am doing is reporting the timed facts as are recorded somewhere in the file...
-
I have already answered the points mentioned in previous posts, so without the need to repeat myself unnecessarily, go back through my posts to find my answers to your arguments...
-
I have already answered the points mentioned in previous posts, so without the need to repeat myself unnecessarily, go back through my posts to find my answers to your arguments...
Refer to my original replies...
-
Jeremys account regarding how he was awoken in the middle of the night by a call from his father, its contents, the short duration of that call, the fact that he attempted to call his father back to re-establish contact but that these attempts were met by him obtaining a constant engaged tone, so he immediately telephoned Witham Police station, but got no answer, so in between looking in the phone directory and calling Chelmsford police station, he called Julie, and imparted to her only what he had been told in as many words, that there was something wrong at the farm. He was told by Julie Mugford to go back to bed. Jeremy then rang Chelmsford police station and was kept occupied on the phone with them for 9 or 10 minutes, before being told to go to the scene where he would be met by police officers who had already been deployed there. Jeremy got dressed, and set off to the scene in his astra GTE a vehicle capable of doing 140 MPH. He drove frantically at first, but slowed down when police arrived in the road behind him. He slowed down and the police car with flashing lights passed him. He arrived at the scene 3 or 4 minutes after police arrived there. His entire journey took under 5 minutes, which is pretty fast...
There was nothing suspicious in what he did, or how he set about it...
-
I'm sorry, but no-one has interviewed Jeremy Bamber as much as me, no-one that I am aware of has spent so many years weighing everything up, no-one who has visited his cottage and pages lane, no-one knows what I know about that journey. How I came to my conclusions, was never going to be easy, but I am more than satisfied that Jeremy is telling the truth, he did not drive slowly during part of that journey to the scene, all the way from his cottage. He must have been driving like a raving lunatic prior to noticing the blue flashing lights of the police car behind him in the road. You don't get from his cottage to the scene in under 5 minutes, driving slowly all the way. He must have been doing over 100 mph on certain stretches of the journey, or at least at a very dangerously high speed until he saw the police car lights hurtling along up behind him, and thought his number was up, that he was going to get stopped for dangerous driving, and speeding...
I could almost walk to Goldhanger from where I live. I was there on Friday. I think it hardly possible to get from the junction of Head Street to the junction of Tollesbury Road within 5 minutes and driving the model of car that Jeremy had there wouldn't be a stretch of road long enough to accelerate to 100mph before getting to the next bend. I find it odd that, given that he'd allegedly received a call from his father, sounding PANICKED and saying Sheila had gone mad and had got hold of a gun, and he, having diddled around looking for a non emergency number, subsequently called the police who DID treat it as an emergency, should be more concerned about his own number being up and imagining that a speeding car would take priority over an emergency shout, and I cannot imagine why, during a journey you say took only 5(ish) minutes from A to B, he would feel the need to stop and put on a jumper.
Your opinion is that nothing of his actions was suspicious. My opinion is that there was nothing in his actions which showed a concern commensurate with the PANICKED call he'd allegedly received from his father. If I was asked to find a word to describe it I'd say "casual."
-
Jeremys account regarding how he was awhgoken in the middle of the night by a call from his father, its contents, the short duration of that call, the fact that he attempted to call his father back to re-establish contact but that these attempts were met by him obtaining a constant engaged tone, so he immediately telephoned Witham Poluce station
Not quite, after locating the telephone directory and perhaps looking up the number under "Witham" and "Police," he phoned a non emergency number, during which time Sheila was allegedly going mad and had a gun -which he told police she was capable of using- and to make matters worse he'd allegedly lost contact with his father!!! Emergency? WHAT emergency?
-
I could almost walk to Goldhanger from where I live. I was there on Friday. I think it hardly possible to get from the junction of Head Street to the junction of Tollesbury Road within 5 minutes and driving the model of car that Jeremy had there wouldn't be a stretch of road long enough to accelerate to 100mph before getting to the next bend. I find it odd that, given that he'd allegedly received a call from his father, sounding PANICKED and saying Sheila had gone mad and had got hold of a gun, and he, having diddled around looking for a non emergency number, subsequently called the police who DID treat it as an emergency, should be more concerned about his own number being up and imagining that a speeding car would take priority over an emergency shout, and I cannot imagine why, during a journey you say took only 5(ish) minutes from A to B, he would feel the need to stop and put on a jumper.
Your opinion is that nothing of his actions was suspicious. My opinion is that there was nothing in his actions which showed a concern commensurate with the PANICKED call he'd allegedly received from his father. If I was asked to find a word to describe it I'd say "casual."
I have driven the route from Jeremy's cottage several times, and it could be done in under 5 minutes if someone drove at break neck speed. The car Jeremy had was a Astra GTE, which was capable of a top speed of 144 MPH. So he could easily have exceeded speeds in excess of 100 MPH in parts of that route..,
-
Not quite, after locating the telephone directory and perhaps looking up the number under "Witham" and "Police," he phoned a non emergency number, during which time Sheila was allegedly going mad and had a gun -which he told police she was capable of using- and to make matters worse he'd allegedly lost contact with his father!!! Emergency? WHAT emergency?
He did not say that during his 3.36am call to police, he told the police that after he arrived there and was being questioned by police at the scene...
-
I have driven the route from Jeremy's cottage several times, and it could be done in under 5 minutes if someone drove at break neck speed. The car Jeremy had was a Astra GTE, which was capable of a top speed of 144 MPH. So he could easily have exceeded speeds in excess of 100 MPH in parts of that route..,
Under the circumstances, it would have seemed far less suspicious if he'd been seen to be doing that. Who could have berated him for rushing to the aid of his family who were allegedly under threat from Sheila who had gone mad and got hold of a gun?
-
I have driven the route from Jeremy's cottage several times, and it could be done in under 5 minutes if someone drove at break neck speed. The car Jeremy had was a Astra GTE, which was capable of a top speed of 144 MPH. So he could easily have exceeded speeds in excess of 100 MPH in parts of that route..,
Except there is no evidence that he drove at top speed, the evidence from witnesses stated that he was driving very slowly.
-
You can all change the time references as much as you like to suit your arguments, as I can - your versions do not prove that I have lied, or that I am a liar. Whereas, you continue to use these timing discrepancies to argue that I am dishonest. Give us a break, why does everything you say have to right? The way I see it, when you accuse me of lying by your timed reference arguments, all you are doing is reinforcing how dishonest your own approach is. Whereas in my case, all I am doing is reporting the timed facts as are recorded somewhere in the file...
You never report the facts you make up your own facts because the real facts are against you. Thus you claim Jeremy told you DIFFERENT things than he put in his statements, told police verbally at the scene and testified to in court. Even if he did tell you different things none of such revisionist claims would be trustworthy the record is already established. You always misrepresent what people said in their COLP statements and even made up the nonsense claim that police declared their official statements were made up by others and contain lies so they refused to sign them. You ignore the evidence at every stage and make up your own. If you can find some ignorant/stupid person to accept such BS then your claims have succeeded in accomplishing the propaganda value outside of the legal process that you made it up for however such has no legal value and no value in any debate where the real facts are discussed. Only the ignorant or people so biased they absolutely refuse to face reality would fall for what you post. Which begs the question what do you think you are accomplishing with such?
-
I have already answered the points mentioned in previous posts, so without the need to repeat myself unnecessarily, go back through my posts to find my answers to your arguments...
No you posted fables which I demonstrated as untenable you have no valid rebuttal to raise.
-
Jeremys account regarding how he was awoken in the middle of the night by a call from his father, its contents, the short duration of that call, the fact that he attempted to call his father back to re-establish contact but that these attempts were met by him obtaining a constant engaged tone, so he immediately telephoned Witham Police station, but got no answer, so in between looking in the phone directory and calling Chelmsford police station, he called Julie, and imparted to her only what he had been told in as many words, that there was something wrong at the farm. He was told by Julie Mugford to go back to bed. Jeremy then rang Chelmsford police station and was kept occupied on the phone with them for 9 or 10 minutes, before being told to go to the scene where he would be met by police officers who had already been deployed there. Jeremy got dressed, and set off to the scene in his astra GTE a vehicle capable of doing 140 MPH. He drove frantically at first, but slowed down when police arrived in the road behind him. He slowed down and the police car with flashing lights passed him. He arrived at the scene 3 or 4 minutes after police arrived there. His entire journey took under 5 minutes, which is pretty fast...
There was nothing suspicious in what he did, or how he set about it...
Jeremy didn't tell ANYONE at the scene, in his statements, in his interrogations or at trial that he called Julie after phoning Witham but before calling Chelmsford. This is a claim you and Reader jointly made up in order to pretend Jeremy Jeremy's claim he called Julie after police could be true.
You both ignore that the call to Julie was around 3AM and even those roommates unsure of the exact time insist it was before 3:30AM. You are suggesting Jeremy got off the phone with West after 3:40 and then the call to Julie was made. Such is not tenable in the least.
Jeremy told West and the initial police responders about his call to Witham but dropped the claim when speaking to detectives. He didn't make it verbally to detectives, put it in his statements, say such in his interrogation or trial testimony. The Witham claim has to be attributed to West and the police he spoke to at the scene. None of them claim Jeremy told them he called Witham, Julie and then Chelmsford all say he told them he called Witham got no response so called Chelmsford then called Julie. In his interrogation at first he slipped and admitted he called Julie before police but after police pointed out he claimed the opposite to police in August he then claimed he had a foggy memory and deferred to whatever he put in his statements. He didn't say anything about calling Witham, then Julie and finally Chelmsford this is simply made up to try to find a way to pretend he didn't lie when he claimed he called police first. Clearly by calling police first he meant spoke to those at Chelmsford first.
It would make no sense at all to call Witham and then after not getting a response to fail to call 999 bu instead to call Julie. That is not what a concerned person would do in his place so he never claimed such a ridiculous thing. You and reader made it up and are so biased you refuse to even admit how absurd such would be.
Here is what Jeremy said in his statement- that he stated in his interrogation that he was deferring to- that he called Chelmsford immediately upon not being able to get through to Nevill and that later after he got off the phone with police around at 3:25 he phoned Julie.
(http://s8.postimg.org/71k9y8vv9/jeremystatement1.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/id0uk33xp/jeremystatement1a.jpg)
-
So, DS Stan Jones, did find the silencer after all:-
PC Whiddon, makes a pigs ear of his attempted explanation for the existence of at least two different parker hale silencers, which he says had the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, lab' item 22, when it first came into his possession, then refers to it as exhibit DRB/1, but no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1 has ever been produced, hey presto, as if by magic its disappeared into thin air...
Whiddon didn't receive it until it was known as DRB/1 they replaced the original SBJ/1 label that Cook created. The only label on it woudl be the most current one there is nothing at all suspicious in this.
In the meantime Whiddon helps demonstrate the progression of other items like the Scope and ammunition to DB/1-4 and then again to DRB/1-4. You lied about AE/1 being a moderator. It was the scope which transitioned to DB/2 at the time the moderator became DB/1 and transitioned to DRB/2 at the time the moderator transitioned to DB/1. You don't claim there were 3 scopes by virtue of its reference making the same progression that the moderator did. Whiddon's statement doesn't cause any problem for the prosecution but does pose a problem for many of your claims.
Cook's COLP statement makes clear he put a SBJ/1 label on it and wrote such on the Holab forms as well when he was at the lab on August 13. You dishonestly assert he put a SJ/1 label instead though he asserts nothing of the sort. You read documents and simply pretend they say anything you desire. The problem with that is since we can read them for ourselves we can see you are distorting. That is why you are careful about what you release form this point forward. You claim you have documents that assert things and don't show them so we can't see that you are misrepresenting what they state.
-
I could almost walk to Goldhanger from where I live. I was there on Friday. I think it hardly possible to get from the junction of Head Street to the junction of Tollesbury Road within 5 minutes and driving the model of car that Jeremy had there wouldn't be a stretch of road long enough to accelerate to 100mph before getting to the next bend. I find it odd that, given that he'd allegedly received a call from his father, sounding PANICKED and saying Sheila had gone mad and had got hold of a gun, and he, having diddled around looking for a non emergency number, subsequently called the police who DID treat it as an emergency, should be more concerned about his own number being up and imagining that a speeding car would take priority over an emergency shout, and I cannot imagine why, during a journey you say took only 5(ish) minutes from A to B, he would feel the need to stop and put on a jumper.
Your opinion is that nothing of his actions was suspicious. My opinion is that there was nothing in his actions which showed a concern commensurate with the PANICKED call he'd allegedly received from his father. If I was asked to find a word to describe it I'd say "casual."
Jeremy's reaction was consistent with the circumstances he was responding to, he did his duty...
-
Under the circumstances, it would have seemed far less suspicious if he'd been seen to be doing that. Who could have berated him for rushing to the aid of his family who were allegedly under threat from Sheila who had gone mad and got hold of a gun?
She had gone off her head previously, but not shot anyone on these previous occasions..
-
Except there is no evidence that he drove at top speed, the evidence from witnesses stated that he was driving very slowly.
I understand the point your making, but the fact remains that his call was made to police at 3.36am, and we know it lasted 9 or 10 minutes. If we say it lasted 10 minutes, his call to police ended at 3.46am. He then travelled to the scene arriving there at 3.52am. Considering that he had to get dressed, go downstairs to start his astra GTE car up, and that he slowed down for the police, arriving at the scene 3 or 4 minutes after police did, can only mean he got from A to B in under 5 minutes. Now, that suggests that on average, Jeremy had not been hanging around...
-
I understand the point your making, but the fact remains that his call was made to police at 3.36am, and we know it lasted 9 or 10 minutes. If wesay it lasted 10 minutes, his call to police ended at 3.46am. He then travelled to the scene arriving there at 3.52am. Considering that he had to get dressed, go downstairs to start his astra GTE car up, and that he slowed down for the police, arriving at the scene 3 or 4 minutes after police did, can only mean he got from A to B in under 5 minutes. Now, that suggests that on average, Jeremy had not been hanging around...
It also suggests that the call was made before 3.36.
-
It also suggests that the call was made before 3.36.
I do not believe it suggests that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police was made any sooner than 3.36am, and I shall tell you for why. During the trial, both phone log contents were not disclosed, there was just a suggestion that Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes sooner. The reason for this was because unless police addressed it, the fact that within moments of Ralph making his call to Jeremy, Ralph himself was making his call to the police (3.26am), and this would have confirmed why Jeremy got the engaged tone whilst trying to ring his father back at the scene, shortly after 3.26am. Police suggested Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes earlier than 3.36am, so as to prevent a reliance upon his father making that (3.26am) earlier call to police, being relied upon to support Jeremy's account that once the brief call to Jeremy had ended, that Jeremy had indeed got a constant engaged tone,whilst trying to reestablish contact with his father. The actual contents of Ralph's 3.26am police log were not disclosed, nor were any of its content addressed or commented upon during trial. All that was mentioned, was the timing of Jeremy's call, that it had been made 10 minutes earlier at 3.26am. If the contradictory nature of both logs had been disclosed, all hell would almost certainly have broke loose...
-
I do not believe it suggests that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police was made any sooner than 3.36am, and I shall tell you for why. During the trial, both phone log contents were not disclosed, there was just a suggestion that Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes sooner. The reason for this was because unless police addressed it, the fact that within moments of Ralph making his call to Jeremy, Ralph himself was making his call to the police (3.26am), and this would have confirmed why Jeremy got the engaged tone whilst trying to ring his father back at the scene, shortly after 3.26am. Police suggested Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes earlier than 3.36am, so as to prevent a reliance upon his father making that (3.26am) earlier call to police, being relied upon to support Jeremy's account that once the brief call to Jeremy had ended, that Jeremy had indeed got a constant engaged tone,whilst trying to reestablish contact with his father. The actual contents of Ralph's 3.26am police log were not disclosed, nor were any of its content addressed or commented upon during trial. All that was mentioned, was the timing of Jeremy's call, that it had been made 10 minutes earlier at 3.26am. If the contradictory nature of both logs had been disclosed, all hell would almost certainly have broke loose...
Yes they were, the (so called) Nevill log was made available to the jury and West read from the (so called) Jeremy log.
-
She had gone off her head previously, but not shot anyone on these previous occasions..
Yet allegedly Nevill was too scared to try to disarm her himself or get a weapon to challenger her with and instead allegedly called Jeremy to come disarm her.
And despite her not knowing how to use the murder weapon and never before shooting her Jeremy was allegedly too scared to go over as Nevill requested so instead of going over he called Julie and then called police.
-
I do not believe it suggests that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police was made any sooner than 3.36am, and I shall tell you for why. During the trial, both phone log contents were not disclosed, there was just a suggestion that Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes sooner. The reason for this was because unless police addressed it, the fact that within moments of Ralph making his call to Jeremy, Ralph himself was making his call to the police (3.26am), and this would have confirmed why Jeremy got the engaged tone whilst trying to ring his father back at the scene, shortly after 3.26am. Police suggested Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes earlier than 3.36am, so as to prevent a reliance upon his father making that (3.26am) earlier call to police, being relied upon to support Jeremy's account that once the brief call to Jeremy had ended, that Jeremy had indeed got a constant engaged tone,whilst trying to reestablish contact with his father. The actual contents of Ralph's 3.26am police log were not disclosed, nor were any of its content addressed or commented upon during trial. All that was mentioned, was the timing of Jeremy's call, that it had been made 10 minutes earlier at 3.26am. If the contradictory nature of both logs had been disclosed, all hell would almost certainly have broke loose...
We've been round that particular loop on numerous occasions, Mike. NO way on God's earth will I believe, that when faced with a mad woman with a gun, Neville would phone his son -who did nothing for 36 minutes- BEFORE dialling 999, which, HAD he done so, it would have undoubtedly been available and couldn't have become "accidentally" lost, OR are we being asked to believe that Neville, too, went in search of the telephone directory, to look for the number, whilst Sheila was prowling around with the gun?
-
We've been round that particular loop on numerous occasions, Mike. NO way on God's earth will I believe, that when faced with a mad woman with a gun, Neville would phone his son -who did nothing for 36 minutes- BEFORE dialling 999, which, HAD he done so, it would have undoubtedly been available and couldn't have become "accidentally" lost, OR are we being asked to believe that Neville, too, went in search of the telephone directory, to look for the number, whilst Sheila was prowling around with the gun?
If Nevill was scared, he wouldn't have called Jeremy, anyone with common sense would have called the police.
-
Yes they were, the (so called) Nevill log was made available to the jury and West read from the (so called) Jeremy log.
No, it wasn't, there was only one version of the contents, and that version was the 3.36am contents, accompanied by the claim that the commencement time of that log had been 10 minutes sooner, at 3.26am. There is no evidence that the actual contents of Ralph's phone log of 3.26am, was ever aired at any stage during the trial. If there is, post it up, let's have a look at the transcript...
-
If Nevill was scared, he wouldn't have called Jeremy, anyone with common sense would have called the police.
And he clearly was because Jeremy himself said he sounded PANICKED.
-
I do not believe it suggests that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police was made any sooner than 3.36am, and I shall tell you for why. During the trial, both phone log contents were not disclosed, there was just a suggestion that Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes sooner. The reason for this was because unless police addressed it, the fact that within moments of Ralph making his call to Jeremy, Ralph himself was making his call to the police (3.26am), and this would have confirmed why Jeremy got the engaged tone whilst trying to ring his father back at the scene, shortly after 3.26am. Police suggested Jeremy's call had been made 10 minutes earlier than 3.36am, so as to prevent a reliance upon his father making that (3.26am) earlier call to police, being relied upon to support Jeremy's account that once the brief call to Jeremy had ended, that Jeremy had indeed got a constant engaged tone,whilst trying to reestablish contact with his father. The actual contents of Ralph's 3.26am police log were not disclosed, nor were any of its content addressed or commented upon during trial. All that was mentioned, was the timing of Jeremy's call, that it had been made 10 minutes earlier at 3.26am. If the contradictory nature of both logs had been disclosed, all hell would almost certainly have broke loose...
Why do you keep distorting? Both logs were discussed at trial. The defense expressly cross examined West by stressing the differences and getting West to say he likely made a mistake when he recorded the time.
Bonnett's log was a trial exhibit. West's log was used to refresh his memory and read into the record. The trial exhibit stated West's call to Bonnett was at 3:26 and the police dispatched 3:35 which means Jeremy had to call West prior to 3:26.
If Jeremy called West at 3:36 police would not have been contacted around 3:30 which is when they say they were contacted and would not have left at 3:35 which is when they claim they left Witham. Furthermore Jeremy would have gotten there far later than he did because including his time on hold his call lasted around ten minutes. You claim after he spoke to police he then called Julie which would have taken up more of his time so he could not have left until after the time he arrived. In the meantime Julie and her roommates say his call was before 3:30 and most likely around 3AM.
What you are saying doesn't objectively fit you are intentionally trying to fit a square peg through a round hole because of bias.
That same bias makes you ignore that had Nevill actually phoned then police would have been told they were going there because of his call. Jeremy would have been told of his call and would not have been asked for all the information he was asked for.
Scenario:
Mike phones his mom telling her about trouble.
Mike phones the police telling them about the same trouble.
Mike's Mom phones police to report that Mike told her about trouble and police were needed.
In this situation police would tell Mike's Mom that Mike already called so they already have the address and information and are taking care of it. They would not pretend this is the first time they are hearing it, take down all the information again and even put her on hold to dispatch police yet again.
Police were told they were going because of Jeremy's call. Police were told contact was never made with anyone in the house ever and the only reported contact was Nevill to Jeremy. Police were told this at every stage- the initial police sent were told they were going because of Jeremy and no contact with the house could be made, the firearms officers were all told such including the second batch who received a briefing stating such and the detectives were all told such after they showed up.
There were 2 logs because 1 logged Jeremy's call to West and the other logged West's call to Bonnett. There is no mystery at all.
-
If Nevill was scared, he wouldn't have called Jeremy, anyone with common sense would have called the police.
Ralph did call the police, within seconds of making his call to Jeremy. Jeremy tried to ring back to find out more, but he kept getting the engaged tone...
-
Ralph did call the police, within seconds of making his call to Jeremy. Jeremy tried to ring back to find out more, but he kept getting the engaged tone...
I guess he would if the receiver wasn't on the cradle.
-
There were 2 logs because 1 logged Jeremy's call to West and the other logged West's call to Bonnett. There is no mystery at all.
No provisions were in place to duplicate logs in the circumstances you have described...
-
No provisions were in place to duplicate logs in the circumstances you have described...
Surely as West and Bonnett occupied different offices they'd have written out individual logs.
-
No provisions were in place to duplicate logs in the circumstances you have described...
The recipient of a call makes a log. West was the recipient of Jeremy's call. Bonnett was the recipient of West's call. Thus each kept a log for the call they received.
-
If Nevill was scared, he wouldn't have called Jeremy, anyone with common sense would have called the police.
especially as Jeremy was not close enough to Sheila to be the most obvious person to pacify her.
-
The recipient of a call makes a log. West was the recipient of Jeremy's call. Bonnett was the recipient of West's call. Thus each kept a log for the call they received.
It's easy to understand that West took the details of Jeremy as he was the reporter of the incident BUT passed on to Bonnet the details of the alleged victim - which was Nevill. Bonnet's log states clearly that he received from CD 1990 and that was West's call sign. No mystery.
-
especially as Jeremy was not close enough to Sheila to be the most obvious person to pacify her.
The clear implications of Jeremy's claims were that Nevill wante dhim to go there to help disarm Sheila not with the expectation he would calm her down. He lost any ability to lie and say Nevill wanted him to calm her down when he told police she didn't like him and he didn't like her and thus he would be of no aid to the police in trying to get through to her he told police she might try to shoot him more than she would them.
Considering Nevill's size advantage, that there were weapons he could have accessed including shotguns and a nonlethal pellet gun, and was there so would have had the ability and need to disarm her it makes zero sense for him to call Jeremy to help disarm her. He would wait 15 minutes for Jeremy to get dressed and drive over hoping she didn't shoot in that 15 minutes rather than try to disarm her himself? It makes zero sense. If he was too panicked to act himself he would call police not want his son in harms way as well.
DCI Jones and other detectives totally ignored these considerations initially and that is one of the areas where they did a very poor job. It is not as if these things are only able to be scene in retrospect they would have been obvious at the time if someone actually used their head.
-
We've been round that particular loop on numerous occasions, Mike. NO way on God's earth will I believe, that when faced with a mad woman with a gun, Neville would phone his son I disagree -who did nothing for 36 minutes Jeremy responded immediately by trying to reestablish contact with Ralph but he kept getting the engaged tone. What happened after this, is that Jeremy tried unsuccessfully to phone With am police station. When speaking previously with Jeremy about this, he told me that when he tried to ring his father back and was getting the engaged tone, that he thought his father may have been on the phone to the police. He said that because his father was a senior Magistrate on the With am bench, that his father was on the phone to the police at With am, which was why Jeremy rang them first of all. Jeremy told me that he genuinely thought his father was on the phone to the police at With am. He assumed this because of the circumstances with which his father's call to him, was so short in duration and how it had got cut off. How he kept getting a constant engaged tone each time he tried to ring back. And the fact that With am police station was not responding to his call. Jeremy said that he genuinely thought that his father and the police at With am were communicating with each other at that stage. From speaking to Jeremy on many occasions about these matters, I am convinced that he was and has always been telling the truth about these events. His father called Jeremy at around 3.25am, by 3.26am Ralph was making his call to the police, Jeremy was trying to reestablish contact with Ralph but kept getting a constant engaged tone. I think that the time Jeremy spent trying to contact his father at the farm took possibly around 2 or 3 minutes. This would have moved the time on to around 3.27am. Jeremy then tried to contact Witham police station, believing that his father was speaking to the police based there, because his father was a local Magistrate and had a close working relationship with the police at Witham. Jeremy got no response when he tried to call the police at With am. This would have taken him another 2 or 3 minutes, moving the time on to 3.29 / 3.30am. What Jeremy did then, is he phoned his girlfriend Julie Mugford (3.30am) and spent 4 or 5 minutes speaking with her. He started telling her straight away that something was wrong at the farm. He didn't tell her what, because the truth of the matter is that he did not know exactly other than his father had told him that Sheila had got the gun, and to come quickly. He also told her in as many words that he had had a hard day working on the tractor at the farm, and Julie Mugfords response to all this was to tell Jeremy to go back to bed. When Jeremy put the phone down from speaking with Julie, he then phoned Chelmsford police station this was at 3.36am.The general contents of his call to the police at this time, are as per phone log 3.36am. He had obtained their number from his telephone directory, which he had been looking through ever since he was getting a constant engaged tone from the telephone at the farm when he had been trying to phone his father back, and Jeremy phoning With am police station and getting no response. He thought his father was speaking with the police at With am at that time, and decided his next best option was to phone the police at Chelmsford to report to them the circumstances of his fathers call, in the belief and hope that they might confirm that his father was indeed talking to With am police, or that they were already dealing with the matter. When Jeremy was put on hold, and upon being spoken to again by Chelmsford police, he must have thought that everything was in hand because he was told to go straight to the scene, where he would be met by police officers who had already been deployed there. He was further told that in the event that he should arrive there before police did, that under no circumstances was he to approach the farmhouse, alone. Now by the time all of this had come to pass, it was about 3.46am, and by 3.52am, Jeremy arrived at the scene in Pages lane. It took him about 6 minutes to get dressed, get outside to the car, and drive like a bat out of hell towards the farmhouse. He was slowed down when a police car with Flashing lights zoomed up in the road behind him, which caused him to believe that he was about tone pulled over for speeding and driving recklessly. Once the speeding police car hurtled past him Jeremy pulled over and put on a jumper, and then set off again towards the farmhouse, driving normally. I have spoken to Jeremy on many many occasions about this aspect of the incident, and he has told me repeatedly that he did not associate that speeding police car that overtook him, with what was unfolding at the farm. When I asked him why not, he said that he didn't think police could have got to that part of the Tollsbury road so quickly, as a result of his own call to Chelmsford police, but that he realised now that the police must have been responding to his fathers earlier call which Jeremy thought had been made shortly after his fathers call to him had been abruptly cut off, for all the reasons given, aforementioned. So, these are the known events, everything Jeremy has spoken to me about has a ring of truth about it. Everything fits in almost perfectly involving what he says took place, what he did, what others did, and by 3.52am, Jeremy was at the scene. He got from his cottage at Head Street in Goldhanger to whf in Pages Lane, in under 5 minutes, whatever the circumstances, now by any bodies standards that is a very quick journey. It is very doubtful that you or anybody else would be able to drive that particular route quicker or as fast as Jeremy did on that occasion... - BEFORE dialling 999 there was no need to dial 999, the police would not have responded any faster or got to the scene any sooner than they did..., which, HAD he done so, it would have undoubtedly been available and couldn't have become "accidentally" lost Ralph would have known individual police station numbers off the top of his head. It is not yet known or confirmed if that Ralph called With am first, then his call was put through to Chelmsford because of the potential for a firearms incident and the requirement to deploy firearms officers. Jeremy didn't have any influence over what the police say they did with the recording of his 3.36am call that he made to the police..., OR are we being asked to believe that Neville, too, went in search of the telephone directory, to look for the number, whilst Sheila was prowling around with the gun?
-
Surely as West and Bonnett occupied different offices they'd have written out individual logs.
Which was what they did, one log for Ralph's call (3.26am), another log (3.36am) for Jeremy's call. Ralph's log (3.26am) updated with details of Jeremy's later call (3.36am), by adding at the bottom of Ralph's phone log that the son had also contacted police about the same matter...
-
No provisions were in place to duplicate logs in the circumstances you have described...
Had they not heard of duplicate books or good old fashioned carbon paper?
-
Which was what they did, one log for Ralph's call (3.26am), another log (3.36am) for Jeremy's call. Ralph's log (3.26am) updated with details of Jeremy's later call (3.36am), by adding at the bottom of Ralph's phone log that the son had also contacted police about the same matter...
Was such the case, Neville's call would have been taken by West, written down/duplicated, passed on to Bonnett, and ten minutes later Jeremy's call would have been taken by West, written down/duplicated and passed on to Bonnett. There was never any reference to any earlier call. There was no stated "Update to previous call" recorded. Quite simply put, Jeremy's call, in translation, changed from Sheila being Jeremy's sister -which Jeremy had referred to her as being- to Neville's daughter- when West, quoting, in the third person, what Neville had allegedly told Jeremy.
-
Which was what they did, one log for Ralph's call (3.26am), another log (3.36am) for Jeremy's call. Ralph's log (3.26am) updated with details of Jeremy's later call (3.36am), by adding at the bottom of Ralph's phone log that the son had also contacted police about the same matter...
The first log below shows that Jeremy called West (hence his details are included as the 'sender'), and West wrote the details of the call in this log. His call sign 1990, is clearly visible as the 'receiver'.
The second log refers to WEST calling Bonnet, Now West's call sign is (again) clearly visible as the 'sender' and Malcolm Bonnet (MB) has initialled the log as being the 'receiver'. West passed on the details of the alleged victim, which is why Nevill's details are listed, in the main body of the log.
No mystery, Nevill didn't call and if it's hoped that this will ever fool the CCRC, someone is on VERY flimsy ground.
-
Claim that control room clock was 10 minutes fast, was a red herring, introduced to fool everyone into falselybellieving that Jeremy had called the police 10 minutes before he did. As I say, the contents of both phone logs were not disclosed, or addressed in open court. If it had been all hell would have broke out, because quite clearly, one of the logs (3.26am) relates to Ralphs call, whilst the other relates to Jeremys (3.36am) later call. What we are dealing with here is an attempt by the police to conceal the fact that Ralph was certainly alive at the scene at 3.26am because he called the police at that time. He also informed the police that his daughter had got hold of one of his guns. Later, when Jeremy called the police (3.36am), it resulted in an internal call between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, in which the former log (3.26am) was updated to show that Ralphs son had contacted CD. Proof that what I am talking about can be found in each log, since the unformation for both phone logs was received by way of the EXCHANGE LINE, whereas, any internal communication between Bonnet and West, would have been passed and received by other means...
-
Claim that control room clock was 10 minutes fast, was a red herring, introduced to fool everyone into falselybellieving that Jeremy had called the police 10 minutes before he did. As I say, the contents of both phone logs were not disclosed, or addressed in open court. If it had been all hell would have broke out, because quite clearly, one of the logs (3.26am) relates to Ralphs call, whilst the other relates to Jeremys (3.36am) later call. What we are dealing with here is an attempt by the police to conceal the fact that Ralph was certainly alive at the scene at 3.26am because he called the police at that time. He also informed the police that his daughter had got hold of one of his guns. Later, when Jeremy called the police (3.36am), it resulted in an internal call between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, in which the former log (3.26am) was updated to show that Ralphs son had contacted CD. Proof that what I am talking about can be found in each log, since the unformation for both phone logs was received by way of the EXCHANGE LINE, whereas, any internal communication between Bonnet and West, would have been passed and received by other means...
I agree, the clock wasn't 10 minute fast, West wrote the wrong time BUT your claim that the logs were not disclosed, isn't true - West read his log out in court and Bonnet's log was made available to the jury. I think what we're dealing with here, is an attempt by some, to try and hoodwink people in the believing Nevill was alive at 03:26 when in fact, he'd been shot by his adopted son and was already dead.
-
Which was what they did, one log for Ralph's call (3.26am), another log (3.36am) for Jeremy's call. Ralph's log (3.26am) updated with details of Jeremy's later call (3.36am), by adding at the bottom of Ralph's phone log that the son had also contacted police about the same matter...
You are intentionally ignoring West's call to Bonnett and pretending the log of such call was a call from Nevill to Bonnett though it clearly states it was from West and clearly states the information provide by West had been passed to him from Jeremy.
What this amounts to is you distorting to pretend there is some evidence of a call from Nevill to police though there is actually none and this log doesn't in any way stand for the proposition you assert.
-
You are intentionally ignoring West's call to Bonnett and pretending the log of such call was a call from Nevill to Bonnett though it clearly states it was from West and clearly states the information provide by West had been passed to him from Jeremy.
What this amounts to is you distorting to pretend there is some evidence of a call from Nevill to police though there is actually none and this log doesn't in any way stand for the proposition you assert.
It's all there in black and white! Bonnet's log states clearly who rang in the call (West - call sign 1990) and obviously contains the information of the person concerned (Nevill). It wouldn't require Jeremy's details as they had already been logged by West.
-
Jeremy responded immediately by trying to reestablish contact with Ralph but he kept getting the engaged tone. What happened after this, is that Jeremy tried unsuccessfully to phone With am police station. When speaking previously with Jeremy about this, he told me that when he tried to ring his father back and was getting the engaged tone, that he thought his father may have been on the phone to the police. He said that because his father was a senior Magistrate on the With am bench, that his father was on the phone to the police at With am, which was why Jeremy rang them first of all. Jeremy told me that he genuinely thought his father was on the phone to the police at With am. He assumed this because of the circumstances with which his father's call to him, was so short in duration and how it had got cut off. How he kept getting a constant engaged tone each time he tried to ring back. And the fact that With am police station was not responding to his call. Jeremy said that he genuinely thought that his father and the police at With am were communicating with each other at that stage. From speaking to Jeremy on many occasions about these matters, I am convinced that he was and has always been telling the truth about these events.
You ignore the facts and logic and then assert you believe Jeremy is telling the truth as if you opinion matters one bit in an objective and honest debate.
Fact 1) The evidence proves Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy or police claiming Sheila was doing anything. The evidence proves Sheila never loaded a gun, never fired a gun, did not beat Nevill and thus didn't kill anyone else or herself. This SEVERELY undermines Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill asking him to come over because Sheila had gone crazy with the gun and Julie's testimony that he told her in advance of the murders he was going to make up such a call further undermines it.
FAct 2) Even if Sheila had gotten the gun Nevill would not have had any reason to call Jeremy for help. He would have had the immediate need to either try to disarm her or to arm himself and confront her not call Jeremy and wait 15 minutes for Jeremy to dress, drive over and find a way inside. Jeremy had no special ability to calm her down because by Jeremy's own admissions he did not get on well with her nor did he have any special ability to disarm her Nevill was larger than Jeremy evne and had even more ability to disarm her than Jeremy given Nevill's calming effects over her. If scared to disarm her he woudl phone police. So this also undermines Jeremy's claim he received a call.
Fact 3) Nevill had no ability to make any calls. Jeremy removed the master bedroom phone prior to the murders and thus when the killer entered the bedroom there was no ability to make any calls before the shooting commenced. The killer emptied the magazine in the parents. Nevill was hit 4 times and though not disabled he was unable to speak because of his injuries. This further undermines Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill
Fact 4) Had things occurred like Jeremy claimed as far as the phone going dead then he would have needed to wait several minutes for the line to clear and would have old police that at first his phone didn't work when he tried to call Nevill back.
Fact 5) If Jeremy did claim to you that he assumed Nevill was on the phone and assumed he was calling police then this is something he made up after his conviction because he didn't claim such during his trial or earlier. That alone undermines the credibility of the claim because if it were the truth he would have said it right away. It is obviously a revisionist account made up after his conviction. Furthermore if true that he was sure Nevill had phoned the police himself then Jeremy would not have phoned the police. Jeremy phoned them because he knew Nevill couldn't phone police and knew that unless he called the bodies would be found in the morning and if at that point he told police he received a call from Nevill but did not rush over to check on things and just assumed Nevill would call police and went back to bed police would have been highly suspicious.
Objectively Jeremy's claims are not credible. Saying that his claims sound credible and truthful to you because of your extreme bias adds nothing at all to the debate. The debate is over the issues I raised and you have no response to them- you just ignore such issues to render a biased take that has no merit. The notion of a call from Nevill to police has less support than a call from Nevill to Jeremy and the ONLY evidence of a call from Nevill to Jeremy is Jeremy's untrustworthy allegation he received a call from Nevill. We don't even have something that pathetic to support a call from Nevill to police. There is ZILCH to suggest a call from Nevill to police. You take a log that clearly is a log of West's call to Bonnett and dishonestly suggest this is a log of Nevill to Bonnett though the form clearly states the caller was West and that Jeremy provided such information to West. your opinion is based entirely on biased wishful thinking resulting in contrived tales not supported by any evidence and contrary to logic.
His father called Jeremy at around 3.25am, by 3.26am Ralph was making his call to the police, Jeremy was trying to reestablish contact with Ralph but kept getting a constant engaged tone. I think that the time Jeremy spent trying to contact his father at the farm took possibly around 2 or 3 minutes. This would have moved the time on to around 3.27am. Jeremy then tried to contact Witham police station, believing that his father was speaking to the police based there, because his father was a local Magistrate and had a close working relationship with the police at Witham. Jeremy got no response when he tried to call the police at With am. This would have taken him another 2 or 3 minutes, moving the time on to 3.29 / 3.30am. What Jeremy did then, is he phoned his girlfriend Julie Mugford (3.30am) and spent 4 or 5 minutes speaking with her. He started telling her straight away that something was wrong at the farm. He didn't tell her what, because the truth of the matter is that he did not know exactly other than his father had told him that Sheila had got the gun, and to come quickly. He also told her in as many words that he had had a hard day working on the tractor at the farm, and Julie Mugfords response to all this was to tell Jeremy to go back to bed. When Jeremy put the phone down from speaking with Julie, he then phoned Chelmsford police station this was at 3.36am.The general contents of his call to the police at this time, are as per phone log 3.36am. He had obtained their number from his telephone directory, which he had been looking through ever since he was getting a constant engaged tone from the telephone at the farm when he had been trying to phone his father back, and Jeremy phoning With am police station and getting no response. He thought his father was speaking with the police at With am at that time, and decided his next best option was to phone the police at Chelmsford to report to them the circumstances of his fathers call, in the belief and hope that they might confirm that his father was indeed talking to With am police, or that they were already dealing with the matter. When Jeremy was put on hold, and upon being spoken to again by Chelmsford police, he must have thought that everything was in hand because he was told to go straight to the scene, where he would be met by police officers who had already been deployed there. He was further told that in the event that he should arrive there before police did, that under no circumstances was he to approach the farmhouse, alone. Now by the time all of this had come to pass, it was about 3.46am, and by 3.52am, Jeremy arrived at the scene in Pages lane. It took him about 6 minutes to get dressed, get outside to the car, and drive like a bat out of hell towards the farmhouse. He was slowed down when a police car with Flashing lights zoomed up in the road behind him, which caused him to believe that he was about tone pulled over for speeding and driving recklessly. Once the speeding police car hurtled past him Jeremy pulled over and put on a jumper, and then set off again towards the farmhouse, driving normally. I have spoken to Jeremy on many many occasions about this aspect of the incident, and he has told me repeatedly that he did not associate that speeding police car that overtook him, with what was unfolding at the farm. When I asked him why not, he said that he didn't think police could have got to that part of the Tollsbury road so quickly, as a result of his own call to Chelmsford police, but that he realised now that the police must have been responding to his fathers earlier call which Jeremy thought had been made shortly after his fathers call to him had been abruptly cut off, for all the reasons given, aforementioned. So, these are the known events, everything Jeremy has spoken to me about has a ring of truth about it. Everything fits in almost perfectly involving what he says took place, what he did, what others did, and by 3.52am, Jeremy was at the scene. He got from his cottage at Head Street in Goldhanger to whf in Pages Lane, in under 5 minutes, whatever the circumstances, now by any bodies standards that is a very quick journey. It is very doubtful that you or anybody else would be able to drive that particular route quicker or as fast as Jeremy did on that occasion... - BEFORE dialling 999 there was no need to dial 999, the police would not have responded any faster or got to the scene any sooner than they did..., which, HAD he done so, it would have undoubtedly been available and couldn't have become "accidentally" lost Ralph would have known individual police station numbers off the top of his head. It is not yet known or confirmed if that Ralph called With am first, then his call was put through to Chelmsford because of the potential for a firearms incident and the requirement to deploy firearms officers. Jeremy didn't have any influence over what the police say they did with the recording of his 3.36am call that he made to the police..., OR are we being asked to believe that Neville, too, went in search of the telephone directory, to look for the number, whilst Sheila was prowling around with the gun?
This entire tale is made up and contrived after Jeremy's conviction. You intentionally ignore the record and instead just make up things.
At no time prior to Jeremy's conviction did he claim he thought Nevill was on the phone with police. If he had assumed Nevill phoned police then he would not have done so. This is just nonsense made up to try to bolster the made up phone call from Nevill to police which wasn't made up until around 2005. In the meantime this made up nonsense makes no sense. Let's look at the fable in more detail- Jeremy is sure Nevill is on the phone with police so decides to call Witham to confirm this. Jeremy calls and the phone rings and rings but no one answers thus demonstrating the phone is not being manned. How could he think Nevill got through to police on an unmanned line? He failed to confirm Nevill called police as he had thought and found out the line was unmanned. So at this point he should have dialed 999 not phone Julie. Your tale makes no sense in addition to lacking any evidentiary foundation.
Furthermore, Jeremy only mentioned his call to Witham to West and the police at the scene. He stopped making the claim he phoned Witham by the time he spoke to detectives. Even at the time he did mention his call to Witham he said that he called Witham then Chelmsford and finally Julie. He said he called Julie AFTER Chelmsford. In his statements and at his trial he said he called Julie AFTER he called Chelmsford. So you ignore the evidentiary record and simply make up that he claims he called Julie before calling Chelmsford. If Jeremy actually received the call he claimed then he would not have phoned Julie after calling Witham and getting no response. After calling Witham and getting no response he would dial 999 because that line is manned 24/7. There was no reason for him to call Julie period the fact he called her at all is highly suspicious and undermines his claim of being worried for his family. Someone concerned would have rushed over there to help or called police then rushed over.
You stupidly ignore that Sheila's roommates all say Jeremy's call was around 3AM and prior to 3:30. You ignore that Jeremy claimed Nevill called around 3:10 and he immediately called Chelmsford then after speaking with West he called her around 3:25 and simply make up out of thin air that Nevill phoned Jeremy around 3:25. There is good reason why Jeremy didn't claim at trial that Nevill called him at 3:25am- such claim would not be credible. Since he had already phoned Julie prior to this the only way for him to even try to keep his claim of receiving a call from Nevill alive would be to claim the time was prior to when he called Julie. Making up that he called Julie at 3:30 is no help at all since the evidence establishes the call was earlier. Admitting he called Julie before West is a big problem as well because if actually concerned about his family he would not have called her before speaking to police which is why at trial he insisted he called West first before he called Julie just like he put in his statement:
(http://s8.postimg.org/71k9y8vv9/jeremystatement1.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/id0uk33xp/jeremystatement1a.jpg)
You are ignoring the evidentiary record and just making up that he phoned Julie after Witham but before Chelmsford. He didn't make that up himself though for the trial because calling Julie before Chelmsford is not what someone in his place would do. You are just making up a timetable base don what fits your contentions as opposed to using the timetable put forward by Jeremy in the meantime.
Making up things accomplishes nothing and especially making up things after the conviction because such claims are not trustworthy even if they come directly from Jeremy because he would have claimed such things at the trial under oath if they were true.
-
"There was no need to dial 999. The police would not have got there any faster"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -perhaps that facility, having served us well for its' duration and no doubt responsible for saving countless lives. should be withdrawn.
Having alerted the police to his family's danger, on seeing a blue light following him, Jeremy's first thought is that they were about to do HIM for speeding!!!!!!!!!!!! Guilty conscience perhaps? Jeremy didn't expect them to have been dispatched so fast? Could that have been because he imagined that if he made anon emergency call it wouldn't be deemed urgent? Did it never cross his mind that there wasn't a garage full of police cars waiting for call outs and that the car which was following him COULD have been on a shout as near as Maldon or Heybridge.
-
Claim that control room clock was 10 minutes fast, was a red herring, introduced to fool everyone into falselybellieving that Jeremy had called the police 10 minutes before he did. As I say, the contents of both phone logs were not disclosed, or addressed in open court. If it had been all hell would have broke out, because quite clearly, one of the logs (3.26am) relates to Ralphs call, whilst the other relates to Jeremys (3.36am) later call. What we are dealing with here is an attempt by the police to conceal the fact that Ralph was certainly alive at the scene at 3.26am because he called the police at that time. He also informed the police that his daughter had got hold of one of his guns. Later, when Jeremy called the police (3.36am), it resulted in an internal call between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, in which the former log (3.26am) was updated to show that Ralphs son had contacted CD. Proof that what I am talking about can be found in each log, since the unformation for both phone logs was received by way of the EXCHANGE LINE, whereas, any internal communication between Bonnet and West, would have been passed and received by other means...
That West and Bonnett's logs do not have the same time is the red herring. 1 log was logging a call from Jeremy to West and the other West to Bonnett so by definition they should not have the same time on them.
Since West's call to Bonnett was made as a result of Jeremy's call and while Jeremy was on hold this means FOR SURE Jeremy's call to West came earlier. West's call to Bonnett was at 3:26 which means that is when Jeremy was put on hold so Jeremy's call to West was earlier than this. It would have taken at least 2 minutes and probably longer to obtain Jeremy's account before placing him on hold but we will be conservative and say he called by 3:24.
Jeremy claimed his call to police was sooner than 3:24 even. He claimed he got the call from Nevill at 3:10 and tried calling his father back which would at most take a couple of minutes then he called Chelmsford.
The defense was horrified at the prospect of the jury thinking Jeremy called police at 3:36 in light of his claims he called the right away. They wanted to minimize the gap between the time Nevill supposedly called him and phone police so they made sure to get West to admit his 3:36 time was not accurate. He admitted that he could have written the time at the end of the call instead of beginning, the clock could have been several minutes wrong and he could have misread the clock. Since police say they were notified around 3:30 from West and Bonnett and departed about 3:35 this means for sure Jeremy's call came sooner.
The trial lawyers were stuck with Jeremy's testimony. You make up you won. You make up your own times claiming Nevill phoned at 3:25 though Jeremy didn't claim such. You adjust all the times around your fable that Nevill phoned police. What you are doing is quite transparent and a complete waste of time as the evidentiary foundation is squarely against you as is logic.
A potential clock error in the room West is just one of multiple possibilitiesthings to indicate
-
I must remember not to bother with such trivialities as dialling 999 in future, it's obviously there just for laughs! Of course even if the police wouldn't have gotten there ant quicker, what kind of mind mulls that over before reacting in an emergency?
The call from Nevill came at about 03:10, Jeremy stated this and yet people here think they can just suggest any old time as long as it bolsters their argument. Jeremy stated 03:10 the day AFTER the event. He argued in court that he didn't call the police at 03:36, now he's saying he did. You can't change the events to suit. Nevill didn't call the police, he was already dead.
-
"There was no need to dial 999. The police would not have got there any faster"
This is just one of your pathetic excuses that totally falls apart under scrutiny.
999 exists for several reasons:
1) because it is easy to remember without the need to find a phone book and look it up. Your claim that no time is lost in looking for a phone book and looking up numbers is nonsense. In fact, at trial Jeremy explained away some of the gap in time between allegedly receiving Jeremy's call and phoning police on the time required to look up the numbers.
2) Because the people handling such calls are specially trained to handle emergencies and they instantly know who to contact to dispatch. Those fielding regular lines deal with many non-emergencies and are not as prepared to cope with emergencies. If Jeremy had dialed 999 then help would instantly have been sent by Bonnett. West had to field Jeremy's call then contact Bonnett and tell Bonnett everything Jeremy told him in order to get Bonnett to arrange to dispatch help. So instead of Jeremy speaking to Bonnett and help being sent instantly there was an added step where West had to phone Bonnett and repeat the various things Jeremy told him. That extra step most certainly wastes time.
3) 999 is operated 24/7. Phones at stations are not manned 24/7 and therefore time can be lost trying to find a station that has a manned phone. That is exactly what Jeremy claims happened he lost time calling Witham and finding no one there.
So had Jeremy dialed 999 then:
A) He would have immediately dialed
B) He would have immediately gotten through
C) Bonnett would have sent police out
Instead Jeremy:
A) looking the number to Witham
B) Dialed Witham but did not get through
C) looked up the number to CHelmsford
D) Dialed Chelmsford and told his tale to West then was put on hold
E) West called the same room Jeremy would have reached had he dialed 999 and repeated Jeremy's tale
F) Then police were dispatched
So not calling 999 resulted in many extra steps and loss of time. Your claim is untenable.
-
Both log contents were recorded from information passed to the police by Ralph (3.26am) via EXCHANGE LINE, and a later call to police by Jeremy (3.36am) via EXCHANGE LINE, thus shedding some light on the matter. Since, comunication between West and Bonnet would have been carried out using a different facility altogether. The only conversation west had with Bonnet and vice versa was when one informed the other, that the son (Jeremy) had just phoned up about the already ongoing incident...
-
Both log contents were recorded from information passed to the police by Ralph (3.26am) via EXCHANGE LINE, and a later call to police by Jeremy (3.36am) via EXCHANGE LINE, thus shedding some light on the matter. Since, comunication between West and Bonnet would have been carried out using a different facility altogether. The only conversation west had with Bonnet and vice versa was when one informed the other, that the son (Jeremy) had just phoned up about the already ongoing incident...
West used an exchange line to contact the HQ IR room that is why the call was recorded all exchange calls to the HQ IR room are recorded because it handles 999 calls. West used radio to speak to Witham.
-
Which was what they did, one log for Ralph's call (3.26am), another log (3.36am) for Jeremy's call. Ralph's log (3.26am) updated with details of Jeremy's later call (3.36am), by adding at the bottom of Ralph's phone log that the son had also contacted police about the same matter...
You have previously said "His father called Jeremy around 3.25.............." How then could his -Neville's- alleged call to the police have been logged at 3.26?
You give the time he phoned Julie as 3.30 and say he spoke with her 4-5 minutes, which means Chelmsford, when he phoned them at 3.36 after having looked through the phone book first to find the number, although they put him on hold, answered immediately but you then go on to say that after the call ended -and here you give an approximate time of 3.46- it took him roughly 6 minutes to dress and get out of the house into his super charged Bat-Man car and make it to WHF by 3.52 By my reckoning -and I'm aware that my maths are far from good- he arrived there before he left Goldhanger.
If we accept as true that Neville didn't allegedly call Jeremy until 3.25 and accept as true the original timings Julie gave we end up with Jeremy calling her before Neville allegedly phoned him. Bet she'd have been really pleased about that. Hauled out of bed at 3.10(ish) to be told.......................WHAT, if he hadn't yet had the call from his father.
I get the feeling that the timings have been through a metamorphosis too many.
-
West used an exchange line to contact the HQ IR room that is why the call was recorded all exchange calls to the HQ IR room are recorded because it handles 999 calls. West used radio to speak to Witham.
Complete Nonsense...
-
You have previously said "His father called Jeremy around 3.25.............." How then could his -Neville's- alleged call to the police have been logged at 3.26?
You give the time he phoned Julie as 3.30 and say he spoke with her 4-5 minutes, which means Chelmsford, when he phoned them at 3.36 after having looked through the phone book first to find the number, although they put him on hold, answered immediately but you then go on to say that after the call ended -and here you give an approximate time of 3.46- it took him roughly 6 minutes to dress and get out of the house into his super charged Bat-Man car and make it to WHF by 3.52 By my reckoning -and I'm aware that my maths are far from good- he arrived there before he left Goldhanger.
If we accept as true that Neville didn't allegedly call Jeremy until 3.25 and accept as true the original timings Julie gave we end up with Jeremy calling her before Neville allegedly phoned him. Bet she'd have been really pleased about that. Hauled out of bed at 3.10(ish) to be told.......................WHAT, if he hadn't yet had the call from his father.
I get the feeling that the timings have been through a metamorphosis too many.
The timings and sequence of the phone calls have been subject of much speculation by the police, but if the truth be known, Jeremy hadn't got a clue about any timings of any of the calls, only the sequence with which he received and made them...
-
Complete Nonsense...
Nonsense is what you post I stick with the facts.
-
The timings and sequence of the phone calls have been subject of much speculation by the police, but if the truth be known, Jeremy hadn't got a clue about any timings of any of the calls, only the sequence with which he received and made them...
The sequence he gave in his statement and at trial was that Nevill phoned, he tried to phone Nevill back but could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford and spoke to West then he called Julie.
The evidence though establishes there was no call received from Nevill and he called Julie before he spoke with the police.
-
The timings and sequence of the phone calls have been subject of much speculation by the police, but if the truth be known, Jeremy hadn't got a clue about any timings of any of the calls, only the sequence with which he received and made them...
So are you suggesting he may not have been entirely honest when he gave the times in his witness statement?
-
Nonsense is what you post I stick with the facts.
According to PC Whiddon, the silencer he took possession of on 13 November 1985, for the first time grom the lab', had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which was foumd at the scene, by DS Jones.
Whiddon was the exhibits officer, how could he not know who had found silencer SBJ/1 at the scene, by 13 November 1985? Since, according to evidence elsewhere, by 30th August 1985, it was DB/1, by 20th September 1985, it had become DRB/1...
So, how could the silencer that was handed back to police for the first time, on 13 November 1985, still is being referred to as silencer SBJ/1? I thought the fairystory was supposed to be that silencer SBJ/1 was taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and handed back to pi
Olice that same day...
-
The first log below shows that Jeremy called West (hence his details are included as the 'sender'), and West wrote the details of the call in this log. His call sign 1990, is clearly visible as the 'receiver'.
The second log refers to WEST calling Bonnet, Now West's call sign is (again) clearly visible as the 'sender' and Malcolm Bonnet (MB) has initialled the log as being the 'receiver'. West passed on the details of the alleged victim, which is why Nevill's details are listed, in the main body of the log.
No mystery, Nevill didn't call and if it's hoped that this will ever fool the CCRC, someone is on VERY flimsy ground.
Which of the 6 copies is this one ??
-
The timings and sequence of the phone calls have been subject of much speculation by the police, but if the truth be known, Jeremy hadn't got a clue about any timings of any of the calls, only the sequence with which he received and made them...
Jeremy was adamant that he called the police BEFORE 03:36, however, that was before he thought he would wangle in a call from Nevill, then suddenly, the whole situation changes. If we can see that here, the CCRC will just throw it out. Chancing your arm in something like this, might help pass the time, but each time he loses, it makes it less and less likely (now completely unlikely) he will ever taste freedom.
-
Which of the 6 copies is this one ??
Have you seen the six copies Lookout?
-
Have you seen the six copies Lookout?
Well I've obviously seen one different to the one one here. I can well believe that there are 6 copies with me not trusting half the stuff that's cobbled together,or purposely omitted.
Try the originals.
On the OS it states there are 6 copies and their explanation is easier to understand------------but you don't care to look at another point of view do you ?
-
Well I've obviously seen one different to the one one here. I can well believe that there are 6 copies with me not trusting half the stuff that's cobbled together,or purposely omitted.
Try the originals.
On the OS it states there are 6 copies and their explanation is easier to understand------------but you don't care to look at another point of view do you ?
Actually Lookout, I have all six copies and they aren't what you think.
-
Actually Lookout, I have all six copies and they aren't what you think.
Caroline
wish I knew what you and lookout are talking sbout ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline
wish I knew what you and lookout are talking sbout ;D ;D ;D
West hand wrote multiple copies of his log and they have slight variations because he didn't copy them to the letter. It is similar to the issue of the clerical errors made when the crime scene officers were writing their documents in triplicate and didn't write the same thing on all 3 copies.
-
West hand wrote multiple copies of his log and they have slight variations because he didn't copy them to the letter. It is similar to the issue of the clerical errors made when the crime scene officers were writing their documents in triplicate and didn't write the same thing on all 3 copies.
Scipio thanks for that :)
-
Actually Lookout, I have all six copies and they aren't what you think.
I'm sure they're not. ::)
-
West hand wrote multiple copies of his log and they have slight variations because he didn't copy them to the letter. It is similar to the issue of the clerical errors made when the crime scene officers were writing their documents in triplicate and didn't write the same thing on all 3 copies.
Spelling mistakes (Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly), the other details are basically the same.
-
The lionesses have turned on Mike. Who has gone.
I never ran away. The evidence was on my side.
-
The lionesses have turned on Mike. Who has gone.
I never ran away. The evidence was on my side.
Adam have you been drinking ;D ;D ;D ;D or have I as I do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.
-
Adam have you been drinking ;D ;D ;D ;D or have I as I do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.
You were one of the lionesses. A fierce one as well.
Roarrrrr.
-
The lionesses have turned on Mike. Who has gone.
I never ran away. The evidence was on my side.
You really see yourself as some kind of heavy weight, don't you Adam? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Spelling mistakes (Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly), the other details are basically the same.
Yes-----------all " copied " out with the same spelling mistakes. ::)
-
Yes-----------all " copied " out with the same spelling mistakes. ::)
Lookout where do you think Sheila opened fire ?
-
Yes-----------all " copied " out with the same spelling mistakes. ::)
No, they aren't BUT they ALL have the same information. Why would ANYONE forge a log and use the same information?? ;D ;D ;D. If you want to doctor something, it's usually to CHANGE it, not present the same information!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You were one of the lionesses. A fierce one as well.
Roarrrrr.
Adam me fierce are you having a larf I'm just a little pussy cat ;D
-
No, they aren't BUT they ALL have the same information. Why would ANYONE forge a log and use the same information?? ;D ;D ;D. If you want to doctor something, it's usually to CHANGE it, not present the same information!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Added to which is the question of WHY -that's always the bottom line, isn't it?
-
The lionesses have turned on Mike. Who has gone.
I never ran away. The evidence was on my side.
It seems like people expect others to live here. If we are not here to instantly respond we have run away. Mike will be back to distort some more he hadn't fled so don't beat your chest too much.
In the meantime people who have the facts on their side have no reason to run away so it is no great feat standing ground.
-
It seems like people expect others to live here. If we are not here to instantly respond we have run away. Mike will be back to distort some more he hadn't fled so don't beat your chest too much.
In the meantime people who have the facts on their side have no reason to run away so it is no great feat standing ground.
You were not reading the forum when I joined. There were lots of hungry lionesses. And some lions.
Now there are just kittens left. Meow.
-
You were not reading the forum when I joined. There were lots of hungry lionesses. And some lions.
Now there are just kittens left. Meow.
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/20163688/3/stock-illustration-20163688-cuckoo-clock.jpg)
-
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/20163688/3/stock-illustration-20163688-cuckoo-clock.jpg)
Scipio ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The sequence he gave in his statement and at trial was that Nevill phoned, he tried to phone Nevill back but Yes could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford No, he did not you fibber, he tried to phone Witham police station first, didn't get any response, them he called Julie who told him to go back to bed, but Jeremy then phoned Chelmsford police station, this is the correct sequence. He therefore was correct when in a later police interview he said that he had called Julie before he had called police, and he was correct when he said that he had called Julie after he had called police, because he made 2 calls to the police, one at about 3.27am when he phoned unsuccessfully to With am police station, and his call to Julie at around 3.30am was therefore after that call, but on the other hand his call to Chelmsford police station was not made until 3.36am, and so with this as a reference point, Jeremy's call to Julie at around 3.30am, was before that call to police... and spoke to West then he called Julie. He did not, you have slipped that lie in hoping or expecting me to miss your attempt at misleading everyone...
The evidence though establishes there was no call received from Nevill On the contrary, there is evidence that Ralph did make that call to the police, proving that at the time he made that call, police were satisfied that at 3.26am Ralph Bamber was still very much alive alive O... and he called Julie before he spoke with the police. His call to Julie was made at 3.30am, in between Jeremy's first call to Witham police station, at 3.27am, and his second call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am...
-
I must remember not to bother with such trivialities as dialling 999 in future, it's obviously there just for laughs! Of course even if the police wouldn't have gotten there ant quicker, what kind of mind mulls that over before reacting in an emergency?
The call from Nevill came at about 03:10, Jeremy stated this and yet people here think they can just suggest any old time as long as it bolsters their argument. Jeremy stated 03:10 the day AFTER the event. He argued in court that he didn't call the police at 03:36, now he's saying he did. You can't change the events to suit. Nevill didn't call the police, he was already dead.
Other people are responsible for giving the time of the call from Ralph to Jeremy as 3.10am, it is not the only time which has been mentioned as the time of Ralph's call, others have suggested the call happened at around 3.15am, but the most accurate time for that call to have been made was / is 3.25am. This time has not been plucked out of thin air, a great deal of thought, evidence gathering and other things have been taken into consideration to arrive at the 3.25am Ralph to Jeremy call...
-
From my dealings with Jeremy from 1989 onwards, I can tell you all now that Jeremy hadn't the foggiest idea of the time these calls were received, or made. But he did know the sequence with which each event occurred. Other people have introduced timings to these events, sometimes as many as two or three different times have been banded around, with the sole intention of trying to get Jeremy confused and to either trick him into making a confession, or try to portray him to the jury as someone unhinged. I have put a lot of time and effort into working out the correct timings of all these calls by one party or another, or vice versa. My timings are as close as anybody will ever get to the truth. This is because, a part from the timed events known to be true by the police themselves (3.26am, 3.29am, 3.35am, 3.36am, 3.48am, 3,52am, and 4.02am) all the rest fit somewhere within those indidual and collective frameworks...
-
West hand wrote multiple copies of his log and they have slight variations because he didn't copy them to the letter. It is similar to the issue of the clerical errors made when the crime scene officers were writing their documents in triplicate and didn't write the same thing on all 3 copies.
Such repeated alterations were not accidental, this has occurred as a result of the evidence being rigged to get a conviction. How many bloody versions of a document do the police want, for Christ sake!
-
Other people are responsible for giving the time of the call from Ralph to Jeremy as 3.10am, it is not the only time which has been mentioned as the time of Ralph's call, others have suggested the call happened at around 3.15am, but the most accurate time for that call to have been made was / is 3.25am. This time has not been plucked out of thin air, a great deal of thought, evidence gathering and other things have been taken into consideration to arrive at the 3.25am Ralph to Jeremy call...
No Jeremy said it in his statement the morning after!
-
"The sequence he gave in his statement and at trial was that Nevill phoned, he tried to phone Nevill back but could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford"
No, he did not you fibber, he tried to phone Witham police station first, didn't get any response, them he called Julie who told him to go back to bed, but Jeremy then phoned Chelmsford police station, this is the correct sequence. He therefore was correct when in a later police interview he said that he had called Julie before he had called police, and he was correct when he said that he had called Julie after he had called police, because he made 2 calls to the police, one at about 3.27am when he phoned unsuccessfully to With am police station, and his call to Julie at around 3.30am was therefore after that call, but on the other hand his call to Chelmsford police station was not made until 3.36am, and so with this as a reference point, Jeremy's call to Julie at around 3.30am, was before that call to police...
You are the one fibbing and it is pointless because I already posted his statement where he said he immediately called Witham and here it is again:
(http://s8.postimg.org/71k9y8vv9/jeremystatement1.jpg)
You are distorting in order to pretend that Jeremy didn't lie when he claimed he called police before he called Julie. You intentionally lie by ignoring that he said he called Chelmsford before he called Julie and pretend he said he called Witham then Julie and finally Chelmsford. You are lying thus can't produce any statements or a trial transcript of him stating such.
His trial transcript is the record. Anything he makes up after his conviction because his trial testimony failed is not credible and totally worthless. During his interrogation police wanted to know whether he spoke to police first or Julie first and he initially said Julie first then later he changed to saying police first and deferred to his statement. Your games accomplish nothing at all not only do you efforts to pretend he didn't lie fail you end up joining him as a proven liar.
"and spoke to West then he called Julie."
He did not, you have slipped that lie in hoping or expecting me to miss your attempt at misleading everyone...
The one attempting to mislead is in your mirror. He said he immediately called Chelmsford and later called Julie.
(http://s8.postimg.org/71k9y8vv9/jeremystatement1.jpg)
"The evidence though establishes there was no call received from Nevill"
On the contrary, there is evidence that Ralph did make that call to the police, proving that at the time he made that call, police were satisfied that at 3.26am Ralph Bamber was still very much alive alive O...
You have zero evidence that Nevill phoned police. The claim is made up from thin air by making the ABSURD UNSUPPORTED allegation that Bonnet's log originally reflected a call from Nevill but was altered later to pretend it was received from West.
"and he called Julie before he spoke with the police."
His call to Julie was made at 3.30am, in between Jeremy's first call to Witham police station, at 3.27am, and his second call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am...
Nonsense, he called Julie around 3AM, called Witham after this and called Chelmsford sometime after 3:20 but before 3:26. You ignore the evidence in the case to make up your own times and accomplish nothing in the process because making things up without any evidentiary foundation is worthless. In the meantime in his testimony he lied by insisting he spoke to police first and Julie later.
-
No Jeremy said it in his statement the morning after! Well, now - you had better show me the hand written version of that witness statement, dated, 8th August 1985, because it won't have any of those timed references in the original. The typed version has committed a lot about what Jeremy said in his original hand written statements which was edited out of the typed versions, so I would be greatful if you posted the original material up so that we can get to the bottom of these rumours that are being spread about. Could you explain how you have managed to see the original handwritten witness statements with the true unedited contents incorporated? I'm only asking because although I have over 50,000 documents on the case, I have yet to come across the unedited version of his witness statements, and at the time I was last visiting Jeremy he too had not been provided with copies of the originals. You see, you should be careful about accepting typed versions of witness statements, especially if made by a police officer because they paraphrase everything you say, using their own words which can be very misleading. This is why when a witness attends court to testify they quite often get their knickers in a twist. It's because the wording and phrases used in their statements have been paraphrased by someone else. What counts, is what a witness says whilst in the witness box, not what somebody else paraphrased in their statement on their behalf. Show me the original handwritten statements if Jeremy containing these timed references because I would be very interested to see them...
-
The sequence he gave in his statement and at trial was that Nevill phoned, he tried to phone Nevill back but could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford and spoke to West then he called Julie.
The evidence though establishes there was no call received from Nevill and he called Julie before he spoke with the police.
You don't know what your talking about, one minute your saying Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford police station after his fathers call, and the next minute your saying you already said he called Witham police station immediately after his fathers call. When I corrected you, all you have a habit of doing is calling me a liar, and saying that I am talking nonsense. Well, all I can say is that you are fucking nuts...
-
The bottom line is, other people introduced timings in a bid to further their own arguments, and that as time moved forward, some of these times have been altered to portray Jeremy in a poor light. What matters is that Jeremy has never wavered from the sequence of events. He called Julie after one of his police calls, and he called her before the other one. These facts do not show him to be a liar, they actually establish that his account is true and accurate. He has told the truth, no matter how many times people alter the times of timed events. The problem with people altering these times, is that there are other recorded events which have got fixed times. One you know that and you compare the sequence of events as spoken by Jeremy, it all fits perfectly together - its called, "THE TRUTH"...
-
What everybody who is not in the know needs to know, is that it doesn't matter what is written in a witness statement, what really matters is whether or not the witness attends court, takes an oath, testifiea, standa up to cross examination, and that at the end of the day, the witness stood up to the legal requirement stipulated in the citation on the first page of each and every witness statement - "I make this witness statement of my own free will consisting of X pages, knowing that if it is tended into evidence, I ahall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything I know not to be true, or false"..
Now, I take issue that many prosecution witnesses in almost every case do not make thier own witness statements. Invariably, Somebody else makes the statement for them, paraphrasing answers to questions that have been asked, without any reference to how the answers have been obtained before the answers themselves have become paraphrased...
I can't see how a witness whose witness statement has been tended into evidence, in these circumstances, does not commit a criminal offence, and why they are not prosecuted more often..
The defence very rarely get to see, the many variations of a typed witness statement, because it would then be blatently obvious that the contents had been worded and paraphrased by someone else. This has occured in the instant case, many different versions of relatives witness statements have been produced by someone else, were not disclosed to the defence so that the witness could be questioned about thier content...
-
A typical example of the dishonesty that I am speaking about, involves the alleged find of the silencer by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985, where they identify the said silencer as Exhibit reference DRB/1, when if the truth be known the silencer did not have this exhibit reference (DRB/1) by that stage...
-
A typical example of the dishonesty that I am speaking about, involves the alleged find of the silencer by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985, where they identify the said silencer as Exhibit reference DRB/1, when if the truth be known the silencer did not have this exhibit reference (DRB/1) by that stage...
Whoever made this witness statement and included the wrong exhibit reference of DRB/1, in one fell swoop different silencers became merged into one, using a relatives witness statement as the medium via which the deception was carried off...
-
By producing a witness statement in which on the first day of the alleged find of the silencer (10th August) you call it DRB/1, you are seeking to conceal from everybody who may be influenced by such a deception to wrongly belie e that there is no issue at all concerning tbe intevrity of that silebcer, and any blood or paint evidence which was associated with it when the silencer (be it the same silencer or not) had a totally different exhibit reference of DB/1...
-
You don't know what your talking about, one minute your saying Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford police station after his fathers call, and the next minute your saying you already said he called Witham police station immediately after his fathers call. When I corrected you, all you have a habit of doing is calling me a liar, and saying that I am talking nonsense. Well, all I can say is that you are fucking nuts...
What I said is easy to comprehend and is not in the least bit contradictory.
1) The Truth
Jeremy called Julie and then called Witham but got no response and then called Chelmsford and spoke to West telling him the lie that Nevill phoned requesting help.
2) The lie Jeremy told West and initial responders at the scene
Jeremy told West and the police at the scene the LIE that after he Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Witham and no one answered so then he called Chelmsford and spoke to West and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.
3) The lie Jeremy told detectives and at his trial
Jeremy told detectives and stated at his trial that after Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.
My claims are not contradictory and are well supported by evidence. In contrast you present a fable that has no evidentiary basis at all and is contradicted by Jeremy's trial testimony.
-
Whoever made this witness statement and included the wrong exhibit reference of DRB/1, in one fell swoop different silencers became merged into one, using a relatives witness statement as the medium via which the deception was carried off...
The deception is coming from you. By the time many of the statements in question were written the moderator was being referred to as DRB/1. When it was known as something else at the time documents were created the originals of those documents have the then existing reference. The typed copies though were amended so that DRB/1 is noted because documents referring to exhibits that no longer exist would cause confusion.
It is known NOW as DRB/1 so when I or anyone else refer to what was found on August 10 we say DRB/1 was found. It had no exhibit designation on August 10 it wasn't given a designation on August 13. The only time it is appropriate to mention the oriignal designation it was given is if that exact issue is being discussed. For example if the issue is what was the designation given to it on August 13 by Cook then I would say DRB/1 was originally designated SBJ/1 by Cook thus he wrote SBJ/1 on the Holab forms he filled out in triplicate on August 13 and stated such to COLP when questioned in 1991.
There is no reason to refer to the moderator by anything other than DRB/1 unless one is specifically discussing what its existing designation was on a particular day.
Whiddon is the one who went through the statements amending everything so that the exhibits referred to in paperwork referred to the current designation. This was discussed in his COLP statement:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1193.0.html
Your dishonestly only serves to undermine your credibility.
-
What I said is easy to comprehend and is not in the least bit contradictory.
1) The Truth
Jeremy called Julie and then called Witham but got no response and then called Chelmsford and spoke to West telling him the lie that Nevill phoned requesting help.
2) The lie Jeremy told West and initial responders at the scene
Jeremy told West and the police at the scene the LIE that after he Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Witham and no one answered so then he called Chelmsford and spoke to West and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.
3) The lie Jeremy told detectives and at his trial
Jeremy told detectives and stated at his trial that after Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.
My claims are not contradictory and are well supported by evidence. In contrast you present a fable that has no evidentiary basis at all and is contradicted by Jeremy's trial testimony.
Just thought I should draw your attention to 2 at which you state "Jeremy told..........................the lie that after Neville's call was disconnected......................" The LIE lay in that there WASN'T a call from Neville. I think you knew that, though, didn't you ;) ;D ;D
-
Just thought I should draw your attention to 2 at which you state "Jeremy told..........................the lie that after Neville's call was disconnected......................" The LIE lay in that there WASN'T a call from Neville. I think you knew that, though, didn't you ;) ;D ;D
See the last bit in number 1.
-
See the last bit in number 1.
Just testing ;D
-
The police said they whiffed by a slow moving car.
No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.
They didn't say anything about the car being ahead of them for a period of time and them eventually deciding to pass it.
That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.
They simply drove, came across a car in their path that was slow moving and passed it by.
That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.
They estimated it was moving no more than 20MPH when he was passed
That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.
Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.
-
The integrity of the silencer, blood group and paint evidence associated with it, is called into question, because it doesn't matter what date somebody fabricated the contents of the relatives witness statement where the find of the sillencer of 10th August is mentioned, the fact of the matter is thst when it was found it did not have any exhibit label or reference associated with it for 3 whole days, so for anybody to start referring to it by the exhibit reference DRB/1 is certainly a deception of the highest magnitude. Furtheore, for anyone to be foolish enough to claim there was nothing sinister in the way any of this unfolded, these people must surely be corrupt themselves...
-
No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.
That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.
That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.
That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.
Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.
Perhaps you'd like to give us your version of how Jeremy managed to get to WHF as quickly as he did, when according to Mike the phone calling didn't end until 3.46, it took 6(ish) minutes to dress and get out of the house, into the car, yet he managed to arrive, having driven slowly, STOPPED to put on a sweater -during a journey which according to Mike, only takes 5 minutes- at 3.52.
-
No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.
The estimate was he was doing more more than 20MPH which resulted in them rapidly approaching and overtaking the vehicle they suddenly encountered which they later realized was Jeremy.
That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.
No there are multiple ways to pass a car. One is to wait a while. Another is to do so immediately. The police didn't see Jeremy for a long period of time and slowly overtake him. They came upon him suddenly because they were traveling fast and they left him in the dust because while they were traveling fast he was not. That is the same reason they overtook him rapidly instead of it taking a period of time.
You play games to try to support your nonsense like Mike does and in fact both of you present the same made up lie that Jeremy phoned Witham, then Julie and then Chelmsford and this lie is supposed to prevent him from having lied when he said he called Julie after police but it is simply a made up lie that is not what Jeremy claimed. You play the same kinds of games to try to pretend there is evidence Nevill called police. All these games accomplish is to cement your reputations as dishonest apologist clowns.
That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.
That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.
Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.
They put NO MORE than 30MPH in their statements which was later changed to no more than 20MPH after they conducted tests where they drove the distance and took into account the distance they recalled between their speed and his speed. It makes no difference if they took a few extra seconds before to stopwatch actually stopped. They were considering how slow he would have been moving while they were going over 70MPH and they assessed he would have been doing 20MPH or less. They didn't think that hard about it when they initially put no more than 30MPH and after due consideration they realized they inflated his maximum speed.
-
Jeremy then made his own phone call to the police timed at 3.36am, as per the log with that time. This call lasted 9 or 10 minutes, so by 3.46am, Jeremy made the effort to get himself to the scene, and within 5 minutes he arrived in Pages Lane, at 3.52am...
This is the best explanation I can give after extensive research carried out by me into the matter.
Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.
-
Perhaps you'd like to give us your version of how Jeremy managed to get to WHF as quickly as he did, when according to Mike the phone calling didn't end until 3.46, it took 6(ish) minutes to dress and get out of the house, into the car, yet he managed to arrive, having driven slowly, STOPPED to put on a sweater -during a journey which according to Mike, only takes 5 minutes- at 3.52.
Reader claimed this nonsense as well and perhaps before Mike ever did. He is the one who absurdly suggested police would have wanted to conceal that Nevill called because it might panic him so West never told him about Nevill's call and went through the motions as a farce just to conceal such news from Jeremy.
Since both are so dishonest they allege a call that there is zero support for you need not worry about them worrying about the fact Jeremy would not have been able to get in front of the police. He even denied it would take a minute to lock the house, get in his car, start it and leave the driveway. He said it would take a few seconds to do so and mere seconds to dress and phone Julie before leaving.
-
Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.
West didn't say how long it took the operator to get back to him. He simply noted 3:42 is the time the BT operator got back to him and told him the the line was indeed busy. The call ended before 3:42 because it was prior to 3:42 that West called the phone company though we don't know how many minutes before 3:42 he called the phone company.
You and Mike are stupidly suggesting that Jeremy phoned at 3:36 and was off the phone by 3:41 which means at most he was on the phone with police for 5 minutes including the time he was put on hold. This timetable is entirely made up. It would have taken several minutes just for West to record all the information he recorded, then he placed Jeremy on hold for several minutes as he called Bonnett and told Bonnett everything Jeremy told him AND then they spent more time dispatching police and finally got back on the phone with Jeremy and spoke to him for another minute at least. You timetable totally falls apart no way could he have called at 3:36 and been off the phone by 3:41.
Jeremy denies this in the meantime it is entirely made up by you and Mike. You both intentionally ignore that Jeremy insisted he spoke to Julie after calling Chelmsford because that blows your claims out of the water even more. No way did he have time to dress and call Julie and get in front of police to be passed so you ignore his own testimony on top of ignoring the reality of how long his conversation with police lasted.
Yeah I know that West estimated he was on the phone for less than a minute before placing Jeremy on hold but his estimate is not credible it would have taken several minutes to record everything he got from Jeremy. If Nevill had already called and provided such information then West would not have taken it down from Jeremy, would have told him Nevill already phoned so they already knew and already dispatched police to the scene.
Your revisionist claims have no evidentiary foundation and don't hold up to scrutiny.
-
Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.
It's funny how pedantic you are when quoting the time that police gave in their statements, not so much for Jeremy though, who (it is claimed) probably indicated the wrong time because he got a bit confused (bless). Jeremy's memory was a LOT fresher than West's, when he made his statement the day after the murders. Bashing the corners off that square peg won't help it fit!
-
West didn't say how long it took the operator to get back to him. He simply noted 3:42 is the time the BT operator got back to him and told him the the line was indeed busy. The call ended before 3:42 because it was prior to 3:42 that West called the phone company though we don't know how many minutes before 3:42 he called the phone company.
You and Mike are stupidly suggesting that Jeremy phoned at 3:36 and was off the phone by 3:41 which means at most he was on the phone with police for 5 minutes including the time he was put on hold. This timetable is entirely made up. It would have taken several minutes just for West to record all the information he recorded, then he placed Jeremy on hold for several minutes as he called Bonnett and told Bonnett everything Jeremy told him AND then they spent more time dispatching police and finally got back on the phone with Jeremy and spoke to him for another minute at least. You timetable totally falls apart no way could he have called at 3:36 and been off the phone by 3:41.
Jeremy denies this in the meantime it is entirely made up by you and Mike. You both intentionally ignore that Jeremy insisted he spoke to Julie after calling Chelmsford because that blows your claims out of the water even more. No way did he have time to dress and call Julie and get in front of police to be passed so you ignore his own testimony on top of ignoring the reality of how long his conversation with police lasted.
Yeah I know that West estimated he was on the phone for less than a minute before placing Jeremy on hold but his estimate is not credible it would have taken several minutes to record everything he got from Jeremy. If Nevill had already called and provided such information then West would not have taken it down from Jeremy, would have told him Nevill already phoned so they already knew and already dispatched police to the scene.
Your revisionist claims have no evidentiary foundation and don't hold up to scrutiny.
Didn't someone once make the suggestion that west and Bonnett made a deliberate decision to withhold information from Jeremy just in case it was needed to use it against him later?
-
Perhaps you'd like to give us your version of how Jeremy managed to get to WHF as quickly as he did, when according to Mike the phone calling didn't end until 3.46, it took 6(ish) minutes to dress and get out of the house, into the car, yet he managed to arrive, having driven slowly, STOPPED to put on a sweater -during a journey which according to Mike, only takes 5 minutes- at 3.52.
The times you mention are inaccurate. As already explained, Pc West's log indicates Jeremy's call had ended by 3:42. There's no evidence as to when Jeremy got dressed. He had time to do so before he spoke to Pc West, and there's no evidence that he needed long to get dressed. He was quite simply dressed - no tie or anything else that would take long to put on. Nobody knows how fast Jeremy drove before being overtaken. It seems that Jeremy doesn't remember his speed (and wasn't asked about it by the police). I think that his average speed was at least 25mph, and that he was driving for some time between 5 and 7 minutes before being overtaken.
-
Didn't someone once make the suggestion that west and Bonnett made a deliberate decision to withhold information from Jeremy just in case it was needed to use it against him later?
Yes, that was Reader. You never know when you might need to frame someone ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
The times you mention are inaccurate. As already explained, Pc West's log indicates Jeremy's call had ended by 3:42. There's no evidence as to when Jeremy got dressed. He had time to do so before he spoke to Pc West, and there's no evidence that he needed long to get dressed. He was quite simply dressed - no tie or anything else that would take long to put on. Nobody knows how fast Jeremy drove before being overtaken. It seems that Jeremy doesn't remember his speed (and wasn't asked about it by the police). I think that his average speed was at least 25mph, and that he was driving for some time between 5 and 7 minutes before being overtaken.
He was wearing a lot of clothes it would have taken several minutes to get dressed. There would be no reason to dress unless he intended to go over which he didn't instead he called police and they told him to go over. He didn't have to dress because he was already dressed and he slipped up because he totally forgot to make up the lie he dressed after hanging up with police.
-
The times you mention are inaccurate. As already explained, Pc West's log indicates Jeremy's call had ended by 3:42. There's no evidence as to when Jeremy got dressed. He had time to do so before he spoke to Pc West, and there's no evidence that he needed long to get dressed. He was quite simply dressed - no tie or anything else that would take long to put on. Nobody knows how fast Jeremy drove before being overtaken. It seems that Jeremy doesn't remember his speed (and wasn't asked about it by the police). I think that his average speed was at least 25mph, and that he was driving for some time between 5 and 7 minutes before being overtaken.
The times Jeremy mentioned at trial must also be inaccurate then, or are you saying he has a better memory now than he did then? ;D ;D There is no evidence or mention of Jeremy getting dressed because he already was dressed! He had time to redecorate his lounge if he called the police at 03:36 after a (supposed) call from his father at 03:10!!
-
He was wearing a lot of clothes it would have taken several minutes to get dressed. There would be no reason to dress unless he intended to go over which he didn't instead he called police and they told him to go over. He didn't have to dress because he was already dressed and he slipped up because he totally forgot to make up the lie he dressed after hanging up with police.
Thank you!
-
The times you mention are inaccurate. As already explained, Pc West's log indicates Jeremy's call had ended by 3:42. There's no evidence as to when Jeremy got dressed. He had time to do so before he spoke to Pc West, and there's no evidence that he needed long to get dressed. He was quite simply dressed - no tie or anything else that would take long to put on. Nobody knows how fast Jeremy drove before being overtaken. It seems that Jeremy doesn't remember his speed (and wasn't asked about it by the police). I think that his average speed was at least 25mph, and that he was driving for some time between 5 and 7 minutes before being overtaken.
Quite possibly had never UNdressed and I don't accept, that having allegedly heard that his father sounded panicked, diddled around phoning 2 police stations without dialling 999 immediately AND calling his girlfriend, he then dawdles his way to WHF, stopping to put on a sweater, driving between 25-30mph.
-
Yes, that was Reader. You never know when you might need to frame someone ;D ;D ;D ;)
My optician does excellent frames ;D
-
How miraculously absurd, that every other timed event in the 3.36am phone log pertaining to Jeremy's call, is recorded accurately, except the timing of the call itself, from Jeremy?
-
Yes, that was Reader. You never know when you might need to frame someone ;D ;D ;D ;)
Yes at one point in a debate with me last year reader suggested West intentionally withheld that Nevill called because he didn't know if they would need to pretend the call never happened. Apart from framing Jeremy what reason could they have to pretend the call never happened? So in effect he claimed they kept silent in case they needed to frame him.
-
From my dealings with Jeremy from 1989 onwards, I can tell you all now that Jeremy hadn't the foggiest idea of the time these calls were received, or made. But he did know the sequence with which each event occurred. Other people have introduced timings to these events, sometimes as many as two or three different times have been banded around, with the sole intention of trying to get Jeremy confused and to either trick him into making a confession, or try to portray him to the jury as someone unhinged. I have put a lot of time and effort into working out the correct timings of all these calls by one party or another, or vice versa. My timings are as close as anybody will ever get to the truth. This is because, a part from the timed events known to be true by the police themselves (3.26am, 3.29am, 3.35am, 3.36am, 3.48am, 3,52am, and 4.02am) all the rest fit somewhere within those indidual and collective frameworks...
So according to their agenda, people have taken their pick, from those times you've quoted as being known, as true, by the police.
-
How miraculously absurd, that every other timed event in the 3.36am phone log pertaining to Jeremy's call, is recorded accurately, except the timing of the call itself, from Jeremy?
The times are not exact. For instance around 3:30 is when the cops at Witham were contacted and they later notified dispatch around 3:35 that they were leaving the station and probably actually got underway a couple of minutes later.
Furthermore, West was not trained ot handle emergency calls they normally go to 999. West normally fielded non-emergency calls and thus didn't even usually have to write down anything. After Jeremy started telling his problem West realized it was an emergency, grabbed a log sheet and began writing down the key information. It is understandable how he would not remember to write down the time until the end of the call and at that point to record the end time or to screw up and misread the clock or even intent to write one thing but write another by mistake. We all have written words we did not intent to . I just did it by accident in this very post. I thought of the word "intend" and that is what I meant to type and yet I typed "intent". It is not a typo in the sense of I meant to hit a key and accidentally hit the key next to it. I simply typed a slightly different thing than my mind wanted. This happens. People will mean to write a particular number and yet somehow write something different and not simply by hitting the key above, below or next to the one they intend. This happens while handwriting things as well.
To try reading anything into such errors is ridiculous let alone constructing a huge conspiracy around such.
-
The estimate was he was doing more more than 20MPH which resulted in them rapidly approaching and overtaking the vehicle they suddenly encountered which they later realized was Jeremy.
That's incorrect. Their original estimates were "about 30 mph", "about 30 mph" and "no more than 30 mph". They never estimated "more more than 20MPH". They were travelling at high speed, so their approach was rapid even if Jeremy was travelling at 30 mph. Even at very high speed, they cannot overtake instantaneously - it takes a second or two (which is "a period of time", albeit a short one). The only way of calculating 20 mph as a maximum speed for the last mile is by assuming it took Jeremy at least 3 minutes, but the "3 to 4 minutes" that the police put in their statements was not based on use of a watch - it was just an estimate they agreed on that (in hindsight) conflicted with their estimates of Jeremy's speed. There was no reason for deciding that their "3 to 4 minutes" estimate was more accurate than their "about 30 mph" estimate.
. . . in fact both of you present the same made up lie that Jeremy phoned Witham, then Julie and then Chelmsford
That's mike tesko's theory, but we can't be sure that Jeremy tried to call Witham, as that may have been something that the police invented later as having been mentioned by Jeremy.
They put NO MORE than 30MPH in their statements
That's incorrect - only Pc Saxby used that wording; the other two officers used "about 30 mph".
. . . they drove the distance and took into account the distance they recalled between their speed and his speed.
That doesn't even make sense. The police clearly didn't try to calculate a relative speed (their own speed was irrelevant); they just realized that taking at least 3 minutes to cover a mile implies an average speed of at most 20 mph, but "at least 3 minutes" wasn't known for certain, so their conclusion was unsound. All they knew was that their time estimate and their speed estimate weren't both accurate. In my opinion, it's much easier to estimate reasonably accurately the speed of a car as you overtake it than to estimate accurately without use of a watch or clock the length of a time interval of several minutes, especially when there's no particular reason for estimating it.
-
........................ we can't be sure that Jeremy tried to call Witham, as that may have been something that the police invented later as having been mentioned by Jeremy..................................
DuuuH!!! Are you REALLY suggesting that the police MADE UP a fictitious call, from Jeremy, to another station????? WHY would they choose Witham when Tiptree, Tollesbury and Maldon were all nearer? Still, I suppose, as Jeremy made up a call from Neville, what was good for the goose was good for the gander.
-
How miraculously absurd, that every other timed event in the 3.36am phone log pertaining to Jeremy's call, is recorded accurately, except the timing of the call itself, from Jeremy?
Pc West and Bonnets excuse about making a mistake over the timing of Jeremy's call is really unacceptable...
Even the judgement from the 2002 appeal, makes comment about the fact that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident before Jeremy made his own call to the police at Chelmsford? There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the appellate court saw right through the lies of West and Bonnet. It would have been the easiest of things to do by either West or Bonnet to be asked the basic question, and to give a straight forward "Yes", or "No", answer to whether or not the occupants of CA07, had been deployed to the incident before or after Jeremy's call?
-
Pc West and Bonnets excuse about making a mistake over the timing of Jeremy's call is really unacceptable...
Even the judgement from the 2002 appeal, makes comment about the fact that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident before Jeremy made his own call to the police at Chelmsford? There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the appellate court saw right through the lies of West and Bonnet. It would have been the easiest of thinga to do bt either West or Bonnet to be asked the basic question, and to give a straight forward "Yes", or "No", answer to whether or not the occupants of CA07, had been deployed to the incident before or after Jeremy's call?
But you're saying the same thing about Jeremy? Jeremy himself argued that he called police BEFORE 03:36 - can't have it both ways Mike.
-
Pc West and Bonnets excuse about making a mistake over the timing of Jeremy's call is really unacceptable...
Even the judgement from the 2002 appeal, makes comment about the fact that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident before Jeremy made his own call to the police at Chelmsford? There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the appellate court saw right through the lies of West and Bonnet. It would have been the easiest of thinga to do bt either West or Bonnet to be asked the basic question, and to give a straight forward "Yes", or "No", answer to whether or not the occupants of CA07, had been deployed to the incident before or after Jeremy's call?
Much has been made of the fact that the police car couldn't have made it to Goldhanger in the allotted time but if it had already been in the area from another shout it would have been THERE almost before the phone conversation was over.
-
There would of course, be serious consequences if either West or Bonnet decided to falsify an answer...
-
There would of course, be serious consequences if either West or Bonnet decided to falsify an answer...
But they didn't.
-
West didn't say how long it took the operator to get back to him.
That's correct. It's possible that the operator "got back to him" almost immediately rather than by calling him back.
This timetable is entirely made up.
It's based on Pc West's evidence at trial, not made up. What you're claiming is that Pc West grossly underestimated the times he gave in his evidence.
Jeremy insisted he spoke to Julie after calling Chelmsford.
That's a misleading simplification of what was stated in Jeremy's interview. Jeremy was saying he couldn't remember, but thought that his original statement would have been correct. If Jeremy attempted to call Witham before calling Chelmsford, that allows his original statement to be interpreted differently. It just happens that Jeremy wasn't asked specifically about that and doesn't seem to remember (at trial ans subsequently) whether he did or didn't try to call Witham.
I know that West estimated he was on the phone for less than a minute before placing Jeremy on hold but his estimate is not credible it would have taken several minutes to record everything he got from Jeremy.
Even so, it's still possible that the four portions of the call took 2 minutes (taking details initially), 2 minutes (passing the details to Bonnett), 1 minute (contacting Witham by radio), and 1 minute (final conversation with Jeremy, asking him to got to WHF and telling him that a police car was on its way).
-
It's funny how pedantic you are when quoting the time that police gave in their statements, not so much for Jeremy though, who (it is claimed) probably indicated the wrong time because he got a bit confused (bless). Jeremy's memory was a LOT fresher than West's, when he made his statement the day after the murders.
You seem to be assuming that Jeremy looked at his watch or a clock. I think he didn't, and that he didn't realize that the times the police mentioned to him were inaccurate. In contrast, it was part of Pc West's job to create records and use correct times.
-
You seem to be assuming that Jeremy looked at his watch or a clock. I think he didn't, and that he didn't realize that the times the police mentioned to him were inaccurate. In contrast, it was part of Pc West's job to create records and use correct times.
Would he not check the time in his bedroom when being woken from 'sleeping like a log'.
I would. And then ignore the call.
-
That's correct. It's possible that the operator "got back to him" almost immediately rather than by calling him back.
It's based on Pc West's evidence at trial, not made up. What you're claiming is that Pc West grossly underestimated the times he gave in his evidence.
That's a misleading simplification of what was stated in Jeremy's interview. Jeremy was saying he couldn't remember, but thought that his original statement would have been correct. If Jeremy attempted to call Witham before calling Chelmsford, that allows his original statement to be interpreted differently. It just happens that Jeremy wasn't asked specifically about that and doesn't seem to remember (at trial ans subsequently) whether he did or didn't try to call Witham.
Even so, it's still possible that the four portions of the call took 2 minutes (taking details initially), 2 minutes (passing the details to Bonnett), 1 minute (contacting Witham by radio), and 1 minute (final conversation with Jeremy, asking him to got to WHF and telling him that a police car was on its way).
It seems to me that everything you say is based on hypotheticals. Whatever is said to have happened factually you manage to put another twist on. By your reckoning, if this method is applied to EVERY convicted criminal's trial, there's every reason to think they should all be released.
-
You seem to be assuming that Jeremy looked at his watch or a clock. I think he didn't, and that he didn't realize that the times the police mentioned to him were inaccurate. In contrast, it was part of Pc West's job to create records and use correct times.
that is what I have always argued . The only people you would expect not to change times and to make accurate records of timing in a situation like this are the police. It is their job.
Whereas others who at the time may not understand the importance of timings or could be stressed or shocked at the time would be expected to be making approximations.
In the OS I think Jeremys timings and Julies were not that far out ( as far as I can remember)
But the 10 minutes change by EP - could have been vital .
-
that is what I have always argued . The only people you would expect not to change times and to make accurate records of timing in a situation like this are the police. It is their job.
Whereas others who at the time may not understand the importance of timings or could be stressed or shocked at the time would be expected to be making approximations.
In the OS I think Jeremys timings and Julies were not that far out ( as far as I can remember)
But the 10 minutes change by EP - could have been vital .
But didn't both Julie and Jeremy change the timings? If we're factoring in agendas here, it's far more likely that they, rather than the police, would have them.
-
The times Jeremy mentioned at trial must also be inaccurate then
What times are you referring to? If he hadn't checked the times when things happened, he wouldn't know the correct times when giving evidence at his trial. The defence didn't understand the times, but hadn't cottoned on that Nevill had also called the police, so they didn't realize the reasons the prosecution had for providing incorrect times.
There is no evidence or mention of Jeremy getting dressed because he already was dressed!
His father had asked him to come over, but he wasn't sure what to do. In those circumstances, it's quite possible that he telephoned Julie (and possibly Witham) and also got dressed before calling Pc West. It wasn't until much later that the significance of such details began to become apparent. At the time, he wasn't asked when he got dressed, so he didn't mention it.
-
I thought Bamber has always said he received the call at 3.10am. What other times has he given ?
He changed the time he phoned the police to 3.36am so he could claim Neville phoned the police at 3.26am. Although he did not include Neville's call to the police in the 2012 CCRC submission.
-
Bamber changed the time he phoned Chelmsford police from 'immediately' after 3.10am, to 3.36am.
This fits with apparent new evidence that Neville also called the forth furthest away police station at 3.26am.
Was this new evidence in the 2012 CCRC application ? In a word 'no'.
-
You seem to be assuming that Jeremy looked at his watch or a clock. I think he didn't, and that he didn't realize that the times the police mentioned to him were inaccurate. In contrast, it was part of Pc West's job to create records and use correct times.
You are stating that what he said was incorrect without ANY basis for doing so. You are being completely self serving and changing facts to suit yourself. I'm not assuming anything, all the assuming is coming from you! I'm sticking to the FACTS and the FACT of this matter is that Jeremy stated his father call around 03:10! he also disputed calling police at 03:36 but now he's trying to suggest Nevill called - he's arguing the opposite. It will never wash and will get laughed out of the CCRC if it forms part of the submissions.
-
What times are you referring to? If he hadn't checked the times when things happened, he wouldn't know the correct times when giving evidence at his trial. The defence didn't understand the times, but hadn't cottoned on that Nevill had also called the police, so they didn't realize the reasons the prosecution had for providing incorrect times.
His father had asked him to come over, but he wasn't sure what to do. In those circumstances, it's quite possible that he telephoned Julie (and possibly Witham) and also got dressed before calling Pc West. It wasn't until much later that the significance of such details began to become apparent. At the time, he wasn't asked when he got dressed, so he didn't mention it.
We're not talking about a child here, Reader. He'd spent years at boarding school where he'd have learned independence. He'd spent time in OZ. He had his own home. I don't buy "he wasn't sure what to do". What I DO buy is that there was NO call from Neville and the cally Jeremy made were part of his alibi.
-
But you're saying the same thing about Jeremy? Jeremy himself argued that he called police BEFORE 03:36 - can't have it both ways Mike.
The first time he called police at Witham around 3.27 / 3.28am was not answered. Never the less, it was the first of his 2 calls to police that particular morning. His call to Julie Mugford took place around 3.30am, so Jeremy called Julie after he had called the police, since 3.30 comes after 3.27 / 3.28am. Then at 3.36am Jeremy called Chelmsford police station. So, when compared to the time of Jeremy's 2nd call (3.36am), his call to Julie was made beforehand, since 3.30am, falls before 3.36am...
Nothing could be any clearer...
Jeremy has told the truth whichever of his two answers you might choose to try and make an example of...
-
The first time he called police at Witham around 3.27 / 3.28am was not answered. Never the less, it was the first of his 2 calls to police that particular morning. His call to Julie Mugford took place around 3.30am, so Jeremy called Julie after he had called the police, since 3.30 comes after 3.27 / 3.28am. Then at 3.36am Jeremy called Chelmsford police station. So, when compared to the time of Jeremy's 2nd call (3.36am), his call to Julie was made beforehand, since 3.30am, falls before 3.36am...
Nothing could be any clearer...
Jeremy has told the truth whichever of his two answers you might choose to try and make an example of...
Ha, ha! ;D - I admire your tenacity - I sometimes think this is like a game of Chess or poker!
Jeremy argued against West's timings of his call, not that the earlier times he indicated were in respect to the unanswered calls. Ye tinker! ;)
-
Ha, ha! ;D - I admire your tenacity - I sometimes think this is like a game of Chess or poker!
Jeremy argued against West's timings of his call, not that the earlier times he indicated were in respect to the unanswered calls. Ye tinker! ;)
As I have said previously, the truth of the matter is that Jeremy did not have a clue about the timings of calls he received, or which he made. This was the state of play back in 1989 when I first met him at HMP Full Sutton. He only knew the sequence in which these calls were either received or made. That is the truth of the matter. However, other people had put times to some if not all these events, sometimes the timings came singularly, sometimes two conflicting times for the same event, and at least three contradictory times for one or two of his sequential events. There is no doubt that since I first met jeremy in 1989, that he has tried to reconcile the mentioned timings made by other parties of his sequential events. But I feel it is a futile exercise, and he is best advised to stick with what he knows to be true - the truth being that he did not sit making notes at the time calls were received or made. But, he does clearly still remember the sequence with which he received or made calls, before leaving his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to go to the incident at the scene...
-
If a phone call woke me up at around 3am. And I managed to motivate myself to go and answer it, the time of the call would forever be in my brain.
The reason ? It's never happened before and would never happen again.
-
Set against Jeremy's sequenced untimed events, is the backdrop of police procedural time keeping official records. There's an old saying, that goes something like this, "IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TIME, ASK A POLICEMAN", but that somehow doesn't appear to equate in this investigation. Nevertheless, police kept records of timed events, which can be used to compare Jeremy's sequential untimed events, with a view to placing these sequential events around and against known timed events which have been documented. I have spent over 20 years tinkering with trying to match or equate Jeremy Bambers untimed sequential events, against or in comparison of known police timed events. The net result is that I am more than satisfied with timings which I have given to Jeremy's sequential untimed events...
-
If a phone call woke me up at around 3am. And I managed to motivate myself to go and answer it, the time of the call would forever be in my brain.
The reason ? It's never happened before and would never happen again.
I myself have been awoken in the middle of the night on many occasions because of family trouble or problems, and on many of these occasions I had no idea what time of night I was woken up, got dressed and left in my car to go and sort things out, or to give support. On other occasions I have looked at the clock and made a mental note of the time, but people are as different as chalk or cheese...
-
As I have said previously, the truth of the matter is that Jeremy did not have a clue about the timings of calls he received, or which he made. This was the state of play back in 1989 when I first met him at HMP Full Sutton. He only knew the sequence in which these calls were either received or made. That is the truth of the matter. However, other people had put times to some if not all these events, sometimes the timings came singularly, sometimes two conflicting times for the same event, and at least three contradictory times for one or two of his sequential events. There is no doubt that since I first met jeremy in 1989, that he has tried to reconcile the mentioned timings made by other parties of his sequential events. But I feel it is a futile exercise, and he is best advised to stick with what he knows to be true - the truth being that he did not sit making notes at the time calls were received or made. But, he does clearly still remember the sequence with which he received or made calls, before leaving his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to go to the incident at the scene...
Jeremy mentioned the call times in his first statement, no one was pressurising him at that point. He was bound to tell you he didn't know the times because he wanted you to believe he was innocent. He seems to remember well enough now!!
-
Set against Jeremy's sequenced untimed events, is the backdrop of police procedural time keeping official records. There's an old saying, that goes something like this, "IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TIME, ASK A POLICEMAN", but that somehow doesn't appear to equate in this investigation. Nevertheless, police kept records of timed events, which can be used to compare Jeremy's sequential untimed events, with a view to placing these sequential events around and against known timed events which have been documented. I have spent over 20 years tinkering with trying to match or equate Jeremy Bambers untimed sequential events, against or in comparison of known police timed events. The net result is that I am more than satisfied with timings which I have given to Jeremy's sequential untimed events...
I have visited the scene and local points of interest. I have travelled the route from Jeremy's cottage in Goldhanger, to the farmhouse in Pages Lane, I have posted film on YOU TUBE of that journey. I have spoken with telephone engineers, other experts, taken part or helped to organise reconstructions, kept hand written notes of everything I have ever done to try and get to the truth in this matter...
-
I'm sticking to the FACTS and the FACT of this matter is that Jeremy stated his father call around 03:10! he also disputed calling police at 03:36 but now he's trying to suggest Nevill called - he's arguing the opposite. It will never wash and will get laughed out of the CCRC if it forms part of the submissions.
Jeremy's initial assertion was simply that his father had called him - he didn't say when, and Pc West didn't ask when. When Jeremy got to WHF, he talked to the police. He told them his father had called about 30 minutes before, which would have placed the time of that call shortly after 3:20. At no stage did he say that he had checked the time shown on any clock or watch. There's no apparent reason for him to have thought his father called at 3:10 unless (a) he didn't know the correct time for that call and (b) the police were insistent that his calls to Julie and to Pc West occurred about 10 minutes earlier than was actually the case. Without the benefit of hindsight, Jeremy couldn't work this out as he didn't realize that his father also called the police. It simply didn't occur to Jeremy that it was odd that the police should accept times given by him but never ask him how he knew those times. The police never asked him whether he had checked the time on his clock or watch. Pc West, on the other hand, logged times as part of his job, but you choose to believe that he made a mistake or that his clock was incorrect.
-
Jeremy's initial assertion was simply that his father had called him - he didn't say when, and Pc West didn't ask when. When Jeremy got to WHF, he talked to the police. He told them his father had called about 30 minutes before, which would have placed the time of that call shortly after 3:20. At no stage did he say that he had checked the time shown on any clock or watch. There's no apparent reason for him to have thought his father called at 3:10 unless (a) he didn't know the correct time for that call and (b) the police were insistent that his calls to Julie and to Pc West occurred about 10 minutes earlier than was actually the case. Without the benefit of hindsight, Jeremy couldn't work this out as he didn't realize that his father also called the police. It simply didn't occur to Jeremy that it was odd that the police should accept times given by him but never ask him how he knew those times. The police never asked him whether he had checked the time on his clock or watch. Pc West, on the other hand, logged times as part of his job, but you choose to believe that he made a mistake or that his clock was incorrect.
His FIRST STATEMENT made the following day clearly states that he father called about 03:10. How do you know what Jeremy thought or didn't think? Your post is complete summation on your part and yet another attempt to make things fit.
-
Jeremy mentioned the call times in his first statement, no one was pressurising him at that point. He was bound to tell you he didn't know the times because he wanted you to believe he was innocent. He seems to remember well enough now!!
Jeremy made me aware that parts of his two witness statements which were hand written, and which he'd signed had been edited out of the typed versions of his witness statements. One such thing he said had been omitted were the circumstances of the sighting of the person moving around in the main bedroom. Jeremy realised that that part of his edited statement amounted to an alibi, which for one thing or another the police who produced the typed versions of his statements felt the need to omit it...
Same thing applied to mention of timings of phone calls, Jeremy felt he had been the victim of police malpractice, in that they had for one reason or another felt it necessary to omit things, and or add things. I urged him to apply to Essex police requesting a copy of the original hand written statements but he never received them to my knowlege...
-
Jeremy's initial assertion was simply that his father had called him - he didn't say when, and Pc West didn't ask when. When Jeremy got to WHF, he talked to the police. He told them his father had called about 30 minutes before, which would have placed the time of that call shortly after 3:20. At no stage did he say that he had checked the time shown on any clock or watch. There's no apparent reason for him to have thought his father called at 3:10 unless (a) he didn't know the correct time for that call and (b) the police were insistent that his calls to Julie and to Pc West occurred about 10 minutes earlier than was actually the case. Without the benefit of hindsight, Jeremy couldn't work this out as he didn't realize that his father also called the police. It simply didn't occur to Jeremy that it was odd that the police should accept times given by him but never ask him how he knew those times. The police never asked him whether he had checked the time on his clock or watch. Pc West, on the other hand, logged times as part of his job, but you choose to believe that he made a mistake or that his clock was incorrect.
Why on earth would he have felt the need to tell them that he'd checked the time of his father's alleged call with a clock or watch? The moment, at that sort of silly o' clock, checking the time would have been automatic.
-
Jeremy made me aware that parts of his two witness statements which were hand written, and which he'd signed had been edited out of the typed versions of his witness statements. One such thing he said had been committed were the circumstances of the sighting of the person moving around in the main bedroom. Jeremy realised that that part of his edited statement amounted to an alibi, which for one thing or another the police who produced the typed versions of his statements felt the need to omit it...
Same thing applied to mention of timings of phone calls, Jeremy felt he had been the victim of police malpractice, in that they had for one reason or another felt it necessary to omit things, and or add things. I urged him to apply to Essex police requesting a copy of the original hand written statements but he never received them to my knowlege...
That's a Poker Face statement if ever there was one :D! But Jeremy would say that wouldn't he? He had ample opportunity to mention that in court and yet said nothing! If someone had altered my statement, I'd be shouting it from the roof tops!
I would suggest that Jeremy didn't apply to EP for copies because he knew they hadn't been edited.
-
I myself have been awoken in the middle of the night on many occasions because of family trouble or problems, and on many of these occasions I had no idea what time of night I was woken up, got dressed and left in my car to go and sort things out, or to give support. On other occasions I have looked at the clock and made a mental note of the time, but people are as different as chalk or cheese...
I doubt that Jeremy was woken much by ringing phones. Sheila didn't live at WHF. So it was just June and Neville
The only other recorded event of her getting out of hand was in London.
However Jeremy obviously didn't think it was a wrong number and ignore the ringing phone.
He would have automatically checked the time after the ringing phone woke him.
-
I doubt that Jeremy was woken much by ringing phones. Sheila didn't live at WHF. So it was just June and Neville
He would have automatically checked the time after the ringing phone woke him.
cobblers - pure and utter assumption by you - nothing more - nothing less.
try again .
-
cobblers - pure and utter assumption by you - nothing more - nothing less.
try again .
Jan I admired you're 'Primary sources' tactic. Seventeen sources said one thing. Zero sources said the opposite. So you attacked the seventeen. But the fire fighting must stop.
It's just a natural reaction. He would have a bedroom clock. When the downstairs phone eventually wakes him, he will say 'what the f---' is this ? Then check the time, and then say it again.
Jeremy would ignore the ringing phone as long as possible. Lookout saying he was the laziest man alive. But Neville was prepared to wait. And wait.
-
Reader and Mike are intentionally ignoring Jeremy's own claims and making things up. This more than anything demonstrates they are not searching for the truth but rather have an agenda and are making up things to support that agenda.
There is nothing wrong with advocacy but just like impartial people are limited to the established facts and evidence in the record so too are advocates.
Jeremy insists he called Julie after he spoke to the police at Chelmsford. That is what he told everyone except for one occasion when he slipped up during his interrogation and admitted the truth- that he spoke to Julie before he spoke with police. When police jumped on that he said he simply was confused and made a mistake. He reverted back to his prior claims and that is what he asserted at trial as well. He lied about calling police before Julie for a reason- he had no valid excuse for calling her before police. He supposedly was scared to go try to help as Nevill supposedly desired and instead decided to call police to have them go try to help his family. To say he called Julie after the call would make objective people disbelieve that he received the call he claimed he received thus he told everyone on the day of the murders that he immediately called police like someone who received such a call would do. Telling the Jury he lied to police at the scene and in fact called Julie before calling police would make the juros doubt his claims of receiving a call from Nevill because calling Julie makes no sense unless he was the killer like Julie asserted. Thus the truth helps corroborate Julie's account. So Jeremy lied.
Jeremy's lie completely ruins an already precarious timetable they have come up with so they need to reject Jeremy's lies. But they don't want to admit he lied so they craft the tale of Jeremy calling Witham then Julie and then Chelmsford so they could say he did call police first but could not get through so then called Julie for advice. This is not supported by the record though it is made up. The record is what Jeremy said so they are contradicting Jeremy's testimony under oath. They are making up evidence and claims to try to help Jeremy. Advocates can't make up evidence though they have to go with the accounts from those who they are advocating for and the claism of other witnesses.
In a similar vein they make up that Nevill called police though there is no evidence at all to support such. The entire claim is built upon the suggestion that West could not have made a mistake by recording the time the call ended or by misreading the clock or miswriting by accident but rather West was right about the time Jeremy called and Bonnett had to have right about receiving a call at 3:26 but it must have been from Nevill (Reader claims it was not directly a call from Nevill but that Nevill called West and then West called Bonnett and they doctored their logs to pretend the logs were referringing Jeremy's call.
There are giant leaps made from nothing basically and things made up instead of going with Jeremy's claims. Not only can't such things be alleged to the Court of Appeals because there is no foundation but worse only very ignorant people won't see right through these efforts which amount to wanting to pretend Jeremy is innocent no matter what so drastically changing things and making up things to try to pretend such.
When someone is really innocent there is no need to make things up and pretend. There is genuine evidence that proves their innocence and thus the courts will be able to act.
Making up things only serves propaganda value to fool people and the only people fooled are the ignorant or the "choir" who decide to foll themselves and solicit propaganda to help them to have excuses to avoid facing reality.
I prefer being a realist and not deluding myself. Sheila had an illness that caused her to suffer from delusions. She didn't decide to delude herself. That people willingly delude themselves is quite sad.
-
There is something wrong in Jeremy's first statement, as it says that his father called him at 3:10 and he called Chelmsford Police immediately after finding that the WHF number was engaged. That would mean that he called the police much earlier than about 3:25, the time when he stated he called Julie and also the approximate time he supposedly called Pc West if we go by Bonnett's log. To some, this was due to the confusion of a guilty person. However, the police never drew his attention to this and asked him what else had happened between 3:10 and 3:25, which suggests they found it convenient for that period to be inadequately explained in his statement. They even ensured, during his interview in September, that he didn't see the sentence "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father." in his original statement when he asked them to let him see what he had put in his original statement, instead allowing him to read from 2 or 3 lines further on in the statement. Earlier, they had referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3". It seems they were keen that he didn't find out that he had put 3.10am in that statement and realize that this time was incorrect.
-
There is something wrong in Jeremy's first statement, as it says that his father called him at 3:10 and he called Chelmsford Police immediately after finding that the WHF number was engaged. That would mean that he called the police much earlier than about 3:25, the time when he stated he called Julie and also the approximate time he supposedly called Pc West if we go by Bonnett's log. To some, this was due to the confusion of a guilty person. However, the police never drew his attention to this and asked him what else had happened between 3:10 and 3:25, which suggests they found it convenient for that period to be inadequately explained in his statement. They even ensured, during his interview in September, that he didn't see the sentence "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father." in his original statement when he asked them to let him see what he had put in his original statement, instead allowing him to read from 2 or 3 lines further on in the statement. Earlier, they had referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3". It seems they were keen that he didn't find out that he had put 3.10am in that statement and realize that this time was incorrect.
They didn't want him to see his statement because they wanted to see what he would say without it. He wanted his statement so that he could then parrot everything in it. They wanted him to tell the truth as he remembered it and if he contradicted his statement then they would catch him in lies. If he was telling the truth both in his statement and during his interrogation his claims would match. If they don't match then he was either lying in his statement , during his interrogation or both.
He failed the test, the could not recall the lies he told initially and ended up contradicting himself repeatedly on a host of issues.
Nevill never phoned at all that was why he couldn't remember the time Nevill called and had such a problem being consistent about it.
-
The way I see it, is that there was originally no time reference of 3.10am in the hand written version of Jeremy's first witness statement. If their is then Jeremy didn't suggest that time, he was not in control of what a police officer was writing down. As anybody who has ever had a witness statement made in their name by a police officer, the officer asks you questions, you answer in one way or another, and the police officer paraphrases your reply, quite often writing down something different than you actually said in your own words. It's possible that the actual time written down in the hand written version of his witness statement actually says at about 3.20am, and then whenever someone has come along to type it out that they mistook the "2" for a "1", thereby inserting the time of 3.10am, instead of 3.20am...
We would need to have sight of the original hand written statement made out in the police officers own hand writing, signed on each page by Jeremy himself. It would also be necessary to see examples of DC Clark's and DS Jones hand writing style...
-
It is quite obvious that some members on this forum do not want to accept the fact, that Jeremy 2 calls to the police that first morning. One of these calls was to Witham police station at about 3.27 / 3.28am, the other which he made to Chelmsford police station was at 3.36am. The first call was not answered, the second one was...
Sandwiched in between both of Jeremy's calls to different police stations at the aforementioned times, was Jeremy's call to Julie Mugford at about 3.30am...
It does not take a genius to work out that whether or not Jeremy said at different times, he called Julie before or after he called police, is irrelevant, unless someone queried which of the 2 police phone calls Jeremy was referring too at the time he gave one answer, or another, since both of his answers are factually correct...
-
There is something wrong in Jeremy's first statement, as it says that his father called him at 3:10 and he called Chelmsford Police immediately after finding that the WHF number was engaged. That would mean that he called the police much earlier than about 3:25, the time when he stated he called Julie and also the approximate time he supposedly called Pc West if we go by Bonnett's log. To some, this was due to the confusion of a guilty person. However, the police never drew his attention to this and asked him what else had happened between 3:10 and 3:25, which suggests they found it convenient for that period to be inadequately explained in his statement. They even ensured, during his interview in September, that he didn't see the sentence "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father." in his original statement when he asked them to let him see what he had put in his original statement, instead allowing him to read from 2 or 3 lines further on in the statement. Earlier, they had referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3". It seems they were keen that he didn't find out that he had put 3.10am in that statement and realize that this time was incorrect.
One is inclined to wonder exactly HOW the naughty and cunning police went about preventing Jeremy from seeing the words he'd said and what had induced them, at this early stage, to frame him -COULD it be to cover the fact that West and Bonnett were covering the fact that they'd received a call from Neville and had chosen to withhold the information- do you think they kept hold of the statement, deliberately keeping their hand over what they wished to conceal? I was always under the impression that a statement is handed to the person who made it so they can ensure that their words have been written down as they said them. You are clearly privy to some kind of inside information as you seem to know that "earlier, they'd referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3"...........or perhaps you were there?
-
It is also possible that PC West made a mistake in saying that by the time he contacted the operator at 3.42am, that it was infact 3.45 or 3.46am...
What I would like to have seen are PC Wests pocketbook entries relating to the timing of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, and the time of contact with the operator, since PC West would have been duty bound to record such details accurately in his pocketbook in keeping with force policy regarding what must be recorded there...
-
It is quite obvious that some members on this forum do not want to accept the fact, that Jeremy 2 calls to the police that first morning. One of these calls was to Witham police station at about 3.27 / 3.28am, the other which he made to Chelmsford police station was at 3.36am. The first call was not answered, the second one was...
Sandwiched in between both of Jeremy's calls to different police stations at the aforementioned times, was Jeremy's call to Julie Mugford at about 3.30am...
It does not take a genius to work out that whether or not Jeremy said at different times, he called Julie before or after he called police, is irrelevant, unless someone queried which of the 2 police phone calls Jeremy was referring too at the time he gave one answer, or another, since both of his answers are factually correct...
Au contraire, Mike!!! I feel certain that we're all FULLY aware of what Jeremy said he did. The problem is, NONE of it makes any sense, whether it's the time frame given by Jeremy......... and then changed OR the time frames made up by others. My only conclusion CAN be that had he GENUINELY received the alleged call from Neville, he'd have been galvanized into action by adrenalin and dialled 999. I think he treated it like a non emergency because that's exactly what it was.
-
The fact that the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident prior to Jeremy making his Chelmsford police station call, tells its own story. The fact of the matter is that police were already aware there was some sort of incident developing at whf before Jeremy even made contact with the police. I believe this is why the investigation during that first month had conflicting crime reference numbers, one from Chelmsford, and the other from Southend on Sea...
A month later, these two crime reference numbers were merged together and incorporated under a revised Chelmsford police crime reference number of SC/ 786/ 85...
To my knowledge, Jeremy has had very little information or access to Documents from the Southend on Sea file...
-
Au contraire, Mike!!! I feel certain that we're all FULLY aware of what Jeremy said he did. The problem is, NONE of it makes any sense, whether it's the time frame given by Jeremy......... and then changed OR the time frames made up by others. My only conclusion CAN be that had he GENUINELY received the alleged call from Neville, he'd have been galvanized into action by adrenalin and dialled 999. I think he treated it like a non emergency because that's exactly what it was.
Nobody had been shot by that stage, at least Ralph's information imparted to Jeremy in that brief one sided conversation, never suggested that anyone at all had been shot, otherwise why did Ralph call Jeremy when he did, and he would have called for an ambulance. Why should Jeremy dash around like a man possessed based on what Ralph told him, particularly because of the fact that when Jeremy tried to phone back, he got a constant engaged tone, so he tried to ring With am police station. It was natural for Jeremy to think about trying to contact Witham police station because of the circumstances relayed to him by Ralph, and the engaged tone immediately afterwards, plus the fact that Ralph was a senior Magistrate at With am, so Jeremy thought that his father was speaking to police at Witham. So, after failing to contact his father at whf, and being unable to elkicit a response from With am police station, Jeremy decided to call his girlfriend at around 3.30am. That is the sequence of events, irrespective of the actual or perceived timing of those events. Julie told him to go back to bed, but he didn't, he was curious as to what was happening at the farm, so he ended up calling Chelmsford police, because With am police station where he had tried to contact minutes beforehand was a sub division of Chelmsford police station which was the Divisional head quarters of the area. There is nothing wrong or sinister in what Jeremy has reportedly taken place in his described sequence of events. After his call ended with Chelmsford police he went directly to the incident in keeping with what he was told over the phone to do by the police. If they had told him to stay at home in his cottage he would have done that waiting to be updated..,
-
Nobody had been shot by that stage, at least Ralph's information imparted to Jeremy in that brief one sided conversation, never suggested that anyone at all had been shot, otherwise why did Ralph call Jeremy when he did, and he would have called for an ambulance. Why should Jeremy dash around like a man possessed based on what Ralph told him, particularly because of the fact that when Jeremy tried to phone back, he got a constant engaged tone, so he tried to ring With am police station. It was natural for Jeremy to think about trying to contact Witham police station because of the circumstances relayed to him by Ralph, and the engaged tone immediately afterwards, plus the fact that Ralph was a senior Magistrate at With am, so Jeremy thought that his father was speaking to police at Witham. So, after failing to contact his father at whf, and being unable to elkicit a response from With am police station, Jeremy decided to call his girlfriend at around 3.30am. That is the sequence of events, irrespective of the actual or perceived timing of those events. Julie told him to go back to bed, but he didn't, he was curious as to what was happening at the farm, so he ended up calling Chelmsford police, because With am police station where he had tried to contact minutes beforehand was a sub division of Chelmsford police station which was the Divisional head quarters of the area. There is nothing wrong or sinister in what Jeremy has reportedly taken place in his described sequence of events. After his call ended with Chelmsford police he went directly to the incident in keeping with what he was told over the phone to do by the police. If they had told him to stay at home in his cottage he would have done that waiting to be updated..,
Pardon me, but at silly o'clock, supposedly being woken from sleep, by an otherwise quiet and rational man who thinks logically, to hear the words "Sheila has gone mad. She has got hold of a gun. Please come quickly" -it matters not if shots had already been fired OR if there was simply the threat of it happening- THAT is why Jeremy "should have rushed around like a man possessed" and IMMEDIATELY dialled 999, but he didn't even though he told police that his father had sounded PANICKED. Because Jeremy never heard "panic" he couldn't FEEL panic which meant he couldn't react to it. I fail to see the rationale behind your belief that it was natural for Jeremy to try to think about phoning Witham because of the circumstances relayed to him, the circumstances being that his sister had gone mad and was brandishing a gun.
It seems to me that many haven't stopped to feel the TERROR that someone in Neville's alleged circumstances would be feeling and his words are repeated rote fashion. Jeremy didn't pick up on/react to the terror either because there was nothing TO react to. Jeremy made up Neville's words but was incapable of feeling and conveying the appropriate emotion that would have gone with them.
-
Pardon me, but at silly o'clock, supposedly being woken from sleep, by an otherwise quiet and rational man who thinks logically, to hear the words "Sheila has gone mad. She has got hold of a gun. Please come quickly" -it matters not if shots had already been fired OR if there was simply the threat of it happening- THAT is why Jeremy "should have rushed around like a man possessed" and IMMEDIATELY dialled 999, but he didn't even though he told police that his father had sounded PANICKED. Because Jeremy never heard "panic" he couldn't FEEL panic which meant he couldn't react to it. I fail to see the rationale behind your belief that it was natural for Jeremy to try to think about phoning Witham because of the circumstances relayed to him, the circumstances being that his sister had gone mad and was brandishing a gun.
It seems to me that many haven't stopped to feel the TERROR that someone in Neville's alleged circumstances would be feeling and his words are repeated rote fashion. Jeremy didn't pick up on/react to the terror either because there was nothing TO react to. Jeremy made up Neville's words but was incapable of feeling and conveying the appropriate emotion that would have gone with them.
April excellent post which makes good sense to me.
-
Pardon me, but at silly o'clock, supposedly being woken from sleep, by an otherwise quiet and rational man who thinks logically, to hear the words "Sheila has gone mad. She has got hold of a gun. Please come quickly" -it matters not if shots had already been fired OR if there was simply the threat of it happening- THAT is why Jeremy "should have rushed around like a man possessed" and IMMEDIATELY dialled 999, but he didn't even though he told police that his father had sounded PANICKED. Because Jeremy never heard "panic" he couldn't FEEL panic which meant he couldn't react to it. I fail to see the rationale behind your belief that it was natural for Jeremy to try to think about phoning Witham because of the circumstances relayed to him, the circumstances being that his sister had gone mad and was brandishing a gun.
It seems to me that many haven't stopped to feel the TERROR that someone in Neville's alleged circumstances would be feeling and his words are repeated rote fashion. Jeremy didn't pick up on/react to the terror either because there was nothing TO react to. Jeremy made up Neville's words but was incapable of feeling and conveying the appropriate emotion that would have gone with them.
Great post April and let us not forget that Jeremy was crowing about how his sister was a 'nutter' - so not only has she 'got the gun', she's not just 'crazy' with rage, she's a NUTTER, giving the impression that she's capable of anything. Had the phone call occurred and he cared about the family, he would have been worried by the unpredictability and simply called 999 immediately. It's just common sense!!
He made up the whole thing, what he couldn't make up are the proper reactions because he didn't feel them.
-
Great post April and let us not forget that Jeremy was crowing about how his sister was a 'nutter' - so not only has she 'got the gun', she's not just 'crazy' with rage, she's a NUTTER, giving the impression that she's capable of anything. Had the phone call occurred and he cared about the family, he would have been worried by the unpredictability and simply called 999 immediately. It's just common sense!!
He made up the whole thing, what he couldn't make up are the proper reactions because he didn't feel them.
PERZACKERLY, Caroline :D
-
April excellent post which makes good sense to me.
THANK-YOU Susan.
-
?With the benefit of hindsight we can all have done things differently...
Fact of the matter is, Ralph did not inform Jeremy that Sheila had got possession of one of his loaded guns, and neither did he say that anyone had by that stage been shot or wounded. Ralph telling Jere.y thT Sheila had gone crazy, could quite literally have meant any number of things. His sister was crazy anyway, so why should Jeremy call the police? If Ralph needed the police he would have cakked them hi.sekf, which id in fact exactly what he did...
-
?With the benefit of hindsight we can all have done things differently...
Fact of the matter is, Ralph did not inform Jeremy that Sheila had got possession of one of his loaded guns, and neither did he say that anyone had by that stage been shot or wounded. Ralph telling Jere.y thT Sheila had gone crazy, could quite literally have meant any number of things. His sister was crazy anyway, so why should Jeremy call the police? If Ralph needed the police he would have cakked them hi.sekf, which id in fact exactly what he did...
So from where came the words "Sheila has gone mad and got hold of a gun"? One must assume it to have been loaded as Jeremy left it so, OR are you asking us to believe, after all this time, that Neville called Jeremy at silly o'clock -during harvest- just to tell him that Sheila had gone mad? You're simply corroborating, though, what many of us have been saying for ages. HAD Neville been in that situation he'd have called the police -dialling 999, naturally- he WOULDN'T have called Jeremy.
-
?With the benefit of hindsight we can all have done things differently...
Fact of the matter is, Ralph did not inform Jeremy that Sheila had got possession of one of his loaded guns, and neither did he say that anyone had by that stage been shot or wounded. Ralph telling Jere.y thT Sheila had gone crazy, could quite literally have meant any number of things. His sister was crazy anyway, so why should Jeremy call the police? If Ralph needed the police he would have cakked them hi.sekf, which id in fact exactly what he did...
Are you suggesting Jeremy never told West or police at the scene that Nevill told him Sheila had the gun but rather simply said she was going crazy?
-
The fact that the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident prior to Jeremy making his Chelmsford police station call, tells its own story. The fact of the matter is that police were already aware there was some sort of incident developing at whf before Jeremy even made contact with the police. I believe this is why the investigation during that first month had conflicting crime reference numbers, one from Chelmsford, and the other from Southend on Sea...
A month later, these two crime reference numbers were merged together and incorporated under a revised Chelmsford police crime reference number of SC/ 786/ 85...
To my knowledge, Jeremy has had very little information or access to Documents from the Southend on Sea file...
They were not deployed prior to Jeremy making his call. Jeremy called prior to 3:26. He claimed he called earlier than 3:36, and Jeremy's trial lawyers grilled West to get him to admit his 3:36 reference was wrong.
West and Bonnett reference only a call from Jeremy in their logs, written statements and verbal testimony.
Had Nevill phoned then the cops contacted by West and Bonnett would have been told of a call from Nevill as would the detectives. The unarmed police sent initially all say they were told to go there because of Jeremy's call
Jeremy would have been told that Nevill already phoned so police were already dispatched but instead the first police heard of things was from Jeremy and they thus asked him numerous questions including Nevill's address and phone number which they already would have had if Nevill phoned prior to Jeremy...nor would he have been put on hold to dispatch officers if Nevill had called and they already had been dispatched.
The subsequent armed police were told they were going because of a call from Jeremy and were told contact wasn't made with anyone in the house ever.
The second batch of armed officers held a briefing before setting out and they were told they were going because of Jeremy's call and told at no point was any contact ever made with anyone inside the house.
There is zero evidence of a call from Nevill and police being dispatched before Jeremy's call such is made up by dishonest Jeremy supporters who view this as a game and want to win so bad they lie like rugs as opposed to genuinely seeking the truth.
-
?With the benefit of hindsight we can all have done things differently...
Fact of the matter is, Ralph did not inform Jeremy that Sheila had got possession of one of his loaded guns, and neither did he say that anyone had by that stage been shot or wounded. Ralph telling Jere.y thT Sheila had gone crazy, could quite literally have meant any number of things. His sister was crazy anyway, so why should Jeremy call the police? If Ralph needed the police he would have cakked them hi.sekf, which id in fact exactly what he did...
Not at 3am in the morning!
-
Not at 3am in the morning!
How do you know?
-
How do you kniw?
Because only someone who'd gone crazy would make a phoney phone call circa 3am, get a person out of bed just to tell them something they already knew, ie their sister had gone mad. Neville was neither mad nor stupid, but IF that call had happened, he'd have been VERY scared.
-
How can any of you possibly know for sure, that Jeremy must have kniwn that what his father had meant when Ralph said, "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
What gun had she got, based upon the content of Jeremys 3.36am phone log?
-
How can any of you possibly know for sure, that Jeremy must have kniwn that what his father had meant when Ralph said, "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly"...
What gun had she got, based upon the content of Jeremys 3.36am phone log?
Well it wouldn't have taken much intelligence to work out for himself that his father hadn't woken him circa 3am to tell him that Sheila had a water pistol.
-
Gun/Rifle--------big difference.
-
Because only someone who'd gone crazy would make a phoney phone call circa 3am, get a person out of bed just to tell them something they already knew, ie their sister had gone mad. Neville was neither mad nor stupid, but IF that call had happened, he'd have been VERY scared.
The lie detector test sorted out the chaff from the wheat, there was a phone call from Ralph at the scene to jeremy at his cottage.That call is the stumbling block of the entire prosecution case. If Ralph made made that telephone call to Jeremy, the game is up. If Ralph made the 3.26am call to the police the gane is up. If Ralph mafe the call to Jeremy, and the police, then there is no need to say anything further..
-
The phone-call from Neville WAS made,as when Jeremy had said he'd heard an engaged tone,the GPO checked the line to find that the phone at WHF WAS off the hook.
-
The phone-call from Neville WAS made,as when Jeremy had said he'd heard an engaged tone,the GPO checked the line to find that the phone at WHF WAS off the hook.
I have no reason to doubt it. I believe that Jeremy deliberately left it off the hook before he left. It wouldn't have done for the police to check the line, hear the phone ringing and get no response. If Neville was already long dead he couldn't have answered it which would have looked rather suspicious as jeremy had said he'd just spoken to him. I'm certain they'd have known the difference between a body recently dead and a body hours dead.
-
The phone-call from Neville WAS made,as when Jeremy had said he'd heard an engaged tone,the GPO checked the line to find that the phone at WHF WAS off the hook.
Clearly Jeremy left the phone off the hook before he left WHF and combined the C&B story about the call from his dad. He knew it would be engaged because he left the phone off the hook.
-
Clearly Jeremy left the phone off the hook before he left WHF and combined the C&B story about the call from his dad. He knew it would be engaged because he left the phone off the hook.
Jeremy wouldn't have had the nouse to have worked anything out,nor the energy to have carried it out.
-
Jeremy wouldn't have had the nouse to have worked anything out,nor the energy to have carried it out.
Lookout, this is a guy who'd travelled round the world, had worked at several low paid jobs, presumably working unsociable hours. He could do anything he wanted and I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with something FAR more convincing than saying he couldn't have done it because he was to lazy/didn't have the nous.
-
Jeremy wouldn't have had the nouse to have worked anything out,nor the energy to have carried it out.
You know nothing about what Jeremy was or wasn't capable of. You post like you have personal knowledge of him and you don't. Simply just saying something for the sake of it doesn't make it true!
-
You know nothing about what Jeremy was or wasn't capable of. You post like you have personal knowledge of him and you don't. Simply just saying something for the sake of it doesn't make it true!
Same critique applies to you and all those others who think the convictions are safe, and that the right person has been sentenced to life imprisonment...
-
Same critique applies to you and all those others who think the convictions are safe, and that the right person has been sentenced to life imprisonment...
The evidence proves his guilt we don't make out assessments of guilt based on how we subjectively perceive his personality to be.
-
Same critique applies to you and all those others who think the convictions are safe, and that the right person has been sentenced to life imprisonment...
We are simply concurring with the jury's decision. Up to now it would seem that the agencies involved are in agreement, too.
-
The evidence proves his guilt we don't make out assessments of guilt based on how we subjectively perceive his personality to be.
The jury were deceived by the evidence of police, relatives and experts from the lab', if the jury had been told all of the facts they would almost certainly not have convicted him of anything...
-
We are simply concurring with the jury's decision. Up to now it would seem that the agencies involved are in agreement, too.
The jury did not hear all the evidence...
-
Relatives have lied, they did not find silencer DRB/1 in the gun cupboard, on 10th August 1985, because that exhibit reference did not come into play, until a month or so later (20th September 1985). Adopting such tactics was dishonest and renders the silencer, blood, paint evidence, worthless...
-
Miscarriages of justice happen because of falsified or misrepresented evidence, and people like you who think the sun shines out of the backsides of corrupt police officers, biased relatives, and experts who have been taken for a ride by bent coppers...
On the contrary, I have had quite a bit of experience of bent coppers and have no reason to defend any of them. I just believe that Jeremy is guilty and people are grasping at straws trying to convince the authorities to let him out.
-
Miscarriages of justice happen because of falsified or misrepresented evidence, and people like you who think the sun shines out of the backsides of corrupt police officers, biased relatives, and experts who have been taken for a ride by bent coppers...
Mike, I'm FULLY aware that there is corruption in ALL walks of life but it doesn't mean that everyone in authority is corrupt. NOR has corruption ever been part of my own experience when having dealings with the police and it would be hypercritical of me to say otherwise.
There WAS a time when I believed that Jeremy was innocent but so much has been slung around about this person and that person lying -and thus far I can see no good reason why the police WOULD lie, ESPECIALLY about HAVING to shoot an insane woman who was brandishing a gun at them. They would have been doing their job- so far there's the rellies, all personnel involved with the case, the pathologists, counsel, witnesses and jury. EVERYONE but Jeremy. The more liars who were introduced the more it seemed as if excuses were being made for, what it began to look obvious, what Jeremy did.
-
The jury were deceived by the evidence of police, relatives and experts from the lab', if the jury had been told all of the facts they would almost certainly not have convicted him of anything...
On the contrary the one trying to deceive is you. The jury followed the unrebutted evidence. Neither the defense nor you have been able to rebut that evidence which is why Jeremy was convicted and his conviction upheld. The only thing you have put forth to try to challenge the evidence is absurd allegations that you support with lies and distortions not reliable/credible evidence.
-
On the contrary, I have had quite a bit of experience of bent coppers and have no reason to defend any of them. I just believe that Jeremy is guilty and people are grasping at straws trying to convince the authorities to let him out.
Well, you are wrong...
-
Well, you are wrong...
Then post reliable/credible evidence that rebuts the conviction. You can't nor could the trial defense nor can Jeremy's appellate lawyers. That is why he is sitting in a prison.
-
PC Whiddon got it spot on in the witness statement he made to COLP, about the identity of the silencer (SBJ/1) returned to the police in November 1985, for the very first time, when he said it had been found at the scene by DS Jones. Now, according to the relatives, DS Jones himself, and Ronny Crook, by 12th August 1985, David Bootyflour had found it at the scene on the 10th August, and it had been taken away from the scene back to Annie Eaton's house and kept in storage there until Pete Eaton supposedly handed it over to Jonesie on 12th. PC Whiddon was the case exhibits officer, he would have known which people had found which item, so if by 13 November 1985, Whiddon is saying the silencer bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 was returned for the first time to police from the lab', and that this silencer had been found at the scene by DS Jones, then of course this silencer cannot have been the same silencer found at the scene by David Bootyflour on 10th August, which was taken to the lab' by Ronny Crook, and examined by Glynis Howard that same day before being handed back to the police the same date, because according to PC Whiddons COLP statement, the first time silencer SBJ/1 got handed back to police by the lab' was on 13th November 1985. Well, I thought that by 30th August 1985, the question of wrongly labelled silencers had been altered into DB/1, and that on this date the silencer submitted to the lab' by police had the identifying mark of DB/1, not SBJ/1? If the silencer had become DB/1 by 30th August 1985, how could the lab' be handing it back to police, in particular, to the exhibits officer in the case, PC Whiddon, on 13 November 1985, still bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1?
If on 13th August 1985, the silencer taken to the lab' had been SBJ/1, and as we are being led to believe that Howard handed that silencer (SBJ/1) back to the police on that very same date (13th August 1985), then it can't have been the same silencer handed back to police on 13th November 1985, for the very first time, because it had already been handed back to the police once already on 13th August 1985...
What chance did the jury have of knowing that the silencer at the heart of the case, containing the key blood group evidence, and paint, bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, was in fact the same silencer returned to police from the lab' on the 13th August, and again on 13th November 1985, under conflicting exhibit references, SBJ/1 (13th August) and SBJ/1 (13th November), when by all accounts the silencer sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, had an identifying mark if DB/1? Let's get the facts right, exhibit references bearing the identifying marks of DB/1 to DB/7 did not come into existence until recovered from the scene on the 11th September 1985, so how can the silencer have an exhibit reference of DB/1 from as early as 30th August 1985, in time for police to send that silencer (DB/1) to the lab' bearing that (DB/1) identifying mark, some 13 days before DB/1 had even been recovered from the scene on the 11th September 1985?
The jury were not made aware of these very serious contradictions involving different exhibit references of silencers, and how bent coppers and prosecutors had sought to merge all these different silencer references into one, under the guise of exhibit DRB/1...
Bent coppers, dishonest relatives, dodgy blood group and paint evidence, wrong conviction...
-
The facts speak for themselves, the silencer, key blood and paint attributed to it, has to be thrown out on the basis of its unreliability. This is because the police and prosecutors have failed to prove inside which silencer the key evidence was recovered from. The integrity of the silencer, blood and paint evidence has clearly once and for all been called into question, something that the jury were never made aware of, or even knew about...
-
What court in the world would turn a blind eye to practices of exhibit reference and exhibit label interference, without carrying out it's own investigation into whether or not the exhibit or evidence ought to be admitted?
Altering exhibit references, and exhibit labels, of key pieces of evidence without it being clearly explained as to the reason, or reaaons for its alteration, must render such inadmidsible by virtue of the fact that its integrit has been called inti doubt. ..
-
We can't ever allow anyone to be able to alter and tamper with exhibit references and labels willy nilly, and carry on as if nobody had altered or tampered with them at all. Its all well and good for PC Whiddon to make a witness statement in 1991 trying his best to give some sort of an explanation (which he makes a complete pigs ear of by the way), but the the time for explaining all of this was at the trial not 5 years afterwards...
-
It can't be right or proper, it can't be legal, to allow anyone to change the exhibit reference of an item into something which it could not possibly have been at that time...
-
I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...
-
His conviction is getting more and more absurd.
-
I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...
I can't think of one single reason why you wouldn't reveal something that would release someone you believed innocent. Not one!
-
I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...
Mike, when I first joined the forum you were saying that you held the means by which Jeremy could be released -hugely exciting as, at the time, I believed him innocent- what I couldn't get my head round was why you hadn't. When I put this to you, you said the time wasn't right. It seems it still isn't. Will you forgive me if I say that from where I'm sitting, if Jeremy is, as you believe, innocent, this would seem to be playing mind-games of the cruellest kind and I can think of NO (good) reason why you're choosing to withhold information which would release him.
-
The facts speak for themselves, the silencer, key blood and paint attributed to it, has to be thrown out on the basis of its unreliability. This is because the police and prosecutors have failed to prove inside which silencer the key evidence was recovered from. The integrity of the silencer, blood and paint evidence has clearly once and for all been called into question, something that the jury were never made aware of, or even knew about...
The fundamental problem Jeremy faces is that he can't demonstrate any of the evidence used to convict him was unreliable or objectively wrong. Since he can't neither can you or any of his other supporters. Just saying you personally feel it is unreliable doesn't mean squat it needs to be demonstrated so.
You have never produced any evidence to establish the family or police planted blood in the moderator or paint on it. You made allegations simply.
You make allegations that Jones took a moderator from WHF on August 7 but offer no evidence.
You claim police took paint samples from WHF on August 8 because paint was found on a rifle and cite Davidson's COLP testimony and yet his COLP testimony establishes no such thing. His COLP testimony established he was not personally involved in taking the samples and simply wrote they had been taken on August 8 because he assumed everything on forms 6.10 and 6.11 were taken the same day but that is not the case his assumption was wrong. Furthermore he eavesdropped when Cook and Elliott were discussing the paint and had no idea the moderator had been found. He thus assumed they were talking about pain found on a rifle. He knew there was no paint on the murder weapon because he helped collect it so he assumed they were discussing some other rifle that had been at the scene. Jeremy used such errors to make allegations to COLP which were investigated and proven false. You take the same allegations and falsely claim the COLP investigation confirmed such allegations were true.
You make allegations that spent bullet cases from the murders were replaced and fragments from bullets used to commit the murders replaced but have produced no evidence to establish this.
At the end of the day Jeremy and his supporters are long on allegations but short on evidence to prove any of them. Declaring evidence has been rendered unreliable doesn't make it so, it has to be demonstrated using credible evidence. If Jeremy could do that then he could get his convicition vacated but there are few ways he can do so.
Short of someone coming forward who was involved in the case intimately asserting evidence was tampered with and having credible accounts of who did so when and how there it little hope of undermining the main evidence in the case. You have made up someone coming forward but if he actually had he would be dealing with lawyers and trying to negotiate a way to avoid facing punishment himself he would not be dealing with you and a fictional group.
-
. . . do you think they kept hold of the statement, deliberately keeping their hand over what they wished to conceal?
Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).
You are clearly privy to some kind of inside information as you seem to know that "earlier, they'd referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3".
Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.
-
Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).
Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.
Jeremy made up the call from Nevill and could not remember when he initially told police the call came. He wanted to see his statement so he could remain consistent with it. Since he wasn't allowed to see it he wasn't able to do that so said he could not remember anymore and simply deferred to his statement.
-
Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).
Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.
In his original statement he said about 03:10.
-
Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.
Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?
It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? ;D
-
Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.
Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?
It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? ;D
That he made it up! ;D
-
That he made it up! ;D
We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?
It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?
In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?
It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?
In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I agree and have suggested this in the past. It would be interesting if there was aTV programme based on real cases (with and MOJ claim) to see how things 'might' turn out were they sent for appeal.
-
Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.
Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?
It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? ;D
The proof he made it up in order of importance is:
1) Evidence proves Sheila didn't load the gun, fire the gun or beat anyone with the gun and was murdered along with everyone else therefore Nevill would nto have had any reason to call Jeremy claiming the things Jeremy claims
2) Nevill had no opportunity to make a phone call to anyone, the killer entered the master bedroom and fired a full magazine at June and Nevill. Because Jeremy removed the phone from the phone from the bedroom and placed it in the kitchen (for no valid reason since the kitchen phone was not broken like he claimed) there was no phone for Nevill to use before being shot. His jaw/throat injury prevented him from being able to speak if he phoned someone.
3) Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with the actions of someone receiving the call he alleges to have received. Someone in his place would have either rushed over or dialed 999, he did neither he called Julie (some roommates place the timing of that call before he even claims Nevill phoned him) and then wasted time looking up police numbers.
4) Julie said Jeremy told her in advance of the murders he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.
5) If Sheila had gotten the gun Nevill would have disarmed her or armed himself to oppose her or if too scared to do either would have phoned 999 not his son.
-
We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?
It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?
In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The CCRC is essentially a filter to alleviate the workload of the Appeal Courts so that they don't have to do the filtering themselves of what is worthless crap. That is not to say the CCRC is perfect and doesn't let some crap through but the workload would be far more rigorous.
-
Jeremy made up the call from Nevill and could not remember when he initially told police the call came.
So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.
He wanted to see his statement so he could remain consistent with it. Since he wasn't allowed to see it he wasn't able to do that so said he could not remember anymore and simply deferred to his statement.
Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.
-
So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.
Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.
You can't plan for every eventuality, especially when the plan includes lies. Ever heard the saying 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive?
So he said he called Julie at 03:25? But he said he called the police before calling Julie! He's now agreeing with the original time of calling the police at 03:36 - so either he's lying about who he called first, the time he called the police or both! (I'd say both!).
-
So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.
Julie's flatmates all agreed it was before 3:15 and the ones who said they looked at their clocks insisted it was around 3AM.
In the meantime I am not guessing at all about why Jeremy wasn't shown his statements when he asked. He wanted to see what he wrote so he could be in sync but police refused to let him see so that he would be forced to try to be consistent on his own without being able to simply copy. It is standard practice to try to catch suspect in conflicts and then grill them over such conflicts. They frequently end up admitting the truth when police do such. Lawyers do the same thing to witnesses on the stand- we look for inconsistencies to break them.
-
Julie's flatmates all agreed it was before 3:15 and the ones who said they looked at their clocks insisted it was around 3AM.
In the meantime I am not guessing at all about why Jeremy wasn't shown his statements when he asked. He wanted to see what he wrote so he could be in sync but police refused to let him see so that he would be forced to try to be consistent on his own without being able to simply copy. It is standard practice to try to catch suspect in conflicts and then grill them over such conflicts. They frequently end up admitting the truth when police do such. Lawyers do the same thing to witnesses on the stand- we look for inconsistencies to break them.
If everyone was allowed to see their statements, you would never catch out anyone in a lie.
-
How come, then, the police didn't ask Jeremy about when he rang Julie (about 3:25, according to his statement)?
-
. . . he said he called the police before calling Julie!
Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.
-
How come, then, the police didn't ask Jeremy about when he rang Julie (about 3:25, according to his statement)?
He said he could not remember whether he called her before or after police even. He deferred to his statement as to everything related to the timings of the calls. He didn't want to get caught in a lie so that was the best he could do was say he could not remember. The problem with that is he was telling police a month later he could not remember then a year later at his trial he testified he remembered calling Julie after police. How did his memory improve a year later?
-
It is plausible that you don´t remeber what happens right after a loved one dies, It did happen to me.
-
Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.
He did so say he called Julie after police in his statement. You lie as much as Mike and look just as pathetic as a result. How many times do I have to post the following in this thread?
(http://s8.postimg.org/71k9y8vv9/jeremystatement1.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/id0uk33xp/jeremystatement1a.jpg)
It explicitly states he received the call from Nevill around 3:10 immediately called Chelmsford after it and subsequently around 3:25 called Julie. In no uncertain terms he claimed he called Chelmsford before Julie.
this is the statement that in his interrogation he deferred to.
At trial he reiterated the claim that he called Chelmsford before Julie. His trial testimony is most important of all that is what the Jury heard first hand.
Like Mike you play dishonest games that are all too transparent and fail so are pointless.
-
Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.
His statement was inaccurate? NO! Really?? Surly not? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It is plausible that you don´t remeber what happens right after a loved one dies, It did happen to me.
He didn't claim his memory was shaky right after the murders. Mid September he said that he could no longer remember what happened a month earlier and only after it was pointed out he slipped up and admitted he called Julie first he realized he slipped up so claimed he could not remember.
So he claimed his memory was fresh right after the murders but not fresh a month later which is attributed to passage of time not emotional turmoil. His claim he forgot because the passage of time would be plausible for the exact times but less so for whether he called police first or Julie first that is something that should not be difficult to remember. It is suspicious then that a year later on the witness stand instead of saying he could not remember to say he could remember in detail calling police first.
This helps prove the said he could not remember during his interrogation to avoid further contradicting himself. Yet he ended up contradicting himself on the stand by saying he gained his memory back. So he was inconsistent anyway. That's the kind of thing where he should have remained consistent and said he could not remember and would stand by what he said in his statement when it was fresh in his mind.
-
He did so say he called Julie after police in his statement.
No, Jeremy stated he called the police immediately after he received a call from his father. That use of "immediately" was one of the minor mistakes. He tried to call his father back, etc., so his call to the police was not immediate. He gave the time of 3:25 for when he called Julie further on in his statement, but that doesn't imply that his call to Julie occurred after he called the police if the time of 3:10 he gave for his father's call was inaccurate. At the time, it would have made sense for Jeremy to use time information given to him by the police to help him estimate when events occurred, as it wouldn't have occurred to him that the police had given him inaccurate information.
-
No, Jeremy stated he called the police immediately after he received a call from his father. That use of "immediately" was one of the minor mistakes. He tried to call his father back, etc., so his call to the police was not immediate. He gave the time of 3:25 for when he called Julie further on in his statement, but that doesn't imply that his call to Julie occurred after he called the police if the time of 3:10 he gave for his father's call was inaccurate. At the time, it would have made sense for Jeremy to use time information given to him by the police to help him estimate when events occurred, as it wouldn't have occurred to him that the police had given him inaccurate information.
All you are doing is lying on purpose to change the meaning of Jeremy's words though they are crystal clear. You also keep ignoring his trial testimony.
At trial he stated he phoned Chelmsford BEFORE Julie. You are stuck with his claims you don't get to change them for him. He stated expressly at trial that he called CHemslfrod first.
His statement clearly asserts the same. He asserted Neivll phoned at 3:10 tha the immediately called Chelmsford and then later after getting off the phone with police called Julie at 3:25. Your claim he called Witham right after and got no answer then waited 10 plus minutes to call Julie and after that called Chelmsford is not in any way, shape or form supported by his statement. Your games demonstrate you are so biased you are revising Jeremy's testimony and claims so you can then pretend Nevill called police. You are so biased you make up things to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent. All that does is reflect poorly on you and how weak your position is that you have to make up lies to pretend your position is tenable.
Let's review your stupid suggestion:
Nevill phoning and then calling Julie at 3:25 and calling Chelmsford at 3:36 constitutes Jeremy calling Chelmsford right away after being called by Nevill- no not on this planet. On this planet immediately means right after not with intervening events.
Jeremy was very clear in his statement and also in his testimony. Instead of accepting his testimony and working from it you misrepresent it and pretend he said something he didn't. All this does is demonstrate your dishonestly and desperation.
-
Liar, lying. Dishonest. Meaningless. Desperate. Pathetic.stupid. madeup. Zero evidence. Gibberish.pointless. No credibility!!!!!
These are just a few of the words, expressions you have recently used when replying to Miks posts.
Scip you are obvioulsy knowledgeable in this case.
You also very clever with your language skills.
however i think i prefer it when Mike just blurts out what he thinks of you. For me its like you enjoy making Mike look small, you put hi, down in an extraordinary way which i believe makes you feel poweful.
please stop it as for me its like a form of abuse worse than when Mike unleashes a foul mouth tirade.
-
Please also try and remember that everyone is entitled to believe want they want. You might be wrong god forbid!
-
He WILL be wrong,of that I'm certain.
-
He WILL be wrong,of that I'm certain.
In your dreams, Lookout :)
-
Liar, lying. Dishonest. Meaningless. Desperate. Pathetic.stupid. madeup. Zero evidence. Gibberish.pointless. No credibility!!!!!
These are just a few of the words, expressions you have recently used when replying to Miks posts.
Scip you are obvioulsy knowledgeable in this case.
You also very clever with your language skills.
however i think i prefer it when Mike just blurts out what he thinks of you. For me its like you enjoy making Mike look small, you put hi, down in an extraordinary way which i believe makes you feel poweful.
please stop it as for me its like a form of abuse worse than when Mike unleashes a foul mouth tirade.
You obviously have not seen some of the language Mike has used on Scipio it would have been deleted but I can assure you it made Scipio's words look like they belonged in the nursery. I don't think for one moment Scipio does anything to make Mike look small he is posting facts as he sees them.
-
Liar, lying. Dishonest. Meaningless. Desperate. Pathetic.stupid. madeup. Zero evidence. Gibberish.pointless. No credibility!!!!!
These are just a few of the words, expressions you have recently used when replying to Miks posts.
Scip you are obvioulsy knowledgeable in this case.
You also very clever with your language skills.
however i think i prefer it when Mike just blurts out what he thinks of you. For me its like you enjoy making Mike look small, you put hi, down in an extraordinary way which i believe makes you feel poweful.
please stop it as for me its like a form of abuse worse than when Mike unleashes a foul mouth tirade.
I call a spade a spade. If people post lies I am going to point such out and call them lies not pretend that the people just might have accidentally made up things through innocent error.
When Mike is not content with what is in a statement he makes up the statements assert something they do not. When such statements have been posted publicly and thus his claims can be proven false he asserts the publicly released statements were doctored- which is particularly funny because half if not more of these statements were posted by Mike himself when he thought there was something useful in them for his agenda. He swore up and down they were accurate then after they are used against them disclaims them.
Most of what he claims is outlandish but as of late he has stepped it up a notch including most recently asserting that DRB/1 was established as a placeholder simply and was not assigned to any exhibit in particular until the moderators taken by police during the middle of the trial were taken from the Boutflours and then it was assigned to them.
When he makes up things that bad it insults our intelligence.
-
Please also try and remember that everyone is entitled to believe want they want. You might be wrong god forbid!
I might be wrong about what?
Mike might not have made up having a former police officer provide information to him?
Mike might not have made up seeing a photo of Sheila in bed?
Mike might not have made up his claims that Cook labeled the moderator Jones gave him on July 13 SJ/1?
Mike might not have made up his claim that there were multiple moderators at WHF?
Mike might not have made up his claim that police shot Sheila and then casings and bullets were swapped?
There is a better chance of there being an Easter Bunny than these claims being true.
-
I think you are wrong. Mike is obviously as passionate as scip in what they believe. Mike justs blurts out a load of foul language beccause he cant find the words to get one up on scip. He doesnt have the language skills.
Scip is clever, doesnt lose his temper and posts with continious digs humiliating mike delibedately.
It is said that anger is the precious gift to the impossible person.
if you want to know what an impossible person is look itup.
-
Scip you love it
without mike who would you have to argue with and demean.
you could be wrong about everything . It is possibly you know!
-
I think you are wrong. Mike is obviously as passionate as scip in what they believe. Mike justs blurts out a load of foul language beccause he cant find the words to get one up on scip. He doesnt have the language skills.
Scip is clever, doesnt lose his temper and posts with continious digs humiliating mike delibedately.
It is said that anger is the precious gift to the impossible person.
if you want to know what an impossible person is look itup.
I'm not entirely certain that Mike does believe that what he says is 100% true because he extricates himself very competently by saying that what he writes are his present thoughts, as in a diary, and if he should say something contradictory the following day it doesn't mean his previous words were lies. I'm inclined to think that Mike often throws it out there to see what happens and objects in the strongest terms when he's questioned too closely.
-
I think you are wrong. Mike is obviously as passionate as scip in what they believe. Mike justs blurts out a load of foul language beccause he cant find the words to get one up on scip. He doesnt have the language skills.
Scip is clever, doesnt lose his temper and posts with continious digs humiliating mike delibedately.
It is said that anger is the precious gift to the impossible person.
if you want to know what an impossible person is look itup.
Excuse me I don't need to look up what an impossible person is. I have no intention of arguing with you I prefer to debate the case not posters on the forum.
-
Lol this site does entertain me if nothing else.
-
Lol this site does entertain me if nothing else.
Then I suggest you sit back and enjoy the show :)
-
I think you are wrong. Mike is obviously as passionate as scip in what they believe. Mike justs blurts out a load of foul language beccause he cant find the words to get one up on scip. He doesnt have the language skills.
Scip is clever, doesnt lose his temper and posts with continious digs humiliating mike delibedately.
It is said that anger is the precious gift to the impossible person.
if you want to know what an impossible person is look itup.
I doubt Mike believes any of things he posts- obviously he knows factual claims he made up are false but I doubt he believes the unsupported allegations he didn't make up personally either. People make up things when they don't believe they have a solid position. Mike posts to garner attention for himself and to foll people into thinking Jeremy is innocent which I personally think his main goal in so doing is to build up his own reputation as opposed to genuinely caring about Jeremy.
People said something interesting, Mike wanted a publicity photo with Jeremy and it pissed Jeremy off. Why do people want photos with fans it is for the fan or so they could aggrandize themselves saying to other fans look I got a photo with them I am more important than you?
Most of what Mike posts are allegations previously made long ago and proven false in 1991. It is quite dishonest to repeat these things without revealing they were already made and discredited but worse he suggests these are new things he thought up recently which can be used to try to secure Jeremy's freedom. The claims are useless to Jeremy they failed when COLP investigated and refuted them.
Some of Mike's claims have been taken from the lies on the Bamber campaign site and that poppy site The only claims Mike has come up with on his own have been made up entirely. He made up that Cook's COLP statement indicated he labeled the moderator SJ/1. He made up seeing a photo of Sheila in bed. He made up a police informant feeding him information about how police shot Sheila and staged the scene to pretend it never happened and swapped casings and bullets to conceal it and planted evidence in the moderator. How do these lies benefit Jeremy? Jeremy can't use lies he needs evidence. The benefit accrues to those who are desperate for attention and thus make various claims. People seem to enjoy being part of a cause and any cause will do even if they have to manufacture one. In the most extreme this is exhibited by malcontents who jump from protest to protest not even caring about that underlying issue they just become professional troublemakers who join any protest they can find or are busy organizing such protests. You will see some of the same people in crowds fomenting trouble. These people just move around city to city when they find a new issue where they can whip people up.
-
Then I suggest you sit back and enjoy the show :)
April ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D he aint seen nothing yet ;D
-
I call a spade a spade. If people post lies I am going to point such out and call them lies not pretend that the people just might have accidentally made up things through innocent error.
When Mike is not content with what is in a statement he makes up the statements assert something they do not. When such statements have been posted publicly and thus his claims can be proven false he asserts the publicly released statements were doctored- which is particularly funny because half if not more of these statements were posted by Mike himself when he thought there was something useful in them for his agenda. He swore up and down they were accurate then after they are used against them disclaims them.
Most of what he claims is outlandish but as of late he has stepped it up a notch including most recently asserting that DRB/1 was established as a placeholder simply and was not assigned to any exhibit in particular until the moderators taken by police during the middle of the trial were taken from the Boutflours and then it was assigned to them.
When he makes up things that bad it insults our intelligence.
I too call a spade a spade,but sadly,my spade a spade doesn't go down as well as yours with most ::)
A lot depends which side you're on,of course. ???
-
At trial he stated he phoned Chelmsford BEFORE Julie.
Where can I read a trial transcript that includes that?
-
Where can I read a trial transcript that includes that?
Ask Mike if he has the transcript. They were unable to provide it to the Appeal court only his cross examination. The summing up noted he said he called Julie after police.
The Appeal Court noted as follows:
"No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available.
In cross-examination the appellant said...Having received the telephone call from his father, the appellant said that it had not crossed his mind to use the 999 system to call the police. Instead he described spending a little time looking up the number for Colchester Police Station. On that particular page of the directory (which he was shown in the witness box) it reads in bold type, "In emergency call the operator (dial 999 where appropriate) and ask for the police". The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse. He agreed it would also have been possible for him to have called one of the farm workers. He said he had not considered that."
-
The summing up noted he said he called Julie after police.
That means nothing on its own, as we know he had given both orders to the police during his interview, and also said he wasn't sure. There's nothing to suggests he was any more certain at court than he had been when interviewed.
The Appeal Court noted as follows: ... Having received the telephone call from his father, ... he described ... looking up the number ... he had then telephoned Julie Mugford ...
That indicates he called Julie after looking up a number for the police, but says nothing as to whether his call to Julie was before or after his call to the number he had looked up.
-
That means nothing on its own, as we know he had given both orders to the police during his interview, and also said he wasn't sure. There's nothing to suggests he was any more certain at court than he had been when interviewed.
That indicates he called Julie after looking up a number for the police, but says nothing as to whether his call to Julie was before or after his call to the number he had looked up.
He is saying now that he called police at 03:36, when did he have time to call Julie?
-
That means nothing on its own, as we know he had given both orders to the police during his interview, and also said he wasn't sure. There's nothing to suggests he was any more certain at court than he had been when interviewed.
That indicates he called Julie after looking up a number for the police, but says nothing as to whether his call to Julie was before or after his call to the number he had looked up.
1) You are playing stupid games. In his written statement and on the witness stand he claimed he looked up the number and called it and spoke to police then after he got off the phone with police he called Julie. Suggesting maybe he meant he looked the number up but then called Julie and called police later is absurd. You keep twisting beyond the limits of credibility in your efforts to defend Jeremy.
2) He did indeed slip and admit he called Julie before police in 1 interview but as soon as the slip was brought to his attention he disclaimed it. Clearly he lied in his statement and on the witness stand. Why would he lie about the order? He lied because the truth is so damaging.
His father allegedly called saying his crazy sister had a gun come help. Why wake up Julie? What could Julie do for him? If he truly received such a call and were concerned then he would have either rushed over or dialed 999 or done both. Admitting he did neither and called Julie would be highly damaging.
I saw a small portion of Jeremy's testimony. He claimed that he didn't call 999 because essentially he was still half asleep and didn't appreciate the import of what Nevill said immediately. He said after he phoned back and could not get through he thought it odd and thought about it a while and then it struck him that he had better call police because Nevill would not have phoned unless something was quite wrong.
This excuse only accounted for why he didn't react immediately by rushing over or calling police instantly. It didn't do a good job of explaining why he didn't call 999 which is what he was supposed to be accounting for. Ultimately the only real excuse he gave for not calling 999 was he didn't realize it would be faster which makes no sense since by definition it takes more time to look up a number than to just go to a phone and dial 999- which explains why he dropped the account of having called Witham first. Admitting he looked up Witham first but got no response would be an admission that he lost time. Surely he should have called 999 not looked up another station that might be empty. So he dropped Witham altogether to make it look like he only looked up a single number and didn't lose much time in so doing.
Since he said he wasn't initially worried he would not have had any reason to wake up Julie. Calling Julie before police though he said he didn't realize the gravity of the situation at first would make no sense. So he lied and insisted he called her after. He told the same lie initially because he initially pretended he was immediately worried and if immediately worried it makes no sense to call Julie either- if worried immediately upon receiving the call you either rush over or call police or do both.
He clearly called Julie, then subsequently called Witham and Chelmsford. The call to Julie was around 3AM but the calls to police were not until 15-20 minutes later. Either he was building up nerve/preparing what he was going to say or he was cleaning himself and changing during the interval. He didn't call police a half hour after calling Julie like you would like to suggest. That would be even more damning than waiting 15-20 minutes after calling her to phone police.
-
In his written statement and on the witness stand he claimed he looked up the number and called it and spoke to police then after he got off the phone with police he called Julie.
What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to?
2) Clearly he lied in his statement and on the witness stand.
What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to? You don't know his evidence on the witness stand.
Admitting he did neither and called Julie would be highly damaging.
That's what he did. If guilty, why would he damage his own case, especially when Julie could have said he was lying straight away? Clearly, he was innocent.
I saw a small portion of Jeremy's testimony. He claimed that he didn't call 999 because essentially he was still half asleep and didn't appreciate the import of what Nevill said immediately. He said after he phoned back and could not get through he thought it odd and thought about it a while and then it struck him that he had better call police because Nevill would not have phoned unless something was quite wrong.
This excuse only accounted for why he didn't react immediately by rushing over or calling police instantly.
If guilty, he wouldn't have relied on such excuses, and would have called 999. Clearly, he was innocent.
... he dropped the account of having called Witham first.
To drop that account, he would have had to have given it in the first place, but that's not in his statement. Clearly, he was innocent.
He told the same lie initially...
He didn't mention calling Julie initially in his statement and didn't even mention looking up a number. He said he called the police immediately. A short while later, he said he'd called Julie at about 3:25am.
He clearly called Julie, then subsequently called Witham and Chelmsford. The call to Julie was around 3AM ...
Around 3:30am according to Julie's initial estimate. Even at trial, one of Julie's flatmates testified that JB's call to Julie could have occurred as late as 3:30am.
That would be even more damning than waiting 15-20 minutes after calling her to phone police.
He didn't say he waited 15-20 minutes after calling her to call the police.
-
He is saying now that he called police at 03:36, when did he have time to call Julie?
Before 3:36.
-
What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to?
What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to?
The sentences I posted to you a dozen times but which you ridiculously claim don't mean what they expressly state.
He said that he received a call from Nevill around 3:10 and immediately phoned Chelmsford then later around 3:25 called Julie. I posted snapshots of the statement a dozen times. You can play all the games you like to try to pretend that claiming he called Chelmsford immediately leaves the door open to him calling Julie first all you like but it is just dishonest nonsense. If he claimed he called Julie before Chelmsford he would have claimed he called Julie immediately as opposed to saying he called her 15 minutes later.
You don't know his evidence on the witness stand.
I do know because I read part of his testimony that portion of his testimony happens to be testimony that addressed this very issue. Furthermore, the summing up and of the trial judge and 2002 Appeal Court saw his cross examination and summarized it.
What I read featured him saying he phoned Julie AFTER speaking with West. He said he did nothign at first because he didn't fully appreciate what was said by Nevill until he was off the phone and had a chance to fully wake up and ponder it. He said after he thought about it he became worried and called the police. He said he called Julie after that and then went to WHF.
If you doubt this then beg Mike for the transcript. He will never post it though because a number of things Jeremy said are contradictory to the allegations he makes up.
Here is the full Appeal Court summary of his cross examination:
"In cross-examination the appellant said:
Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
The appellant claimed to have returned to the farmhouse within a day or two of his release from the Police Station, i.e. a day or two from the 13 September, and gained entry via the downstairs bathroom window. He said he had done this because he had left his keys in London and needed some documents for his trip to the South of France. The appellant did not accept that that had been an unwise thing to do bearing in mind the circumstances nor that it would have been easy for him to have borrowed keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby.
He described his father as reasonably careful with guns and agreed that had Mr Bamber seen the rifle lying around in the kitchen he would have put it away in the gun cupboard. He agreed it would have taken him 30 seconds to have returned the gun to its cupboard and that he had been lazy.
The appellant confirmed he had not seen his sister fire a gun as an adult.
Having received the telephone call from his father, the appellant said that it had not crossed his mind to use the 999 system to call the police. Instead he described spending a little time looking up the number for Colchester Police Station. On that particular page of the directory (which he was shown in the witness box) it reads in bold type, "In emergency call the operator (dial 999 where appropriate) and ask for the police". The appellant agreed on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse. He agreed it would also have been possible for him to have called one of the farm workers. He said he had not considered that."
Note the underscored portions. He said he phoned Chelmsford and THEN (which means subsequently) called Julie and THEN (which means subsequently) drove to WHF.
That's what he did. If guilty, why would he damage his own case, especially when Julie could have said he was lying straight away? Clearly, he was innocent. If guilty, he wouldn't have relied on such excuses, and would have called 999. Clearly, he was innocent.
You have things completely backwards. If innocent he would have phoned 999 and/or rushed over. He would not have phoned Julie period. Waking Julie was totally pointless except if he was guilty. He called her out of excitement and also to present the bogus lie that he was so upset he decided to call her. He realized it would look quite bad to claim he was upset so called her for comfort instead of calling police so he lied and claimed he called police then called her for comfort.
To drop that account, he would have had to have given it in the first place, but that's not in his statement. Clearly, he was innocent.
You have graduated to full on lying mode like Mike engages in. How many times must one post the same thing to get you and Mike to stop lying and face the evidence honestly:
What part of Nevill called at 3:10 I tried to call him back but could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford and then at 3:25 called Julie amounts to him claiming he called Julie before Chelmsford?
(http://s2.postimg.org/eau23rxpl/jeremystatementaug7.jpg)
Each time you try to twist Jeremy's words it demonstrates you know he is guilty but want to pretend he is innocent so badly you will even pretend he said and wrote things that he clearly didn't.
He didn't mention calling Julie initially in his statement and didn't even mention looking up a number. He said he called the police immediately.
Not only in the same statement but on the VERY SAME PAGE where he said he phoned Chelmsford immediately he noted he called Julie LATER at 3:25.
(http://s2.postimg.org/eau23rxpl/jeremystatementaug7.jpg)
Your suggestion that it is possible he meant he received Nevill's call at 3:10, waited until 3:25 to call Julie then after that he called Chelmsford and yet characterized it as immediately calling Chelmsford is beyond absurd. All you are doing in making such a claim is demolishing your own credibility. You and Mike for months have been trying to distort Jeremy's clear words but all you have managed to accomplish in the process is to demonstrate you are dishonest and can't be trusted.
A short while later, he said he'd called Julie at about 3:25am.
Not a short while later, he put it in the statement that you insisted he didn't put it in.
Around 3:30am according to Julie's initial estimate. Even at trial, one of Julie's flatmates testified that JB's call to Julie could have occurred as late as 3:30am.
Julie didn't look at a clock so didn't know what time it was she only knew it was a few hours before the second call. 2 roommates though looked at clocks and it was around 3. We know he was on the phone with police until after 3:30 and that he phoned Julie first so we know for sure he phoned Julie before 3:20 and most like around 3AM.
He didn't say he waited 15-20 minutes after calling her to call the police.
Of course he didn't because that would prove his guilt. How stupid would it have been to say. "I phoned Julie around 3AM, Nevill phoned me around 3:10 and I phoned Witham around 3:20 then Chelmsford a couple of minutes later." That would give away he was guilty.
Saying he called Julie right after Nevill called and then called police 10 minutes later would still look very bad so instead of telling that lie he decided to lie completely and falsely claim he called Julie after police. He told police at the scene that he called police before Julie, put in his statement that he called police before Julie and on the witness stand told the jury he called police before Julie.
-
Before 3:36.
NO! He is NOW saying 03:36 - check the OS, you are wrong!
-
NO! He is NOW saying 03:36 - check the OS, you are wrong!
He had time to call Julie before 3:36am. Whether that is in his statement is irrelevant, as the police had misled him as to when he called the police. The fact remains that he did call Julie before 3:36am and so he must have had time to do so.
-
He had time to call Julie before 3:36am. Whether that is in his statement is irrelevant, as the police had misled him as to when he called the police. The fact remains that he did call Julie before 3:36am and so he must have had time to do so.
You need to read the OS, Jeremy is now AGREEING that he called police at 03:36 in order to fit in a call from Nevill - he's not being misled at all. He denied calling at 03:36 back in 1985 but is NOW agreeing with it!! You're right, he did call Julie before 03:36, because he called Julie BEFORE calling the police.
-
He had time to call Julie before 3:36am. Whether that is in his statement is irrelevant, as the police had misled him as to when he called the police. The fact remains that he did call Julie before 3:36am and so he must have had time to do so.
So are you saying that we should ignore his statement in favour of guessing games/benefit of doubt?
-
So are you saying that we should ignore his statement in favour of guessing games/benefit of doubt?
Apparently, if you can think of an excuse that leans towards innocent, you can just make up the times etc. in favour of said excuse and completely IGNORE anything Jeremy said just after the murders. Even though memory for events is far stronger nearer the event than 30 years later! ;D ;D
-
Apparently, if you can think of an excuse that leans towards innocent, you can just make up the times etc. in favour of said excuse and completely IGNORE anything Jeremy said just after the murders. Even though memory for events is far stronger nearer the event than 30 years later! ;D ;D
To me it sounds a little like "Jeremy can't be trusted to tell the truth, ignore Jeremy... THIS is what really happened."
;D
-
To me it sounds a little like "Jeremy can't be trusted to tell the truth, ignore Jeremy... THIS is what really happened."
;D
At the VERY least it sounds as if it's being said that he meant something totally different from how his words read.
-
To me it sounds a little like "Jeremy can't be trusted to tell the truth, ignore Jeremy... THIS is what really happened."
;D
They got that bit right then? ;D ;D ;D
-
You need to read the OS, Jeremy is now AGREEING that he called police at 03:36 in order to fit in a call from Nevill - he's not being misled at all. He denied calling at 03:36 back in 1985 but is NOW agreeing with it!! You're right, he did call Julie before 03:36, because he called Julie BEFORE calling the police.
This is exactly what is going on- around 2005 or so someone decided if Jeremy changed his testimony and insisted he called at 3:36 as West noted this would mean police were dispatched earlier than he called and this could be used to support the notion Nevill had called police himself.
Aside from being complete bunk, what Jeremy and his supporters fail to take into account is that he is stuck with his trial testimony. That trial testimony constitutes the record. He can't change his story and claim his changed story is new evidence. It is his problem that he didn't think up such a lie until 2005 and thus didn't testify to this lie at his trial.
The defense could have called Bonnett o the stand and questioned if he received a call from Nevill and the log reflected such but they knew based on his statements he would say the call he received was from West not Nevill which is confirmed by West and by all the police who responded to the scene all of whom were told they were responding as a result of Jeremy's call and that is why Jeremy was asked to go there- he was the complainant.
At trial the defense tried to minimize the gap in time between allegedly receiving the call and calling police because the longer the gap the worse it looks. Jeremy said at trial that he at first didn't appreciate what Nevill said but after phoning back and getting no response and then thinking about it a while he realized what was said so at that point got the phone book out to call police. They highlighted that the call to police was by 3:26 and could have been earlier because the time West gave of 3:36 looks quite bad that would be a 26 minute gap between receiving the call and finally phoning police.
People who advance this nonsense of a call from Nevill are so desperate to pretend Jeremy is innocent that they will assert anything even if they have to drastically revise things.
-
This is exactly what is going on- around 2005 or so someone decided if Jeremy changed his testimony and insisted he called at 3:36 as West noted this would mean police were dispatched earlier than he called and this could be used to support the notion Nevill had called police himself.
Aside from being complete bunk, what Jeremy and his supporters fail to take into account is that he is stuck with his trial testimony. That trial testimony constitutes the record. He can't change his story and claim his changed story is new evidence. It is his problem that he didn't think up such a lie until 2005 and thus didn't testify to this lie at his trial.
The defense could have called Bonnett o the stand and questioned if he received a call from Nevill and the log reflected such but they knew based on his statements he would say the call he received was from West not Nevill which is confirmed by West and by all the police who responded to the scene all of whom were told they were responding as a result of Jeremy's call and that is why Jeremy was asked to go there- he was the complainant.
At trial the defense tried to minimize the gap in time between allegedly receiving the call and calling police because the longer the gap the worse it looks. Jeremy said at trial that he at first didn't appreciate what Nevill said but after phoning back and getting no response and then thinking about it a while he realized what was said so at that point got the phone book out to call police. They highlighted that the call to police was by 3:26 and could have been earlier because the time West gave of 3:36 looks quite bad that would be a 26 minute gap between receiving the call and finally phoning police.
People who advance this nonsense of a call from Nevill are so desperate to pretend Jeremy is innocent that they will assert anything even if they have to drastically revise things.
The revised times 'should' SCREAM guilty. If the revised timings are part of submissions Team Jeremy might as well kiss the whole thing goodbye because as you say, he can't take back what he argued at the trial and he was pretty adamant that he called 'before' 03:36.
-
Is there any evidence of the amount of time he was on the phone to police. Im sure there must be but i couldnt find it?
-
The revised times 'should' SCREAM guilty. If the revised timings are part of submissions Team Jeremy might as well kiss the whole thing goodbye because as you say, he can't take back what he argued at the trial and he was pretty adamant that he called 'before' 03:36.
The only way they could make a submission alleging a call from Nevill would be if they had a witness who claimed to receive a call from Nevill or witness who claimed they were told to report to WHF as a result of a call being received by Nevill. That would constitute new evidence and would be evidence that could potentially be used to establish Nevill called police though such claims would be subject to a great deal of scrutiny so these witnesses would need to have very good stories and need to come up with some evidence or a very good reason as to why such evidence doesn't exist.
The logs are not new nor do the logs contain anything that suggests a call from nevill was received. Claiming that because Bonnett decided to try to word it like Jeremy did when he spoke to West that proves he was speaking to Nevill is absurd. The log asserts he fielded a call from West and so does his statement. The allegation he altered it to conceal a call from Nevill doesn't amount to a hill of beans it is simply an unsupported allegation and one that the defense could and should have made at trial if they wanted to make it.
That would have gone like this:
Q) Mr. Bonnett did you receive a call from Nevill on the night of the murders.
A) No
Q) are you sure? Your log is written to reflect a quotation coming from Nevill thus suggesting you actually spoke to Nevill yourself.
A) I wrote a quote of what Jeremy claimed to the police that Nevill had told him. That is why I noted on my log message passed to CD by Bamber's son.
Q) Are you positive you never spoke to Nevill? Your timing of the call is 10 minutes earlier than officer West indicated he received his call from Jeremy.
A) He either wrote the time his call with Jeremy Bamber ended, his clock was wrong or he mixed up the numbers as he wrote. The only call I fielded was from Officer West and it was at 3:26 and the log was created to detail such call.
------
That is how it would have gone if he were called a witness at trial by the defense to try to assert Nevill called Bonnett.
-
Is there any evidence of the amount of time he was on the phone to police. Im sure there must be but i couldnt find it?
It must have been around 12 minutes from the times given by Bonnett and West.
-
Is there any evidence of the amount of time he was on the phone to police. Im sure there must be but i couldnt find it?
Jeremy thought it was around 9 minutes or more, he thought he was on hold for 5 minutes plus. I would have taken around 3 minutes for West to get all the information he got from Jeremy before placing him on hold. Then it would have taken several minutes for West to call Bonnett and explain everything to Bonnett who then had to write it all down which would take at least 2 minutes and then they contacted police units to tell them the situation and see who could be sent to WHF. Which would take at least a minute so Jeremy was on hold for at least 3 minutes and it could have been 5 like he thought. He and West spoke for another minute or 2 after West got back on the line. So a conservative figure is Jeremy was on the phone for 7 minutes including while on hold but it could well have lasted 10 minutes like he thought.
-
The revised times 'should' SCREAM guilty. If the revised timings are part of submissions Team Jeremy might as well kiss the whole thing goodbye because as you say, he can't take back what he argued at the trial and he was pretty adamant that he called 'before' 03:36.
I doubt that they will be used in any submission, the revised times that is. It will be like the call log that the OS and some supporters still pretend is from Neville. They use it as propaganda and to make a headline but when it comes to actual serious submissions - it's left out. Wonder why? ;D
-
Thanks scipio. Could u give me a brief timeline line of how u see the calls taking place as im awfully confused
-
Jeremy thought it was around 9 minutes or more, he thought he was on hold for 5 minutes plus. I would have taken around 3 minutes for West to get all the information he got from Jeremy before placing him on hold. Then it would have taken several minutes for West to call Bonnett and explain everything to Bonnett who then had to write it all down which would take at least 2 minutes and then they contacted police units to tell them the situation and see who could be sent to WHF. Which would take at least a minute so Jeremy was on hold for at least 3 minutes and it could have been 5 like he thought. He and West spoke for another minute or 2 after West got back on the line. So a conservative figure is Jeremy was on the phone for 7 minutes including while on hold but it could well have lasted 10 minutes like he thought.
Which means he COULDN'T have made the call as late as 3.30 because he'd never have got dressed -assuming he wasn't already- and got out of the house, into the car, driven at a snail's pace, stopped to put on a sweater and got to WHF by 3.52.
-
Thanks scipio. Could u give me a brief timeline line of how u see the calls taking place as im awfully confused
Jeremy's call to Julie around 3AM
Jeremy's call to Witham around 3:20
Jeremy's call to Chelmsford (call to West) around 3:22
West's call to HQ Information Room 3:26
By the time Jeremy gave his statement many hours passed so he wasn't exactly sure of the time he called police.
He thought it was around 3:15 that he called West so he claimed he received Nevill's call at 3:10. He figured his call to police lasted ten minutes so then placed his call to Julie 10 minutes after that at 3:25.
In his statement he was lying about 3 things:
1) made up a call from Nevill
2) made up that he called Julie after police instead of before
3) eliminated his call to Witham
His call to Witham is a double edged sword. On one hand it helps because it actually helps eat up some of the time between when he claimed Nevill phoned him and when he called Chelmsford. But it hurts because logically he should have called 999 after not getting an answer at Witham. To look up more numbers to stations that might be unmanned denotes a complete lack of any sense of urgency. So he dropped it in his statement and still dropped it during the trial. It was the prosecution tha tbrought up his call to Witham.
If he had remembered that his call to police was around 3:22 then in his statement he would have claimed Nevill phoned a little after 3:15 and that he called Julie around 3:32. But he incorrectly thought he called police around 3:15 hence in his statement he moved up everything earlier than he should have.
At his trial he said he was not positive of the exact times of everything but stood by his order of fielding the call from Nevill, next calling police and finally calling Julie after getting off the phone with police.
He did change something at trial though. He told police he immediately called police after being unable to call Nevill back. At trial he acknowledged some time passed. He said at first he didn't appreciate the seriousness of the situation. He said after he woke up fully and it sunk in then he appreciated the threat level and decided to call police. This was his way of explaining away whatever the gap in time was between the time he supposedly received the call from Nevill and phoning police.
The prosecution said that gap was 26 minutes- that he called police at 3:36 based on West's account. The prosecution effectively got West to narrow it to 16 minutes but could and should have narrowed it further.
I would have gotten West to admit that 3:26 was most likely the time of his call to Bonnett not the time of Jeremy's call to him and that means Jeremy's call had to have come earlier than 3:26. Getting West to admit this would have narrowed to time to less than 16 minutes. Next you get Jeremy to say on the stand that he was simply estimating the call at 3:10 and all he knew was it was prior to 3:20 it could have been 3:15. That helps narrow the call down to less than 10 minutes between when he spoke to police and Nevill called. This is much more manageable from a defense perspective. They did this in theory but not in as clear or effective a fashion as I would have done.
Fast forward to 2005. Someone looking over the evidence says you know what- if only Jeremy had called police at 3:36 this would have allowed us to argue that someone alerted police prior to Jeremy because records reflect a call being received at 3:26 and police being dispatched prior to 3:36. We could allege this proves Nevill called police himself prior to Jeremy or that Nevill called someone else and that person called police before Jeremy. Whoever thought of it then decided the heck with "if only" I will pretend that Jeremy did call at 3:36 even though Jeremy says it was earlier and even though the trial defense effectively refuted this suggestion at trial. Since it is ignoring the evidence adduced at trial and is not supported by any credible evidence at most this allegation has propaganda value to try to get members of the public to believe Jeremy is innocent.
There is a group of people who for whatever reason are more interested in propaganda than in things that Jeremy could actually use in court to be freed.
-
Mmmmm all very interesting. Didnt one of julies flat mates in her first statement say he called at 3 30ish.
Calling 999 is something i would be really scared of doing in case i was wasting thier time. But i think if anyone had mentionec the word Gun i would have done.
i suppose the truth is that there really is no proof of exact times of any calls as even the policee said one of the clocks was set fast.
I was recently asked to recall events regarding the time of when certain people called, who was present and what days. When i talk about it i feel certain i have the timeljne correct but then when asked questions i think oh it could have been that day or before that instance.i had to give evidence in court and i had to be honest and say i just couldnt remember. I know what happened without a shadow of doubt but on what day and at what time i could be wrong and doubts appear because someone else may say it happened at differnt times and days.
it didnt affect the trial and the b....... was found guilty but i know how difficult it is to remember
Logs from police obviously give us a lot of information but it does seem many witnesses could have got times wrong as i could have done.
what i dont get is why people didnt just say , i cannot recall the exact time.
-
Mmmmm all very interesting. Didnt one of julies flat mates in her first statement say he called at 3 30ish.
Julie said around 3:30 but 2 of her roommates said around 3AM. One of these said she kept her clock fast so she would not be late and the adjusted time is around 3AM. The other thought it was before 3AM but there is no way her clock could have been a little slow. The exact time will never be known though around 3AM seems the most like. I use "around" to denotes a window that could be several minutes before or after so we are looking at between 2:55 and 3:05. It is not impossible the call was a little later but is not as likely according to the roommates who say they looked at their clocks.
Calling 999 is something i would be really scared of doing in case i was wasting thier time. But i think if anyone had mentionec the word Gun i would have done.
Some people are morons and call emergency numbers for idiotic reasons. In the case of someone calling to claim a crazy person running around with a gun though it is a good enough reason to call. The main reason not to is if you were worried about police harming your relative when you think you could defuse the situation without the relative or friend being harmed so go yourself to take care of it. Jeremy really should have called 999 it would have looked far less suspicious than looking up numbers. He had a brainfart. I think he was so busy trying to build up his nerve and to prepare what he was going to say that he overlooked such a simply thing as using 999.
If I had been in his place and really received the claimed call, I would have gone over there myself but before I did so I would have called 999 and notified police of what I was told and how I was going to investigate so police would be aware and would be able to come check up on me to make sure everything was ok. This would help protect me in case I had to kill someone so I had some support for why, would let them know what happened in case I were hurt when I went over and would enable police to be in a position respond with ambulances if necessary to try to help in case it were needed but I were not in a position to be able to call for help after arrival.
If not for the other evidence his failure to call 999 and instead look up numbers of stations would be suspicious but that's it. In combination with all the other evidence it is an issue because evidence compounds.
i suppose the truth is that there really is no proof of exact times of any calls as even the policee said one of the clocks was set fast.
Various police said the clock in the room that West used was notorious for being wrong. On the other hand the clock in the HQ Information room was supposedly always accurate and they also had a clock on their phone console. That room handled 999 calls so was state of the art and even recorded all calls. So that is the more trustworthy one. So the most trustworthy thing is that West called Bonnett at 3:26.
The timings of various dispatches supports that police were contacted around 3:30 by Bonnett and West so support Bonnett and West speaking at 3:26 then contacting police to go to the scene.
The timing of Jeremy's call to West then would naturally have started several minutes before 3:26. I would guess they were on the phone 3-4 minutes and certainly no more than 5 minutes before being placed on hold which is why I think his call to West was received 3:22-3:23.
I was recently asked to recall events regarding the time of when certain people called, who was present and what days. When i talk about it i feel certain i have the timeljne correct but then when asked questions i think oh it could have been that day or before that instance.i had to give evidence in court and i had to be honest and say i just couldnt remember. I know what happened without a shadow of doubt but on what day and at what time i could be wrong and doubts appear because someone else may say it happened at differnt times and days.
it didnt affect the trial and the b....... was found guilty but i know how difficult it is to remember
After a substantial amount of time passes it is natural to not remember things with precision. Often people will have certain things etched into their mind such as I recall being called at 3:37am by Hospice to be told of my grandmother's passing. I remember the time because I looked at the clock before answering the phone and the event was worthy of memory. If you get a prank call in the middle of the night even if you look at a clock you typically won't remember it long because you don't associate anything noteworthy with it.
If Jeremy actually received the call from Nevill that he claims he received then Jeremy had reason to remember it by the time he gave his statement hours later. Unfortunately for him he didn't look at the clock when he called police or to remember the exact time because he didn't have a reason to. He didn't think about documenting it to aid him in making up when he received his call from Nevill. In hindsight this was something he should have done.
Since he didn't do that he would have been better off saying he wasn't sure of the precise time and just thinks it was 3:10 or later that he just knows that a couple of minutes later he called police and then after that called Julie. In situations where you are unsure of precise times it is best not to make them up. Sometimes the less you say the better which is the advice lawyers always give to their clients.
Logs from police obviously give us a lot of information but it does seem many witnesses could have got times wrong as i could have done.
what i dont get is why people didnt just say , i cannot recall the exact time.
Sometimes because people think that looks suspicious other times it is because people think they can remember and don't realize they are mistaken. Jeremy probably honestly recalled calling police around 3:15 (and thus made up Nevill calling at 3:10) though he probably called police 3:22-3:23 so was only off by 7-8 minutes.
The times weren't as much a problem for him as the order of the calls and looking up police numbers instead of calling 999. Calling Julie before police but lying about such hurt him and not calling 999 hurt him.
Calling Julie period makes little sense to me. He thought it would help support his tale of receiving a call from Nevill but it actually accomplishes the opposite because it makes no sense to call her and ask for comfort while he was unsure what happened and his priority should have been to go find out what happened and try to help. Fortunately criminals make miscalculations quite often. Unfortunately some get lucky and either don't make such errors or police miss them.
-
My partner, is the most laid back person I know, doesn't get emotional or stressed out easily I rarely disuss the Bamber case with him because he's not interested BUT, I just asked him what he would do if he received a call at around 3am under the same circumstances and ....... he's call 999. I have asked other and not mentioned Bamber, just similar circumstances - and ALL would call 999!!
-
Supporters say he called Julie for advice. Why ?
He had apparently already called the police and been told what to do.
He has never said himself he called her for advice. Saying 'no comment' when interviewed. Then testifying he called her to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Why would he need advice ? He was an independent 24 year old man.
The phone may not be answered. It was 3am.
The phone may not be answered for a long time. Wasting time. It was 3am.
Julie would not be a 'friendly voice', or give advice after being woken. It was 3am.
Julie would not be able to give any good advice. It was not her family, she was in Lewisham and had just been woken up.
Julie could not call back later or assist in any way at WHF. She was in Lewisham at 3am.
In short there is no reason to phone Julie apart from to boast about what he had done. The excitement and adrenalin was pumping and he couldn't resist - 'Everything is going well, there is something wrong at the farm, I haven't slept all night'.
-
As far as I know Jeremy has never said what he said to Julie. There is nothing on the OS. Unlike Julie who gave the exact words, as far as she could remember.
-
Strange how people believed what Julie had said---------------except for her husband.!
-
Obviously Jeremy must have said something to Julie. Otherwise she would not know it was him.
If he had just called to hear a friendly voice perhaps he said -
'My dad's just rang, he said 'Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun. He wants me to go over. The police have told me to meet them there. I am worried and wanted to hear you're 'friendly voice' before I leave. Love you lots'.
If that is what he said why did Julie tell him to 'go back to bed' ?
-
Strange how people believed what Julie had said---------------except for her husband.!
Now how would you or anyone else on this board know what Julie's husband thinks? A throw away comment by Jackie last year has you thinking that he's about to go public. You don't need to get permission to mention it on the board Lookout, she already mentioned it. I have a good memory! ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5962.msg265299.html#msg265299
-
Now how would you or anyone else on this board know what Julie's husband thinks? A throw away comment by Jackie last year has you thinking that he's about to go public. You don't need to get permission to mention it on the board Lookout, she already mentioned it. I have a good memory! ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5962.msg265299.html#msg265299
The source didn't originate from Jackie though. It happened to have been a handwritten item which had been received by someone else.
-
The source didn't originate from Jackie though. It happened to have been a handwritten item which had been received by someone else.
Hopefully this source is a little more reliable than the source you claimed told you information about Neville's pyjama top ( a source you claimed was knowledgeable and in the know) and turned out to be a complete fabrication - which NGB kindly corrected for us.
Although the only two people gossiping about Julies marriage on the internet are JACKIE AND LOOKOUT which says it all really, members can decide for themselves how much ANY of their posts have ever been evidence based or stood up to the "honesty test".
-
The source didn't originate from Jackie though. It happened to have been a handwritten item which had been received by someone else.
Yeah! ;D ;D - You honestly think that Julie's husband is going to leak personal information about his life to a supporter of JB? Seriously? ;D ;D ;D
-
It certainly wasn't gossip !!
-
Neither was it gossip that a moderator was " found " a month after the murders,at the same time that scratches under the mantelpiece were found ??
-
Yeah! ;D ;D - You honestly think that Julie's husband is going to leak personal information about his life to a supporter of JB? Seriously? ;D ;D ;D
Exactly. Pull the other one comes to mind. Don't know why supporters do this. ;D It's sad really.
-
You're sad !!
-
Neither was it gossip that a moderator was " found " a month after the murders,at the same time that scratches under the mantelpiece were found ??
You demonstrate dailty that you don't even know the basic facts of this case.
Murders- Aug 7
Moderator found- Aug 10
Moderator collected by police- Aug 12
Moderator taken to the lab and tested by the lab- Aug 13
Lab contacted police to tell them human blood was found on/in the moderator and red paint on the knurled tip-the police then went to WHF to take paint samples to find out where the red paint was from- Aug 14
The moderator was found 3 days after the murder when a thorough job was being done to clean the place out.
-
It certainly wasn't gossip !!
It's nonsense. The notion he would write to anyone to say he didn't believe Julie is absurd but especially a Jeremy supporter. Jeremy supporters have nothing to justify their position so make up nonsense including a letter that even if true would mean nothing at all because her husband's uninformed opinion doesn't mean squat. Jeremy supporters put forth absurd claims of police shooting the victims and all sorts of other nonsense in an effort to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
-
It certainly wasn't gossip !!
It's complete gossip!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Is there any evidence of the amount of time he was on the phone to police? I'm sure there must be, but I couldn't find it.
It must have been around 12 minutes from the times given by Bonnett and West.
Pc West put 3:42am in his log as the time when he was told (by the telephone operator) that the WHF telephone was off-hook. That was shortly after Jeremy's call to him had ended, and is the only log entry that is closely linked to the time when Jeremy's call ended, so Jeremy's call lasted about 6 minutes, which is consistent with the estimates that Pc West gave at trial of how long he was on the telephone to Jeremy for. These facts are consistent with the time of 3:36 that Pc West logged as the time when Jeremy's call to him occurred. Had Jeremy called Pc West at about 3:25am, his call would have lasted over 15 minutes, which would have been inconsistent with Pc West's evidence.
We don't know exactly when Nevill called Jeremy. Jeremy initially said it was about half an hour before he spoke to the police he met outside WHF (at about 3:50am), but later gave the earlier time of about 3:10am in his first formal statement. That was clearly a mistake. He also estimated in that statement that he called Julie at 3:25am, which makes sense if Nevill had called him at about 3:20 or shortly after that.
-
Pc West put 3:42am in his log as the time when he was told (by the telephone operator) that the WHF telephone was off-hook. That was shortly after Jeremy's call to him had ended, and is the only log entry that is closely linked to the time when Jeremy's call ended, so Jeremy's call lasted about 6 minutes, which is consistent with the estimates that Pc West gave at trial of how long he was on the telephone to Jeremy for. These facts are consistent with the time of 3:36 that Pc West logged as the time when Jeremy's call to him occurred. Had Jeremy called Pc West at about 3:25am, his call would have lasted over 15 minutes, which would have been inconsistent with Pc West's evidence.
We don't know exactly when Nevill called Jeremy. Jeremy initially said it was about half an hour before he spoke to the police he met outside WHF (at about 3:50am), but later gave the earlier time of about 3:10am in his first formal statement. That was clearly a mistake. He also estimated in that statement that he called Julie at 3:25am, which makes sense if Nevill had called him at about 3:20 or shortly after that.
You need to source that claim - sounds like more hoodwinking to me!
-
Just a quick mention regarding the phone/s. While Sheila was staying at WHF for the final time,didn't she phone her friend Tara to apologise for her mother having dropped off a religious book to her and at some point the phone went dead ?
Was there already a fault on the line,or had June listened in to the call and cut her off ?? This was shortly before the tragedy. Sheila had gone ballistic saying that the phone was bugged.
Because of this " incident ",maybe Sheila had got wise to her mother's actions,which would prompt her to remove or hide the " floating " blue phone ?
-
Just a quick mention regarding the phone/s. While Sheila was staying at WHF for the final time,didn't she phone her friend Tara to apologise for her mother having dropped off a religious book to her and at some point the phone went dead ?
Was there already a fault on the line,or had June listened in to the call and cut her off ?? This was shortly before the tragedy. Sheila had gone ballistic saying that the phone was bugged.
Because of this " incident ",maybe Sheila had got wise to her mother's actions,which would prompt her to remove or hide the " floating " blue phone ?
Errrr NO! You're lumping two different incidents together - this is how myths are born. Just nipping this one in the bud. By the way, you still haven't sourced your claims from yesterday to prove the dog was in the wardrobe when Collins entered the farmhouse. It's important Lookout because the man himself, stated he saw the dog (with his very own eyes) UNDER THE BED!
-
Errrr NO! You're lumping two different incidents together - this is how myths are born. Just nipping this one in the bud. By the way, you still haven't sourced your claims from yesterday to prove the dog was in the wardrobe when Collins entered the farmhouse. It's important Lookout because the man himself, stated he saw the dog (with his very own eyes) UNDER THE BED!
Ah,quickly changing the subject.
-
Errrr NO! You're lumping two different incidents together - this is how myths are born. Just nipping this one in the bud. By the way, you still haven't sourced your claims from yesterday to prove the dog was in the wardrobe when Collins entered the farmhouse. It's important Lookout because the man himself, stated he saw the dog (with his very own eyes) UNDER THE BED!
I shan't be mentioning the dog again.I'll keep that under my hat,so subject closed for now.
-
I shan't be mentioning the dog again.I'll keep that under my hat,so subject closed for now.
So you don't have a source, thought not - you need to have a word with the person who is feeding you this guff! Have to admit though, the 'experiment story did make me laugh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just a quick mention regarding the phone/s. While Sheila was staying at WHF for the final time,didn't she phone her friend Tara to apologise for her mother having dropped off a religious book to her and at some point the phone went dead ?
Was there already a fault on the line,or had June listened in to the call and cut her off ?? This was shortly before the tragedy. Sheila had gone ballistic saying that the phone was bugged.
Because of this " incident ",maybe Sheila had got wise to her mother's actions,which would prompt her to remove or hide the " floating " blue phone ?
No! I THINK you'll fine that she phoned Tara from her own home in London and I believe the story was relayed by Freddie, who was there at the time. Besides which, going on your feasibility study, it would hardly have come under that heading if she'd made the call from a house where her mother could hear her conversation.
-
So you don't have a source, thought not - you need to have a word with the person who is feeding you this guff! Have to admit though, the 'experiment story did make me laugh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
>>>>>>>>>>>>always a pleasure to bring a supercilious grin to the faces of those non-believers. ;D
-
Just a quick mention regarding the phone/s. While Sheila was staying at WHF for the final time,didn't she phone her friend Tara to apologise for her mother having dropped off a religious book to her and at some point the phone went dead ?
Was there already a fault on the line,or had June listened in to the call and cut her off ?? This was shortly before the tragedy. Sheila had gone ballistic saying that the phone was bugged.
Because of this " incident ",maybe Sheila had got wise to her mother's actions,which would prompt her to remove or hide the " floating " blue phone ?
were did you get this from lookout.
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>always a pleasure to bring a supercilious grin to the faces of those non-believers. ;D
You certainly do that! Lets see what unsubstantiated stories you can come up with next? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
were did you get this from lookout.
Interesting question Nugs - she simply 'got it wrong' (again).
-
You certainly do that! Lets see what unsubstantiated stories you can come up with next? ;D ;D ;D ;D
No,I'd rather read your fantasies. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No,I'd rather read your fantasies. ;D ;D ;D ;D
NAUGHTY Lookout :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D
-
No,I'd rather read your fantasies. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Really?? Well, there's this one where I ........ on second thoughts - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!! :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
were did you get this from lookout.
As April pointed out this is actually the thing that Freddie claims caused her second breakdown. The phone going dead and then she went nuts and eventually Nevill had to hospitalize her the second time.
-
were did you get this from lookout.
Sorry nugs,I realise now that Sheila was at her own home when she " flipped " after being cut-off while on the phone. Her outburst at the time was that she thought she was being bugged ( all part and parcel of paranoia ) when Freddie was present. It was another time when he witnessed Sheila punching the wall out of anger and frustration and it scared him. She may have had a " thing " about phones in general and saw them as another way of " spying " on her,or keeping tags.
-
Sorry nugs,I realise now that Sheila was at her own home when she " flipped " after being cut-off while on the phone. Her outburst at the time was that she thought she was being bugged ( all part and parcel of paranoia ) when Freddie was present. It was another time when he witnessed Sheila punching the wall out of anger and frustration and it scared him. She may have had a " thing " about phones in general and saw them as another way of " spying " on her,or keeping tags.
And, of course, it had nothing whatsoever to do with June earwigging on the conversation from the extension and breaking the connection.
-
And, of course, it had nothing whatsoever to do with June earwigging on the conversation from the extension and breaking the connection.
That's just an added bonus!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And, of course, it had nothing whatsoever to do with June earwigging on the conversation from the extension and breaking the connection.
That could well have happened on the night of the tragedy during the anticipated call from Christine ?
-
That's just an added bonus!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yeh!! Like every other bit of garbage that's been thrown at us ie meter man and monastery. I've repeated that, quite innocently, as being the truth. Voila!!! the birth of yet more myths.
-
That could well have happened on the night of the tragedy during the anticipated call from Christine ?
What anticipated call from Christine? Who is telling you this rubbish Lookout?
-
That could well have happened on the night of the tragedy during the anticipated call from Christine ?
Lookout, THINK, please. Why would she give Christine the telephone number of her adopted parents? I can't think of anything much more cruel. She had her own home and a telephone, surely any conversation she wanted to have with her biological mother would have been better done there.............apart from anything else, is there any proof from Christine that she was going to phone Sheila that night?
-
Lookout, THINK, please. Why would she give Christine the telephone number of her adopted parents? I can't think of anything much more cruel. She had her own home and a telephone, surely any conversation she wanted to have with her biological mother would have been better done there.............apart from anything else, is there any proof from Christine that she was going to phone Sheila that night?
Personally I couldn't think of anything more cruel than for June to tell Sheila that she was an unfit mother.
Did anyone know for sure what was to become of the twins ? Whatever had been discussed round the supper table,it certainly didn't bode well with Sheila. If you put yourself in her position where at first she thought there was a chance ( in her own mind ) that she and Colin would get back together. Then her mother suggesting foster care in the event that Sheila goes convalescing. The illness which already had a stronghold. Debts mounting because there was no work.
I honestly don't think that Sheila could hack the fact that Colin and his girlfriend would be taking her boys away from her for their holidays. Would anyone if they were being honest and had the added health problems too ?
There's a possibility that I saw reference to Christine's call on the red forum some time back.
-
Personally I couldn't think of anything more cruel than for June to tell Sheila that she was an unfit mother.
Did anyone know for sure what was to become of the twins ? Whatever had been discussed round the supper table,it certainly didn't bode well with Sheila. If you put yourself in her position where at first she thought there was a chance ( in her own mind ) that she and Colin would get back together. Then her mother suggesting foster care in the event that Sheila goes convalescing. The illness which already had a stronghold. Debts mounting because there was no work.
I honestly don't think that Sheila could hack the fact that Colin and his girlfriend would be taking her boys away from her for their holidays. Would anyone if they were being honest and had the added health problems too ?
There's a possibility that I saw reference to Christine's call on the red forum some time back.
Here we go again! ;D ;D ;D
-
Here we go again! ;D ;D ;D
New claim every day. It's not believable any longer.
I haven't read the red forum for a long time but I doubt whatever, if anything, was said matches up with what is being claimed.
Good point Apes, I don't see why Sheila would give her that telephone number.
Also there is no proof as to what conversation occurred around the supper table, or if the family even sat down and had a conversation.
-
Personally I couldn't think of anything more cruel than for June to tell Sheila that she was an unfit mother.
Did anyone know for sure what was to become of the twins ? Whatever had been discussed round the supper table,it certainly didn't bode well with Sheila. If you put yourself in her position where at first she thought there was a chance ( in her own mind ) that she and Colin would get back together. Then her mother suggesting foster care in the event that Sheila goes convalescing. The illness which already had a stronghold. Debts mounting because there was no work.
I honestly don't think that Sheila could hack the fact that Colin and his girlfriend would be taking her boys away from her for their holidays. Would anyone if they were being honest and had the added health problems too ?
There's a possibility that I saw reference to Christine's call on the red forum some time back.
Yeh, I can see that this may have descended into a game of tit for tat between two adult women, but exactly when do you think Sheila decided to take her revenge on June and Neville by contacting Christine to ask her specifically to phone her at WHF. We can only speculate about what went on round the supper table and whatever it was going on -or NOT going on- between Colin and Sheila had nothing to do with Christine. Sheila had gone to endless lengths, to keep secret, what turned out to be a fleeting relationship with Christine and as Christine had told her there couldn't be an ongoing relationship it's highly unlikely that she'd have phoned her. Imagine if June or Neville had answered!!!!!
Perhaps you did read something about Christine on red though I doubt it had to do with a phone call Sheila was expecting from her at WHF and you are the only one who's mentioned it here.
-
Here we go again! ;D ;D ;D
I KNEW you wouldn't believe what I posted,even less so as it's on Jeremy's wit stat.
-
New claim every day. It's not believable any longer.
I haven't read the red forum for a long time but I doubt whatever, if anything, was said matches up with what is being claimed.
Good point Apes, I don't see why Sheila would give her that telephone number.
Also there is no proof as to what conversation occurred around the supper table, or if the family even sat down and had a conversation.
Don't effing well read it then !!
-
Yeh, I can see that this may have descended into a game of tit for tat between two adult women, but exactly when do you think Sheila decided to take her revenge on June and Neville by contacting Christine to ask her specifically to phone her at WHF. We can only speculate about what went on round the supper table and whatever it was going on -or NOT going on- between Colin and Sheila had nothing to do with Christine. Sheila had gone to endless lengths, to keep secret, what turned out to be a fleeting relationship with Christine and as Christine had told her there couldn't be an ongoing relationship it's highly unlikely that she'd have phoned her. Imagine if June or Neville had answered!!!!!
Perhaps you did read something about Christine on red though I doubt it had to do with a phone call Sheila was expecting from her at WHF and you are the only one who's mentioned it here.
Good points, apes.
The conversation around the supper table, that just happened to occur on a night when Bamber happens to leave a loaded weapon out, is another aspect of the case that just doesn't ring true to me. Sounds very constructed and false to me. Much like the story of attempting to shoot rabbits.
-
Good points, apes.
The conversation around the supper table, that just happened to occur on a night when Bamber happens to leave a loaded weapon out, is another aspect of the case that just doesn't ring true to me. Sounds very constructed and false to me. Much like the story of attempting to shoot rabbits.
I would think if Jeremy Bamber murdered the family the complete scenario changes as the supper and conversation around the table were all reported by him and therefore null and void. We know BW phoned Nevil about a bike and he was in a strange mood and very short with her and then Pamela phoned about 10pm and June was worried about Sheila's behaviour in some way and that she was supposed to be going to bed at that time. Apart from that we have no real idea what happened that evening except that sometime during the night 5 people were shot dead quite possibly by Jeremy Bamber. :-\
-
I would think if Jeremy Bamber murdered the family the complete scenario changes as the supper and conversation around the table were all reported by him and therefore null and void. We know BW phoned Nevil about a bike and he was in a strange mood and very short with her and then Pamela phoned about 10pm and June was worried about Sheila's behaviour in some way and that she was supposed to be going to bed at that time. Apart from that we have no real idea what happened that evening except that sometime during the night 5 people were shot dead quite possibly by Jeremy Bamber. :-\
Jeremy once said it was important to tell the truth as much as possible/to tell as much of the truth as possible so it's quite possible that there is SOME truth in the scenario he gives us. What seems likely is that there was tension around the table.
-
Jeremy once said it was important to tell the truth as much as possible/to tell as much of the truth as possible so it's quite possible that there is SOME truth in the scenario he gives us. What seems likely is that there was tension around the table.
I would imagine he may have been more involved than in his scenario.
-
I would imagine he may have been more involved than in his scenario.
I agree Maggie. We only have Jeremy's word for what happened and what was said - I am sure he was more involved that he admitted which is why he went off without bringing the 'last' trailer back and why Nevill sounded in a bad mood when BW rang - just my opinion (Jan) - but there you are.