Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 06, 2015, 08:10:PM
-
Jeremy:
'There is something wrong at the farm, I haven't slept all night. Everything is going well. Love you lots'.
Julie:
'Go back to bed'.
From memory this is what Julie has testified Bamber said to her and what she said to him.
It all sounds credible. Bamber had rang her so would be the one doing the talking. He obviously wanted to tell her something. Julie was asleep and woken so is likely to not want to speak and want to go back to bed.
The police asked Bamber what he said to Julie in this phone call. He said 'no comment'.
At trial he also refused to say in detail exactly what he said. Just saying he rang Julie to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Since conviction I do not recall Bamber ever bringing up this telephone call. It is not on the OS.
The 2002 appeal found it unacceptable that Bamber phoned Julie. Whether before or after phoning the forth furthest away police station.
It's really a damaging thing Jeremy can't dispute or put a gloss on. Ringing Julie for advice or to hear a friendly voice just won't wash.
Do other people agree that what Julie testified was said, is correct ?
-
No reason not to believe Julie. His reason for phoning her doesn't ring true, her version does.
-
It doesn't seem logical to ring someone to 'hear a friendly voice' in his situation.
It wastes a lot of time and does not help Bamber in any way.
To ring Julie would not be a natural reaction. I bet if you took 100 other people who have received a distressed phone call from a relative, none of them would ring a girlfriend to 'hear a friendly voice'. Especially at 3am.
-
It doesn't seem logical to ring someone to 'hear a friendly voice' in his situation.
It wastes a lot of time and does not help Bamber in any way.
To ring Julie would not be a natural reaction.
Especially because he says he Dad sounded really scared.
-
Especially because he says he Dad sounded really scared.
Especially so. I wonder if he thumbed through the phone book page by page? Re the phone call to Julie. My feeling is, having read it, that something is missing. The words don't seem to flow correctly. I'm inclined to think Julie may have been expecting the call. Not necessarily that night but at some point during Sheila's visit. Jeremy, I believe, whilst admitting the call, denies the conversation happened.
-
Especially so. I wonder if he thumbed through the phone book page by page? Re the phone call to Julie. My feeling is, having read it, that something is missing. The words don't seem to flow correctly. I'm inclined to think Julie may have been expecting the call. Not necessarily that night but at some point during Sheila's visit. Jeremy, I believe, whilst admitting the call, denies the conversation happened.
Yeah, Jeremy has his own version of what was said during the phone call, he has no choice but to admit that it happened - although he has changed the order of when the call happened that night - but it still makes no sense that he would call Julie to hear a friendly voice - when he says he Dad sounded frightened and really scared.
-
Yeah, Jeremy has his own version of what was said during the phone call, he has no choice but to admit that it happened - although he has changed the order of when the call happened that night - but it still makes no sense that he would call Julie to hear a friendly voice - when he says he Dad sounded frightened and really scared.
Mat, I suspect that by saying that although he'd told her his plan, saying she didn't think he'd do it/didn't believe him, got her off the hook and she left out those parts of the conversation which would have dropped her in it. That Jeremy denied the conversation was a bonus.
-
Especially so. I wonder if he thumbed through the phone book page by page? Re the phone call to Julie. My feeling is, having read it, that something is missing. The words don't seem to flow correctly. I'm inclined to think Julie may have been expecting the call. Not necessarily that night but at some point during Sheila's visit. Jeremy, I believe, whilst admitting the call, denies the conversation happened.
The trouble is he hasn't put forward an alternative conversation.
-
Yeah, Jeremy has his own version of what was said during the phone call, he has no choice but to admit that it happened - although he has changed the order of when the call happened that night - but it still makes no sense that he would call Julie to hear a friendly voice - when he says he Dad sounded frightened and really scared.
His own version ?
He just says he phoned to 'hear a friendly voice'.
-
Mat, I suspect that by saying that although he'd told her his plan, saying she didn't think he'd do it/didn't believe him, got her off the hook and she left out those parts of the conversation which would have dropped her in it. That Jeremy denied the conversation was a bonus.
What parts could she leave out which would have dropped her in it ?
She said she knew about his hatred, resentment, plans, aborted plans and had said 'tonight's the night' five hours earlier.
She was already 'in it' which is another reason she waited a month before approaching the police.
-
His own version ?
He just says he phoned to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Yeah, his own version as in - disagreeing with what WAS said but not offering an alternative apart from saying the reason he called her, is what I meant.
-
His own version ?
He just says he phoned to 'hear a friendly voice'.
So what's wrong with that seeing as he didn't know anyone else well enough to phone at that hour of the morning ?
-
So what's wrong with that seeing as he didn't know anyone else well enough to phone at that hour of the morning ?
He says his Dad phoned him sounds really scared, that his sister had gone crazy with the gun on a night that they had been talking about fostering and he had left a weapon out....
And he phones Julie before the police.
Seems clear what is wrong.
-
Yeah, his own version as in - disagreeing with what WAS said but not offering an alternative apart from saying the reason he called her, is what I meant.
The trouble for Bamber is that is not enough.
He's only ever discussed what was said once. Which was at trial. Just giving a general answer.
-
What parts could he leave out which would drop Julie in it ?
She said she knew about his hatred, resentment, plans, aborted plans and had said 'tonight's the night' five hours earlier.
She was already 'in it' which is another reason she waited a month before approaching the police.
It could have been something along the lines of when they'd discussed it at the weekend/whenever which could have been followed by her reminding him of something or asking a question. She had a month to get a conversation together which didn't make it look as if she knew more than she was prepared to say.
-
If he had phoned Julie to hear a friendly voice, would she say 'go back to bed'.
Possible at 3am, but much more likely to say 'Go back to bed' if Bamber just gives her an information statement and doesn't ask for advice. Which is what Julie said Bamber said.
-
If he had phoned Julie to hear a friendly voice, would she say 'go back to bed'.
Possible at 3am, but much more likely to say 'Go back to bed' if Bamber just gives her an information statement and doesn't ask for advice. Which is what Julie said Bamber said.
Did he not tell her that he hadn't been to bed all night? That being the case, he couldn't have gone back.
-
He says his Dad phoned him sounds really scared, that his sister had gone crazy with the gun on a night that they had been talking about fostering and he had left a weapon out....
And he phones Julie before the police.
Seems clear what is wrong.
It obviously would seem clear from your point of view.
-
Bamber obviously thought Julie would be a friendly voice and they could have a nice chat. Even at 3am. How long he expected them to chat for I don't know.
The fact that Julie said 'go back to bed' suggests Bamber just gave her an information statement.
-
Bamber obviously thought Julie would be a friendly voice and they could have a nice chat. Even at 3am. How long he expected them to chat for I don't know.
The fact that Julie said 'go back to bed' suggests Bamber just gave her an information statement.
As Jeremy gives us no insight to their conversation we only have her version of it.
-
There were several witnesses to the phone call. Who were awake and gave times of the call. I understand another flatmate answered the phone.
It would be interesting if they heard what Julie said. Or could give an estimate of how long Julie spent on the phone.
Less than a minute on the phone would back up Julie. Or if they heard her say 'go back to bed' that's even better. Or maybe both.
-
This could be a reason why Bamber is so quiet on this issue.
Julie's flatmates can at the least back up what she said and the shortness of the conversation.
-
There were several witnesses to the phone call. Who were awake and gave times of the call. I understand another flatmate answered the phone.
It would be interesting if they heard what Julie said. Or could give an estimate of how long Julie spent on the phone.
Less than a minute on the phone would back up Julie. Or if they heard her say 'go back to bed' that's even better.
I guess that none of it would have mattered in the beginning but I'm getting a sense of your unwillingness to accept that Julie could put a foot wrong.
-
This could be a reason why Bamber is so quiet on this issue.
Julie's flatmates can at the least back up what she said and the shortness of the conversation.
Or back up what she said she said.
-
Or back up what she said she said.
Correct.
If Bamber rang to 'hear a friendly voice', the call would be over one minute. Perhaps several minutes.
Bamber would need to explain what had happened, how he feels and why he has rang her at 3am. There is also a strong chance Julie would attempt to assist him. At least Bamber thought that would happen.
Bamber just giving an information statement and Julie just saying 'go back to bed' will take one minute or less.
Flatmates confirming Julie was on the phone for only a minute or less, confirms her WS. Bamber did not phone for advice.
It is not surprising Bamber has kept so quiet on this. He really has made 'no comment' since 1985.
-
Correct.
If Bamber rang to 'hear a friendly voice', the call would be over one minute. Perhaps several minutes.
Bamber would need to explain what had happened, how he feels and why he has rang her at 3am. There is also a strong chance Julie would attempt to assist him. At least Bamber thought that would happen.
Bamber just giving an information statement and Julie just saying 'go back to bed' will take one minute or less.
Flatmates confirming Julie was on the phone for only a minute or less, confirms her WS. Bamber did not phone for advice.
It is not surprising Bamber has kept so quiet on this. He really has made 'no comment' since 1985.
Did the "It's tonight or never/Tonight's the night" conversation come right out of the blue OR might the possibility of it being sometime during the coming week have already been discussed? It's the sort of involvement that Julie wouldn't have wanted to confess to.
-
Bamber has attacked Julie from every angle. Even last year there was an 8 minute Youtube video.
Why hasn't he attacked Julie for saying 'go back to bed' after he rang her to 'hear a friendly voice' ?
Firstly because he originally said 'no comment' and then gave an unconvincing answer in court when asked why he rang her.
Secondly because he knows Julies flatmates can strongly support Julie's WS.
-
Did the "It's tonight or never/Tonight's the night" conversation come right out of the blue OR might the possibility of it being sometime during the coming week have already been discussed? It's the sort of involvement that Julie wouldn't have wanted to confess to.
It had been discussed. Julie said Bamber planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat. After abandoning the burning down WHF plan.
-
Bamber has attacked Julie from every angle. Even last year there was an 8 minute Youtube video.
Why hasn't he attacked Julie for saying 'go back to bed' after he rang her to 'hear a friendly voice' ?
Firstly because he originally said 'no comment' and then gave an unconvincing answer in court when asked.
Secondly because he knows Julies flatmates can strongly support Julie's WS.
Perhaps you've never come across the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Perhaps, regarding Julie, that's what Jeremy has done. Maybe it explains "No comment."
-
Perhaps you've never come across the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Perhaps, regarding Julie, that's what Jeremy has done. Maybe it explains "No comment."
There was certainly a 10am phone call to Julie. This is more normal as boyfriends will speak to their girlfriends before bed.
Bamber was again very evasive on what was said in this. But at least didn't say 'no comment'.
It is perfectly plausible for Bamber to say 'tonight's the night' and 'it's now or never', at 10pm. Then ring Julie at 3am to tell her he 'hasn't slept all night'.
-
It had been discussed. Julie said Bamber planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat. After abandoning the burning down WHF plan.
But WHEN? My contention is that Julie was aware that at some time, during that week, it was likely that Jeremy, because everyone was where he needed them to be, was going to put his plan into action. It was one thing telling the police that he'd talked about doing it at some time. It would be something else entirely to say she knew he was going to do it at a given time and she'd done nothing about it.
-
But WHEN? My contention is that Julie was aware that at some time, during that week, it was likely that Jeremy, because everyone was where he needed them to be, was going to put his plan into action. It was one thing telling the police that he'd talked about doing it at some time. It would be something else entirely to say she knew he was going to do it at a given time and she'd done nothing about it.
Well Julie knew Bamber planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat. I assume she knew Sheila was staying at WHF that week.
She also knew Bamber had said 'tonight's the night' at 10pm.
She just didn't believe he would do anything. I mean kill his own mother, father, sister and two six year old's.
-
As Bamber is so silent on this phone call, hopefully supporters can give more light on what Bamber actually may have said. Actual words please. That's what forums are for.
And why Julie just said 'Go back to bed'.
Julie is confident it was a short conversation of a minute or less. Bamber has never denied this. Surely he is not suggesting it was a five minute conversation. How could it be ? He had to arrive at WHF by 3.48am.
-
Well Julie knew Bamber planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat. I assume she knew Sheila was staying at WHF that week.
She also knew Bamber had said 'tonight's the night' at 10pm.
She just didn't believe he would do anything. I mean kill his own mother, father, sister and two six year old's.
Given that Julie was with Jeremy when he took Sheila home from the party I think it highly likely she knew she'd be visiting the farm later that day. It's possible, given Sheila's low spirits and Jeremy's belief that the twins were a mill stone round Colin's neck, that his plan for them was spoken about during the journey back to Goldhanger. That may have been the point, during that conversation, at which she didn't believe he'd do anything moved up a notch to she thought he meant it, hoped he wouldn't but suspected he might. She couldn't have told the police that as little as three days prior to the massacre she'd suspected he'd do it. She wasn't capable of controlling what HE said during that call but she could control what she said so it wouldn't have been obvious to a listener what the call was about....................................Go back to bed.
-
Given that Julie was with Jeremy when he took Sheila home from the party I think it highly likely she knew she'd be visiting the farm later that day. It's possible, given Sheila's low spirits and Jeremy's belief that the twins were a mill stone round Colin's neck, that his plan for them was spoken about during the journey back to Goldhanger. That may have been the point, during that conversation, at which she didn't believe he'd do anything moved up a notch to she thought he meant it, hoped he wouldn't but suspected he might. She couldn't have told the police that as little as three days prior to the massacre she'd suspected he'd do it. She wasn't capable of controlling what HE said during that call but she could control what she said so it wouldn't have been obvious to a listener what the call was about....................................Go back to bed.
If Jeremy mentioned it in the car Julie would have said so. She mentioned many other less recent occasions where he mentioned it. Doing so in the car would have provided substantial support for her claims.
-
Given that Julie was with Jeremy when he took Sheila home from the party I think it highly likely she knew she'd be visiting the farm later that day. It's possible, given Sheila's low spirits and Jeremy's belief that the twins were a mill stone round Colin's neck, that his plan for them was spoken about during the journey back to Goldhanger. That may have been the point, during that conversation, at which she didn't believe he'd do anything moved up a notch to she thought he meant it, hoped he wouldn't but suspected he might. She couldn't have told the police that as little as three days prior to the massacre she'd suspected he'd do it. She wasn't capable of controlling what HE said during that call but she could control what she said so it wouldn't have been obvious to a listener what the call was about....................................Go back to bed.
So you think Julie is telling the truth about what Bamber said to her. And what she said to Bamber ?
-
Supporters have claimed he phoned Julie for advice.
That is not credible and Bamber has not claimed this. He had already called the police and been told what to do. He was a lot older than Julie, it was his family and he was only 3 miles away from them. What advice could she give at 3am and would it be any different to what the police had said ?
So all he can say is he phoned Julie to 'hear a friendly voice'. At 3am. Which is just as unconvincing and something he has only said once. At trial.
It is much more likely that he was giving her a statement update.
It doesn't seem that Julie was expecting a call as she didn't answer the phone and had to be woken. Then just said 'go back to bed', which most people would say at 3am.
-
It is perfectly plausible . . . Then ring Julie at 3am to tell her he 'hasn't slept all night'.
Why are you inventing things? The time wasn't given by anyone as 3am. At trial, it was concluded that the time of this call wasn't established precisely, and it could have been as late as 3:30am. Jeremy didn't remember what he said to Julie when he called her (after receiving Nevill's call), but, when interviewed in September 1985, he specifically denied telling her he hadn't slept all night. Jeremy didn't avoid questions about the call - he simply stated he didn't recall what he said to Julie. As he can't recall the details of the conversation, it's hardly surprising that the OS is "quiet" about those details. Julie's supposed recollection of what he said didn't "materialise" until she'd been interviewed dozens of times. You seem uninterested in the contents of all those interviews she had before she gave her released statement.
-
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
"I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton."
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
313. If the jury were to disbelieve the appellant's evidence as to the timing of the telephone call, it could only have been because they were sure about the evidence of one or other of Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby. They could have accepted both to be right because if Joanne Woad was right the time could have been 2.59 a.m. and no precise check had been made as to the accuracy of her clock. If Susan Battersby was right, it was at approximately 3.02 a.m. and whilst it was known that she kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast there was some room for some slight variation.
-
So it seems two people are certain the call was a long time before 3.26am.Between 2.00pm - 2.59 am or 3.02am. Even during cross examination these two people did not budge.
Other flatmates gave times varying from 3am - 3.30am.
But the jury must go by Battersby and Woad.
His call to Julie may have even been before Neville's call. Wait there, that's impossible, isn't it ?
Posters have to say the call was at 3am.
-
So it seems two people are certain the call was a long time before 3.26am.Between 2.00pm - 2.59 am or 3.02am. Even during cross examination these two people did not budge.
Other flatmates gave times varying from 3am - 3.30am.
But the jury must go by Battersby and Woad.
His call to Julie may have even been before Neville's call. Wait there, that's impossible, isn't it ?
Posters have to say the call was at 3am.
you do realise they had all been smoking pot?
-
you do realise they had all been smoking pot?
Jan, I'm at a loss as to where Adam is trying to take this. He asks a question, then proceeds to apparently disagree with everything we've said.
-
Just trying to determine if there is a credible reason for Jeremy phoning Julie. At 3am. And what he said.
He eventually remembered why he phoned her, telling the court it was 'to hear a friendly voice'. Although he had said 'no comment' to the police.
Reader says Bamber cannot remember what he said but remembers he didn't say 'I've not slept all night'. This is surprising as Bamber made a decision to phone Julie, so you would think he would remember why he called her and what he said. He could remember what TV programmes he had watched that night.
Lookout had nibble earlier in the thread but didn't say what Bamber may have said. Ditto Jan.
As mentioned if Julies flatmates can confirm the call time is a minute or less, that backs up Julie's statement that Bamber just rang her to give an information update. Julie, half asleep dismissing it.
-
Julie put herself up there to be shot at.
Saying exactly what Bamber and she said to each other.
Bamber has never fired any shots at her on this issue.
-
I can't envisage a call because Jeremy wanted to hear a friendly voice. But I'll try.
'Hi, it's Jeremy. Sorry to wake you and you're flat mates at 3am.
'My dad's just rang. He said 'come quickly, Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun. I have rang Chelmsford police station who have told me to meet them at 'White House Farm'. I am worried that something terrible has happened'. Sheila's a loony'.
Julie - 'What time is it ? Are you serious ? Why have you rang me, I am in Lewisham ? It's not my family. Shouldn't you be going to meet the police ?'
Jeremy - 'I just wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
Julie - 'Go back to bed'.
-
Just trying to determine if there is a credible reason for Jeremy phoning Julie. At 3am. And what he said.
He eventually remembered why he phoned her, telling the court it was 'to hear a friendly voice'. Although he had said 'no comment' to the police.
Reader says Bamber cannot remember what he said but remembers he didn't say 'I've not slept all night'. This is surprising as Bamber made a decision to phone Julie, so you would think he would remember why he called her and what he said. He could remember what TV programmes he had watched that night.
Lookout had nibble earlier in the thread but didn't say what Bamber may have said. Ditto Jan.
As mentioned if Julies flatmates can confirm the call time is a minute or less, that backs up Julie's statement that Bamber just rang her to give an information update. Julie, half asleep dismissing it.
OK. According to CAL, the 10pm call told Julie "........The crime will have to be tonight or never" after which she told him not to be so stupid and the conversation continued, each telling the other about their respective days. He timed the call as lasting 17 minutes. After the call had ended she realized that by "crime" he'd meant killing his family.
The next call, circa 3.15, appears to have been answered by Julie. "I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said "Hello" I felt very dozy. I suppose I was only half awake" He said "Everything is going well. Not to worry. There is something wrong at the farm" He told her he hadn't been to bed all night "I told him simply to go to bed" She got into bed and realized "In my view he was telling me they were all dead"........................DISCUSS.
-
OK. According to CAL, the 10pm call told Julie "........The crime will have to be tonight or never" after which she told him not to be so stupid and the conversation continued, each telling the other about their respective days. He timed the call as lasting 17 minutes. After the call had ended she realized that by "crime" he'd meant killing his family.
The next call, circa 3.15, appears to have been answered by Julie. "I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said "Hello" I felt very dozy. I suppose I was only half awake" He said "Everything is going well. Not to worry. There is something wrong at the farm" He told her he hadn't been to bed all night "I told him simply to go to bed" She got into bed and realized "In my view he was telling me they were all dead"........................DISCUSS.
CAL spent three years engaging with Bamber.
Did Bamber not tell her what was said in this conversation ? Or did he just agree with Julie's version ?
He should have given his version but CAL and Caroline said he doesn't like answering difficult questions. A pity as everyone would find his version interesting.
It seems he knows that no matter what he claims to have said in this conversation, it would not benefit him. So best to just bury it.
-
CAL spent three years engaging with Bamber.
Did Bamber not tell her what was said in this conversation ? Or did he just agree with Julie's version ?
He should have given his version but CAL and Caroline said he doesn't like answering difficult questions. A pity as everyone would find his version interesting.
It seems he knows that no matter what he claims to have said in this conversation, it would not benefit him. So best to just bury it.
I'm curious to know what was said in those first 17 minutes. I fail to see how it could just have been small talk after he'd told her ".................Tonight or never."
-
Forget about Julie putting herself up there to be shot at. I have done the same thing. Suggesting how the conversation could have gone when Jeremy wanted to hear a friendly voice.
Although it's just as possible Julie would have tried to give him emotional support making the call a long one. Bamber was certainly hoping and expecting this. But this didn't happen as Bamber arrived at WHF at 3.48am.
-
I'm curious to know what was said in those first 17 minutes. I fail to see how it could just have been small talk after he'd told her ".................Tonight or never."
Julie's WS goes into detail of what was said. Seventeen minutes is not that long between boy and girlfriend. Jeremy has always been very evasive on what was said.
Bamber may have said 'tonight's the night' etc at the end of the call. If not Julie dismissed it anyway and probably just carried on speaking as normal.
Some of the 17 minutes would be Bamber saying how 'pissed off' he was and that he had been 'thinking about the crime all day'.
-
Well it seems after 3 years engaging with CAL, Bamber has not expanded on the 3am call to Julie. Was anyone expecting him to ? I wasn't but always optimistic.
Lookout, Jan etc, it's time for you to go into bat for team Bamber.
Julie's version is still the only one out there. It's also credible, supports the guilty verdict and has never been attacked by Bamber.
-
If Bamber 'wanted to hear a friendly voice', he obviously wanted a conversation with Julie. Whether this be five minutes or 20.
He really wasn't in a hurry to meet the police and assist Neville, was he ? But what's the rush, Neville would sort everything out, wouldn't he ?
-
Julie's WS goes into detail of what was said. Seventeen minutes is not that long between boy and girlfriend. Jeremy has always been very evasive on what was said.
Bamber may have said 'tonight's the night' etc at the end of the call. If not Julie dismissed it anyway and probably just carried on speaking as normal.
Some of the 17 minutes would be Bamber saying how 'pissed off' he was and that he had been 'thinking about the crime all day'.
17 mins is a VERY long time to indulge in small talk if one has just learned that the caller is about to kill his family -that sentence HAD to have gone on resonating- yet Julie only admits to "small talk."
I'm interested that you use "may" when you say "tonight's the night" may have been at the end of the call. It suggests that you "may" doubt Julie's version. Jeremy had already told her, at the beginning of the conversation, after she'd told him she'd had a wonderful day, about how he "had spent the entire day sitting in a tractor with the sun beating down".
-
17 mins is a VERY long time to indulge in small talk if one has just learned that the caller is about to kill his family -that sentence HAD to have gone on resonating- yet Julie only admits to "small talk."
I'm interested that you use "may" when you say "tonight's the night" may have been at the end of the call. It suggests that you "may" doubt Julie's version. Jeremy had already told her, at the beginning of the conversation, after she'd told him she'd had a wonderful day, about how he "had spent the entire day sitting in a tractor with the sun beating down".
I don't doubt her version. Again she has put herself up to be shot at. Giving details of what was said.
I can't remember whether she says Bamber said 'tonight's the night' etc at the beginning, middle or end of the conversation. Either way she just said 'don't be so stupid'.
I suspect Bamber said this at the middle or end. Julie told him what a good day she had just had. This would have been at the beginning of the conversation. Saying this after Bamber's negative comments is less likely as Bamber would have brought her down to his negative level.
-
I don't doubt her version. Again she has put herself up to be shot at. Giving details of what was said.
I can't remember whether she says Bamber said 'tonight's the night' etc at the beginning, middle or end of the conversation. Either way she just said 'don't be so stupid'.
I suspect Bamber said this at the middle or end. Julie told him what a good day she had just had. This would have been at the beginning of the conversation. Saying this after Bamber's negative comments is less likely as Bamber would have brought her down to his negative level.
The whole point, Adam, is that we DON'T know what was said. All we know is what Julie SAID was said, but what you appear to be doing is altering the sequence she gave. "Tonight's the night" came just after he talked about "sitting on the tractor with the sun beating down" to which she responded that he sounded pissed off, to which he replied by saying he'd been thinking and......................the conversation then went on to each expanding on their individual days. Allegedly.
-
CAL spent three years engaging with Bamber.
Did Bamber not tell her what was said in this conversation ? Or did he just agree with Julie's version ?
He should have given his version but CAL and Caroline said he doesn't like answering difficult questions. A pity as everyone would find his version interesting.
It seems he knows that no matter what he claims to have said in this conversation, it would not benefit him. So best to just bury it.
It was 30 years ago, Adam. I am not surprised he can't remember if it isn't recorded ona statement. I can think back 30 years at something of great importance in my life but cannot remember the words I used in conversation. I don't think it proves anything either way.
-
The whole point, Adam, is that we DON'T know what was said. All we know is what Julie SAID was said, but what you appear to be doing is altering the sequence she gave. "Tonight's the night" came just after he talked about "sitting on the tractor with the sun beating down" to which she responded that he sounded pissed off, to which he replied by saying he'd been thinking and......................the conversation then went on to each expanding on their individual days. Allegedly.
We do know what was said. One of the two participants to the conversation has said in detail on her WS. Bamber has not really disputed this and did not want to discuss the conversation with the police.
I'm not altering any times. I don't believe it makes much difference when Bamber said 'tonight's the night', 'it's now or never' and 'I've been thinking about the crime all day'. Julie just dismissed it and would have carried on speaking.
However I suspect Julie told Bamber about her day first. She was in an upbeat mood so would be keen to divulge.
-
It was 30 years ago, Adam. I am not surprised he can't remember if it isn't recorded ona statement. I can think back 30 years at something of great importance in my life but cannot remember the words I used in conversation. I don't think it proves anything either way.
Welcome to the conversation, Maggie. It's somewhat trying to hold one with someone who asks the question "What was said" and proceeds to dispute everything but what he believed was the answer in the first place, which rather negates the need to ask it, doesn't it?
-
It was 30 years ago, Adam. I am not surprised he can't remember if it isn't recorded ona statement. I can think back 30 years at something of great importance in my life but cannot remember the words I used in conversation. I don't think it proves anything either way.
The trouble is 30 years ago he made a concious decision to telephone Julie at 3am. So a few weeks later will know why he called her and what was said.
However he just said 'no comment' to police before giving a weak reason when testifying. Julie is able to say exactly what was said.
-
Has Bamber said anything to CAL about his 10pm phone call to Julie ? Surely he can discuss that during his 3 years of engagement.
Maybe Bamber was in a good mood after sitting on his tractor all day. After all he had just had supper with mum and dad.
-
The trouble is 30 years ago he made a concious decision to telephone Julie at 3am. So a few weeks later will know why he called her and what was said.
However he just said 'no comment' to police before giving a weak reason when testifying. Julie is able to say exactly what was said.
He was well within his rights to say 'no comment' when being questioned by the police, Julie was in a different position.
No one can dispute what he said but neither can anyone do more than speculate as to what was actually said by either party, even Julie's statement about the phone conversatio is a bit disjointed and unconvincing imo.
-
Welcome to the conversation, Maggie. It's somewhat trying to hold one with someone who asks the question "What was said" and proceeds to dispute everything but what he believed was the answer in the first place, which rather negates the need to ask it, doesn't it?
I do see your point :'(
-
We do know what was said. One of the two participants to the conversation has said in detail on her WS. Bamber has not really disputed this and did not want to discuss the conversation with the police.
I'm not altering any times. I don't believe it makes much difference when Bamber said 'tonight's the night', 'it's now or never' and 'I've been thinking about the crime all day'. Julie just dismissed it and would have carried on speaking.
However I suspect Julie told Bamber about her day first. She was in an upbeat mood so would be keen to divulge.
Strange how you treat WS as if they are something holy. They are no guarantee of truth. Julie was the only person who heard exactly what Jeremy said so was free to leave out anything he said which could have suggested that THEY had previously discussed "the crime" more than she admitted. There would be no point in Jeremy saying ANYTHING to the police because it may possibly implicate him in something he's claiming innocence of.
-
Who knows what was said ? Whatever it was it's going to be wrong.
-
Strange how you treat WS as if they are something holy. They are no guarantee of truth. Julie was the only person who heard exactly what Jeremy said so was free to leave out anything he said which could have suggested that THEY had previously discussed "the crime" more than she admitted. There would be no point in Jeremy saying ANYTHING to the police because it may possibly implicate him in something he's claiming innocence of.
Well her WS is a lot longer and goes into more detail than Bamber's. I have justified it in my 'ring of truth' thread.
More than she admitted ?
She advised him not to burn down WHF and supplied sleeping pills for him. As well as listen to his final plan to frame Sheila and here him say 'tonight's the night'.
Apart from being there with him I don't see how much more involved she could be.
-
Who knows what was said ? Whatever it was it's going to be wrong.
What do you think Bamber said to Julie ? He has refused to say.
Julie has given exact words, which had Bamber giving her a 3am information update. This is credible and matches a guilty verdict.
-
Nobody needed to supply any sleeping pills as there were plenty already in-situ between Sheila and June. EP took a quantity of tablets from the farmhouse,but we never got to know what they were.
-
Well her WS is a lot longer and goes into more detail than Bamber's.................WHICH MEANS? I have justified it in my 'ring of truth' thread. ...........YOU MAY HAVE, BUT TO WHOM?
More than she admitted ? ................NO ONE WILL DISPUTE IT
She advised him not to burn down WHF and supplied sleeping pills for him. As well as listen to his final plan to frame Sheila and here him say 'tonight's the night'...................NO ONE IS DENYING IT.
Apart from being there with him I don't see how much more involved she could be..................I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CAN.
-
Why are you inventing things? The times wasn't given by anyone as 3am. At trial, it was concluded that the time of this call wasn't established precisely, and it could have been as late as 3:30am. Jeremy didn't remember what he said to Julie when he called her (after receiving Nevill's call), but, when interviewed in September 1985, he specifically denied telling her he hadn't slept all night. Jeremy didn't avoid questions about the call - he simply stated he didn't recall what he said to Julie. As he can't recall the details of the conversation, it's hardly surprising that the OS is "quiet" about those details. Julie's supposed recollection of what he said didn't "materialise" until she'd been interviewed dozens of times. You seem uninterested in the contents of all those interviews she had before she gave her released statement.
2 of the witnesses say around 3am, the witnesses in question are the ones who looked at their clocks. The other 2 did not. No one honest believes the call was at 3:30 but then again an honest person admits Jeremy phoned Chelmsford prior to 3:26.
-
One has to err on the side of caution with whatever JM had said/stated. The hitman debacle was enough for me. You don't knowingly drag someone into something as serious as a murder investigation. If Jeremy had jokingly said the vicar,she'd have gone along with that too.
-
Some people seem to be suggesting maybe he had a long conversation with Julie. The roommates who got up and balled Julie out would have noted it if they had to wait a long time for her to get off before being able to ball her out. Spending a long time on the phone would be harmful to Jeremy. His goals were 1) to tell Julie what he had done because he was bursting at the seems from excitement so needed to tell someone and she was his confidant; 2) to get her to claim he called to say he was alerted to trouble at WHF. his was supposed to be corroboration he actually was alerted to trouble because if he was just pretending then he would not have phoned her to tell her too he only would have told the police such. He would not take a really long time on the phone doing such.
Even if he had pre-discussed with Julie that he was going to call her to falsely say he received a distress call from WHF he would not have stayed on the phone long. The call was even shorter because Julie was not fully awake so she didn't react and if she had reacted it could have prolonged the conversation by a half minute maybe but big deal. He didn't anticipate having a long conversation with her.
She was half asleep still so didn't elaborate on the trouble he said he was alerted to. He might very well have told her in this message that Nevill called saying Sheila had the gun but not remembered it. She said that he told her in his second call about Julie and the gun but maybe he told her in both. It is doubtful he used the exact words there is trouble at WHF and that's it. he exact words don't matter though what matter is the import of the message. The import of the message was his claim he was alerted by phone to trouble at WHF.
She said that in advance of the murders he told her that his plan would involve a call from WHF but she didn't entirely understand him. Whether that is because he didn't explain it in full or because she wasn't listening fully trying to fully follow him who knows. It is highly doubtful though that he told her he planned to call her to say he received a call and would use her to help back up his story. That seemed to be something he decided to do spontaneously or planned at some point but didn't let her in on that part. If he actually involved her then he would have said I am going to call you and you can pretend I told you that I received a distress call... He would not need to actually say it they could talk about other stuff. "Hi things went like clockwork I'm going to call the police now you make sure you remember what to tell them. Bye." Did she lie and is that what he actually said to her? It is always a slight possibility but there is nothing to prove she lied and that this is what he really said and I see no reason to disbelieve her.
-
I think she was telling the truth here :)
-
Some people seem to be suggesting maybe he had a long conversation with Julie. The roommates who got up and balled Julie out would have noted it if they had to wait a long time for her to get off before being able to ball her out. Spending a long time on the phone would be harmful to Jeremy. His goals were 1) to tell Julie what he had done because he was bursting at the seems from excitement so needed to tell someone and she was his confidant; 2) to get her to claim he called to say he was alerted to trouble at WHF. his was supposed to be corroboration he actually was alerted to trouble because if he was just pretending then he would not have phoned her to tell her too he only would have told the police such. He would not take a really long time on the phone doing such.
Even if he had pre-discussed with Julie that he was going to call her to falsely say he received a distress call from WHF he would not have stayed on the phone long. The call was even shorter because Julie was not fully awake so she didn't react and if she had reacted it could have prolonged the conversation by a half minute maybe but big deal. He didn't anticipate having a long conversation with her.
She was half asleep still so didn't elaborate on the trouble he said he was alerted to. He might very well have told her in this message that Nevill called saying Sheila had the gun but not remembered it. She said that he told her in his second call about Julie and the gun but maybe he told her in both. It is doubtful he used the exact words there is trouble at WHF and that's it. he exact words don't matter though what matter is the import of the message. The import of the message was his claim he was alerted by phone to trouble at WHF.
She said that in advance of the murders he told her that his plan would involve a call from WHF but she didn't entirely understand him. Whether that is because he didn't explain it in full or because she wasn't listening fully trying to fully follow him who knows. It is highly doubtful though that he told her he planned to call her to say he received a call and would use her to help back up his story. That seemed to be something he decided to do spontaneously or planned at some point but didn't let her in on that part. If he actually involved her then he would have said I am going to call you and you can pretend I told you that I received a distress call... He would not need to actually say it they could talk about other stuff. "Hi things went like clockwork I'm going to call the police now you make sure you remember what to tell them. Bye." Did she lie and is that what he actually said to her? It is always a slight possibility but there is nothing to prove she lied and that this is what he really said and I see no reason to disbelieve her.
He told her the call had lasted 17 minutes.
-
He told her the call had lasted 17 minutes.
That was the call on the evening of the 6th not the call after the murders. The call to her after the murders ended up backfiring and being suspicious but had to be short because if it were long it would be even more obvious it was a farce.
What is clear from the 17 minute call is he was pissed off about the tribulations of farm work and that helped convince himself to go through with the murders.
-
I think she was telling the truth here :)
I think she was certainly telling some truth. But what I find confusing is that after a 17-20 minute phone call, during which he tells her he's going to kill his family, she goes to bed and goes to sleep!!!!!!!!!!!!until the telephone wakes her circa 3.30 and she answers it. She says she felt "very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake"!!!!!!!!! He has told her that he's going to kill his family and she goes to bed and goes to sleep :o :o :o ??? ??? ???
-
That was the call on the evening of the 6th not the call after the murders. The call to her after the murders ended up backfiring and being suspicious but had to be short because if it were long it would be even more obvious it was a farce.
What is clear from the 17 minute call is he was pissed off about the tribulations of farm work and that helped convince himself to go through with the murders.
I don't recall saying anything to the contrary. I set out (almost) verbatim how CAL had provided for both calls/timings and what Julie said were the words which passed between her and Jeremy.
-
She would not have gone back to bed IF he told her he was going to kill his family. Nobody would have.
-
She would not have gone back to bed IF he told her he was going to kill his family. Nobody would have.
But she'd known for the best part of a year what was on his mind and they'd both been with Sheila at the weekend so they'd both have witnessed how low she was. I imagine that it would have formed part of the conversation during the 1.50/2 hr journey back to Goldhanger.
-
But she'd known for the best part of a year what was on his mind and they'd both been with Sheila at the weekend so they'd both have witnessed how low she was. I imagine that it would have formed part of the conversation during the 1.50/2 hr journey back to Goldhanger.
You keep talking about the journey back to Goldhanger.
If Bamber had spoken about his plans then, Julie would have mentioned it in her WS.
She spoke about all his plans months, weeks and hours before the massacre.
She didn't believe Bamber would do anything. That is why she was sleeping. At 3am. Bamber wasn't !
-
You keep talking about the journey back to Goldhanger.
If Bamber had spoken about his plans then, Julie would have mentioned it in her WS.
She spoke about all his plans months, weeks and hours before the massacre.
She didn't believe Bamber would do anything. That is why she was sleeping. At 3am. Bamber wasn't !
`
So she was quite happy to marry a man who spoke about poisoning burning drugging and hiring a hit man - and had explained why he had to kill the children. Nice.
And she must have a pretty good idea he meant it, to suddenly come to the conclusion he had murdered them all on the very night he did it.
-
But she'd known for the best part of a year what was on his mind and they'd both been with Sheila at the weekend so they'd both have witnessed how low she was. I imagine that it would have formed part of the conversation during the 1.50/2 hr journey back to Goldhanger.
How do we know she'd known really and wasn't just using a possible/alleged remark that Jeremy was so often coming out with,which he was reknowned for ? His father by all accounts was a joker.
-
`
So she was quite happy to marry a man who spoke about poisoning burning drugging and hiring a hit man - and had explained why he had to kill the children. Nice.
And she must have a pretty good idea he meant it, to suddenly come to the conclusion he had murdered them all on the very night he did it.
Well he rang her at 3am and said 'Everything is going well, there is something wrong at the farm. I haven't slept all night. Love you lots'.
What was she going to think ?
Unless you can think of what else he may have said. Which was why the thread was created.
-
You keep talking about the journey back to Goldhanger.
If Bamber had spoken about his plans then, Julie would have mentioned it in her WS.
She spoke about all his plans months, weeks and hours before the massacre.
She didn't believe Bamber would do anything. That is why she was sleeping. At 3am. Bamber wasn't !
You're missing the point, Adam. She could talk about him saying he was going to do it when it was all a bit fuzzy, just an idea he was playing with. It would have been an entirely different thing -and would have made her much more complicit had she not warned someone- to admit that he'd said, as late as three days prior to the massacre, that he said he'd have to do it that week because they'd all be under one roof at the farm. Knowing what his plans were for them all and knowing that they were all going to be at the farm that week, I think most girls would have been terrified of what MIGHT happen. You seem to think Julie was able to sleep...................like a log, perhaps?
-
Jan i think she was telling the truth in the statement you have posted too. It flows like a proper conversation. The one where he is supposed to have said all is goung well just sounds completely odd to me.
-
You're missing the point, Adam. She could talk about him saying he was going to do it when it was all a bit fuzzy, just an idea he was playing with. It would have been an entirely different thing -and would have made her much more complicit had she not warned someone- to admit that he'd said, as late as three days prior to the massacre, that he said he'd have to do it that week because they'd all be under one roof at the farm. Knowing what his plans were for them all and knowing that they were all going to be at the farm that week, I think most girls would have been terrified of what MIGHT happen. You seem to think Julie was able to sleep...................like a log, perhaps?
Well he brought the bike over just before the massacre. And told Julie he planned to do a trial run. He had also told her he planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat.
No matter what he said to Julie, or how he said it, she was never going to believe he would do it. It was killing his own family and risking life in prison. One of the worst crimes the country has seen.
Even if 1% of believed he might do it, she still loved Jeremy and was his girlfriend. So would not tell anyone.
-
It obviously suited Julie at the time to think of all the " jokes/jests/phrases " from the past,when clearly that's what they were,but those jokes/jests and phrases are easily turned into something sinister to fit an occasion which is what happened. They were conveniently twisted. No doubt Jeremy DID say half of what she said he did,but certainly not in a meaningful way which she'd have been fully aware of at the time,and what she said in court WAS the truth,but the meaning was entirely different then.
-
Well he brought the bike over just before the massacre. And told Julie he planned to do a trial run. He had also told her he planned to use Sheila as a scapegoat.
No matter what he said to Julie, or how he said it, she was never going to believe he would do it. It was killing his own family and risking life in prison. One of the worst crimes the country has seen.
Even if 1% of believed he might do it, she still loved Jeremy and was his girlfriend. So would not tell anyone.
I think over time she HAD to have become suspicious -she had a brain- but I'm very certain that fact will stay between her and her priest/therapist.
-
It puts me in mind of the sketch on the Morecambe and Wise Show with Andre Previn,when Eric Morecambe played the piano out of key. He then said he WAS playing all the right notes,but NOT necessarily in the right order.
-
It obviously suited Julie at the time to think of all the " jokes/jests/phrases " from the past,when clearly that's what they were,but those jokes/jests and phrases are easily turned into something sinister to fit an occasion which is what happened. They were conveniently twisted. No doubt Jeremy DID say half of what she said he did,but certainly not in a meaningful way which she'd have been fully aware of at the time,and what she said in court WAS the truth,but the meaning was entirely different then.
Jokes? That's truly pushing the boundaries of desperation Lookout - who jokes about killing their parents to that degree?
-
It obviously suited Julie at the time to think of all the " jokes/jests/phrases " from the past,when clearly that's what they were,but those jokes/jests and phrases are easily turned into something sinister to fit an occasion which is what happened. They were conveniently twisted. No doubt Jeremy DID say half of what she said he did,but certainly not in a meaningful way which she'd have been fully aware of at the time,and what she said in court WAS the truth,but the meaning was entirely different then.
I can think of no possible way in which the killing of two small boys because they're seen as being a mill stone round their father's neck, can be seen as a joke.
-
Jokes? That's truly pushing the boundaries of desperation Lookout - who jokes about killing their parents to that degree?
Because I'm of the opinion that he didn't kill anyone, joking doesn't come into the equation,but in your world my words are twisted to suit your agenda. Not nice.
-
It puts me in mind of the sketch on the Morecambe and Wise Show with Andre Previn,when Eric Morecambe played the piano out of key. He then said he WAS playing all the right notes,but NOT necessarily in the right order.
Funny that because it puts my in mind of a sneaky, manipulating psychopath who used his mentally ill sister as a scape goat!
-
On the contrary,you're the desperate one for even thinking I'd joke over something like that.
Can I now expect your entourage to appear for more mud-slinging ? ::) Talk about misinterpreted.
-
Because I'm of the opinion that he didn't kill anyone, joking doesn't come into the equation,but in your world my words are twisted to suit your agenda. Not nice.
No! Joking doesn't come into it, it's fair enough to think he's innocent but to try and pass off any remarks he might have made about killing his family as a 'joke' or a 'jape' is just plain silly and a clear attempt to play down and dismiss anything negative. You have to be a pretty sick puppy to harp on about killing your family and an even sicker one to add two six year olds into the equation.
-
On the contrary,you're the desperate one for even thinking I'd joke over something like that.
Can I now expect your entourage to appear for more mud-slinging ? ::) Talk about misinterpreted.
Lookout, you did say it put you in mind of a comedy sketch.
-
On the contrary,you're the desperate one for even thinking I'd joke over something like that.
Can I now expect your entourage to appear for more mud-slinging ? ::) Talk about misinterpreted.
How has what you said been misinterpreted? You just said that he probably did tell Julie he thought about killing his family but it was all just a joke!! Ha freakin ha!
Oh and I'm not responsible for the fact that other people often find what you say distasteful THIS being such an instance. You're far to quick to jump out and defend Jeremy, that you clearly don't think things through! >:(
-
Lookout, you did say it put you in mind of a comedy sketch.
When Julie thought Jeremy said he wanted to murder his mum and dad - what he really said was? :-\ not really something you're going to mistake. ::)
-
Funny that because it puts my in mind of a sneaky, manipulating psychopath who used his mentally ill sister as a scape goat!
That's your prerogative/mindset to believe and think like that------nobody's stopping you,but you'll look a bit sick if you're wrong.
Somehow I didn't have you down as having a sense of humour.
-
Lookout, you did say it put you in mind of a comedy sketch.
If you want to peddle the word COMEDY------------then go ahead. I was referring to Julies testimony having been the truth,as in the sketch-------without the COMEDY,, of playing all the RIGHT notes but NOT necessarily all in the right order. In other words turning Jeremy's jokey moments into a serious scenario.
I can't explain it any other way. But help yourself how you want to take it.It doesn't surprise me.
-
If you want to peddle the word COMEDY------------then go ahead. I was referring to Julies testimony having been the truth,as in the sketch-------without the COMEDY,, of playing all the RIGHT notes but NOT necessarily all in the right order. In other words turning Jeremy's jokey moments into a serious scenario.
I can't explain it any other way. But help yourself how you want to take it.It doesn't surprise me.
I'm not sure it's possible to take the comedy OUT of Morcambe and Wise.
-
Why should I feel as though I'M on trial too ? It's ludicrous ! All because I believe he's innocent.
How would you all have been if I was forever slagging him off ? The same,probably !!
-
That's your prerogative/mindset to believe and think like that------nobody's stopping you,but you'll look a bit sick if you're wrong.
Somehow I didn't have you down as having a sense of humour.
Then you would be wrong about that too! However, I see nothing funny in telling someone of a plan to murder 5 people. I could never see that starting with 'Did you hear the one about ........."
-
I'm not sure it's possible to take the comedy OUT of Morcambe and Wise.
You could------without effort.
-
Why should I feel as though I'M on trial too ? It's ludicrous ! All because I believe he's innocent.
How would you all have been if I was forever slagging him off ? The same,probably !!
Nothing to do with believing he's innocent - it's the dismissing and playing down of certain things and making them sound like everyday occurrences. You actually admitted that he most likely told Julie of his plans to kill the family - but dismissed it by passing it off as a joke. It would have been a poor joke if no one ended up dead, it's even far less so given that 5 people died.
-
If you want to peddle the word COMEDY------------then go ahead. I was referring to Julies testimony having been the truth,as in the sketch-------without the COMEDY,, of playing all the RIGHT notes but NOT necessarily all in the right order. In other words turning Jeremy's jokey moments into a serious scenario.
I can't explain it any other way. But help yourself how you want to take it.It doesn't surprise me.
Which part of 'I want to kill my parents' is the jokey moment?
-
Nothing to do with believing he's innocent - it's the dismissing and playing down of certain things and making them sound like everyday occurrences. You actually admitted that he most likely told Julie of his plans to kill the family - but dismissed it by passing it off as a joke. It would have been a poor joke if no one ended up dead, it's even far less so given that 5 people died.
I did NOT pass anything off as a joke at all-----------much as you'd like to think that,in fact,not think but accuse me of doing.
-
Nothing to do with believing he's innocent - it's the dismissing and playing down of certain things and making them sound like everyday occurrences. You actually admitted that he most likely told Julie of his plans to kill the family - but dismissed it by passing it off as a joke. It would have been a poor joke if no one ended up dead, it's even far less so given that 5 people died.
So it's not just the whole world out to get Jeremy, but also curious coincidences seem to be after him too.
-
It obviously suited Julie at the time to think of all the " jokes/jests/phrases " from the past,when clearly that's what they were,but those jokes/jests and phrases are easily turned into something sinister to fit an occasion which is what happened. They were conveniently twisted. No doubt Jeremy DID say half of what she said he did,but certainly not in a meaningful way which she'd have been fully aware of at the time,and what she said in court WAS the truth,but the meaning was entirely different then.
How could she misconstrue 'I am going to kill my parents'? How could she get THAT meaning wrong? If what she said in court was the truth - which part was the joke, jest or phrase that she got wrong?
-
Jokes? That's truly pushing the boundaries of desperation Lookout - who jokes about killing their parents to that degree?
I think you know Lookout did not mean that .
Odd statements like I hate my parents - I wish they were dead . Throw away angry statements ( I heard my niece say that a lot) embellished into planning a murder.
An odd remark like - do those pills make you sleep all night - turned into him using them to drug people.
I don't think lookout has ever made light of the murders and it is a bit unfair to accuse her of doing so.
-
I think you know Lookout did not mean that .
Odd statements like I hate my parents - I wish they were dead . Throw away angry statements ( I heard my niece say that a lot) embellished into planning a murder.
An odd remark like - do those pills make you sleep all night - turned into him using them to drug people.
I don't think lookout has ever made light of the murders and it is a bit unfair to accuse her of doing so.
I didn't say she did make light of the murders - I said she makes light of Jeremy's behaviour. People would be screaming BAD TASTE if Adam had written something similar. It was a thoughtless comment, no matter who wrote it.
-
How could she misconstrue 'I am going to kill my parents'? How could she get THAT meaning wrong? If what she said in court was the truth - which part was the joke, jest or phrase that she got wrong?
There must be thousands of young family members for whatever reason say " I'm going to kill my mum and dad,or mum or dad " which doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to or indeed they do.
Julie may have heard that numerous times and passed it off as something that he WAS joking about.But when it came to the crunch in court,she decided to USE it against him,like all his other phrases he probably said,all came to life.
Julie HAD to repeat these with meaning to fit the bill and most likely with a more serious face that that which Jeremy would have used. You either take it as read or you don't. Julie hadn't done until it suited,but I reckon at the same time,she knew in her heart that what she was doing was wrong.
Yes,he probably said all manner of things,but not in the way it was meant at trial. As I've already said,his father was full of fun with tricks and jokes--------it states so in AE's COLP statement of 1991.
-
How could she misconstrue 'I am going to kill my parents'? How could she get THAT meaning wrong? If what she said in court was the truth - which part was the joke, jest or phrase that she got wrong?
But perhaps he never said that at all ?
The more I read her statements it really does not add up . Adam makes a lot about Jeremys trips after the murders - and she was quite happy to go with him - would she really do all that if she believed he had said those things and she was scared of him?
All us girls know how to make excuses to get out of going somewhere we don't want to go. She could have stayed at home and had a good think about the situation . But she didn't which is why I am afraid I don't understand her statements at all.
-
There must be thousands of young family members for whatever reason say " I'm going to kill my mum and dad,or mum or dad " which doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to or indeed they do.
Julie may have heard that numerous times and passed it off as something that he WAS joking about.But when it came to the crunch in court,she decided to USE it against him,like all his other phrases he probably said,all came to life.
Julie HAD to repeat these with meaning to fit the bill and most likely with a more serious face that that which Jeremy would have used. You either take it as read or you don't. Julie hadn't done until it suited,but I reckon at the same time,she knew in her heart that what she was doing was wrong.
Yes,he probably said all manner of things,but not in the way it was meant at trial. As I've already said,his father was full of fun with tricks and jokes--------it states so in AE's COLP statement of 1991.
But this wasn't a young child. This was a grown man, a shareholder in the company.
-
There must be thousands of young family members for whatever reason say " I'm going to kill my mum and dad,or mum or dad " which doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to or indeed they do.
Julie may have heard that numerous times and passed it off as something that he WAS joking about.But when it came to the crunch in court,she decided to USE it against him,like all his other phrases he probably said,all came to life.
Julie HAD to repeat these with meaning to fit the bill and most likely with a more serious face that that which Jeremy would have used. You either take it as read or you don't. Julie hadn't done until it suited,but I reckon at the same time,she knew in her heart that what she was doing was wrong.
Yes,he probably said all manner of things,but not in the way it was meant at trial. As I've already said,his father was full of fun with tricks and jokes--------it states so in AE's COLP statement of 1991.
It's that words that should set off warning bells 'NUMEROUS' Oh, that and the fact that they all ended up dead. Was Jeremy joking when he told her he hired a hitman? He certainly kept the joke going after the event. When did he stop 'joking'?
-
But this wasn't a young child. This was a grown man, a shareholder in the company.
I DIDN'T say young child ! What's the matter with you all ??
-
It's the details he apparently went into, I have a negative uncle - I am sure I've said "I could kill him!" But I haven't said or even thought of different ways in which I could do that.
-
I DIDN'T say young child ! What's the matter with you all ??
thousands of young family members....
Nope. Can't think of any that I know............
-
But perhaps he never said that at all ?
The more I read her statements it really does not add up . Adam makes a lot about Jeremys trips after the murders - and she was quite happy to go with him - would she really do all that if she believed he had said those things and she was scared of him?
All us girls know how to make excuses to get out of going somewhere we don't want to go. She could have stayed at home and had a good think about the situation . But she didn't which is why I am afraid I don't understand her statements at all.
Lookout said she thinks he did say it - but that he was joking? It isn't JUST Julie who claims he said similar things to them. The family then end up dead, that's some coincidence.
However, the fact that Julie seems like a cold scheming cow doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent. I think they were pretty much as bad as each other before the murders - but Jeremy took the prize in the end.
-
So 24 was old ? Okay.
-
So 24 was old ? Okay.
It was old enough to have gone beyond comments like that.
-
So 24 was old ? Okay.
Your version of Jeremy doesn't seem to tally up with the version of people that knew him, or anything that has been said about it, it seems created and as if you're describing someone other than Bamber.
24 isn't old - but it's old enough that by that age people are standing on their own two feet and have been for a good few years - he was old enough to live alone, drive, travel the world, fire a gun.
-
So 24 was old ? Okay.
Lookout, just for a moment think about what you're saying....
That thousands of 24 year olds tell their girlfriends that they could murder their parents and discuss how best to do it. If this is normal in your world then it isn't in mine!
-
Lookout, just for a moment think about what you're saying....
That thousands of 24 year olds tell their girlfriends that they could murder their parents and discuss how best to do it. If this is normal in your world then it isn't in mine!
Not just their girlfriends either, he told others & most telling he always had a method that would have him escape punishment for doing so, and even avoid suspicion.
-
But perhaps he never said that at all ?
The more I read her statements it really does not add up . Adam makes a lot about Jeremys trips after the murders - and she was quite happy to go with him - would she really do all that if she believed he had said those things and she was scared of him?
All us girls know how to make excuses to get out of going somewhere we don't want to go. She could have stayed at home and had a good think about the situation . But she didn't which is why I am afraid I don't understand her statements at all.
Well she was whisked over to WHF at 5am.
Didn't want to go to some places with Brett and Bamber but was persuaded to and became an irritant to Bamber.
She told five people and approached the police after one month.
-
It was old enough to have gone beyond comments like that.
Rubbish. You don't stop joking around just because you've passed the age of 24.
-
But perhaps he never said that at all ?
The more I read her statements it really does not add up . Adam makes a lot about Jeremys trips after the murders - and she was quite happy to go with him - would she really do all that if she believed he had said those things and she was scared of him?
All us girls know how to make excuses to get out of going somewhere we don't want to go. She could have stayed at home and had a good think about the situation . But she didn't which is why I am afraid I don't understand her statements at all.
Couldn't agree more jan, her behaviour doesn't ring true. I agree it doesn't make Jeremy innocent but it is a conundrum. I cannot believe she was a warm and naïve young woman, she could not have carried out the crimes she did if she was and she could not have tolerated Jeremy's behaviour either. I cannot help but believe she was a bad lot in her own right and she was canny enough to get away with it.
-
What a pity Jan and Lookout have not given a credible version of what Bamber said to Julie at 3am.
I have. Julie did. Jeremy didn't.
It seems Bamber is right. Bury it.
-
Have you all quite finished ??
-
Rubbish. You don't stop joking around just because you've passed the age of 24.
But I don't regard as a joke announcing to numerous people that you could kill your parents. Wouldn't you think it a little sick?
-
Couldn't agree more jan, her behaviour doesn't ring true. I agree it doesn't make Jeremy innocent but it is a conundrum. I cannot believe she was a warm and naïve young woman, she could not have carried out the crimes she did if she was and she could not have tolerated Jeremy's behaviour either. I cannot help but believe she was a bad lot in her own right and she was canny enough to get away with it.
She was young. So naturally naive.
Crimes ? The 1984 minor cheque book fraud with SB. Oh yes and being dragged along to stand outside while Jeremy pops inside to rob his family and stage the scene.
-
She was young. So naturally naive.
Crimes ? The 1984 minor cheque book fraud with SB. Oh yes and being dragged along to stand outside while Jeremy pops inside to rob his family and stage the scene.
What is it with you and Julie? It's like you're talking about the virgin Mary!
-
She was young. So naturally naive.
Crimes ? The 1984 minor cheque book fraud with SB. Oh yes and being dragged along to stand outside while Jeremy pops inside to rob his family and stage the scene.
Adam, some people are born old. Some have backgrounds which make them old. Young doesn't necessarily equate with naive.
-
Lookout, just for a moment think about what you're saying....
That thousands of 24 year olds tell their girlfriends that they could murder their parents and discuss how best to do it. If this is normal in your world then it isn't in mine!
He was such a kidder! ;) Not sure if it's a north south divide thing but up here, he wouldn't be classed as a practical joker - just a weirdo!
-
What is it with you and Julie? It's like you're talking about the virgin Mary!
Well April has never liked her since seeing and not liking her and MM's outfits at court. Caroline just called her a cow and Maggie just said she wasn't young and naive. When she was.
It wasn't her fault Bamber killed his family.
-
What is it with you and Julie? It's like you're talking about the virgin Mary!
Her middle name may have been Mary. For her mother?
-
Couldn't agree more jan, her behaviour doesn't ring true. I agree it doesn't make Jeremy innocent but it is a conundrum. I cannot believe she was a warm and naïve young woman, she could not have carried out the crimes she did if she was and she could not have tolerated Jeremy's behaviour either. I cannot help but believe she was a bad lot in her own right and she was canny enough to get away with it.
Maggie I agree she was not naive at all she knew what she was doing that is for sure covering her own back I just cannot see JB discussing with her about killing his family.
-
Well April has never liked her since seeing and not liking her and MM's outfits at court. Caroline just called her a cow and Maggie just said she wasn't young and naive. When she was.
It wasn't her fault Bamber killed his family.
I did indeed - I don't think she was naive and showed herself to be every bit as greedy as him.
-
Maggie I agree she was not naive at all she knew what she was doing that is for sure covering her own back I just cannot see JB discussing with her about killing his family.
Do you think she was brave and mad enough to approach the police with nothing but lies ?
What do you think Jeremy and Julie said to each other in the 3am telephone call ?
-
Well April has never liked her since seeing and not liking her and MM's outfits at court. Caroline just called her a cow and Maggie just said she wasn't young and naive. When she was.
It wasn't her fault Bamber killed his family.
Of course she was young but she was far from naïve, shopping in Oxford Street with a cheque book which had been reported stolen is a BIG DEAL and she was far from naïve to do it. She must have been as hard as nails imo
-
Well April has never liked her since seeing and not liking her and MM's outfits at court. Caroline just called her a cow and Maggie just said she wasn't young and naive. When she was.
It wasn't her fault Bamber killed his family.
Nope, I agree, but I think she could have said something a lot sooner and I don't dismiss the 'scared of him' out of hand, because others were too.
-
I did indeed - I don't think she was naive and showed herself to be every bit as greedy as him.
As greedy as Bamber ? Bleedin hell.
Do you believe the 3am conversation Julie put in her WS ? It seems plausible to me and Mat.
Did you ask Bamber about it ?
-
Nope, I agree, but I think she could have said something a lot sooner and I don't dismiss the 'scared of him' out of hand, because others were too.
There is a thread on why it took one month. After telling five people. Julie has also given reasons.
-
Well she was whisked over to WHF at 5am.
Didn't want to go to some places with Brett and Bamber but was persuaded to and became an irritant to Bamber.
She told five people and approached the police after one month.
So you are a mind reader now as well are you? She could have just said NO. And spoken to the police whilst he was away.
-
As grredy as Bamber ? Bleedin hell.
Do you believe the 3am conversation Julie put in her WS ? It seems plausible to me and Mat.
Did you ask Bamber about it ?
low blow.
-
Well April has never liked her since seeing and not liking her and MM's outfits at court. Caroline just called her a cow and Maggie just said she wasn't young and naive. When she was.
It wasn't her fault Bamber killed his family.
Do you agree that Jeremy nearly got away with his crime because of the bungling of the police?
-
low blow.
All guilters must believe Julie's version of the 3am phone call.
Although he may have also called Julie to hear a friendly voice. After all Julie was now the closest person to Bamber.
-
There is a thread on why it took one month. After telling five people. Julie has also given reasons.
I'm well aware of her reasons given and I still think she should have come forward sooner.
-
All guilters must believe Julie's version of the 3am phone call.
Although he may have also called Julie to hear a friendly voice. After all Julie was now the closest person to Bamber.
I have no doubt he called her, but we will never know what was said.
-
Adam just does not get that in fact I am trying to defend Julie - because I don't think she did know on the night he had done it - the kindest thing I can say is she changed /embellished her evidence for the police because she did later think he was guilty - but kept her options open by saying that he never did admit guilt - not to her and not in court. To me its the only thing that makes sense.
-
Do you think she was brave and mad enough to approach the police with nothing but lies ?
What do you think Jeremy and Julie said to each other in the 3am telephone call ?
Adam had she known about his intention to murder his family she could have prevented the murders and the 5 innocent people would have lived. She could have warned Ralph or indeed the police don't tell me she was scared of him she was not she tried to smother him with a pillow she threw soap at him in the Super market does that sound like she was scared she should have been in the Dock with him and sent to prison along with him because if he told her about his intentions she was a hard woman to identify those two wee boys knowing she could have prevented their deaths.
-
I'm well aware of her reasons given and I still think she should have come forward sooner.
When ?
Well she didn't.
-
Adam just does not get that in fact I am trying to defend Julie - because I don't think she did know on the night he had done it - the kindest thing I can say is she changed /embellished her evidence for the police because she did later think he was guilty - but kept her options open by saying that he never did admit guilt - not to her and not in court. To me its the only thing that makes sense.
Jan well said I agree with you one hundred percent.
-
Adam had she known about his intention to murder his family she could have prevented the murders and the 5 innocent people would have lived. She could have warned Ralph or indeed the police don't tell me she was scared of him she was not she tried to smother him with a pillow she threw soap at him in the Super market does that sound like she was scared she should have been in the Dock with him and sent to prison along with him because if he told her about his intentions she was a hard woman to identify those two wee boys knowing she could have prevented their deaths.
Pre massacre she would not be scared of him. He was not violent. She just didn't believe he would do anything.
Afterwards she was probably more scared of going to the police. She said so herself.
Soap ? Julie said she threw soap to him and it hit him by mistake.
-
When ?
Well she didn't.
How about when he told her it was a hitman?.....
-
Adam just does not get that in fact I am trying to defend Julie - because I don't think she did know on the night he had done it - the kindest thing I can say is she changed /embellished her evidence for the police because she did later think he was guilty - but kept her options open by saying that he never did admit guilt - not to her and not in court. To me its the only thing that makes sense.
I can agree with that, giving her the benefit of the doubt. She either believed he had done it and kept quiet for some reason until she found she wasn't going to benefit which is possibly a bit far fetched or she manipulated her evidence to fit when she was persuaded or came to believe he was guilty :-\ ...... quite possible.
-
How about when he told her it was a hitman?.....
Was that on day one. After being whisked over at 5am in a police car. Everything being treated as a murder/suicide. Bamber and the relatives grieving. Julie currently Bamber's girlfriend.
-
Pre massacre she would not be scared of him. He was not violent. She just didn't believe he would do anything.
Afterwards she was probably more scared of going to the police. She said so herself.
Soap ? Julie said she threw soap to him and it hit him by mistake.
she tried to smother him with a pillow as well.
Why would she be scared of going to the police - who could have immediately put her under protection?
-
Done.
-
she tried to smother him with a pillow as well.
Why would she be scared of going to the police - who could have immediately put her under protection?
No she was scared of not being believed. Amongst other things.
Thread already created.
-
No she was scared of not being believed. Amongst other things.
Thread already created.
I'd guess she was worried about not being taken seriously - and about how she would look haven sat on the information for so long. Plus she had no concrete evidence so may have not have been believed, she wasn't to know at that time that Jeremy had also told others about his wishes.
-
I'd guess she was worried about not being taken seriously - and about how she would look haven sat on the information for so long. Plus she had no concrete evidence so may have not have been believed, she wasn't to know at that time that Jeremy had also told others about his wishes.
She also wouldn't know that evidence being processed was highlighting guilt.
-
Caroline did you ask Bamber about the 3am call ?
It seems there is nothing in CAL's book. It is doubtful she forgot to ask him over the three years they engaged. The book has been acclaimed. So Bamber has refused to answer CAL.
-
Bamber was very unsure about whether he called Julie before or after the police. Eventually settling for after. Although two witnesses say the call to Julie was at least 20 minutes earlier. Even under cross examination.
Saying he called Julie after the police means that he couldn't say he called her for advice. He had already made a decision to call Chelmsford and agreed to meet them at WHF.
It is not logical to call Julie after Neville had called him and he had called the police. He didn't have time and hearing 'a friendly voice' is not required or beneficial. It was also 3am and Julie may not be a 'friendly voice'.
-
Caroline did you ask Bamber about the 3am call ?
It seems there is nothing in CAL's book. It is doubtful she forgot to ask him over the three years they engaged. The book has been acclaimed. So Bamber has refused to answer CAL.
It states "early hours." Thus far, no one in the house seems to have the correct handle on the time of it and Jeremy doesn't either.
-
It states "early hours." Thus far, no one in the house seems to have the correct handle on the time of it and Jeremy doesn't either.
Yes but can anyone give a credible alternative conversation to Julie's ?
Bamber has put a block on discussing it. It seems his supporters and OS have been instructed to not bring it up or discuss the issue.
-
Yes but can anyone give a credible alternative conversation to Julie's ?
Bamber has put a block on discussing it. It seems his supporters and OS have been instructed to not bring it up or discuss the issue.
Rather depends on what you're expecting, Adam, doesn't it? I'm certain you're aware that a verbatim script can't be produced, besides which, I think it likely that whatever we come up with you're just going to disagree with. Was that not so, you wouldn't STILL be asking the question after the length of time spent on it yesterday.
-
Well it's more for supporters.
A 3am information update to Julie, fits perfectly to a guilty Bamber. It was a big mistake by him, but he felt it would never be an issue as he would never be charged.
It seems that Bamber has put a block on it and the OS and his supporters have been instructed to have a wall of silence on it.
-
Supporters can't just bring up certain things. And ignore others.
Similar to my 'How Sheila/Jeremy committed the massacre' deadline threads, I may have to create a deadline thread on this.
Guilters have a credible conversation suggestion on this. From one of the two witnesses - Julie. It fits perfectly with a guilty Bamber giving her an information update.
Bamber, the OS and supporters must have alternative credible suggestions on what Bamber and Julie said to each other. Toeing the party line and stone walling this issue is appalling behaviour.
-
It states "early hours." Thus far, no one in the house seems to have the correct handle on the time of it and Jeremy doesn't either.
How do you know that the 2 roommates who say they looked at their clocks were wrong?
-
Yes but can anyone give a credible alternative conversation to Julie's ?
Bamber has put a block on discussing it. It seems his supporters and OS have been instructed to not bring it up or discuss the issue.
where is your source for the block on discussing it?
-
How do you know that the 2 roommates who say they looked at their clocks were wrong?
because they had all been smoking pot?
And one said they just saw the figure 2?
How do we know that Julie was not telling the truth in her first statement ? One of them is a lie is it not?
-
How do you know that the 2 roommates who say they looked at their clocks were wrong?
When all concerned give different times I guess we pick which ever best fits the bill.
-
because they had all been smoking pot?
And one said they just saw the figure 2?
How do we know that Julie was not telling the truth in her first statement ? One of them is a lie is it not?
She admitted she didn't know the time she had to ask her roommates. The roommate who said she saw a 2 as the hour number supports the call being close to 3 unless her clock was way off but no one established it was. The other roommate said her clock said 3:12 but she kept it 10 minutes fast which was verified.
Jeremy called police sometime after 3:20 and called Julie prior so it is clear Julie's initial claim was wrong.
Smoking pot many hours earlier doesn't have an impact on their ability to read a clock. You seem desperate to avoid facing that Julie's later claims are credible. Like Caroline you seem to have some issue with facing you were completely wrong about everything and trying to hold onto the notion you were just wrong about Jeremy being innocent.
-
Jeremy only changed the times / sequence when the police said they could prove he was wrong -which they could not .
And I would not be surprised if Jeremy did perhaps call Julie first or in between calls . Later that would have course seemed like a stupid decision and so he tried to cover it up.
If he had planned the perfect murder he would have got all his times and sequences spot on - it was his alibi after all so he would have known what he was going to say.
-
Jeremy only changed the times / sequence when the police said they could prove he was wrong -which they could not .
And I would not be surprised if Jeremy did perhaps call Julie first or in between calls . Later that would have course seemed like a stupid decision and so he tried to cover it up.
If he had planned the perfect murder he would have got all his times and sequences spot on - it was his alibi after all so he would have known what he was going to say.
He didn't plan the perfect murder, if he had, he'd have gotten away with it. I doubt he thought that he would ever be a suspect - that was his mistake.
-
because they had all been smoking pot?
And one said they just saw the figure 2?
How do we know that Julie was not telling the truth in her first statement ? One of them is a lie is it not?
Jan two witnesses under cross examination said the call was between 2.00am - 2.59am, and 3.02am.
Everyone has to go by what two independent witnesses say.
-
where is your source for the block on discussing it?
Jan you know Bamber has refused to comment on this over 30 years. Only testifying he rang Julie 'to hear a friendly voice'.
The OS has not mentioned it and accused Julie of lying and no supporters on here have offered an alternative conversation to Julie's.
Julie's WS of the conversation fits perfectly with a guilty and hyped up Bamber giving her an information update.
-
He didn't plan the perfect murder, if he had, he'd have gotten away with it. I doubt he thought that he would ever be a suspect - that was his mistake.
Caroline, did you ask Bamber about the 3am telephone call ?
-
Jeremy only changed the times / sequence when the police said they could prove he was wrong -which they could not .
And I would not be surprised if Jeremy did perhaps call Julie first or in between calls . Later that would have course seemed like a stupid decision and so he tried to cover it up.
If he had planned the perfect murder he would have got all his times and sequences spot on - it was his alibi after all so he would have known what he was going to say.
You keep making the absurd claim that if he were guilty he would have planned the perfect murder and executed such plan perfectly. It is exceedingly rare for someone to have the skill to plan the perfect crime and then to have enough luck that the plan goes perfect without any hitches.
Planning the perfect crime doesn't mean he will write down on a sheet of paper and memorize the exact time he called police etc so he can later rattle off such with precision.
Forget it is possible he called Julie before police it is a fact he called Julie before police but lied about the order because calling her first is damning- at least to people who are unbiased. While people like you who are in the tank for Jeremy are willing to excuse such Jeremy recognized such was a problem so he lied not expecting police to be able to figure out he lied.
-
You keep making the absurd claim that if he were guilty he would have planned the perfect murder and executed such plan perfectly. It is exceedingly rare for someone to have the skill to plan the perfect crime and then to have enough luck that the plan goes perfect without any hitches.
Planning the perfect crime doesn't mean he will write down on a sheet of paper and memorize the exact time he called police etc so he can later rattle off such with precision.
Forget it is possible he called Julie before police it is a fact he called Julie before police but lied about the order because calling her first is damning- at least to people who are unbiased. While people like you who are in the tank for Jeremy are willing to excuse such Jeremy recognized such was a problem so he lied not expecting police to be able to figure out he lied.
Bamber himself said he called Julie before the police. Then changed his mind.
It makes sense that there was a 3am call to Julie.
He gave her an update. Then changed, got himself together before his 3.26am call to the police.
Calling Julie after the police may take too long. He would have to meet the police at WHF.
-
Caroline, did you ask Bamber about the 3am telephone call ?
I asked him who he called first after the 'supposed' call from Nevill and he said 'the police' - that's all I asked him about the calls. However, in my very last letter I explained why I didn't believe there was a call from Nevill to the police and that to fit one in, he had to shift the times around.
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
-
I asked him who he called first after the 'supposed' call from Nevill and he said 'the police' - that's all I asked him about the calls. However, in my very last letter I explained why I didn't believe there was a call from Nevill to the police and that to fit one in, he had to shift the times around.
His new timetable is he called police 3:36 and didn't get off the phone with them till after 3:40 so the call to Julie if after speaking to police would have been after 3:40. The witnesses say the call was earlier than this and this leaves not enough time for him to call Julie and yet get within a mile of WHF in time for police to pass him. So he should be inclined to change the order and say he called Julie first to try making his new timetable seem more credible.
He kept the claim that he called police first because even though it screws up his new timeline he knows how damaging it would be to admit he called Julie first, particularly after insisting for so long that he called police first.
Jeremy's supporters are willing to make any excuse in the World for him. If he changed the order they would be willing to ignore that it is damning to call Julie before police and would make excuses for such. They would make excuses for him lying for so long about the order. They are not who Jeremy is worried about though. Jeremy is worried about the people not in the tank for him. They are the ones he has to worry about when changing the order of the calls. He realized it is more damaging to change the order and admit he called Julie first than it is to leave such alone.
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
I do agree notsure, I would have been off and away because I would have been terrified for my own life apart from anything else. I cannot believe she could have coped with this dreadful secret and stayed with him for all that tim. I know I keep harping on but she went with Jremy to stay for the weekend with COLIN, how could she do that??
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
That's because we have scruples, not everyone does.
-
I do agree notsure, I would have been off and away because I would have been terrified for my own life apart from anything else. I cannot believe she could have coped with this dreadful secret and stayed with him for all that tim. I know I keep harping on but she went with Jremy to stay for the weekend with COLIN, how could she do that??
Hi Maggie
IMO Julie did not suspect Jeremy had committed the murders this is why she could continue to sleep with him spend an evening with Colin I think when she suspected he was guilty she had a little help putting it all together but she never thought he was guilty early on this is just my way of seeing it of course.
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
This is a thread on what Bamber said in his 3am call to Julie.
At present there is one version. Julie's. Which fits perfectly into Bamber giving her a update statement.
No alternative conversation suggestions have been made. Feel free to change this.
I will post the link on the thread about Julie waiting one month.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5798.msg256880.html#msg256880
-
I asked him who he called first after the 'supposed' call from Nevill and he said 'the police' - that's all I asked him about the calls. However, in my very last letter I explained why I didn't believe there was a call from Nevill to the police and that to fit one in, he had to shift the times around.
Thanks.
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
There are a couple of possibilities because posters are saying she told her friends and that is what made them report her to the police for withholding evidence
1) She is telling the truth and lied in her first statement
2) She was a fantasist and attention seeker and when he dumped her she made up the story about the hitman using information from the family and newspapers - then when Liz called the police she had dug herself into a hole and had to carry on mainly because the police were happy with her theory or said she could be charges as an accessory.
3) the police when they started having suspicions had contacted Julie earlier than we think - I really do think at one stage they did think there was a hitman involved - or they needed it to fit in with the phone call . Then they persuaded Julie he was guilty and all the little odd conversations she had with him could be stretched to show his guilt and she came up with the story with their help in order to convict him because she thought he could have done it ( not that he did)
4) She was a woman scorned and made up the whole thing to get her own back on him
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
It is easy to say that when you are not in the situation. It is far more difficult to actually follow through with what you claim you will categorically do. I know someone who said that if someone tried to rob him that he would paralyze the SOB. Years later he was robbed and did nothing. Talk is cheap.
In any event Julie is not you nor were the countless loved ones actually put in such situations who ended up not ratting out their loved ones right away or at all and some even covered for their loved ones and some wet beyond that still in helping get rid of evidence including bodies.
The notion that Julie lied because someone in her position would not have remained silent fails miserably.
Perverting Justice AKA obstruction requires more than not telling police everything you know. It requires telling untrue things that throw police off track and thus causes interference that would not otherwise exist or actively interfering by helping dispose of evidence. Depending on the extent it can rise to the level of an accessory after the fact which can have more severe punishment than simply obstruction.
There is no legal duty to come forward and tell police everything you know. There is evidence Julie didn't tell police everything she knew but that's it. There isn't evidence she agreed to help cover for Jeremy by actively lying.
If he told her during the 3Am or 6AM call that they were all dead and he was going to lie to police saying he got a call from Nevill and needed her to tell them that he told her of receiving such call and being worried THEN she would be guilty of perverting justice because in that scenario she knew the call from WHF never happened, knew Jeremy was not concerned and was actively lying pretending he was concerned about a call in order to help support Jeremy's bogus claim he got a call.
There is no evidence that this is the case. Julie says he claimed he did receive a call and lied to her about receiving such a call just like he lied to everyone else. Jeremy is the only one who could contradict this by saying he told her he was going to pretend he received a call and needed her to lie saying he told her he received the call and was worried. Doing this though would confirm his guilt.
If people choose to believe he told her he was making the call up and that he needed her to lie claiming he told her he received the call and was concerned for their safety that's their prerogative. But to convict her for obstruction would require proof. Deciding to believe this is what happened or suspecting this is what happened is not proof.
-
Hi Maggie
IMO Julie did not suspect Jeremy had committed the murders this is why she could continue to sleep with him spend an evening with Colin I think when she suspected he was guilty she had a little help putting it all together but she never thought he was guilty early on this is just my way of seeing it of course.
I can't argue with that, I find it almost impossible to believe she could have known, this is why her whole stance is so difficult to believe. It just doesn't ring true imo.
-
This is a thread on what Bamber said in his 3am call to Julie.
At present there is one version. Julie's. Which fits perfectly into Bamber giving her a update statement.
No alternative conversation suggestions have been made. Feel free to change this.
I will post the link on the thread about Julie waiting one month.
that will be her first statement then :)because she does not lie does she?
don't bother posting the link.
-
There are a couple of possibilities because posters are saying she told her friends and that is what made them report her to the police for withholding evidence
1) She is telling the truth and lied in her first statement
2) She was a fantasist and attention seeker and when he dumped her she made up the story about the hitman using information from the family and newspapers - then when Liz called the police she had dug herself into a hole and had to carry on mainly because the police were happy with her theory or said she could be charges as an accessory.
3) the police when they started having suspicions had contacted Julie earlier than we think - I really do think at one stage they did think there was a hitman involved - or they needed it to fit in with the phone call . Then they persuaded Julie he was guilty and all the little odd conversations she had with him could be stretched to show his guilt and she came up with the story with their help in order to convict him because she thought he could have done it ( not that he did)
4) She was a woman scorned and made up the whole thing to get her own back on him
This is a thread about what Bamber said in his 3am call to Julie.
Feel free to give an alternative conversation to Julie's.
Suggesting Julie did this for attention or any other reason is ridiculous. Her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it. Even Bamber's lawyers said so. Thread already created.
-
This thread has been interesting.
one of the things i have done is considered wether or not i would have immediately told the police if my husband had admitted he had hired a hitman to kill his family because he hated them and wanted the money.
i categorically came to an immediate conclusion that no matter what my feelings were for him i could not and would not have kept quiet especially knowing two small boys had been murdered.
Just consider it for a few minutes, im sure 100% of you on this forum would not have been able to cope with it. Maybe for a couple of days but then i would have run as fast as i could away from him and to the nearest policeman.
i cannot understand her doing this and its one of the reasons i believe her first statement was correct.
if her second and subsequent statement is the truth she peverted the course of justice and should have spent a few years inside.
I'd have phoned to speak to someone in the force straight away telling of my concerns. I happen to be like that and can detach myself quite easily if I thought for one minute that there was meaning in a threat,no matter who said it. I understand that there are also those who can't switch-off,but I still fail to understand people like that. It's like women who stay with monster husbands/partners who physically abuse.
-
This is a thread about what Bamber said in his 3am call to Julie.
Feel free to give an alternative conversation to Julie's.
Suggesting Julie did this for attention or any other reason is ridiculous. Her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it. Even Bamber's lawyers said so. Thread already created.
I just did - I said she was telling the truth in her first statement - which statement do you think she was telling lies in?
-
that will be her first statement then :)because she does not lie does she?
don't bother posting the link.
Statements do get amended until a final one is submitted. Everyone has to go a final WS. As the courts do.
-
I just did - I said she was telling the truth in her first statement - which statement do you think she was telling lies in?
I only go by the final WS. For everyone.
-
It is easy to say that when you are not in the situation. It is far more difficult to actually follow through with what you claim you will categorically do. I know someone who said that if someone tried to rob him that he would paralyze the SOB. Years later he was robbed and did nothing. Talk is cheap.
In any event Julie is not you nor were the countless loved ones actually put in such situations who ended up not ratting out their loved ones right away or at all and some even covered for their loved ones and some wet beyond that still in helping get rid of evidence including bodies.
The notion that Julie lied because someone in her position would not have remained silent fails miserably.
Perverting Justice AKA obstruction requires more than not telling police everything you know. It requires telling untrue things that throw police off track and thus causes interference that would not otherwise exist or actively interfering by helping dispose of evidence. Depending on the extent it can rise to the level of an accessory after the fact which can have more severe punishment than simply obstruction.
There is no legal duty to come forward and tell police everything you know. There is evidence Julie didn't tell police everything she knew but that's it. There isn't evidence she agreed to help cover for Jeremy by actively lying.
If he told her during the 3Am or 6AM call that they were all dead and he was going to lie to police saying he got a call from Nevill and needed her to tell them that he told her of receiving such call and being worried THEN she would be guilty of perverting justice because in that scenario she knew the call from WHF never happened, knew Jeremy was not concerned and was actively lying pretending he was concerned about a call in order to help support Jeremy's bogus claim he got a call.
There is no evidence that this is the case. Julie says he claimed he did receive a call and lied to her about receiving such a call just like he lied to everyone else. Jeremy is the only one who could contradict this by saying he told her he was going to pretend he received a call and needed her to lie saying he told her he received the call and was worried. Doing this though would confirm his guilt.
If people choose to believe he told her he was making the call up and that he needed her to lie claiming he told her he received the call and was concerned for their safety that's their prerogative. But to convict her for obstruction would require proof. Deciding to believe this is what happened or suspecting this is what happened is not proof.
I GREE WITH YOU SCIPIO AND HAVE ARGUED N VRIOUS OCCASIONS THAT NONE OF US KNOW HOW WE WOULD ACT IN ANY SITUATION UNTIL WE EXPERIENCE IT AND EVEN THEN SO MUCH DEPENDS ON CULTURE, UOBRINGING, PERSONALITY ETC. (sorry about caps, my mistake)
-
Statements do get amended until a final one is submitted. Everyone has to go a final WS. As the courts do.
it was not amended - she changed what he said and why he called and the time.
I suggest there is a possibility if you believe the second one that she actually knew what Jeremy was going to do that night and she was more involved than she lets on. But of course JB is not going to let on about that is he ?
-
I'd have phoned to speak to someone in the force straight away telling of my concerns. I happen to be like that and can detach myself quite easily if I thought for one minute that there was meaning in a threat,no matter who said it. I understand that there are also those who can't switch-off,but I still fail to understand people like that. It's like women who stay with monster husbands/partners who physically abuse.
Give me truth over love any day.
-
I AGREE WITH YOU SCIPIO AND HAVE ARGUED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THAT NONE OF US KNOW HOW WE WOULD ACT IN ANY SITUATION UNTIL WE EXPERIENCE IT AND EVEN THEN SO MUCH DEPENDS ON CULTURE, UOBRINGING, PERSONALITY ETC. (sorry about caps, my mistake)
I have to disagree She said she knew he had done it on the night -then he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .
-
I have to disagree She said she knew he had done it on the night -then he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .
I just agreed with him when he said none of us know how we would behave until faced with a situation...... not the rest ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Give me truth over love any day.
I'm afraid that was my mother's philosophy, Lookout -"Tell the truth and shame the devil"-she didn't care who she hurt or who she offended. She told the truth and remained smug in her sense of self righteousness. She was incapable of showing affection to anyone. The irony is that for the most part, her "truth" was only HER opinion.
-
I'm afraid that was my mother's philosophy, Lookout -"Tell the truth and shame the devil"-she didn't care who she hurt or who she offended. She told the truth and remained smug in her sense of self righteousness. She was incapable of showing affection to anyone. The irony is that for the most part, her "truth" was only HER opinion.
It's not a bad philosophy if you keep it balanced. I would not have been in JM's position that's for sure for as soon as he said those words,I'd have reported it immediately. Forewarned is forearmed,another of my sayings. Did JM not ever think it was a strange thing to have said,along with other things that coincided ? " Tonight's the night ?". Is when she should have phoned and not gone back to bed.
-
it was not amended - she changed what he said and why he called and the time.
I suggest there is a possibility if you believe the second one that she actually knew what Jeremy was going to do that night and she was more involved than she lets on. But of course JB is not going to let on about that is he ?
She didn't change what he said, she added things he said which she failed to disclose in August.
In August she failed to disclose that during the 3AM call he had said things were going well and he was up all night. She failed to disclose that in the prior 10PM call he sounded pissed, said tonight was the night and also said she might be hearing from him again later. She also failed to disclose he had been talking about killing them for a quite a while.
-
Sorry scip your wrong. I know 100% i would not under any circumstances be able to be with a man that had or had instructed a hitman to kill his family.
She knew within a day or so and what she told the police was a lie if that was the case.
big fat liar in my opinion.
Adam she is a liar and what was said in the phone call no one will ever know, certainly the first statement she made about whatwas said seems far more plausable than her later statements. It flowed like a proper conversation.
does a yone know if jb called jm every night aftercwork.
-
Sorry scip your wrong. I know 100% i would not under any circumstances be able to be with a man that had or had instructed a hitman to kill his family.
She knew within a day or so and what she told the police was a lie if that was the case.
big fat liar in my opinion.
Adam she is a liar and what was said in the phone call no one will ever know, certainly the first statement she made about whatwas said seems far more plausable than her later statements. It flowed like a proper conversation.
does a yone know if jb called jm every night aftercwork.
We do know. Because Julie has told us. Bamber hasn't. So we have to go by Julie.
Did you not read my thread about why Julie waited one month ?
-
I try to ignore your pists Adam, hadnt u noticed. I always get the impression yoh are just trying to antagonise people.
-
I have to disagree She said she knew he had done it on the night -then he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .
You are arguing what she morally SHOULD have done. No one disputes that if you are aware a love done committed a crime turning them in is the just thing to do but no one can know what they will do in such a situation and plenty of people do the immoral thing of playing dumb or even actively trying to help their loved one escape liability for crimes. They don't want the pain of losing their loved one to prison.
Their are exceptional people who don't bat an eyelash and immediately turn in their loved ones even their kids. But most take time to decide what to do and many end up deciding to turn a blind eye and remain silent. Others decide to actively help protect them.
Until actually in the situation no one can know what they will do. I've been robbed in the past and I pulled a knife on the perp and literally scared the piss out of him. I KNEW what he stuck in my back wasn't a gun though. I just knew from the feel of it that it wasn't. It wound up being a stubby cellphone antenna. Since I knew it wasn't really a gun and that I had a knife I had no fear in confronting him. I have had training disarming people. I still can't know for sure how I will react in a situation where someone robs me and I know they have a gun. I wasn't in that exact situation before so can't predict my reaction. Practice disarming with a fake gun is not the same as trying it with a loaded weapon.
There is no such thing as practicing for the emotional turmoil involved in ratting out a loved one. The choice is easier in a situation where your loved one is a psychopath who rapes and murders at will and will keep doing it. In a situation where you think it was a one time thing and the person poses little threat to anyone or only a threat to gangsters and people you can rationalize as being deserving it is harder. Julie didn't think Jeremy posed a danger to anyone else. He had his family killed for money. She didn't see him being in that kind of a position ever again.
Through college and law school I knew people who shoplifted, did drugs and other illegal things. Did I run to police to rat any out? No. If I knew anyone who was guilty of a violent crime that would have been different that is significant enough to rat out but what if the person is extremely close to you and them being in prison will pain you greatly? What do you do then it is a quandary.
One of the best lines in Scent of a Woman was when Pacino said, "I always knew what the right path was. Without exception I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard." It is so poignant and easy to remember because it is often true.
-
" The folks who know the truth aren't talking---------The ones who don't have a clue,you can't shut them up "! ----Tom Waits.
-
You are arguing what she morally SHOULD have done. No one disputes that if you are aware a love done committed a crime turning them in is the just thing to do but no one can know what they will do in such a situation and plenty of people do the immoral thing of playing dumb or even actively trying to help their loved one escape liability for crimes. They don't want the pain of losing their loved one to prison.
Their are exceptional people who don't bat an eyelash and immediately turn in their loved ones even their kids. But most take time to decide what to do and many end up deciding to turn a blind eye and remain silent. Others decide to actively help protect them.
Until actually in the situation no one can know what they will do. I've been robbed in the past and I pulled a knife on the perp and literally scared the piss out of him. I KNEW what he stuck in my back wasn't a gun though. I just knew from the feel of it that it wasn't. It wound up being a stubby cellphone antenna. Since I knew it wasn't really a gun and that I had a knife I had no fear in confronting him. I have had training disarming people. I still can't know for sure how I will react in a situation where someone robs me and I know they have a gun. I wasn't in that exact situation before so can't predict my reaction. Practice disarming with a fake gun is not the same as trying it with a loaded weapon.
There is no such thing as practicing for the emotional turmoil involved in ratting out a loved one. The choice is easier in a situation where your loved one is a psychopath who rapes and murders at will and will keep doing it. In a situation where you think it was a one time thing and the person poses little threat to anyone or only a threat to gangsters and people you can rationalize as being deserving it is harder. Julie didn't think Jeremy posed a danger to anyone else. He had his family killed for money. She didn't see him being in that kind of a position ever again.
Through college and law school I knew people who shoplifted, did drugs and other illegal things. Did I run to police to rat any out? No. If I knew anyone who was guilty of a violent crime that would have been different that is significant enough to rat out but what if the person is extremely close to you and them being in prison will pain you greatly? What do you do then it is a quandary.
One of the best lines in Scent of a Woman was when Pacino said, "I always knew what the right path was. Without exception I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard." It is so poignant and easy to remember because it is often true.
Exactly but so many people claim to know how they would behave in the situation Jeremy Bamber claimed to be in when his Dad called him. |No one knows until it happens o them how they will behave and the same person may react differently on a different day, at a different time etc.
-
"All truth passes through 3 stages.First it is ridiculed.Secondly it is violently opposed.Third it is accepted as self-evident "-------Arthur Schopenhauer.
-
" The folks who know the truth aren't talking---------The ones who don't have a clue,you can't shut them up "! ----Tom Waits.
You're very vocal. :-\
-
From Scipio
"It is easy to say that when you are not in the situation. It is far more difficult to actually follow through with what you claim you will categorically do. I know someone who said that if someone tried to rob him that he would paralyze the SOB. Years later he was robbed and did nothing. Talk is cheap. "
So if you are going to use that argument that's why people should not assume what Jeremy would or would not have done when he got the call.
That's why people should not assume what Neville would have done if a shot had not been fired when he made the call.
On the other side - to show I am not biased we should not assume what the police should have done when they arrived ( although if it was my children in the house and they had heard or seen nothing I would have been annoyed to put it politely )
-
She didn't change what he said, she added things he said which she failed to disclose in August.
In August she failed to disclose that during the 3AM call he had said things were going well and he was up all night. She failed to disclose that in the prior 10PM call he sounded pissed, said tonight was the night and also said she might be hearing from him again later. She also failed to disclose he had been talking about killing them for a quite a while.
rubbish - the first statement corresponded with what he said - so meant he was telling the truth and was innocent
the second statement implicated him. Its as clear as day.
-
I just agreed with him when he said none of us know how we would behave until faced with a situation...... not the rest ;D ;D ;D ;D
I could find his post to use as a quote :)
I know what you meant.
-
We do know. Because Julie has told us. Bamber hasn't. So we have to go by Julie.
Did you not read my thread about why Julie waited one month ?
He said in his first statement her called her to say there was something wrong at the farm . which corresponds exactly with what she said in her first statement except she ignored him and told him to go back to bed . surprising what people do when they are woken up in the middle of the night is it not?
probably the pot making her not think straight - or was she just shocked at the cqll and not thinking logically?
-
I could find his post to use as a quote :)
I know what you meant.
;D ;D
-
Exactly but so many people claim to know how they would behave in the situation Jeremy Bamber claimed to be in when his Dad called him. |No one knows until it happens o them how they will behave and the same person may react differently on a different day, at a different time etc.
There is a world of difference between saying you will definitely turn in a loved one instantly no matter what as opposed to saying if you received the distress call Jeremy claimed to receive you would either go there or 999. You might not have the guts to go there but if you did lack such guts you would call 999 not call someone who doesn't care about the victims then go get a phone book to call various police stations.
-
There is a world of difference between saying you will definitely turn in a loved one instantly no matter what as opposed to saying if you received the distress call Jeremy claimed to receive you would either go there or 999. You might not have the guts to go there but if you did lack such guts you would call 999 not call someone who doesn't care about the victims then go get a phone book to call various police stations.
No there is not a world of difference, so many say they would jump in the car and go over there etc. dial 999 whatever. Nobody knows what they would do in any circumstance until they are in it. That is a fact, you have just stated it yourself in a post but now are denying it because it doesn't suit your theory. Sorry scipio but you can't have it both ways, I am not saying this to prove me right or because of any theory I may have and you are wrong, I am saying it because it's fact imo whether he killed them or not.
-
No there is not a world of difference, so many say they would jump in the car and go over there etc. dial 999 whatever. Nobody knows what they would do in any circumstance until they are in it. That is a fact, you have just stated it yourself in a post but now are denying it because it doesn't suit your theory. Sorry scipio but you can't have it both ways, I am not saying this to prove me right or because of any theory I may have and you are wrong, I am saying it because it's fact imo whether he killed them or not.
If my parents called claiming my brother was running around with a gun I KNOW I would do one of the following:
1) go over with on of my own weapons
or
2) call 911 telling them the situation and that I am going there with my gun so they are aware of wha tis going on
or
3) call 911 and go over without a weapon to be there to see what happens if not assist the police in some way such as trying to talk my brother out.
I know I would not do nothing. I know I would go over there or call 911 and go over.
I can't be sure whether I would go inside or not (it would depend on the exact circumstances encountered) but I know I would go over there to see what happens to my parents. Even if I thought I could handle it myself I would I know I would be inclined to call 911 anyway because I want them alerted in case I did get hurt or in case I had to hurt someone so that they would be aware why and would have help on the way just in case it was needed.
Calling a girlfriend instead of getting dressed and rushing over or instead of calling 911 would not cross my mind. Nor would I waste time looking up police numbers in a phone book. My township has its own police station but the main line is not for emergencies you call 911 for emergencies. This is common sense.
What one will do when faced with a moral dilemma is different.
-
rubbish - the first statement corresponded with what he said - so meant he was telling the truth and was innocent
the second statement implicated him. Its as clear as day.
The rubbish is from you not me.
Her second statement ADDED things she failed to reveal she didn't change things. The things she added implicated him which is why she originally omitted them she wanted to protect him.
You don't want to face Jeremy is guilty so you simply decided that you choose to believe she made up the things that implicate him and try to pretend she changed things to further try to justify your belief she was lying.
You can ignore the evidence to your heart's content but it won't make such go away and won't change that all you do is make excuses to justify believing he is innocent as opposed to being able to point to anything that establishes he is innocent.
-
If my parents called claiming my brother was running around with a gun I KNOW I would do one of the following:
1) go over with on of my own weapons
or
2) call 911 telling them the situation and that I am going there with my gun so they are aware of wha tis going on
or
3) call 911 and go over without a weapon to be there to see what happens if not assist the police in some way such as trying to talk my brother out.
I know I would not do nothing. I know I would go over there or call 911 and go over.
I can't be sure whether I would go inside or not (it would depend on the exact circumstances encountered) but I know I would go over there to see what happens to my parents. Even if I thought I could handle it myself I would I know I would be inclined to call 911 anyway because I want them alerted in case I did get hurt or in case I had to hurt someone so that they would be aware why and would have help on the way just in case it was needed.
Calling a girlfriend instead of getting dressed and rushing over or instead of calling 911 would not cross my mind. Nor would I waste time looking up police numbers in a phone book. My township has its own police station but the main line is not for emergencies you call 911 for emergencies. This is common sense.
What one will do when faced with a moral dilemma is different.
This is one of your better posts,but reading other posts from members today on different threads I come back to something which struck me in Carol Ann Lee's book regarding Malcolm Waters' comments about Jeremy:
"He sensed that Jeremy was easily led and susceptible to others..he was always looking for affection,especially from girls".
Julie fulfilled both criteria,and one has to wonder whether this was coincidence or deliberate policy on her part. It certainly might make some members put a different light on her whole role in the affair.
-
If my parents called claiming my brother was running around with a gun I KNOW I would do one of the following:
1) go over with on of my own weapons
or
2) call 911 telling them the situation and that I am going there with my gun so they are aware of wha tis going on
or
3) call 911 and go over without a weapon to be there to see what happens if not assist the police in some way such as trying to talk my brother out.
I know I would not do nothing. I know I would go over there or call 911 and go over.
I can't be sure whether I would go inside or not (it would depend on the exact circumstances encountered) but I know I would go over there to see what happens to my parents. Even if I thought I could handle it myself I would I know I would be inclined to call 911 anyway because I want them alerted in case I did get hurt or in case I had to hurt someone so that they would be aware why and would have help on the way just in case it was needed.
Calling a girlfriend instead of getting dressed and rushing over or instead of calling 911 would not cross my mind. Nor would I waste time looking up police numbers in a phone book. My township has its own police station but the main line is not for emergencies you call 911 for emergencies. This is common sense.
What one will do when faced with a moral dilemma is different.
Everyone is different you can only say what you believe you will do but you can't even be sure about that. I'm not saying this to prove anything just saying...
-
This is one of your better posts,but reading other posts from members today on different threads I come back to something which struck me in Carol Ann Lee's book regarding Malcolm Waters' comments about Jeremy:
"He sensed that Jeremy was easily led and susceptible to others..he was always looking for affection,especially from girls".
Julie fulfilled both criteria,and one has to wonder whether this was coincidence or deliberate policy on her part. It certainly might make some members put a different light on her whole role in the affair.
Waters felt he was susceptible to peer pressure from other guys and tried looking deeper at why Jeremy was into booze and carefree sex so that he could say Jeremy wasn't a dog. It was making excuses in ways. He was a dog. He liked carefree sex and boozing he wasn't having sex to try to make emotional attachments. Carefree sex is about avoiding such attachments.
-
Waters felt he was susceptible to peer pressure from other guys and tried looking deeper at why Jeremy was into booze and carefree sex so that he could say Jeremy wasn't a dog. It was making excuses in ways. He was a dog. He liked carefree sex and boozing he wasn't having sex to try to make emotional attachments. Carefree sex is about avoiding such attachments.
Not unusual for young men of that age particularly as he may have had attachment problems and emotional confusion because of his adoption. Also adoptees can often camouflage so as to 'fit in', be one of the guys etc.
-
Not unusual for young men of that age particularly as he may have had attachment problems and emotional confusion because of his adoption. Also adoptees can often camouflage so as to 'fit in', be one of the guys etc.
It's not unusual for men period to enjoy sleeping around with as many different women as they can instead of looking to make a serious commitment. Young impressionable girls sleep around to get attention and affection they expect to get more out of it than they actually will get. On occasion some young boys do that as well. Men do it for fun, they don't want the emotional attachment. As women get older they become more like men and some don't want an emotional attachment and just like to party.
-
It's not unusual for men period to enjoy sleeping around with as many different women as they can instead of looking to make a serious commitment. Young impressionable girls sleep around to get attention and affection they expect to get more out of it than they actually will get. On occasion some young boys do that as well. Men do it for fun, they don't want the emotional attachment. As women get older they become more like men and some don't want an emotional attachment and just like to party.
He probably had attachment difficulties due to his adoption and difficult relationship with his adoptive mother.
-
He probably had attachment difficulties due to his adoption and difficult relationship with his adoptive mother.
I can list dozens of guys I know personally who were raised by 2 loving parents who were/are dogs who love to sleep around and even cheat on their wives/girlfriends. Some of them do it with pros particularly at "massage parlors" and the like but some would go barhopping just as they did when unattached. They find sex boring with the same person always and like the excitement of new partners. Problems they encounter is sometimes the women end up wanting more than just a meaningless fling and then they start getting in trouble essentially having multiple girlfriends the same time and they end up miserable. I can't say I feel sorry for them when that happens I think they deserve it because you reap what you sow.
Sometimes the woman feels the same way and they have open relationships or even swing. All I can say about that is I guess if they both agree to it then at least it is not cheating behind their back which is worse. Some of the men think that cheating is better because the woman would be hurt to know they go to massage parlors and say as long as they know it doesn't hurt them but it still can hurt them if they catch something and pass it on. People love to rationalize their bad habits though...
Some people like monogamy while others can't stand it. Some like monogamy but cheat simply because unhappy and find someone new then divorce/break up to be monogamous with the new person. Back in the day when morals were taught and meant something people were criticized and this kept a lot of people from doing such. Today they are taught it is ok to have sex outside marriage anytime you want with anyone you want and swinging and orgies are ok and playing with the same sex is ok and basically morals have gone out the window so it is chaos.
There is a movie called the To Do List. I found it extremely stupid. A girl decided she wanted to become experienced sexually and made a list of various sexual things to try and checked off each one she tried. It was sex just to try each one and didn't really matter who she did it with. Her sister had sex basically with any guy she could find. The mother defended and encouraged them against a father who objected. Feminists said this was a great movie because it encourages girls to be as sexually free as men without the stigma of being called a tramp. It was like she was just a robot as she picked a guy to try something with.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758795/
I have little doubt that at Jeremy's school some of the guys had contests to see who slept with the most girls. Sex is a game for such people not about an emotional connection they are seeking.
-
You're very vocal. :-\
;D
-
I can list dozens of guys I know personally who were raised by 2 loving parents who were/are dogs who love to sleep around and even cheat on their wives/girlfriends. Some of them do it with pros particularly at "massage parlors" and the like but some would go barhopping just as they did when unattached. They find sex boring with the same person always and like the excitement of new partners. Problems they encounter is sometimes the women end up wanting more than just a meaningless fling and then they start getting in trouble essentially having multiple girlfriends the same time and they end up miserable. I can't say I feel sorry for them when that happens I think they deserve it because you reap what you sow.
Sometimes the woman feels the same way and they have open relationships or even swing. All I can say about that is I guess if they both agree to it then at least it is not cheating behind their back which is worse. Some of the men think that cheating is better because the woman would be hurt to know they go to massage parlors and say as long as they know it doesn't hurt them but it still can hurt them if they catch something and pass it on. People love to rationalize their bad habits though...
Some people like monogamy while others can't stand it. Some like monogamy but cheat simply because unhappy and find someone new then divorce/break up to be monogamous with the new person. Back in the day when morals were taught and meant something people were criticized and this kept a lot of people from doing such. Today they are taught it is ok to have sex outside marriage anytime you want with anyone you want and swinging and orgies are ok and playing with the same sex is ok and basically morals have gone out the window so it is chaos.
There is a movie called the To Do List. I found it extremely stupid. A girl decided she wanted to become experienced sexually and made a list of various sexual things to try and checked off each one she tried. It was sex just to try each one and didn't really matter who she did it with. Her sister had sex basically with any guy she could find. The mother defended and encouraged them against a father who objected. Feminists said this was a great movie because it encourages girls to be as sexually free as men without the stigma of being called a tramp. It was like she was just a robot as she picked a guy to try something with.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758795/
I have little doubt that at Jeremy's school some of the guys had contests to see who slept with the most girls. Sex is a game for such people not about an emotional connection they are seeking.
Thanks for that, I have lived in the world and seen plenty. I accept what your saying but however much you choose to drown out my opinion it, is still true. HE AND SHEILA PROBABLY HAD ATTACHMENT DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE OF THEIR ADOPTION!!! Sheila seemed to have similar behaviours in that way. It is not a slur on her but a fact, she had difficulties with relationships possibly made worse by her P.S. which possibly came from her adoption and subsequent inability to bond at a deep level with her adoptive mother. I'm sure you will reject my opinions but that doesn't change the truth.
-
Thanks for that, I have lived in the world and seen plenty. I accept what your saying but however much you choose to drown out my opinion it, is still true. HE AND SHEILA PROBABLY HAD ATTACHMENT DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE OF THEIR ADOPTION!!! Sheila seemed to have similar behaviours in that way. It is not a slur on her but a fact, she had difficulties with relationships possibly made worse by her P.S. which possibly came from her adoption and subsequent inability to bond at a deep level with her adoptive mother. I'm sure you will reject my opinions but that doesn't change the truth.
Naturally, I have to support what you've said. If June's exacting standards had had the effect of making both children feel unable to meet them and therefore unworthy, they would have sought the approval/ positive affirmation they didn't get from her wherever they could find it. It would have meant that they both wanted to be noticed and in receipt of other's respect. They would have been, without realizing it, looking for love.
As I'm fairly confident Scipio will be calling me ignorant YET again, I'm going to throw in that this formula isn't just the reserve of those who are adopted. We ALL need to feel that we're loved -not sure about Scipio. He seems to make up his own rules- it MAY be that those who have suffered that irresolvable first rejection need it more than most.
-
Naturally, I have to support what you've said. If June's exacting standards had had the effect of making both children feel unable to meet them and therefore unworthy, they would have sought the approval/ positive affirmation they didn't get from her wherever they could find it. It would have meant that they both wanted to be noticed and in receipt of other's respect. They would have been, without realizing it, looking for love.
As I'm fairly confident Scipio will be calling me ignorant YET again, I'm going to throw in that this formula isn't just the reserve of those who are adopted. We ALL need to feel that we're loved -not sure about Scipio. He seems to make up his own rules- it MAY be that those who have suffered that irresolvable first rejection need it more than most.
Morning Jane
I know nothing of Attachment Difficulties or Adoption but I do know we all need to be loved and guess from being a child we know when love is not forthcoming. I remember speaking to a young lady who slept around and I asked her why she did it and she said she just wanted the men to love her so sad she must have really felt unloved now she gets her love from her 16 cats.
-
Naturally, I have to support what you've said. If June's exacting standards had had the effect of making both children feel unable to meet them and therefore unworthy, they would have sought the approval/ positive affirmation they didn't get from her wherever they could find it. It would have meant that they both wanted to be noticed and in receipt of other's respect. They would have been, without realizing it, looking for love.
As I'm fairly confident Scipio will be calling me ignorant YET again, I'm going to throw in that this formula isn't just the reserve of those who are adopted. We ALL need to feel that we're loved -not sure about Scipio. He seems to make up his own rules- it MAY be that those who have suffered that irresolvable first rejection need it more than most.
Very true Jane, not every person in biological families has love and security and this must have an impact on anyone's ability to relate to others and can cause people to look in the wrong place for love. I do believe however much an adopted child may be given love and security that initial break from their biologically natural place can and often does cause difficulties in relationships.
-
Morning Jane
I know nothing of Attachment Difficulties or Adoption but I do know we all need to be loved and guess from being a child we know when love is not forthcoming. I remember speaking to a young lady who slept around and I asked her why she did it and she said she just wanted the men to love her so sad she must have really felt unloved now she gets her love from her 16 cats.
Sensible lady ;D
-
Naturally, I have to support what you've said. If June's exacting standards had had the effect of making both children feel unable to meet them and therefore unworthy, they would have sought the approval/ positive affirmation they didn't get from her wherever they could find it. It would have meant that they both wanted to be noticed and in receipt of other's respect. They would have been, without realizing it, looking for love.
As I'm fairly confident Scipio will be calling me ignorant YET again, I'm going to throw in that this formula isn't just the reserve of those who are adopted. We ALL need to feel that we're loved -not sure about Scipio. He seems to make up his own rules- it MAY be that those who have suffered that irresolvable first rejection need it more than most.
I remember Steve making the point a long time ago that for Jeremy Su Ford was a mother figure, I have to agree with him that it's clearly a real possibilty this was the case and he had a need for love and security and safety within that relationship unfortunately it didn't work out so he rejected that and reverted to type ........ maybe?
-
Sensible lady ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I remember Steve making the point a long time ago that for Jeremy Su Ford was a mother figure, I have to agree with him that it's clearly a real possibilty this was the case and he had a need for love and security and safety within that relationship unfortunately it didn't work out so he rejected that and reverted to type ........ maybe?
It's a very real possibility, Maggie. I have known a several men who have always been attracted to older women. In each case it appeared that something had been lacking in the mother/son relationship which they were trying to get right through the new relationship. I have watched in amazement as the women concerned have treated these grown men like naughty children but they seemed to love it. The rule is, for a child, negative attention -even to abuse- is better than NO attention. It goes a long way towards explaining why so many end up in abusive relationships.
-
It seems no one is able to offer an alternative credible conversation between the two of them at 3am.
I wonder whether it was a spur of the moment decision to phone Julie ? Hyped up and wanting to tell someone 'everything is going well. Which at the same time helps convince him 'everything is going well' in the middle of his massive gamble. Julie had also dismissed his 'now or never' claim only a few hours earlier.
The other possibility is he planned to phone Julie and wanted the police to know this. He can say he phoned her from his cottage backing up his claim he was there all night. But he didn't need to do this. He phoned the police from his cottage and arrived at WHF after the police.
Either way it was a big mistake.
-
It's a very real possibility, Maggie. I have known a several men who have always been attracted to older women. In each case it appeared that something had been lacking in the mother/son relationship which they were trying to get right through the new relationship. I have watched in amazement as the women concerned have treated these grown men like naughty children but they seemed to love it. The rule is, for a child, negative attention -even to abuse- is better than NO attention. It goes a long way towards explaining why so many end up in abusive relationships.
IT does and its so terribly sad.
-
It seems no one is able to offer an alternative credible conversation between the two of them at 3am.
I wonder whether it was a spur of the moment decision to phone Julie ? Hyped up and wanting to tell someone 'everything is going well. Which at the same time helps convince him 'everything is going well' in the middle of his massive gamble. Julie had also dismissed his 'now or never' claim only a few hours earlier.
The other possibility is he planned to phone Julie and wanted the police to know this. He can say he phoned her from his cottage backing up his claim he was there all night. But he didn't need to do this. He phoned the police from his cottage and arrived at WHF after the police.
Either way it was a big mistake.
Adam there are hundreds nay thousands of possibilities which is why nobody can offer you any conversation except variables on the words we have been told. It's pointless trying to guess.....
-
From Scipio
"It is easy to say that when you are not in the situation. It is far more difficult to actually follow through with what you claim you will categorically do. I know someone who said that if someone tried to rob him that he would paralyze the SOB. Years later he was robbed and did nothing. Talk is cheap. "
So if you are going to use that argument that's why people should not assume what Jeremy would or would not have done when he got the call.
That's why people should not assume what Neville would have done if a shot had not been fired when he made the call.
On the other side - to show I am not biased we should not assume what the police should have done when they arrived ( although if it was my children in the house and they had heard or seen nothing I would have been annoyed to put it politely )
I think it's true in 'ambiguous' situations we might not act a way we would have predicted. However, given the information that your family might be in BIG trouble (gauged from the fact that during a call, your father sounded terrified) - calling 999 takes less processing. Worrying about what dad might think later, where the phone book might be to look up a local number etc. takes much more processing and REEKS of stall tactics. Even the badly made docu 'presumed' he had called 999 - it was taken for granted because anything else, doesn't make sense.
-
People will always say 'no one knows how they will react in that situation'.
This will be said by a supporter of an individual when there is a consensus that an action by an individual cannot be fathomed and looks highly suspicious.
It is often said by supporters to justify Bamber looking in the phone book for police stations miles away and for phoning Julie at 3am.
It has also been done to support Neville phoning Bamber. Trying to negate the 60 facts why he would not.
Even guilters have done it to support why Julie took one month to approach the police. Although I haven't, instead just giving several reasons. Some of which Julie said herself.
-
In Sheila's case people have recently said no one knows how she would behave when in a psychotic rage.
This is to justify why she kept herself alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. As Bamber claims. There are no common sense reasons why she would kill everyone in a few minutes and then wait hours before killing herself.
-
I think it's true in 'ambiguous' situations we might not act a way we would have predicted. However, given the information that your family might be in BIG trouble (gauged from the fact that during a call, your father sounded terrified) - calling 999 takes less processing. Worrying about what dad might think later, where the phone book might be to look up a local number etc. takes much more processing and REEKS of stall tactics. Even the badly made docu 'presumed' he had called 999 - it was taken for granted because anything else, doesn't make sense.
Caroline
if I had a phone call saying my family might be in big trouble I would have no hesitation but to call 999 to me it would be an automatic reaction.
-
In Sheila's case people have recently said no one knows how she would behave when in a psychotic rage.
This is to justify why she kept herself alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. As Bamber claims. There are no common sense reasons why she would kill everyone in a few minutes and then wait hours before killing herself.
No it is not - it is because of her illness .
Read up about it.
-
Caroline
if I had a phone call saying my family might be in big trouble I would have no hesitation but to call 999 to me it would be an automatic reaction.
It takes less thinking about and less time to do.
-
I asked him who he called first after the 'supposed' call from Nevill and he said 'the police' - that's all I asked him about the calls.
Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".
-
Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".
You write the dumbest things. This is complete nonsense:
"If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct"
Do you have to spend time trying to think up such ridiculous things or does it come naturally?
-
The word " assume " usually makes an " ass(of)u(and)me.
-
You write the dumbest things. This is complete nonsense:
"If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct"
Do you have to spend time trying to think up such ridiculous things or does it come naturally?
Why is that nonsense ? If he was innocent why on earth would he think he was going to become a suspect . Why would he know all the times - Julie herself said he did not wear a watch in bed.
It is the opposite which should occur to you - if he was guilty he would have made sure every part of his story was watertight and be prepared for questions about timings .
It reminds me a bit in those newspapers where it said the police believed Jeremy when he told them Sheila had done it. He never said that he never said a shot had been fired even . He never said she was capable of violence when he was outside . He said she was ill - he said the name of the illness.All true.
-
So Jeremy dithered when faced with a course of action that Wednesday morning. Did he also dither as regards Julie or was he really telling her that he had executed his plan to which he fully expected her to accede now it was a fait accompli..
-
So Jeremy dithered when faced with a course of action that Wednesday morning. Did he also dither as regards Julie or was he really telling her that he had executed his plan to which he fully expected her to accede now it was a fait accompli..
I still don't get the phone call bit what difference would it have made if he was guilty who he called - by that time they were all dead so if he wanted to delay everything so they did not know time of death he could have just called a bit later and called 999. It makes no sense why he would through suspicion on himself by not phoning 999. It sounds more like he was a coward and did not know what to do and made a bad decision.
-
Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".
Except he confirmed that what he said in his first statement was correct and made a big thing about saying so in his interrogation. I'm simply telling you I asked him, if you want answers to your own questions then have the courage of your convictions, get your thumb out and ask him yourself. I'm sharing with people what I was told, I don't bloody have to and if what he told me isn't good enough for you - then you best take it up with HIM! >:( >:(
-
Why is that nonsense ? If he was innocent why on earth would he think he was going to become a suspect . Why would he know all the times - Julie herself said he did not wear a watch in bed.
It is the opposite which should occur to you - if he was guilty he would have made sure every part of his story was watertight and be prepared for questions about timings .
It reminds me a bit in those newspapers where it said the police believed Jeremy when he told them Sheila had done it. He never said that he never said a shot had been fired even . He never said she was capable of violence when he was outside . He said she was ill - he said the name of the illness.All true.
Why is he saying that the initial times are now correct if he didn't pay too much attention at the time?
If all murderers made sure that their stories were water tight, how come most of them get caught? He didn't know what he was going to be asked so how could he plan for every eventuality. You only think those things are obvious because you have the benefit of hindsight.
How do you know what he said/didn't say?
-
Except he confirmed that what he said in his first statement was correct and made a big thing about saying so in his interrogation. I'm simply telling you I asked him, if you want answers to your own questions then have the courage of your convictions, get your thumb out and ask him yourself. I'm sharing with people what I was told, I don't bloody have to and if what he told me isn't good enough for you - then you best take it up with HIM! >:( >:(
Caroline the majority of us really appreciate that you share with us information received from Jeremy in your correspondence with him,.
-
Why is that nonsense ? If he was innocent why on earth would he think he was going to become a suspect . Why would he know all the times - Julie herself said he did not wear a watch in bed.
It is the opposite which should occur to you - if he was guilty he would have made sure every part of his story was watertight and be prepared for questions about timings .
It reminds me a bit in those newspapers where it said the police believed Jeremy when he told them Sheila had done it. He never said that he never said a shot had been fired even . He never said she was capable of violence when he was outside . He said she was ill - he said the name of the illness.All true.
He may have been able to get HIS part in the drama right but there was no way he could guarantee getting right the other players parts. That was out of his hands.
-
Why is that nonsense ? If he was innocent why on earth would he think he was going to become a suspect . Why would he know all the times - Julie herself said he did not wear a watch in bed.
It is the opposite which should occur to you - if he was guilty he would have made sure every part of his story was watertight and be prepared for questions about timings .
It reminds me a bit in those newspapers where it said the police believed Jeremy when he told them Sheila had done it. He never said that he never said a shot had been fired even . He never said she was capable of violence when he was outside . He said she was ill - he said the name of the illness.All true.
It is nonsense because:
1) everyone signing a statement under oath is understanding that they are coming up with a story that is supposed to be accurate. The notion that only in hindsight could he figure that out is absurd.
2) Jeremy intentionally decided what he would claim. It wasn't some accident that he claimed he called police immediately and he stuck by that. He sticks by it to this day.
Reader couldn't care less about the truth reader makes up his own crap including making up that Jeremy said he called Witham then Julie then Chelmsford. Reader is as dishonest as Mike.
-
I know you are all going to take this the wrong way ( because that's what will happen ) but like you say people should not take things personally - But how can you have accepted what he was saying was possibly true when you believed he was innocent - but now its obviously not the truth. Was it not obvious before?
One minute he nearly got away with planning the mass murder next he appears to be the most stupid and bungling criminal ever.
None of us know what he was thinking or whether his plans were just stupid it seems to me like a matter of interpretation most of the time and because it seems now there are more shouting about his guilt I am just proposing the alternative although I am in fact still asking questions . But if we don't have the chance to post opposing views we don't have discussion .
-
I know you are all going to take this the wrong way ( because that's what will happen ) but like you say people should not take things personally - But how can you have accepted what he was saying was possibly true when you believed he was innocent - but now its obviously not the truth. Was it not obvious before?
One minute he nearly got away with planning the mass murder next he appears to be the most stupid and bungling criminal ever.
None of us know what he was thinking or whether his plans were just stupid it seems to me like a matter of interpretation most of the time and because it seems now there are more shouting about his guilt I am just proposing the alternative although I am in fact still asking questions . But if we don't have the chance to post opposing views we don't have discussion .
Luck plays a great deal in it. He got lucky in that Taff Jones overlooked so many problems. He got lucky that Julie didn't rat him out right away. That luck ran out though.
-
Why is he saying that the initial times are now correct if he didn't pay too much attention at the time?
If all murderers made sure that their stories were water tight, how come most of them get caught? He didn't know what he was going to be asked so how could he plan for every eventuality. You only think those things are obvious because you have the benefit of hindsight.
How do you know what he said/didn't say?
Bamber may have assumed he wouldn't even be a suspect. It was murder/suicide and Bamber had no criminal record.
However once he is a suspect he is up against literally dozens of people. All looking for incriminating evidence, either circumstantial or forensic. Police, experts, in this case even the relatives looked for evidence. His every move checked and extensive interviews carried out.
The people that looked for evidence, found a lot. Why ? Because Bamber was guilty and Sheila was not.
After 30 years, the perfect crime looks very dumb. Which matches the fact that Bamber was not an experienced criminal or especially intelligent. No matter how much planning he did, it was not enough.
-
I know you are all going to take this the wrong way ( because that's what will happen ) but like you say people should not take things personally - But how can you have accepted what he was saying was possibly true when you believed he was innocent - but now its obviously not the truth. Was it not obvious before?
One minute he nearly got away with planning the mass murder next he appears to be the most stupid and bungling criminal ever.
None of us know what he was thinking or whether his plans were just stupid it seems to me like a matter of interpretation most of the time and because it seems now there are more shouting about his guilt I am just proposing the alternative although I am in fact still asking questions . But if we don't have the chance to post opposing views we don't have discussion .
I think this must be aimed at me. The ONLY reason I questioned his guilt was because of Crimes that Shook Britain and because it highlighted certain discrepancies (such as one dead male, one dead female etc.) it made me wonder if he could be innocent. Like others who have been influenced by the 'so called' new evidence, I questioned it and for a time, I did think he might be really innocent. AND THEN - having asked Jeremy several things, over the course of 2 years, I realised that he picked and chose what to answer and would totally disregard the things that might put him in a bad light. I began to have doubts, especially about the phone call and Jeremy's evasiveness certainly didn't help. I then found myself making excuses for things I didn't actually believe myself and most of those things could be put down to simple admin errors. What sealed it for me was him changing the times of the phone calls to fit in a call from Neville, his canny ability to avoid answering certain questions and the photograph of Sheila which proves to me that she had been dead for quite some time.
I don't think anyone is stopping anyone arguing an opposing view?
-
I think this must be aimed at me. The ONLY reason I questioned his guilt was because of Crimes that Shook Britain and because it highlighted certain discrepancies (such as one dead male, one dead female etc.) it made me wonder if he could be innocent. Like others who have been influenced by the 'so called' new evidence, I questioned it and for a time, I did think he might be really innocent. AND THEN - having asked Jeremy several things, over the course of 2 years, I realised that he picked and chose what to answer and would totally disregard the things that might put him in a bad light. I began to have doubts, especially about the phone call and Jeremy's evasiveness certainly didn't help. I then found myself making excuses for things I didn't actually believe myself and most of those things could be put down to simple admin errors. What sealed it for me was him changing the times of the phone calls to fit in a call from Neville, his canny ability to avoid answering certain questions and the photograph of Sheila which proves to me that she had been dead for quite some time.
I don't think anyone is stopping anyone arguing an opposing view?
The only thing the CTSB video mentioned was movement inside WHF ( which Bamber may have seen), the two bodies and the silencer. The two bodies is easily explained and there is enough evidence without the silencer anyway.
-
Luck plays a great deal in it. He got lucky in that Taff Jones overlooked so many problems. He got lucky that Julie didn't rat him out right away. That luck out though.
Hi Scip
Not sure what you mean about Jones overlooked so many problems. Not even sure what you mean about Julie did not rat him out right away?
It is unfortunate that the during the trial that it was not emphasized enough that Jones did an examination of the windows and deemed them to be secure, meaning they were closed and fastened. It is my opinion that a window cannot be locked and secured from the outside, especially sash corded windows.
It is not luck that plays a part in this case it is facts and the fact is that there were 3 extensive examinations of those windows and it was not until the 3rd examination see RWC/8 that it was identified that a catch was marked on the 28th September 1985. Given the fact that JB entered that window on the 16th September 1985 there is a suspicion that there was an after the fact conclusion that JB had entered that window on the night of the murders and basically that was not correct. It was only on the 3rd examination that this was noted. This means that this evidence is unsafe for it it logged that JB entered the house via this window after 2 full extensive examinations had already taken place, where no evidence was found on this particular window....So, it is seems! ;) ;D
-
Hi Scip
Not sure what you mean about Jones overlooked so many problems. Not even sure what you mean about Julie did not rat him out right away?
It is unfortunate that the during the trial that it was not emphasized enough that Jones did an examination of the windows and deemed them to be secure, meaning they were closed and fastened. It is my opinion that a window cannot be locked and secured from the outside, especially sash corded windows.
It is not luck that plays a part in this case it is facts and the fact is that there were 3 extensive examinations of those windows and it was not until the 3rd examination see RWC/8 that it was identified that a catch was marked on the 28th September 1985. Given the fact that JB entered that window on the 16th September 1985 there is a suspicion that there was an after the fact conclusion that JB had entered that window on the night of the murders and basically that was not correct. It was only on the 3rd examination that this was noted. This means that this evidence is unsafe for it it logged that JB entered the house via this window after 2 full extensive examinations had already taken place, where no evidence was found on this particular window....So, it is seems! ;) ;D
I mean exactly what I said about Jeremy being lucky. If Julie told police that first day what she said a month later it would have changed the police approach to things.
Since she didn't Taff Jones simply took all of Jeremy's claims at face value and that he did so was lucky. Taff Jones totally ignored evidence that suggested Nevill was shot in the bedroom and decided straight away that Nevill was attacked in the kitchen while on the phone. I have highlighted in other threads how off his reading of the crime scene truly was. The firearms officers didn't agree with his reading but it was his call not theirs.
He was lucky that police didn't do a thorough search of the entire house. They should have taken every bullet and firearm/firearm related item in the house. They didn't though and this resulted in them not finding the moderator. His luck ran out when the family turned it in. Police might have went looking for it anyway after Julie came forward but still might not have we have no way to know for sure.
When police determined he staged too many bullet sin the kitchen he was questioned about it, was unable to account for such and yet Taff Jones thought it unimportant.
Because the family said Sheila wasn't into guns Jeremy changed his tun and said he didn't know her to ever fire a weapon. The change set off no red flags. Taff Jones ignored that he told numerous police she used all weapons in the house and that he even trained her to use the murder weapon. Taff Jones totally ignored that means she would nto have known how to use the murder weapon he simply decided since she lived on a farm she must know how to use the murder weapon though it was the first semi-auto they ever had and growing up she only would have seen shotguns being used.
When it became know that Jeremy could get in and out through the windows Taff Jones decided to ignore such.
These are all things that should have set off red flags but were completely ignored and that is just plain luck that Jones ignored such and was so convinced. You could just as easily get a cop who would be the biggest cynic there is. Jones was a lower rank than should have been the lead investigator for such a serious crime, that was extra lucky then that Jones was in charge. But as I said his luck ran out. The reinvestigation started before Julie came forward. The amount of red flags resulted in the decision to replace Jones. They did so by placing someone above him of the rank that should have been in charge all along. So his luck had already run out on the moderator and Jones being replaced by the time the last bit of luck was gone and Julie ratted him out.
But for his luck not changing he could have gotten away with things.
What if Jones remained in charge, the moderator was not re-sent to the lab for further examination and Julie had not ratted him out? Police might have concluded it was murder suicide and he goes free. Sheer luck played a big role in the final outcome.
As for the window, all Jones didn't go examine the outside of the window for scratches nor did others examine them closely for scratches until months later. That being the case there is no way to know whether the marks were there or not at the time of the murders but it makes no difference. If Jeremy made the mark in September but didn't make any marks when going through it the times prior that doesn't help him at all. That effectively says he had the ability to get in without scratching the window so not finding any would not disprove he went through it. He admitted he had gone through it anyway which is the ball of wax. His great defense was no one could get in so it had to be limited to the parties inside. He admitted there was a way in and he knew about it and had used it in the past. That really took apart the whole defense about the events having to be limited to the 5 victims.
-
Hi Scip
Not sure what you mean about Jones overlooked so many problems. Not even sure what you mean about Julie did not rat him out right away?
It is unfortunate that the during the trial that it was not emphasized enough that Jones did an examination of the windows and deemed them to be secure, meaning they were closed and fastened. It is my opinion that a window cannot be locked and secured from the outside, especially sash corded windows.
It is not luck that plays a part in this case it is facts and the fact is that there were 3 extensive examinations of those windows and it was not until the 3rd examination see RWC/8 that it was identified that a catch was marked on the 28th September 1985. Given the fact that JB entered that window on the 16th September 1985 there is a suspicion that there was an after the fact conclusion that JB had entered that window on the night of the murders and basically that was not correct. It was only on the 3rd examination that this was noted. This means that this evidence is unsafe for it it logged that JB entered the house via this window after 2 full extensive examinations had already taken place, where no evidence was found on this particular window....So, it is seems! ;) ;D
Hi patti,
I think what convinced me almost immediately that Bamber was guilty was the windows.
A large part of His defence was the fact the farmhouse had appeared locked from the inside, yet just as he was beginning to realise he was a suspect, he proved that you could get in and out using the dodgy catch.
I have always believed that he did this in an attempt to corrupt his own crime scene fearing what the police might find in and around that window. I believe he thought at that time that he might even be followed.
-
Hi patti,
I think what convinced me almost immediately that Bamber was guilty was the windows.
A large part of His defence was the fact the farmhouse had appeared locked from the inside, yet just as he was beginning to realise he was a suspect, he proved that you could get in and out using the dodgy catch.
I have always believed that he did this in an attempt to corrupt his own crime scene fearing what the police might find in and around that window. I believe he thought at that time that he might even be followed.
As far as getting into WHF by windows, only one source is really needed, Bamber himself. He happily obliged when interviewed by police. Saying he could get into WHF through three sets of windows.
Bamber denied knowing the kitchen window could be shut from outside. However there are 20 sources which says it can.
The OS and Bamber have not mentioned the windows since conviction.
-
All the more reason that the window in question SHOULD have been scrutinized for fibres,sweat,etc etc and thoroughly investigated if they'd wanted a 100% conviction. Instead of that,there were two people who'd stopped it from becoming a unanimous decision.
Did EP ever prove that Jeremy exited that window?
-
All the more reason that the window in question SHOULD have been scrutinized for fibres,sweat,etc etc and thoroughly investigated if they'd wanted a 100% conviction. Instead of that,there were two people who'd stopped it from becoming a unanimous decision.
Did EP ever prove that Jeremy exited that window?
Nothig was scrutinised in the beginning because Jeremy's set-up allowed crucial evidence to be destroyed. They didn't have to prove he left by a particular window, just demonstrate that it was possible.
-
Nothig was scrutinised in the beginning because Jeremy's set-up allowed crucial evidence to be destroyed. They didn't have to prove he left by a particular window, just demonstrate that it was possible.
EP were definite about his " escape " via the window,or how else would he have got out of a place which was locked from the inside ?
It was EP who'd destroyed evidence,not Jeremy. Forensic should have bagged-up every article they could find,but instead,it was held somewhere then incinerated,whereas DNA could well have been tested on all items.
-
EP were definite about his " escape " via the window,or how else would he have got out of a place which was locked from the inside ?
It was EP who'd destroyed evidence,not Jeremy. Forensic should have bagged-up every article they could find,but instead,it was held somewhere then incinerated,whereas DNA could well have been tested on all items.
What is the point of collecting evidence from a crime scene over a month after the event? In effect Jeremy did destroy evidence because he staged the scene and led police down the wrong path. It's his fault that the scene wasn't scrutinised but he didn't want it to be. Most of the evidence would have been destroyed anyway - the house was cleaned so how do you expect police to find evidence on a window over a month later? What DNA do you imagine would be found? Early DNA testing needed a lot of DNA to get a result and if they didn't find Jeremy's DNA on any of the articles, that wouldn't mean he was innocent.
-
What is the point of collecting evidence from a crime scene over a month after the event? In effect Jeremy did destroy evidence because he staged the scene and led police down the wrong path. It's his fault that the scene wasn't scrutinised but he didn't want it to be. Most of the evidence would have been destroyed anyway - the house was cleaned so how do you expect police to find evidence on a window over a month later? What DNA do you imagine would be found? Early DNA testing needed a lot of DNA to get a result and if they didn't find Jeremy's DNA on any of the articles, that wouldn't mean he was innocent.
Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.
-
Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.
I'm not saying it should have been dismissed and of course EP SHOULD have done a better job - on that we agree. However, Jeremy did influence their behaviour indirectly.
Most of what was incinerated was blood evidence, I doubt that there would have been any of Jeremy's DNA on the victims but if there was, probably not enough. I do agree that such evidence should never have been incinerated and you might be right, the answer may have been destroyed but we'll never know.
-
Caroline,whatever the crime scene,which it was,a MURDER scene in anyone's eyes, and should never have been dismissed as a murder/suicide. EP should have followed the rules of cordoning off the property and regardless whether they thought it was a murder/suicide should STILL have treated it as murder--------------and they didn't. That was EP's FIRST mistake. The rest that followed was abysmal.
Jeremy was allegedly on bail,but still had his passport ?
As for the DNA testing,there was heaps of it before it was incinerated 11 years later.Why didn't anyone bother when he was arrested ? Don't tell me that it couldn't have been done because bodies are exhumed years later for such testing.
Heaps of DNA is not likely. DNA that would be extremely useful would not be found anyway. The victims didn't scratch the attacker and thus get the attacker's DNA under their nails. The attacker didn't get cut and bleed thus the killers blood based DNA would not be found. No semen based DNA would be found either.
DNA evidence would not be particularly useful in a case like this with the exception of the blood on/in the weapon/moderator or victim blood found on the perp/perp's clothing
Sheila's clothing and body didn't have any signs of spatter from the other victims so there was no blood to test for DNA so as to suggest she was present when anyone else was shot. If they had found signs of such spatter they would have type tested it which would have prevented it from being saved for DNA testing down the road anyway.
They didn't immediately seize Jeremy's clothing he was wearing or to immediately search his house for clothing that might have had blood stains. Even if they did immediately seize and tested any clothing found it would have left nothing to DNA test later.
Jeremy's jacket had been washed. It had red drops that they could not determine what they were. If those drops came back as DNA of the victims it would be evident it was spatter and he would have been damning. But they didn't have DNA testing at the time and expended the samples by testing them to try to figure to what they were. Even if they didn't test it and save it though the fact they were washed and further passage of time means they probably would not have gotten a DNA profile even if they were blood spatter.
DNA in general is not a problem for Jeremy because he interacted with the victims so his DNA had the ability to get around the house and on the victims as theirs had the ability to get on him. The defining feature is that the spots resembled spatter and getting tiny drops of DNA of the victims all over his jacket would not be likely to happen any other way. If they just found one bit of DNA of a victim on Jeremy's clothing that is worthless it needs to be spatter to have any significance for the murders.
DNA evidence is much more significant when strangers are involved because such strangers have no valid excuses for their DNA being found period.
If they didn't destroy the bedding then there might have been evidence to prove some of Nevill's blood got on the bedding. That's the main significance in the destruction of the bedding.
-
Jeremy:
'There is something wrong at the farm, I haven't slept all night. Everything is going well. Love you lots'.
Julie:
'Go back to bed'.
From memory this is what Julie has testified Bamber said to her and what she said to him.
It all sounds credible. Bamber had rang her so would be the one doing the talking. He obviously wanted to tell her something. Julie was asleep and woken so is likely to not want to speak and want to go back to bed.
The police asked Bamber what he said to Julie in this phone call. He said 'no comment'.
At trial he also refused to say in detail exactly what he said. Just saying he rang Julie to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Since conviction I do not recall Bamber ever bringing up this telephone call. It is not on the OS.
The 2002 appeal found it unacceptable that Bamber phoned Julie. Whether before or after phoning the forth furthest away police station.
It's really a damaging thing Jeremy can't dispute or put a gloss on. Ringing Julie for advice or to hear a friendly voice just won't wash.
Do other people agree that what Julie testified was said, is correct ?
so why would he say that to her if he had already told her what the trouble was as she cliamed.
-
so why would he say that to her if he had already told her what the trouble was as he cliamed.
Not certain what you mean here, Nugs. Why would he say WHAT to her?
The first call was to tell her it had to be done that night. I imagine the second would have been about confirming it had been done, otherwise how would she have known? I don't believe it was quite that simple though. He was probably proud of his achievement and excited like a hyped up child longing to be told how clever it had been.
-
when was the first phonecall suposed to have happend did she ever say.
-
Not certain what you mean here, Nugs. Why would he say WHAT to her?
The first call was to tell her it had to be done that night. I imagine the second would have been about confirming it had been done, otherwise how would she have known? I don't believe it was quite that simple though. He was probably proud of his achievement and excited like a hyped up child longing to be told how clever it had been.
im just respounding to what adam cliamed.
-
when was the first phonecall suposed to have happend did she ever say.
10 pm. It lasted approx. 17 minutes. She said she went to bed at 11 pm and slept until the phone woke her 3.15(ish)
-
Except he confirmed that what he said in his first statement was correct and made a big thing about saying so in his interrogation.
That's incorrect. You know that his confirmation related to a specific question and that he was badgered into it. He didn't say he knew his first statement was correct from its content - he was saying that it would have been correct because it was made shortly after the events described. During the same interrogation, he confirmed that some details in his first statement were incorrect. For example, he confirmed he looked up the number for Chelmsford police station, but his first statement said he called that station immediately, making no mention of looking up its number.
-
im just respounding to what adam cliamed.
Nugs, what do you think Bamber said to Julie in his 3am telephone call ?
-
Why is he saying that the initial times are now correct if he didn't pay too much attention at the time?
That doesn't make sense. When and where does he state "the initial times are now correct" or anything remotely like that?
-
That doesn't make sense. When and where does he state "the initial times are now correct" or anything remotely like that?
Hi reader, I do not want to argue but I do want to debate this. Would that be possible without taking offence?
-
2) Jeremy intentionally decided what he would claim. It wasn't some accident that he claimed he called police immediately and he stuck by that. He sticks by it to this day.
He doesn't, and didn't during his interviews. He stated he looked up the police number, which is inconsistent with calling the police immediately.
. . . making up that Jeremy said he called Witham then Julie then Chelmsford.
That was mike tesko's notion, not mine. There's nothing in his initial statements or interviews about trying to call Witham.
-
He doesn't, and didn't during his interviews. He stated he looked up the police number, which is inconsistent with calling the police immediately.
That was mike tesko's notion, not mine. There's nothing in his initial statements or interviews about trying to call Witham.
I'm a little confused on this last reply. Are you saying he has stuck to his story or not?
-
He doesn't, and didn't during his interviews. He stated he looked up the police number, which is inconsistent with calling the police immediately.
That was mike tesko's notion, not mine. There's nothing in his initial statements or interviews about trying to call Witham.
So what was he doing between the alleged call from his father, the call to Julie and the call to Chelmsford?
-
Would that be possible without taking offence?
I'm not sure what exactly you want to debate, but it's obviously possible to explain your view without offending me.
-
So what was he doing between the alleged call from his father, the call to Julie and the call to Chelmsford?
Apparently, that's the sort of question that Caroline didn't ask him. He stated he tried to call his father back after about 30 seconds, and that he used the "repeat" button to try again. He probably did other things that didn't seem important enough at the time to justify mentioning, such as getting dressed.
-
He doesn't, and didn't during his interviews. He stated he looked up the police number, which is inconsistent with calling the police immediately.
That was mike tesko's notion, not mine. There's nothing in his initial statements or interviews about trying to call Witham.
Oh, c'mon, Reader! His father allegedly calls circa 3 am (surely that alone would have suggested something was wrong) and said, sounding PANICKED!!!, that his sister had gone mad and had a gun (if he didn't get a hint from the time of the call, surely that statement would have caused the penny to drop) this would be the same sister who he, Jeremy, told the police, had just been released from a psych clinic and had previously attempted suicide.......................and what does Jeremy do? He finds the telephone directory and looks up individual police station numbers. Pull the other one!!!!!!!!!
-
Apparently, that's the sort of question that Caroline didn't ask him. He stated he tried to call his father back after about 30 seconds, and that he used the "repeat" button to try again. He probably did other things that didn't seem important enough at the time to justify mentioning, such as getting dressed.
Are you saying it's Caroline's fault for not asking a question YOU think should have been asked? Feel free to ask him yourself. Getting dressed!!!!!!!!!!!! When I got a call from my parents at that hour of the morning I drove there in my dressing gown.
-
Are you saying it's Caroline's fault for not asking a question YOU think should have been asked? Feel free to ask him yourself. Getting dressed!!!!!!!!!!!! When I got a call from my parents at that hour of the morning I drove there in my dressing gown.
You didnt use a phone book? Call your partner, put a few jumpers on and drive slowly? REALLY? Isn't that the believable reaction?
-
If anything screams guilty, it's the phone call myth.
Remember that initially bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called julie. He initially said he was called by Nevill just after 3. He didn't call 999 but looked up Chelmsford number in the phone book, which was produced in court. It had 'in an emergency dial 999' in big letters across the top of the page.
After talking to police at 3.26, a time accepted as being correct by his later solicitor Ewen smith, who stated that he had seen info that made this time 'indisputable'. In order to appear reasonable he then claimed that he called Julie before heading for the farm. He told ann that this call lasted 11 minutes because he timed it on his watch. He wasn't in bed. He answered his phone in his kitchen.
There was much argument in court over the order of the calls with Julie's housemates saying they were woken nearer to 3, not 3.30...
How could it take a man in fear of his fathers life to take 20 minutes to call anyone and not 999...
A few years ago in an interview with a newspaper bamber moved the time to 3.15....this made his actions more understandable, 10 mins or so to call the police...much better.
Now he produces another log of the 3.26 call which he is now claiming is a new call, but now from Nevill. Not one policeman in statements, or to Bamber himself has ever mentioned that his father rang too...never..
Bamber called the police now at 3.36, which places his call after Julie's again and over 30mins from his supposed call from his father or 20 mins after the 2nd timing of it...
Tesko, a few years back drove the route from bambers to white house. At a fair speed I think it took 7 mins??? Need to check this. If he called at 3.36, took 11mins on the phone and 7 mins to get there...it doesn't work...takes too long...the police saw him at 3.48 and then again at 3.50. Oops.
-
Looking for phone numbers, calling Julie, getting dressed smartly in several layers of clothes. Driving slowly to WHF.
Bamber sure didn't seem to think things were that serious.
However what he said to the police upon arrival
sure sounded serious and totally contradicted his casual actions a few minutes earlier.
-
If anything screams guilty, it's the phone call myth.
Remember that initially bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called julie. He initially said he was called by Nevill just after 3. He didn't call 999 but looked up Chelmsford number in the phone book, which was produced in court. It had 'in an emergency dial 999' in big letters across the top of the page.
After talking to police at 3.26, a time accepted as being correct by his later solicitor Ewen smith, who stated that he had seen info that made this time 'indisputable'. In order to appear reasonable he then claimed that he called Julie before heading for the farm. He told ann that this call lasted 11 minutes because he timed it on his watch. He wasn't in bed. He answered his phone in his kitchen.
There was much argument in court over the order of the calls with Julie's housemates saying they were woken nearer to 3, not 3.30...
How could it take a man in fear of his fathers life to take 20 minutes to call anyone and not 999...
A few years ago in an interview with a newspaper bamber moved the time to 3.15....this made his actions more understandable, 10 mins or so to call the police...much better.
Now he produces another log of the 3.26 call which he is now claiming is a new call, but now from Nevill. Not one policeman in statements, or to Bamber himself has ever mentioned that his father rang too...never..
Bamber called the police now at 3.36, which places his call after Julie's again and over 30mins from his supposed call from his father or 20 mins after the 2nd timing of it...
Tesko, a few years back drove the route from bambers to white house. At a fair speed I think it took 7 mins??? Need to check this. If he called at 3.36, took 11mins on the phone and 7 mins to get there...it doesn't work...takes too long...the police saw him at 3.48 and then again at 3.50. Oops.
Really good post, Vid. I agree the phone call is a siren of guilt.
-
If anything screams guilty, it's the phone call myth.
Remember that initially bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called julie. He initially said he was called by Nevill just after 3. He didn't call 999 but looked up Chelmsford number in the phone book, which was produced in court. It had 'in an emergency dial 999' in big letters across the top of the page.
After talking to police at 3.26, a time accepted as being correct by his later solicitor Ewen smith, who stated that he had seen info that made this time 'indisputable'. In order to appear reasonable he then claimed that he called Julie before heading for the farm. He told ann that this call lasted 11 minutes because he timed it on his watch. He wasn't in bed. He answered his phone in his kitchen.
There was much argument in court over the order of the calls with Julie's housemates saying they were woken nearer to 3, not 3.30...
How could it take a man in fear of his fathers life to take 20 minutes to call anyone and not 999...
A few years ago in an interview with a newspaper bamber moved the time to 3.15....this made his actions more understandable, 10 mins or so to call the police...much better.
Now he produces another log of the 3.26 call which he is now claiming is a new call, but now from Nevill. Not one policeman in statements, or to Bamber himself has ever mentioned that his father rang too...never..
Bamber called the police now at 3.36, which places his call after Julie's again and over 30mins from his supposed call from his father or 20 mins after the 2nd timing of it...
Tesko, a few years back drove the route from bambers to white house. At a fair speed I think it took 7 mins??? Need to check this. If he called at 3.36, took 11mins on the phone and 7 mins to get there...it doesn't work...takes too long...the police saw him at 3.48 and then again at 3.50. Oops.
Yes 3.36am is what the Youtube video says.
None of the witnesses said he phoned Julie after 3.30am. Two witnesses testified and kept to their claim under cross examination that Bamber phoned Julie at 3.00am.
Bamber couldn't phone Julie after 3.36am and arrive at WHF by 3.48am.
Ok, so if he phoned Julie before the police he must have phoned her for advice. But no, he testified he phoned her to 'hear a friendly voice'.
-
Yes 3.36am is what the Youtube video says.
None of the witnesses said he phoned Julie after 3.30am. Two witnesses testified and kept to their claim under cross examination that Bamber phoned Julie at 3.00am.
Bamber couldn't phone Julie after 3.36am and arrive at WHF by 3.48am.
Ok, so if he phoned Julie before the police he must have phoned her for advice. But no, he testified he phoned her to 'hear a friendly voice'.
The youtube video? it's all over his website!!
Think you're missing the point....in court, it was a massive point...if he phoned julie first a) he wasnt that worried about his dad and b) he lied....
One witness was before 3...before he even got the call from nevill....spooky....
-
If Neville phoned the police at 3.36am, it means the massacre of four people and one suicide took 12 minutes. Which is impossible.
-
If Neville phoned the police at 3.36am, it means the massacre of four people and one suicide took 12 minutes. Which is impossible.
Over 100,000 died in hiroshimi in a second. Not quite sure why you are deflecting the point away from the obvious. I have outlined why it is impossible and what you have written isn't it. You don't HAVE to add to a point, just acknowledge it.
-
Apparently, that's the sort of question that Caroline didn't ask him. He stated he tried to call his father back after about 30 seconds, and that he used the "repeat" button to try again. He probably did other things that didn't seem important enough at the time to justify mentioning, such as getting dressed.
As possibly the most pendatic person I have ever come across, why don't you write to him, and when he does give you the answers you want to hear, you can tell him he's wrong as well. ::) ::). Go on! Have the courage of your convictions!
-
That's incorrect. You know that his confirmation related to a specific question and that he was badgered into it. He didn't say he knew his first statement was correct from its content - he was saying that it would have been correct because it was made shortly after the events described. During the same interrogation, he confirmed that some details in his first statement were incorrect. For example, he confirmed he looked up the number for Chelmsford police station, but his first statement said he called that station immediately, making no mention of looking up its number.
So you think it's fair comment for him not to know if he simply looked up a number or whether he physically called it? Seriously? You're highlighting the fact that he was confused by what he'd said - obviously because he didn't actually do those things he was simply trying to 'get his story straight' but couldn't remember what he had originally said - because he was LYING!
-
If anything screams guilty, it's the phone call myth.
If it's a myth..., but you haven't established that Jeremy made it up. If he made it up, why didn't he ensure he gave a plausible account that he could stick to?
Remember that initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie. He initially said he was called by Nevill just after 3.
Neither I nor you can remember those things, as we weren't there. On the other hand, in his interview transcripts, he initially stated that he called Julie before he called the police.
In order to appear reasonable he then claimed that he called Julie before heading for the farm.
What are you referring to and how can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable?
He told Ann that this call lasted 11 minutes because he timed it on his watch.
There is no proof of that. It (11 minutes) isn't consistent with the police evidence.
He wasn't in bed. He answered his phone in his kitchen.
How do you know? Did he have only one telephone? Jeremy has consistently maintained that Nevill rang him and that this call woke him up.
There was much argument in court over the order of the calls with Julie's housemates saying they were woken nearer to 3, not 3.30...
You haven't quoted such argument. What proof do you have that anyone was specifically asked in court whether Jeremy's call was nearer to 3am than to 3:30am? It was Julie who had given the time of about 3:30, whereas Jeremy had given "about 3:25am" in his statement.
A few years ago in an interview with a newspaper Bamber moved the time to 3.15
Where can I see proof of this, including Jeremy's exact words?
If he called at 3.36, took 11mins on the phone and 7 mins to get there...it doesn't work...
You are trying to combine the time recorded by Pc West with an unverified assertion of a duration of 11 minutes that is inconsistent with Pc West's evidence in court. You seem to be attacking the prosecution evidence rather than Jeremy's account.
-
That's incorrect. You know that his confirmation related to a specific question and that he was badgered into it. He didn't say he knew his first statement was correct from its content - he was saying that it would have been correct because it was made shortly after the events described. During the same interrogation, he confirmed that some details in his first statement were incorrect. For example, he confirmed he looked up the number for Chelmsford police station, but his first statement said he called that station immediately, making no mention of looking up its number.
Your spin is simply pathetic.
Jeremy lied in his statements and he wanted to see what lies he put in his statements so he would not contradict them. Police would not show him so he said he stood by whatever he put in his statements.
-
If it's a myth..., but you haven't established that Jeremy made it up. If he made it up, why didn't he ensure he gave a plausible account that he could stick to?
Neither I nor you can remember those things, as we weren't there. On the other hand, in his interview transcripts, he initially stated that he called Julie before he called the police.
What are you referring to and how can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable?
There is no proof of that. It (11 minutes) isn't consistent with the police evidence.
How do you know? Did he have only one telephone? Jeremy has consistently maintained that Nevill rang him and that this call woke him up.
You haven't quoted such argument. What proof do you have that anyone was specifically asked in court whether Jeremy's call was nearer to 3am than to 3:30am? It was Julie who had given the time of about 3:30, whereas Jeremy had given "about 3:25am" in his statement.
Where can I see proof of this, including Jeremy's exact words?
You are trying to combine the time recorded by Pc West with an unverified assertion of a duration of 11 minutes that is inconsistent with Pc West's evidence in court. You seem to be attacking the prosecution evidence rather than Jeremy's account.
You ask how we know his motive was to make reasonable sound what he said!!!! I can't seriously believe you ask that question!!! Surely the first requisite of a liar is to make statements which are plausible and believable.
-
If it's a myth..., but you haven't established that Jeremy made it up. If he made it up, why didn't he ensure he gave a plausible account that he could stick to?
Because he's not as clever as you imagine him to be!
Neither I nor you can remember those things, as we weren't there. On the other hand, in his interview transcripts, he initially stated that he called Julie before he called the police.
Then he changed it because he knew it looked bad - he now maintains that he called the police first. The fact that he switched from one to the other should sound warning bells - its an aspect he should remember because it's part of a sequence!
What are you referring to and how can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable?
Because it's obvious that calling Julie first looks suspicious! ESPECIALLY when he became a suspect.
There is no proof of that. It (11 minutes) isn't consistent with the police evidence.
He did say the call lasted around 10 minutes and none of Jeremy's story about the phone call is consistent with police evidence!
How do you know? Did he have only one telephone? Jeremy has consistently maintained that Nevill rang him and that this call woke him up.
Errrr yes, he had only one telephone! But as there was no call, he wasn't in bed.
You haven't quoted such argument. What proof do you have that anyone was specifically asked in court whether Jeremy's call was nearer to 3am than to 3:30am? It was Julie who had given the time of about 3:30, whereas Jeremy had given "about 3:25am" in his statement.
And others, that it was MUCH sooner.
Where can I see proof of this, including Jeremy's exact words?
I'm sure it will be on the OS.
You are trying to combine the time recorded by Pc West with an unverified assertion of a duration of 11 minutes that is inconsistent with Pc West's evidence in court. You seem to be attacking the prosecution evidence rather than Jeremy's account.
No, Jeremy now states that he called the police at 03:36 to fit in a call from Nevill and he also suggested that he was on the phone for around 10 minutes. If you think that's BS, then you best tell Jeremy he's got it wrong and if you think he's got it wrong - you're backing the wrong side! ;)
-
Jeremy's wit stat says he received the call from his father at ABOUT 03.10 am.
He phoned JM at ABOUT 03.25 am.
Then phoned JM again at ABOUT 05.45 am.
-
Jeremy's wit stat says he received the call from his father at ABOUT 03.10 am.
He phoned JM at ABOUT 03.25 am.
Then phoned JM again at ABOUT 05.45 am.
So he called Julie before the police ;D ;D ;)
-
So he called Julie before the police ;D ;D ;)
Does it really matter ? He obviously wanted her opinion on what he should do as neither Sheila nor Jeremy ever stood on their own two feet when it came to decisions. It's easy enough to work out when you had parents who worked out everything for you,and fetched and carried you,the kids grow up senseless and not knowing what to do in times of desperation,therefore taking things in their stride, and asking others.
-
Does it really matter ? He obviously wanted her opinion on what he should do as neither Sheila nor Jeremy ever stood on their own two feet when it came to decisions. It's easy enough to work out when you had parents who worked out everything for you,and fetched and carried you,the kids grow up senseless and not knowing what to do in times of desperation,therefore taking things in their stride, and asking others.
So how was he able to cope when he was doing his long haul trips? As guess is, he was glad to be free of parental restriction.
-
So how was he able to cope when he was doing his long haul trips? As guess is, he was glad to be free of parental restriction.
He'd have coped marvellously with his trips. Time at last to think for himself.
-
He'd have coped marvellously with his trips. Time at last to think for himself.
Easy to see then how he might have decided that he'd like to be permanently free of those who would do his thinking for him.
-
Easy to see then how he might have decided that he'd like to be permanently free of those who would do his thinking for him.
Oh I don't think so. Killing would have been the last thing on his mind,but it was certainly on that of his sister.
-
Oh I don't think so. Killing would have been the last thing on his mind,but it was certainly on that of his sister.
If you're saying that Sheila was contemplating murdering her parents and children whilst Jeremy was doing long haul, I can only believe it to be a wind up. Should it not be can you please clarify whether it's only in your imagination OR in documentary evidence.
-
If you're saying that Sheila was contemplating murdering her parents and children whilst Jeremy was doing long haul, I can only believe it to be a wind up. Should it not be can you please clarify whether it's only in your imagination OR in documentary evidence.
No---------you've read it wrong. ::) I didn't say " while Jeremy was doing long haul ".I referred to that she had murder in mind while Jeremy didn't. Nothing to do with long-haul at the same time.In the same breath.
-
No---------you've read it wrong. ::) I didn't say " while Jeremy was doing long haul ".I referred to that she had murder in mind while Jeremy didn't. Nothing to do with long-haul at the same time.In the same breath.
But no one has come forward to say that she had murder in mind, whereas in Jeremy's case............
-
But no one has come forward to say that she had murder in mind, whereas in Jeremy's case............
Those who commit suicide rarely tell anyone either.
-
The last time I saw Eddie Gilfoyle's wife,she was 8 and a half months pregnant,looking beautiful in a yellow dress,bright,healthy and happy. A week later she was dead.
-
When Jeremy had left the farmhouse for home that night,he'd said that everyone appeared happy and that there was no sign of distress. He was being honest,as he could easily have digressed from that situation if he'd wanted to.
-
When Jeremy had left the farmhouse for home that night,he'd said that everyone appeared happy and that there was no sign of distress. He was being honest,as he could easily have digressed from that situation if he'd wanted to.
I doubt that anyone in that farm house was jumping for joy after the conversation Jeremy said had taken place.
-
I doubt that anyone in that farm house was jumping for joy after the conversation Jeremy said had taken place.
It just goes to show that there have been a few " alterations " along the way,but not may I add done by Jeremy.
-
It just goes to show that there have been a few " alterations " along the way,but not may I add done by Jeremy.
That's despite the number of times he's changed what he said and when and to whom. So why isn't it possible that he's changed what others have said?
-
So what if there'd also been mention of foster care as well,there certainly didn't appear to have been a big deal over it while Jeremy was there. Everything kicked off after he'd left.He wasn't to know what would happen after having left a happy and comfortable setting. There could have been something else said for all any of us know which ruffled everyone's feathers.
-
So what if there'd also been mention of foster care as well,there certainly didn't appear to have been a big deal over it while Jeremy was there. Everything kicked off after he'd left.He wasn't to know what would happen after having left a happy and comfortable setting. There could have been something else said for all any of us know which ruffled everyone's feathers.
Lookout, it's no good trying to make things other than they were. June was worried about Sheila's lack of interest in the house/lack of interest in her children. At best, there may have been some false brightness but I can't believe Sheila took kindly to the suggestion of being sent to a nice Christian community in Bournemouth whilst her children were fostered out.
-
Lookout, it's no good trying to make things other than they were. June was worried about Sheila's lack of interest in the house/lack of interest in her children. At best, there may have been some false brightness but I can't believe Sheila took kindly to the suggestion of being sent to a nice Christian community in Bournemouth whilst her children were fostered out.
So then you can't blame her for " flipping " after being told for the umpteenth time what to do with her life.
-
So then you can't blame her for " flipping " after being told for the umpteenth time what to do with her life.
As I've previously said, I think she was too depressed to summon up the energy to kill.
-
When Jeremy had left the farmhouse for home that night,he'd said that everyone appeared happy and that there was no sign of distress. He was being honest,as he could easily have digressed from that situation if he'd wanted to.
He said they had suggested fostering the boys! Are you for real?
-
As I've previously said, I think she was too depressed to summon up the energy to kill.
Entirely up to you to think that way. I'm not stopping you.
-
It just goes to show that there have been a few " alterations " along the way,but not may I add done by Jeremy.
Jeremy is a shining beacon of truth and enlightenment Lookout....and you are an ever willing apprentice....you seem to know what he was thinking, what he really meant, his personal conversations, a real gift you have.
-
Entirely up to you to think that way. I'm not stopping you.
I think you'll find that there's more to back up my opinion, than yours.
-
Does it really matter ? He obviously wanted her opinion on what he should do as neither Sheila nor Jeremy ever stood on their own two feet when it came to decisions. It's easy enough to work out when you had parents who worked out everything for you,and fetched and carried you,the kids grow up senseless and not knowing what to do in times of desperation,therefore taking things in their stride, and asking others.
Clearly is matter because he lied afterwards - he knows it looks bad that not only didn't he call 999, he called his girlfriend FIRST!!
-
Jeremy lied in his statements and he wanted to see what lies he put in his statements so he would not contradict them. Police would not show him so he said he stood by whatever he put in his statements.
To show he lied, you have to prove he intended to deceive and you haven't done that. Instead, you're claiming you know his thoughts. Additionally, you have overlooked the fact that the police did show him the part of his first statement that was relevant to what they were asking him about at the time.
-
Those who commit suicide rarely tell anyone either.
I don't think that's true at all.
-
To show he lied, you have to prove he intended to deceive and you haven't done that. Instead, you're claiming you know his thoughts. Additionally, you have overlooked the fact that the police did show him the part of his first statement that was relevant to what they were asking him about at the time.
No one needs to do it for him, he's proved time and time again that he intended to deceive - because he errrr 'lied' ::)
-
You ask how we know his motive was to make reasonable sound what he said!
I don't recognize that as something I asked. It's not even in correct English.
I can't seriously believe you ask that question!
Maybe you misunderstood what I was asking. Your remark "Surely the first requisite of a liar is to make statements which are plausible and believable." seems to be in agreement with my post.
-
I don't think that's true at all.
How many of those who have committed suicide have then told you (or anyone else) about it?
-
No one needs to do it for him, he's proved time and time again that he intended to deceive - because he 'lied'
You conveniently don't consider mistakes and assumptions that seemed reasonable at the time, but weren't correct. Instead of explaining your conclusions, you are just mocking those who disagree with them.
-
I don't recognize that as something I asked. It's not even in correct English.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was asking. Your remark "Surely the first requisite of a liar is to make statements which are plausible and believable." seems to be in agreement with my post.
I'll agree with whatever you say when I consider it to be worth agreeing with. What I've experienced, for the most part, is pedantry.
-
Jeremy's wit stat says he received the call from his father at ABOUT 03.10 am.
He phoned JM at ABOUT 03.25 am.
Then phoned JM again at ABOUT 05.45 am.
So he called Julie before the police
So you're agreeing with me now? You're also agreeing with what Jeremy said initially in his interviews. When interviewed, Jeremy was asked "how long were you on the phone to her?" and replied "A minute two minutes not very long as I had to ring the police." Thus it came out quite naturally and at an early stage of his interview that he called Julie before calling the police. This wasn't explicitly contradicted by the times mentioned above.
-
I'll agree with whatever you say when I consider it to be worth agreeing with.
How can I tell whether or not you're agreeing, especially when you apparently accidentally misquote me?
-
If it's a myth..., but you haven't established that Jeremy made it up. If he made it up, why didn't he ensure he gave a plausible account that he could stick to?
Neither I nor you can remember those things, as we weren't there. On the other hand, in his interview transcripts, he initially stated that he called Julie before he called the police.
What are you referring to and how can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable?
There is no proof of that. It (11 minutes) isn't consistent with the police evidence.
How do you know? Did he have only one telephone? Jeremy has consistently maintained that Nevill rang him and that this call woke him up.
You haven't quoted such argument. What proof do you have that anyone was specifically asked in court whether Jeremy's call was nearer to 3am than to 3:30am? It was Julie who had given the time of about 3:30, whereas Jeremy had given "about 3:25am" in his statement.
Where can I see proof of this, including Jeremy's exact words?
You are trying to combine the time recorded by Pc West with an unverified assertion of a duration of 11 minutes that is inconsistent with Pc West's evidence in court. You seem to be attacking the prosecution evidence rather than Jeremy's account.
I wasn't attempting to quote you.
You asked "How can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable"? which I may well have misinterpreted because for one so quick to criticize my grammar, you don't make it clear whether the motive was to appear as reasonable at a future date or time OR that it was his motive to appear reasonable. I took it to be the latter so I thought your question somewhat ridiculous because who, in their right mind -given the circumstances- would cook up anything which would sound UNreasonable?
-
How many of those who have committed suicide have then told you (or anyone else) about it?
OMG! What a stupid thing to say. Think everyone here knows my brother killed himself - he mentioned it a few times and one day he went through with it.
-
You conveniently don't consider mistakes and assumptions that seemed reasonable at the time, but weren't correct. Instead of explaining your conclusions, you are just mocking those who disagree with them.
I'm not mocking anyone but your suggestion that we need to prove Jeremy lied is silly - the court did that hence why he's been banged up for 30 years. YOU need to prove he didn't!
-
There goes the word " mocking " again.
-
To show he lied, you have to prove he intended to deceive and you haven't done that. Instead, you're claiming you know his thoughts. Additionally, you have overlooked the fact that the police did show him the part of his first statement that was relevant to what they were asking him about at the time.
It is not plausible that he forgot that he phoned Julie before police and honestly made an error thinking he called her after calling the police. He knew it would look bad to tell the truth so that was why he lied and said he called police before Julie. Saying that you refuse to believe he lied about it is meaningless and doesn't render it not proven.
He blatantly lied about calling police before Julie, messed up admitting he called Julie first then reverted to his prior claims saying he stood by whatever he put in his statements. He then lied at trial testifying he remembered calling police first.
-
There goes the word " mocking " again.
And here it goes again - MOCKING! :P
-
It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers. This post will probably lead to this computer being banned also. I have no idea why I am being banned. Catch you all laters if I am.
-
I wasn't attempting to quote you.
You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.
By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
. . . he mentioned it a few times and one day he went through with it.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".
-
You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.
By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".
However you dress it up reader, Bamber has changed his story err....4 times about wether he called julie or the police first. You are right though, I forgot that in the very first instance he said he called julie, but when pushed he changed his mind....at trial he fought hard to establish it was after he called police and now, his latest timings place the call to julie before the police again....
Surely you must acknowledge this is a weakness in his defence?
-
It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers.
I'm confident you weren't banned (unless it was a mistake that was soon rectified).
-
I'm confident you weren't banned (unless it was a mistake that was soon rectified).
It most definitely says I'm banned.
-
It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers. This post will probably lead to this computer being banned also. I have no idea why I am being banned. Catch you all laters if I am.
Vic No one has banned you, don't know what's happened but you're definitely not banned. :)
-
Vic No one has banned you, don't know what's happened but you're definitely not banned. :)
Says "vidvic you are banned from using this forum. Two accounts. This ban is not set to expire"
-
Says "vidvic you are banned from using this forum. Two accounts. This ban is not set to expire"
Have no idea what's happened but am sure Neil or Caroline can sort it as its an Admin problem, I think.??
-
Have no idea what's happened but am sure Neil or Caroline can sort it as its an Admin problem, I think.??
No worries Maggie, I'll stay on this one.
-
Reader... Is this not a weakness?
-
Bamber has changed his story 4 times about whether he called Julie or the police first.
That kind of thing can seem to happen when someone has difficulty remembering exactly what occurred, especially if, when thinking through what happened, one unwittingly makes possibly false assumptions, such as assuming that there was only one call to the police, and that the police were being truthful. Contradicting oneself as a consequence of trying to give the truth isn't lying.
-
That kind of thing can seem to happen when someone has difficulty remembering exactly what occurred, especially if, when thinking through what happened, one unwittingly makes possibly false assumptions, such as assuming that there was only one call to the police, and that the police were being truthful. Contradicting oneself as a consequence of trying to give the truth isn't lying.
Surely it makes no difference from bambers point of view how many calls were made? There is no reference point. He might get confused for a second or two, then think about it and answer the question. It doesn't matter who else was being truthful or not.
-
Do you not accept that at trial it was considered important as to which happened first? That to have called julie showed a lack of urgency and diminished his argument of a phone call from Nevill saying he was in danger?
-
You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.
By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".
Then that is a dumb question!
-
Come on reader you're an intelligent guy. Don't insult my intelligence with arguing the unarguable...
-
Do you believe that Nevill called the police too? Meaning Bamber called at 3.36? If you do, how did he get to the farm by 3.50?? How is that possible?
-
You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.
By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".
Reader
I am having some trouble understanding the business about the times of the calls. Didn't Ann Eaton say that she overheard Jeremy say that Nevill called at 03:00
-
Says "vidvic you are banned from using this forum. Two accounts. This ban is not set to expire"
This might be a technical issue. Is the computer that you got this message on shared with someone who is banned or is it a computer that you hadn't used for a long time to log into the forum successfully?
-
Reader
I am having some trouble understanding the business about the times of the calls. Didn't Ann Eaton say that she overheard Jeremy say that Nevill called at 03:00
I don't recall that one. Originally I think he said 3.10?? Then in a newspaper interview a few years back (it's on YouTube) he says 3.15 ( he stops the interview to make it clear ) but now he is claiming it was later.
-
This might be a technical issue. Is the computer that you got this message on shared with someone who is banned or is it a computer that you hadn't used for a long time to log into the forum successfully?
It's a tablet that's not shared with anyone. Used it early evening to post, went out, tried to log on, got the message. Rebooted, still the same. This is my iPhone which works fine.. Very odd...
-
I don't recall that one. Originally I think he said 3.10?? Then in a newspaper interview a few years back (it's on YouTube) he says 3.15 ( he stops the interview to make it clear ) but now he is claiming it was later.
He did initially state 'about 03:10'
-
It's a tablet that's not shared with anyone.
How does the tablet connect to the internet?
-
If it's OK, I have another question. When people say that Bonnett's log is only a record of Jeremy's call to PC West, do they allow for the time that West was talking to Jeremy before he called Bonnett. West's log is timed at 03:36 and Bonnett's at 03:26 which is strange if West's log was written first and is, of course, the reason why people say either that West misread the clock or that the clock was ten minutes fast. But I was thinking that the clock would have to be more than ten minutes fast, because West would only have called Bonnett after he had made out his own log so he could then read it out to Bonnett who made some changes to what he heard.
My point is that if there was no confusion about the times, Bonnett's log would naturally be timed some minutes later than West's log because he had to spend time listening to Jeremy and taking down the details, so it would seem that West's clock would have to be about 15 minutes ahead of Bonnett's clock, if you catch my drift.
-
I am having some trouble understanding the business about the times of the calls. Didn't Ann Eaton say that she overheard Jeremy say that Nevill called at 03:00
I don't recall anything of that nature. If the police mentioned an incorrect time to Jeremy on 7th August, he might have assumed it was accurate. We don't know how he estimated the times he gave. If he's changed his mind about the time, he presumably accepts his original estimate wasn't particularly accurate.
-
If it's OK, I have another question. When people say that Bonnett's log is only a record of Jeremy's call to PC West, do they allow for the time that West was talking to Jeremy before he called Bonnett. West's log is timed at 03:36 and Bonnett's at 03:26 which is strange if West's log was written first and is, of course, the reason why people say either that West misread the clock or that the clock was ten minutes fast. But I was thinking that the clock would have to be more than ten minutes fast, because West would only have called Bonnett after he had made out his own log so he could then read it out to Bonnett who made some changes to what he heard.
My point is that if there was no confusion about the times, Bonnett's log would naturally be timed some minutes later than West's log because he had to spend time listening to Jeremy and taking down the details, so it would seem that West's clock would have to be about 15 minutes ahead of Bonnett's clock, if you catch my drift.
Yes, I know what you mean but West indicated that he could have written the time incorrectly, I personally believe he filled in some details AFTER the call and so 03:36 was after the call ended.
-
Do you believe that Nevill called the police too? Meaning Bamber called at 3.36? If you do, how did he get to the farm by 3.50?? How is that possible?
One would need to know the combined durations of Jeremy's call to Pc West and Jeremy's journey to WHF, and also the accuracy of the logged times. Pc West effectively supported the possibility by insisting at trial that Jeremy's call was dealt with quickly.
-
I don't recall anything of that nature. If the police mentioned an incorrect time to Jeremy on 7th August, he might have assumed it was accurate. We don't know how he estimated the times he gave. If he's changed his mind about the time, he presumably accepts his original estimate wasn't particularly accurate.
I can remember where I heard it. It's at Injustice Anywhere
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&p=163100#p162935
Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:36 am
Sorry to bombard the thread but these things keep turning up and I'm afraid of forgetting them. I'm struggling with the timings of the calls.
Bamber said Neville called him at 3.00 a.m. (per Ann Eaton who heard him say so to the officer at JB's place on the morning of 07 Aug 85). He called Julie around 3.15 a.m. (same source - in fact Ann records Julie saying it was 3.30 but then calling her flat to be sure and then saying 3.15). One of the flatmates says it was 3.12 but her clock was 10 minutes fast making it 3.02. PC West recorded an incoming call at 3.36, subsequently corrected to 3.26 and Malcolm Bonnet says he despatched a car at 3.35 or 3.36. Bamber says his call to Chelmsford police took 11 minutes. He timed it as he was wearing his watch (a fact the astute Ann noted while listening to him talk to the copper).
-
Yes, I know what you mean but West indicated that he could have written the time incorrectly, I personally believe he filled in some details AFTER the call and so 03:36 was after the call ended.
The box in which he wrote 03:36 is for when the call was received, even if completed later on.
-
The box in which he wrote 03:36 is for when the call was received, even if completed later on.
I know, but people get sloppy in their work and don't always pay attention to such details. He wasn't to know it would turn out to be important. It was an admin error that Jeremy and the CT are trying to use and make sound suspicious - however, it's clearly an admin error and nothing more.
-
I can remember where I heard it. It's at Injustice Anywhere
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&p=163100#p162935
Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:36 am
Sorry to bombard the thread but these things keep turning up and I'm afraid of forgetting them. I'm struggling with the timings of the calls.
Bamber said Neville called him at 3.00 a.m. (per Ann Eaton who heard him say so to the officer at JB's place on the morning of 07 Aug 85). He called Julie around 3.15 a.m. (same source - in fact Ann records Julie saying it was 3.30 but then calling her flat to be sure and then saying 3.15). One of the flatmates says it was 3.12 but her clock was 10 minutes fast making it 3.02. PC West recorded an incoming call at 3.36, subsequently corrected to 3.26 and Malcolm Bonnet says he despatched a car at 3.35 or 3.36. Bamber says his call to Chelmsford police took 11 minutes. He timed it as he was wearing his watch (a fact the astute Ann noted while listening to him talk to the copper).
Whoever wrote that, has it wrong. The statements are in the archives, you can read them for yourself.
-
I'm struggling with the timings of the calls.
One has to consider the reliability of the various statements. When did Ann Eaton come up with the suggestion that Jeremy had consulted his watch? I doubt that this was corroborated by Jeremy or anyone else. Even if Jeremy did do that, how can we be certain he remembered the times correctly or that his watch was accurate? It has sometimes been asserted that Jeremy estimated that his call to Pc West took 11 minutes, but that is not in his statements or interviews, and there's nothing to suggest that he made that estimate at his trial.
-
. . . it's clearly an admin error and nothing more.
That wasn't Pc West's opinion when he gave evidence.
-
Whoever wrote that, has it wrong. The statements are in the archives, you can read them for yourself.
Can you tell me which statement or note of Ann Eaton he appears to be talking about.
"Bamber said Neville called him at 3.00 a.m. (per Ann Eaton who heard him say so to the officer at JB's place on the morning of 07 Aug 85). He called Julie around 3.15 a.m. (same source - in fact Ann records Julie saying it was 3.30 but then calling her flat to be sure and then saying 3.15)."
Sorry to keep asking questions but I have noticed that search engines have been blocked from this site. I used to be able to find things just doing a google search, but the whole content of this site has been blocked from search results. Do people here realise that?
Oh and there's something very odd. Although guests can't visit. It says at the bottom of the Home page a certain number of guests as well as users. Now that just beats me!
-
The box in which he wrote 03:36 is for when the call was received, even if completed later on.
Assuming we reject the idea that Nevill called the police, I would estimate that Jeremy must have called the police (PC West) not at 03:26 but at about 03:20, since West would have been talking to Jeremy for five minutes or so before calling Bonnett and relating the details provided by Jeremy.
-
That wasn't Pc West's opinion when he gave evidence.
Yes it was, he said he could have made a mistake!
-
Assuming we reject the idea that Nevill called the police, I would estimate that Jeremy must have called the police (PC West) not at 03:26 but at about 03:20, since West would have been talking to Jeremy for five minutes or so before calling Bonnett and relating the details provided by Jeremy.
I'd say that was about right.
-
Can you tell me which statement or note of Ann Eaton he appears to be talking about.
"Bamber said Neville called him at 3.00 a.m. (per Ann Eaton who heard him say so to the officer at JB's place on the morning of 07 Aug 85). He called Julie around 3.15 a.m. (same source - in fact Ann records Julie saying it was 3.30 but then calling her flat to be sure and then saying 3.15)."
Sorry to keep asking questions but I have noticed that search engines have been blocked from this site. I used to be able to find things just doing a google search, but the whole content of this site has been blocked from search results. Do people here realise that?
Oh and there's something very odd. Although guests can't visit. It says at the bottom of the Home page a certain number of guests as well as users. Now that just beats me!
Several of AE's statements are on the site, I don't recall anyone mentioning 03:00am though - I think your other site, have it wrong. That's not unusual.
We closed the site from guests because of politics with another site. Not sure about the guest thing (although I have an idea) but will get back to you.
-
Assuming we reject the idea that Nevill called the police, I would estimate that Jeremy must have called the police (PC West) not at 03:26 but at about 03:20, since West would have been talking to Jeremy for five minutes or so before calling Bonnett and relating the details provided by Jeremy.
I'd say that was about right.
It's curious that nobody has said it before. As far as I know the prosecution never maintained that West received the call from Jeremy at 03:20. And it's a hell of a mistake for West to be wrong by 15 minutes.
-
Several of AE's statements are on the site, I don't recall anyone mentioning 03:00am though - I think your other site, have it wrong. That's not unusual.
We closed the site from guests because of politics with another site. Not sure about the guest thing (although I have an idea) but will get back to you.
I think I get the picture.
-
Assuming we reject the idea that Nevill called the police, I would estimate that Jeremy must have called the police (PC West) not at 03:26 but at about 03:20, since West would have been talking to Jeremy for five minutes or so before calling Bonnett and relating the details provided by Jeremy.
Strobe, that seems to add up, doesn't it? And it the most likely option that I've been able to work out out too.
-
Strobe, that seems to add up, doesn't it? And it the most likely option that I've been able to work out out too.
The trouble with it is that you have to either believe that the clock in that police station was not just 10 but 15 minutes fast, or that PC West misread it by 15 minutes. It sounds more like a comedy sketch than a real police station.
-
The trouble with it is that you have to either believe that the clock in that police station was not just 10 but 15 minutes fast, or that PC West misread it by 15 minutes.
That's incorrect. Pc West claimed he had spoken to Jeremy for less than a minute when he contacted police HQ. Perhaps he underestimated... a bit less than two minutes is comfortably enough. Try writing a copy of the first part of Pc West's log... how long does it take you?
Pc West's evidence at trial makes interesting reading... he clearly didn't think he'd logged the time incorrectly.
-
You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.
By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".
How funny that I was doing exactly what you claim to have been doing, basing my question on what I assumed to be your wording. Had you wished to make clear that you were basing you question on his words you should have used inverted commas, however, if you weren't quoting word for word, it wouldn't have been necessary, which is why I didn't use them in my post. To clarify, I wasn't quoting you, ergo, no need for inverts. Does your talent for pedantry know no bounds?
-
How many of those who have committed suicide have then told you (or anyone else) about it?
How many potential suicides have you sat with, Reader? How many have you been involved with? Perhaps you think your post was clever or witty. Personally, I find it distasteful and cruel.
-
That's incorrect. Pc West claimed he had spoken to Jeremy for less than a minute when he contacted police HQ. Perhaps he underestimated... a bit less than two minutes is comfortably enough. Try writing a copy of the first part of Pc West's log... how long does it take you?
Pc West's evidence at trial makes interesting reading... he clearly didn't think he'd logged the time incorrectly.
Either the calls were edited ( the most likeliest ) or Jeremy was distracted ( unsurprisingly )
-
Supporters, and even some non supporters blame Julie.
How dare she be sleeping at 3am.
-
It seems apart from a few people kicking and screaming, everyone agrees Bamber phoned Julie before the police.
Two independent witnesses could have easily taken the safe option and said they were not sure, when testifying. However under cross examination, both said the phone call was at 3am.
It is no good going by what Bamber says. He changed his mind several times before settling upon afterwards.
His reason for calling her - 'to hear a friendly voice', matches him calling Julie after the police. He did not need her advice as according to him he had made the decision to phone Chelmsford police station, and agreed to meet them at WHF. So he either called her to 'hear a friendly voice', or to give her an update statement.
However no one who thought things were so serious they had to call the police, would then phone someone at 3am to 'hear a friendly voice'.
The only thing supporters can say is 'no one knows what we would do in that situation. That is correct, and no one will ever find out.
-
Had you wished to make clear that you were basing your question on his words you should have used inverted commas
I used the Quote button, so I did use inverted commas.
if you weren't quoting word for word, it wouldn't have been necessary
As I'd used the Quote button, what vidvic had posted was already present. I wanted to use the word "motive", whereas vidvic had used "in order to" (which implies motive), so I didn't put "motive" within quotes.
I wasn't quoting you, ergo, no need for inverts.
It's possible to quote without using them. I've already explained that you referred to my words, which is another way of quoting me.
-
If it's a myth..., but you haven't established that Jeremy made it up. If he made it up, why didn't he ensure he gave a plausible account that he could stick to?
Neither I nor you can remember those things, as we weren't there. On the other hand, in his interview transcripts, he initially stated that he called Julie before he called the police.
What are you referring to and how can you possibly know that his motive was to appear reasonable?
There is no proof of that. It (11 minutes) isn't consistent with the police evidence.
How do you know? Did he have only one telephone? Jeremy has consistently maintained that Nevill rang him and that this call woke him up.
You haven't quoted such argument. What proof do you have that anyone was specifically asked in court whether Jeremy's call was nearer to 3am than to 3:30am? It was Julie who had given the time of about 3:30, whereas Jeremy had given "about 3:25am" in his statement.
Where can I see proof of this, including Jeremy's exact words?
You are trying to combine the time recorded by Pc West with an unverified assertion of a duration of 11 minutes that is inconsistent with Pc West's evidence in court. You seem to be attacking the prosecution evidence rather than Jeremy's account.
Oh yeah? So please show me where, in the above post, you've used inverted commas. Just using the Quote button alone doesn't cover quoting particular aspects of a post. It's a reference or aide de memoire for the post's recipient.
-
You can see them for yourself - they're in Reply #301.
-
The trouble with it is that you have to either believe that the clock in that police station was not just 10 but 15 minutes fast, or that PC West misread it by 15 minutes. It sounds more like a comedy sketch than a real police station.
He simply wasn't that bothered about putting in the correct time - he most likely left it blank while getting down the main details, filling the time details AFTER Jeremy had hung up. It's just an admin error that Bamber and the CT like to jump on.
-
That wasn't Pc West's opinion when he gave evidence.
He said it was possible that he had 'written the wrong time', writing the wrong time is a mistake, a mistake in administration is an admin error.
-
Pc West didn't say "I simply wasn't bothered" in court. He said "The time is normally taken at the beginning. Certainly it is practice to take — to record the time as the telephone call or message is received. . . . It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes."
-
It's curious that nobody has said it before. As far as I know the prosecution never maintained that West received the call from Jeremy at 03:20. And it's a hell of a mistake for West to be wrong by 15 minutes.
Really? But you don't think it's odd that Jeremy is saying that his dad called him at 03:10 but that he didn't call the police until 03:36? You see Jeremy is now saying West's time is correct - now who's spinning a yarn?
-
Pc West didn't say "I simply wasn't bothered" in court. He said "The time is normally taken at the beginning. Certainly it is practice to take — to record the time as the telephone call or message is received. . . . It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes."
Where did I say he did say that? I SAID IT because it's clear that he was being sloppy. I have posted what he said and he said it was 'possible he had written the wrong time'. We have gone over and over this, you should know that he admitted it, it's been posted often enough!
-
That's incorrect. Pc West claimed he had spoken to Jeremy for less than a minute when he contacted police HQ. Perhaps he underestimated... a bit less than two minutes is comfortably enough. Try writing a copy of the first part of Pc West's log... how long does it take you?
Pc West's evidence at trial makes interesting reading... he clearly didn't think he'd logged the time incorrectly.
What would be the point of copying the log details? That would obviously take less time than asking another person questions, waiting for their answer and THEN writing it down.
He didn't think he made a mistake? is that why he said he could have?
-
I have what Pc West initially said in court regarding this. He outlined the normal practice and he never said anything to indicate that he was too busy or too distracted to adhere to that practice.
-
I have what Pc West initially said in court regarding this. He outlined the normal practice and he never said anything to indicate that he was too busy or too distracted to adhere to that practice.
Where did I say that he did say any of that - I AM SAYING IT! He admitted that he could have made a mistake and to deny that (when it's in black and white) is quite odd.
-
I was explaining (and expanding on) what I posted, not what you posted. In Pc West's statement of 9th August 1985, he said that he received Jeremy's call at about 03:26. However, he later formed the opinion that this was incorrect, as his statement of 13th September 1985 gives the time when he took Jeremy's call as 3:36 a.m.
-
I was explaining (and expanding on) what I posted, not what you posted. In Pc West's statement of 9th August 1985, he said that he received Jeremy's call at about 03:26. However, he later formed the opinion that this was incorrect, as his statement of 13th September 1985 gives the time when he took Jeremy's call as 3:36 a.m.
And ADMITTED he could have 'recorded' the WRONG time. West CLEARLY knows he ballsed up and is trying to drag back some credibility. He made a mistake - that is FAR from proving Bamber innocent.
-
There would be no need for all this had Jeremy engaged a solicitor at the outset when he was first questioned. It might/would have made a huge difference. I can understand in one way why he didn't as he didn't honestly think that it would lead to anything. A great pity !
-
West CLEARLY knows he ballsed up and is trying to drag back some credibility.
Saying "I can only assume I actually recorded the wrong time, as it were." is very different from saying something like "I clearly messed up and recorded the time incorrectly." In Pc West's own words (his next reply), "Well, there is a dispute over the time. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." That's hardly a clear admission that he logged the time incorrectly.
-
Saying "I can only assume I actually recorded the wrong time, as it were." is very different from saying something like "I clearly messed up and recorded the time incorrectly." In Pc West's own words (his next reply), "Well, there is a dispute over the time. I don't whose time is right and whose time is wrong." That's hardly a clear admission that he logged the time incorrectly.
No it isn't, he is begrudgingly admitting he made a mistake because it's an important aspect and he's trying to save face. You keep battling at this because you want to keep alive the conspiracy theory and the idea that Nevill could have called. It was simply a mistake and if Jeremy tries to use this as a means to appeal, it will fall at the first hurdle.
-
There would be no need for all this had Jeremy engaged a solicitor at the outset when he was first questioned. It might/would have made a huge difference. I can understand in one way why he didn't as he didn't honestly think that it would lead to anything. A great pity !
If he had asked for a solicitor when he was first interviewed at his house, it wouldn't have taken over a months to arrest him. EVERYONE would have wondered why he felt the need to have a solicitor present when he was simply aiding the police. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If he had asked for a solicitor when he was first interviewed at his house, it wouldn't have taken over a months to arrest him. EVERYONE would have wondered why he felt the need to have a solicitor present when he was simply aiding the police. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm not talking about in his house. I'm meaning the police station when Jeremy could well have been " tanked-up " on valium,and coupled with the shock of losing all his family,I'm surprised he was coherent at all.
-
No it isn't, he is begrudgingly admitting he made a mistake because it's an important aspect and he's trying to save face. You keep battling at this because you want to keep alive the conspiracy theory and the idea that Nevill could have called. It was simply a mistake and if Jeremy tries to use this as a means to appeal, it will fall at the first hurdle.
Caroline, it seems to me that the need to keep A conspiracy theory alive, ANY conspiracy will do and in order to make one it's now come down to inane and puerile points involving little more than a couple of minutes in either direction, a non existent phone call, the technicalities of the use of inverted commas, reinterpretation of words, picking up on grammatical errors and probably the misplacement of dots on I's and crosses on T's et al.
-
It's a tablet that's not shared with anyone. Used it early evening to post, went out, tried to log on, got the message. Rebooted, still the same. This is my iPhone which works fine.. Very odd...
Vic - I have looked and the reason is that one of IP addresses you have been using is the same as that used several years ago by Horsey Dave. You will remember him. Your other IP address is OK.
-
Vic - I have looked and the reason is that one of IP addresses you have been using is the same as that used several years ago by Horsey Dave. You will remember him. Your other IP address is OK.
as I've only lived here for 5 months then how is that possible? I do hope that you are not suggesting I am horseydave! My tablet was bought last September and has worked perfectly on the site before.
-
as I've only lived here for 5 months then how is that possible? I do hope that you are not suggesting I am horseydave! My tablet was bought last September and has worked perfectly on the site before.
Ha, ha!! NO!! IP addresses aren't unique to one person - you were just unlucky enough to be assigned the same IP address as someone else on that occasion! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
as I've only lived here for 5 months then how is that possible? I do hope that you are not suggesting I am horseydave! My tablet was bought last September and has worked perfectly on the site before.
I am not sure Vic. I thought maybe you had something to tell us (or show us). ;D ;D ;D
-
I am not sure Vic. I thought maybe you had something to tell us (or show us). ;D ;D ;D
Well, he was quite 'gifted', so maybe I should just leave this one 'hanging', so to speak! lol
-
Well, he was quite 'gifted', so maybe I should just leave this one 'hanging', so to speak! lol
Was he a 'gift horse'? ;D
-
Was he a 'gift horse'? ;D
Let's just stop there Caroline!!.... I always thought ip addresses related directly to your connection to the internet and was unique.... never realised you might get the same as others.
-
Let's just stop there Caroline!!.... I always thought ip addresses related directly to your connection to the internet and was unique.... never realised you might get the same as others.
Yes, I once banned someone from here using their IP address as a trigger (pardon the pun) and half the forum couldn't log in ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
Vic - I have looked and the reason is that one of IP addresses you have been using is the same as that used several years ago by Horsey Dave. You will remember him. Your other IP address is OK.
Dare I ask who Horsey Dave is?
-
Dare I ask who Horsey Dave is?
Scipio I was wondering the same thing but I don't think Vic wants to be him hahahaha
-
Scipio I was wondering the same thing but I don't think Vic wants to be him hahahaha
If that is a real name it is really strange.
-
Dare I ask who Horsey Dave is?
He was a member long before I joined but reading some of the old posts, I think he said he had worked at WHF before the murders - he turned out to be a liar.
-
If that is a real name it is really strange.
He was a guy who claimed to know the family and work at the farm, only trouble was that none of us knew who he was and he was making up things about the farm. He even went as far to arrange to meet me there but never showed up. Someone on the forum found out who he really was and that he was posting nude photos of himself on sex sites.
-
He was a guy who claimed to know the family and work at the farm, only trouble was that none of us knew who he was and he was making up things about the farm. He even went as far to arrange to meet me there but never showed up. Someone on the forum found out who he really was and that he was posting nude photos of himself on sex sites.
How did they find out who he really was?
Why were they on sex sites to even encounter him there lol
-
How did they find out who he really was?
Why were they on sex sites to even encounter him there lol
Lol..... i have NO idea!
-
Vidvic, do you mind me asking. Do you have connections to WHF and the bamber family?
just wondering because of some of your posts.
-
Vidvic, do you mind me asking. Do you have connections to WHF and the bamber family?
just wondering because of some of your posts.
Never mind about being 'not sure' Notsure, you should have been a detective! ;D ;D
-
Never mind about being 'not sure' Notsure, you should have been a detective! ;D ;D
;D Caroline!! I have known the Eatons and the Boutflours since around 1990.
-
;D Caroline!! I have known the Eatons and the Boutflours since around 1990.
What did I say? :o :o ;D ;D ;D
-
Lol im not sure if ur making fun of me ! Some of you seem to know so much and be in the know i feel quite an outsider haha.
anyway vidvic are u 100% guilter then. I presume so if your friends with the bs and es
-
I wouldnt mind being a fly on the wall during some of your conversations!
-
Lol im not sure if ur making fun of me ! Some of you seem to know so much and be in the know i feel quite an outsider haha.
anyway vidvic are u 100% guilter then. I presume so if your friends with the bs and es
Soz Notsure - was just joking! :) ;)
-
No worries i can take it!
-
Lol im not sure if ur making fun of me ! Some of you seem to know so much and be in the know i feel quite an outsider haha.
anyway vidvic are u 100% guilter then. I presume so if your friends with the bs and es
Don't worry notsure, Caroline's not had her tablets yet...you will never know if you don't ask.
-
Don't worry notsure, Caroline's not had her tablets yet...you will never know if you don't ask.
I have!! >:( Possibly had too many though ;D ;D ;D
-
I have!! >:( Possibly had too many though ;D ;D ;D
You've been nicking the doggychocs again!
-
You've been nicking the doggychocs again!
Always! :P
-
I always thought ip addresses related directly to your connection to the internet and was unique
It's unique at a given time (though a forum might not have knowledge of the unique address). However, it often happens that ceasing to use it for a while causes it to be recycled for use by someone else. If the original user starts using the internet again, they are given another ip address that is either recycled or completely new.
-
. . . he is begrudgingly admitting he made a mistake because it's an important aspect and he's trying to save face.
It's impossible to know from his reply that he was trying to save face. A begrudging admission is one that you are reluctant to give, and we find out why from his next reply - "Well, there is a dispute over the time. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." He's still disputing the time, as he used the wording "there is", not "there was". Similarly, he used the wording "I don't know" rather than "I didn't know".
-
It's impossible to know from his reply that he was trying to save face. A begrudging admission is one that you are reluctant to give, and we find out why from his next reply - "Well, there is a dispute over the time. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." He's still disputing the time, as he used the wording "there is", not "there was". Similarly, he used the wording "I don't know" rather than "I didn't know".
Strange, don't you think, when Yvonne attributes to him "fantastic memory recall"?
-
If you want to see a bit of a bad memory,then read what AE had to say in answer to Mr Rivlin when he questioned her about the whereabouts of Sheila's body. ::) On who told who where it was found.
-
It's impossible to know from his reply that he was trying to save face. A begrudging admission is one that you are reluctant to give, and we find out why from his next reply - "Well, there is a dispute over the time. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." He's still disputing the time, as he used the wording "there is", not "there was". Similarly, he used the wording "I don't know" rather than "I didn't know".
You know what, you're looking to far into it. The guy said he could have made a mistake which is good enough for me.
-
Strange, don't you think, when Yvonne attributes to him "fantastic memory recall"?
For "fantastic", my dictionary gives "fanciful: not real: capricious: whimsical: wild". She could be right.
The guy said he could have made a mistake which is good enough for me.
Are you capable of making a mistake in regard to this matter?
-
For "fantastic", my dictionary gives "fanciful: not real: capricious: whimsical: wild". She could be right.
Are you capable of making a mistake in regard to this matter?
You're right. She COULD. But most people don't associate "fantastic" with "fantasy" or caprice/whimsy. They think of it more as "outstanding."
NB Are you capable of making mistakes in any regard?
-
The dictionary also gives "excellent", but annotates that usage as slang.
I aim to be right 100% of the time. When I am able to check whether I'm right, I achieve about 99.99%, so I could improve slightly.
-
The dictionary also gives "excellent", but annotates that usage as slang.
I aim to be right 100% of the time. When I am able to check whether I'm right, I achieve about 99.99%, so I could improve slightly.
How sad.
-
The dictionary also gives "excellent", but annotates that usage as slang.
I aim to be right 100% of the time. When I am able to check whether I'm right, I achieve about 99.99%, so I could improve slightly.
Sounds a bit like myself. ;D ;D
-
Sounds a bit like myself. ;D ;D
I'll let you off, Lookout ;D ;D
-
I'll let you off, Lookout ;D ;D
Gee thanks. ;D
-
For "fantastic", my dictionary gives "fanciful: not real: capricious: whimsical: wild". She could be right.
Are you capable of making a mistake in regard to this matter?
Nope! :P
-
So you were right even before you went over to the dark side?
-
So you were right even before you went over to the dark side?
The dark side? Seriously? Are you that much of a follower?
No I was wrong but then I was never comfortable arguing in favour of the phone call. However, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I don't have ANY doubt that the phone call from Nevill was made up as an alibi. Jeremy made a big thing about leaving WHF, making sure Len Folkes knew he was leaving and driving away like a maniac so his car was heard. He was arrogant to believe that he wouldn't be a suspect and just didn't think it through.
There was an episode of Columbo on TV yesterday, the guys alibi plan was very similar - he tried using a phone call to hoodwink everyone into thinking he was elsewhere when the victim died. I think Columbo said it best when he said "You thought you'd concocted the perfect alibi - ironic that it's 'that' that's going to hang you". (Columbo - Exercise in Fatality).
-
Sometimes you have to be careful about changing your answers/thoughts as it's the first that counts-------as in " Taff " Jones's case. His initial version of murder/suicide was right,as eventually it will become apparent. The first answer is usually right,given a choice of answers.
Nasty people such as JM will ALWAYS implicate others to get out of their own crimes. Lawyers must come across this more times than they care to remember.
-
Sometimes you have to be careful about changing your answers/thoughts as it's the first that counts-------as in " Taff " Jones's case. His initial version of murder/suicide was right,as eventually it will become apparent. The first answer is usually right,given a choice of answers.
Nasty people such as JM will ALWAYS implicate others to get out of their own crimes. Lawyers must come across this more times than they care to remember.
We aren't playing a quiz game! You need to assess the evidence to make up your mind. However, my initial thoughts (before I knew much about the case) was that he was GUILTY - so, I was right all along! ;)
-
We aren't playing a quiz game! You need to assess the evidence to make up your mind. However, my initial thoughts (before I knew much about the case) was that he was GUILTY - so, I was right all along! ;)
"I think Jeremy is innocent because I had a gut feeling 30 years ago before I heard/knew of any evidence."
Isn't really a worthy opinion.
-
"I think Jeremy is innocent because I had a gut feeling 30 years ago before I heard/knew of any evidence."
Isn't really a worthy opinion.
And no matter what the evidence says, you're not allowed to change you mind - I'm only taking your first answer! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
We aren't playing a quiz game! You need to assess the evidence to make up your mind. However, my initial thoughts (before I knew much about the case) was that he was GUILTY - so, I was right all along! ;)
I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening. :o Both yourself and Adam are " cringeworthy " in your stances as because you keep repeating that he's guilty,no matter what,is becoming like a re-assurance thing whereby,just like the relatives,you are forced to convince yourselves that what you say and think is right.
I don't have to think that way nor keep on repeating what I think just to remind myself,I know in my heart and that's sufficient enough for me.
-
I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening. :o Both yourself and Adam are " cringeworthy " in your stances as because you keep repeating that he's guilty,no matter what,is becoming like a re-assurance thing whereby,just like the relatives,you are forced to convince yourselves that what you say and think is right.
I don't have to think that way nor keep on repeating what I think just to remind myself,I know in my heart and that's sufficient enough for me.
Others are as equally sure "in their hearts" of his guilt.
-
And no matter what the evidence says, you're not allowed to change you mind - I'm only taking your first answer! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Why are you being spiteful ? How old are you ?? Shouldn't you have left all that behind ??
-
Why are you being spiteful ? How old are you ?? Shouldn't you have left all that behind ??
I struggle to understand you sometimes Lookout - I make a joke and you ask if I am being spiteful? You pick me up and this triviality because I support guilty and yet you have said nothing to Mike, who wrote disgusting things out of spite! Sure you have your priorities right?
No one is objecting to what has just been written but then again, I expected nothing more. Shame on anyone who read it and said nothing!
-
I struggle to understand you sometimes Lookout - I make a joke and you ask if I am being spiteful? You pick me up and this triviality because I support guilty and yet you have said nothing to Mike, who wrote disgusting things out of spite! Sure you have your priorities right?
No one is objecting to what has just been written but then again, I expected nothing more. Shame on anyone who read it and said nothing!
I haven't read whatever Mike's written. As I said,I'm at a stage where 4 lines is sufficient for me to read,as usually there's more sense and understanding in a few lines than there is a sermon.
-
I haven't read whatever Mike's written. As I said,I'm at a stage where 4 lines is sufficient for me to read,as usually there's more sense and understanding in a few lines than there is a sermon.
Ignorance of it isn't a defence, Lookout.
-
Ignorance of it isn't a defence, Lookout.
Believe you me,I ignore a good majority of posts.Whether for or against that is.
-
I was wrong but then I was never comfortable arguing in favour of the phone call.
Pc West said in court "I was informed I actually spoke to the Information Room at a time prior to the one that I have recorded, so I can only assume that I have wrote — I actually recorded the wrong time, as it were." followed by "Well, there is a dispute over the times. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." He clearly stated he doesn't know that his time was incorrect (even though he'd had over a year to think it over).
Please explain your assessment, "The guy said he could have made a mistake, which is good enough for me." How would such a remark come across in a jury room?
-
Pc West said in court "I was informed I actually spoke to the Information Room at a time prior to the one that I have recorded, so I can only assume that I have wrote — I actually recorded the wrong time, as it were." followed by "Well, there is a dispute over the times. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." He clearly stated he doesn't know that his time was incorrect (even though he'd had over a year to think it over).
Please explain your assessment, "The guy said he could have made a mistake, which is good enough for me." How would such a remark come across in a jury room?
As being a damn sight more human than an arrogant -RUDE- Hooray Henry looking down his nose and telling counsel words to the effect of "That is for you to prove."
-
The dark side? Seriously? Are you that much of a follower?
No I was wrong but then I was never comfortable arguing in favour of the phone call. However, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I don't have ANY doubt that the phone call from Nevill was made up as an alibi. Jeremy made a big thing about leaving WHF, making sure Len Folkes knew he was leaving and driving away like a maniac so his car was heard. He was arrogant to believe that he wouldn't be a suspect and just didn't think it through.
There was an episode of Columbo on TV yesterday, the guys alibi plan was very similar - he tried using a phone call to hoodwink everyone into thinking he was elsewhere when the victim died. I think Columbo said it best when he said "You thought you'd concocted the perfect alibi - ironic that it's 'that' that's going to hang you". (Columbo - Exercise in Fatality).
I actually remember that episode because I like Robert Conrad. He was embezzling money so killed his partner. He staged it too look like an accident and later staged a phone call from the dead man to make it appear he was still alive and had not died until after making the phone call. Conveniently Robert Conrad was with witnesses when the phone call came so he had an alibi. When it was proved that this call was faked it sunk him because it proved he knew his partner was already dead and that the fake call was done to present a false alibi.
It actually is very comparable.
-
As being a damn sight more human . . .
Had Pc West seemed less human, it would have been less clear. He had put 03:26 (which would probably have been wrong anyway, as that was the time that Bonnett logged for the consequent call) in his statement of 9th August 1985, but felt sufficiently sure he had not made a mistake on the C1 form to put 3:36 a.m. instead in his statement of 13th August 1985.
-
Had Pc West seemed less human, it would have been less clear. He had put 03:26 (which would probably have been wrong anyway, as that was the time that Bonnett logged for the consequent call) in his statement of 9th August 1985, but felt sufficiently sure he had not made a mistake on the C1 form to put 3:36 a.m. instead in his statement of 13th August 1985.
Still, it seems he was more convincing than was Jeremy, doesn't it?
-
Still, it seems he was more convincing than was Jeremy, doesn't it?
He was a cop,that's why. ;)
-
He was a cop,that's why. ;)
OR he sounded like a human being and not a pompous prig.
-
OR he sounded like a human being and not a pompous prig.
Amost human perhaps ???
-
Amost human perhaps ???
So the jury must have felt.
-
Pc West's log effectively supported Jeremy, but Jeremy and his defence team didn't realize the full significance of it at his trial. We can now see that whereas Pc West wrote down "age 27" for Sheila that Jeremy had told him was Sheila's age, Bonnett (who was called by Pc West) wrote "aged 26 yrs". This was consistent with Bonnett having had another source - Nevill Bamber.
-
Pc West's log effectively supported Jeremy, but Jeremy and his defence team didn't realize the full significance of it at his trial. We can now see that whereas Pc West wrote down "age 27" for Sheila that Jeremy had told him was Sheila's age, Bonnett (who was called by Pc West) wrote "aged 26 yrs". This was consistent with Bonnett having had another source - Nevill Bamber.
Poppycock!!! And even if it wasn't it made zero difference. The main thrust of the conversation was hardly someone's age. It was that in an alleged call Jeremy was told his sister -of ANY age- had gone mad and had hold of a gun.
-
What was wrong? What conversation are you referring to and why?
-
Pc West's log effectively supported Jeremy, but Jeremy and his defence team didn't realize the full significance of it at his trial. We can now see that whereas Pc West wrote down "age 27" for Sheila that Jeremy had told him was Sheila's age, Bonnett (who was called by Pc West) wrote "aged 26 yrs". This was consistent with Bonnett having had another source - Nevill Bamber.
As each one told the other that they'd received calls from 1 ) the son, and 2) the father.
-
Pc West's log effectively supported Jeremy, but Jeremy and his defence team didn't realize the full significance of it at his trial. We can now see that whereas Pc West wrote down "age 27" for Sheila that Jeremy had told him was Sheila's age, Bonnett (who was called by Pc West) wrote "aged 26 yrs". This was consistent with Bonnett having had another source - Nevill Bamber.
His log doesn't support Jeremy at all. You keep posting extremely xxxxxx things. Ther eis nothing at all in West's log that suggests he had a source other than Jeremy. Nor does Bonnett's log suggest West told Bonnett he had a source other than Jeremy.
West wrote down that Jeremy told him Sheila's age was 26. Bonnett wrote down that West told him that Jeremy said his sister's age was 27. Both sources attribute the information to Jeremy. Neither suggests the information came from someone else. To a reasonably intelligent person all this proves is that either:
A) West accidentally told Bonnett a different age than he wrote down
or
B) Bonnett accidentally wrote down a different age than West told him because he misheard or some other reason.
That's all it proves to someone who is honest and reasonably intelligent.
-
This was a murder investigation and they hadn't even began investigating before " mistakes " were made. It follows how the rest of the investigation went !
-
As each one told the other that they'd received calls from 1 ) the son, and 2) the father.
Lookout, Neville, in his alleged call, wouldn't refer to Sheila to Jeremy as "my daughter" but "your sister". Jeremy told West, presumably word for word what his father allegedly said to him. When West relayed the call to Bonnett, he was quoting Jeremy had said, NOT Neville's words during his alleged call to Jeremy. It's easy to see how the "sister" that Jeremy spoke of translated as the "daughter" Neville allegedly spoke of.
-
Especially so. I wonder if he thumbed through the phone book page by page? Re the phone call to Julie. My feeling is, having read it, that something is missing. The words don't seem to flow correctly. I'm inclined to think Julie may have been expecting the call. Not necessarily that night but at some point during Sheila's visit. Jeremy, I believe, whilst admitting the call, denies the conversation happened.
He never picked up a phone book. I think he got back from WHF all hyped up and on a high! He called Julie because he had to 'share; with someone. I think he probably rolled a joint and smoked it to calm himself down a bit - got changed and called the police.
-
Pc West's log effectively supported Jeremy, but Jeremy and his defence team didn't realize the full significance of it at his trial. We can now see that whereas Pc West wrote down "age 27" for Sheila that Jeremy had told him was Sheila's age, Bonnett (who was called by Pc West) wrote "aged 26 yrs". This was consistent with Bonnett having had another source - Nevill Bamber.
It didn't support Jeremy at the time, Jeremy argued that he called earlier. NOW he's agreeing with West because he wants to hoodwink people into believing Nevill called. The age being wrong, supports nothing of the sort!
-
He never picked up a phone book. I think he got back from WHF all hyped up and on a high! He called Julie because he had to 'share; with someone. I think he probably rolled a joint and smoked it to calm himself down a bit - got changed and called the police.
Yeah, I guess the adrenalin would have been in overdrive.
-
It's easy to see how the "sister" that Jeremy spoke of translated as the "daughter" Neville allegedly spoke of.
If it's so easy, tell me what you think the entire conversation between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett might have been - not just a summary, but everything spoken.
-
If it's so easy, tell me what you think the entire conversation between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett might have been - not just a summary, but everything spoken.
West - Hi, CD 1990 here, just had a call from a young man reporting a strange call from his father. Apparently his daughter has gone berserk and has got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK, have you got the fathers details?
West - Yes, it's a Mr Bamber of White House Farm, Tollshunt D'arcy
Bonnett - Do we know anything about the daughter?
West - Yes, she's called Sheila Bamber, I think her age was given as 26/27
Bonnett - You said she's gone berserk?
West - Yes and got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK let me read this back Daughter gone bersek, Mr Bamber. White House Farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy. Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26, has got hold of one of my guns?
West - yes, that's fine.
Bonnett - will get someone over there to check it out.
-
West - Hi, CD 1990 here, just had a call from a young man reporting a strange call from his father. Apparently his daughter has gone berserk and has got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK, have you got the fathers details?
West - Yes, it's a Mr Bamber of White House Farm, Tollshunt D'arcy
Bonnett - Do we know anything about the daughter?
West - Yes, she's called Sheila Bamber, I think her age was given as 26/27
Bonnett - You said she's gone berserk?
West - Yes and got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK let me read this back Daughter gone bersek, Mr Bamber. White House Farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy. Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26, has got hold of one of my guns?
West - yes, that's fine.
Bonnett - will get someone over there to check it out.
You left out West giving Bonnett Nevill's phone number, that West said Jeremy told him his father had a collection of weapons, and that Jeremy said he called police after the phone call from Nevill got disconnected. Also West announced he was PC1990 from Chelsford.
West says he asked what station covers that area and what units were available.
-
You left out West giving Bonnett Nevill's phone number, that West said Jeremy told him his father had a collection of weapons, and that Jeremy said he called police after the phone call from Nevill got disconnected. Also West announced he was PC1990 from Chelsford.
West says he asked what station covers that area and what units were available.
Errrr no, I didn't given that I was ONLY answering Readers question over how 'sister' ends up being 'daughter'! But thanks everso for your input - it wasn't required but predictability led to it being expected! ::)
-
I added to your conversation
West - Hi, this is PC1990 located at Chemsford. I just received a call from a young man who was worried because he received a distress call from his father. Apparently his father said his daughter, the caller's sister, has gone berserk and has got one of his guns and asked him to come quickly to help then the phone went dead. Naturally this worried him so he phoned me to report it. I have him on hold right now.
Bonnett - OK, have you got the fathers details?
West - Yes, it's a Mr Bamber of White House Farm, Tollshunt D'arcy phone number 860209
Bonnett - Do we know anything about the daughter?
West - Yes, she's called Sheila Bamber, I think her age was given as 26/27
Bonnett - You said she's gone berserk?
West - Yes and got one of his guns. He also said that his father has a collection of shotguns and .410s.
Bonnett - OK so to sum things up, Mr Bamber's son passed the following message to you- his father Mr Bamber of White House Farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy phoned his son to request help because daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26, has got hold of one of his guns and gone beserk then the phone went dead so Bamber Jr is worried and wants police to check things out..
West - you got it, what station covers that address and what units are available at this hour.
Bonnett - Let me check, ok Witham covers that area. They have a skeleton crew I'll try to get units there as soon as I can.
-
Errrr no, I didn't given that I was ONLY answering Readers question over how 'sister' ends up being 'daughter'! But thanks everso for your input - it wasn't required but predictability led to it being expected! ::)
Reader keeps challenging people to post conversations that last more than a minute. He keeps trying to pretend the phone calls lasted 3 minutes total so he can pretend Jeremy was off the phone 3:39-3:40
-
West - Hi, CD 1990 here, just had a call from a young man reporting a strange call from his father. Apparently his daughter has gone berserk and has got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK, have you got the fathers details?
West - Yes, it's a Mr Bamber of White House Farm, Tollshunt D'arcy
Bonnett - Do we know anything about the daughter?
West - Yes, she's called Sheila Bamber, I think her age was given as 26/27
Bonnett - You said she's gone berserk?
West - Yes and got one of his guns.
Bonnett - OK let me read this back Daughter gone bersek, Mr Bamber. White House Farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy. Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26, has got hold of one of my guns?
West - yes, that's fine.
Bonnett - will get someone over there to check it out.
The documentary facts, do not support your scenario, since the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), is timed 10 minutes before the PC West log (03.36hrs), and of course, this sets the scene for someone other than PC WEST having contacted Bonnet by 03.26hrs, and giving him information either from, or referring to Ralph Bambers plight. Then, 10 minutes later, Jeremy made his own call to the police. Sandwiched inbetween the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) and the WEST log (03.36hrs), was the activation of the attack alarm from whf at 03.29hrs...
-
The documentary facts, do not support your scenario, since the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), is timed 10 minutes before the PC West log (03.36hrs), and of course, this sets the scene for someone other than PC WEST having contacted Bonnet by 03.26hrs, and giving him information either from, or referring to Ralph Bambers plight. Then, 10 minutes later, Jeremy made his own call to the police. Sandwiched inbetween the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) and the WEST log (03.36hrs), was the activation of the attack alarm from whf at 03.29hrs...
And then of course, we have Julie Mugford, informing DS 'Stan' JONES in one of her witness statements, that Jeremy had called her at around 03.30hrs, which fell inbetween an original attempt made by Jeremy to call the police at Witham police station which he says no-one answered, and the successful call he made to PC West at 03.36am, thereby satifying the answers which Bamber had later given to the police about him calling Julie Mugford after he had rung the police (the failed attempt), and before he had called police at 03.36hrs...
-
The documentary facts, do not support your scenario, since the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), is timed 10 minutes before the PC West log (03.36hrs), and of course, this sets the scene for someone other than PC WEST having contacted Bonnet by 03.26hrs, and giving him information either from, or referring to Ralph Bambers plight. Then, 10 minutes later, Jeremy made his own call to the police. Sandwiched inbetween the Bonnet log (03.36hrs) and the WEST log (03.36hrs), was the activation of the attack alarm from whf at 03.29hrs...
There was no alarm at WHF prior to the murders you lying about that means there is no reason to trust anything else you say but the rest of what you say makes no sense anyway.
It was 3:26 when he phoned Bonnett which means Jeremy called West prior to 3:26. West screwed up the time that Jeremy phoned him, he either wrote the time at the end of the call, misread the clock or his clock was fast and thus his clock read 3:26 though the actual time was between 3:20 and 3:23 then he accidentally wrote 3:36 though he meant to write 3:26.
-
And then of course, we have Julie Mugford, informing DS 'Stan' JONES in one of her witness statements, that Jeremy had called her at around 03.30hrs, which fell inbetween an original attempt made by Jeremy to call the police at Witham police station which he says no-one answered, and the successful call he made to PC West at 03.36am, thereby satifying the answers which Bamber had later given to the police about him calling Julie Mugford after he had rung the police (the failed attempt), and before he had called police at 03.36hrs...
Julie Mugford said 3:30 when she was protecting Jeremy. Her roommates said the call was earlier than 3:30 in fact 2 of them say it was around 3AM or even earlier than 3AM. Jeremy was on the phone with police at 3:30.
-
Information was recieved by Bonnet at 03.26am, some 10 miutes before West recieved Jeremys call at 03.36hrs. Previously untended evidence about the accuracy of the control room clock being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, by PC Stephen John HOLTBY - SMITH (1 page), exposes the lies told by both Bonnet and West, since why would HOLTBY - SMITH make a witness statement declaring the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes one way or another, when Bonnet and West ask everyone to believe that the control clock was inaccurate by 10 minutes plus?
-
Information was recieved by Bonnet at 03.26am, some 10 miutes before West recieved Jeremys call at 03.36hrs. Previously untended evidence about the accuracy of the control room clock being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, by PC Stephen John HOLTBY - SMITH (1 page), exposes the lies told by both Bonnet and West, since why would HOLTBY - SMITH make a witness statement declaring the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes one way or another, when Bonnet and West ask everyone to believe that the control clock was inaccurate by 10 minutes plus?
Bonnett received information from West who received information from Jeremy. Jeremy phoned West PRIOR to West phoning Bonnett. Your nonsense is all a complete waste of time.
-
Julie Mugford, and the rest of the drug abusers who were living at Caterham Road, were all smashed out of thier heads when Jeremy made his call to Julie Mugford that morning. There's no way a druggie can be relied upon to recount the time of a call in the middle of the night. A pound to a penny, that scoundrel dodgy Stan Jones took statements where these unreliable druggies mention timings, or he recieved that information from dodgy Julie under pressure from her druggie pals...
-
Julie Mugford, and the rest of the drug abusers who were living at Caterham Road, were all smashed out of thier heads when Jeremy made his call to Julie Mugford that morning. There's no way a druggie can be relied upon to recount the time of a call in the middle of the night. A pound to a penny, that scoundrel dodgy Stan Jones took statements where these unreliable druggies mention timings, or he recieved that information from dodgy Julie under pressure from her druggie pals...
Julie smoked pot several hours before Jeremy phoned. Were they smoking superpot that they would still be high at 3AM?
(http://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/500/huge_blunt-13431.jpg)
-
Bonnett received information from West who received information from Jeremy. Jeremy phoned West PRIOR to West phoning Bonnett. Your nonsense is all a complete waste of time.
xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxx, PC HOLTBY - SMITH said the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, which does not accord with the lies told by West or Bonnet, about the time keeping of the same control room clock. How can the same clock had been inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, whilst at the same time being 10 minutes inaccurate plus?
Get a xxxxxxx grip of yourself man...
-
Shut the fuck up lard ass, PC HOLTBY - SMITH said the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, which does not accord with the lies told by West or Bonnet, about the time keeping of the same control room clock. How can the same clock had been inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, whilst at the same time being 10 minutes inaccurate plus?
Get a fucking grip of yourself man...
Why hide away the witness statement made by PC HOLTBY - SMITH that significantly contradicted the explanation offered by West and Bonnet, at the trial stage? It should be obvious to everyone that West and Bonnet were both lying, and that what they testified about was a load of codswallop...
-
Druggies tell lies anyway and are past-masters at denying anything too often making out that everyone else is the liar and they're the ones who are right because their minds are so addled.
-
Druggies tell lies anyway and are past-masters at denying anything too often making out that everyone else is the liar and they're the ones who are right because their minds are so addled.
Yes, everyone knows this to be true, except essex police, the relatives, and all the Bamber is guilty brigade, who obviously can't be living in the real world...
-
Yes, everyone knows this to be true, except essex police, the relatives, and all the Bamber is guilty brigade, who obviously can't be living in the real world...
Unless anyone has been on the end of one of their lies,they don't know.
-
xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxx, PC HOLTBY - SMITH said the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, which does not accord with the lies told by West or Bonnet, about the time keeping of the same control room clock. How can the same clock had been inaccurate by 5 minutes plus or minus, whilst at the same time being 10 minutes inaccurate plus?
Get a xxxxxxx grip of yourself man...
I have a grip and you just supported my position. West's clock being 5 minutes off is more than enough to meet the explanations I provided.
I said West either wrote down the time at the end of the call OR Jeremy phoned between 3:20 and 3:23 but the clock read 3:26 but West screwed it up and wrote 3:36. Indeed in his statement West wrote 3:26 though he meant to write 3:36 which just goes to show how easy such an error is.
Jeremy calls 3:23 when the clock reads 3:26 and yet West makes a mistake and writes 3:36
West calls Bonnet at 3:26
There you go perfect explanation.
Alternative explanation:
Jeremy calls 3:23 West puts him on hold at 3:26 and at that point goes to write down the time of the call so looks at the clock and makes a mistake and writes 3:36 instead of 3:26
West then calls Bonnet at 3:26
Alternative explanation:
Jeremy calls 3:23 West forgets to write down a time for the call until after he hangs up so after hanging up looks at the clock, it says 3:36 and he writes it down or he forgot to record a time until even later and when he realized it was missing he had to try to guess when the call came so he just guessed it came at 3:36.
One of these 3 is what happened.
-
Lets explore what PC HOLTBY - SMITH has said, against the timing of PC Wests log of 03.36hrs, he states that the control room clock is inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus - so lets assume the real time of Jeremys call was not made at 03.36hrs, but at 03.41hrs. Since Jeremy did not arrive at the scene until 03.52hrs, this would have afforded him 11 minutes to get himself dressed, out into his astra GTE and arrive at whf in Pages Lane in good time. Bearing in mind that PC West testified to the effect that he may have misread the control room clock wrong, not that he knew it was either 10 minutes, or five minutes fast. He was never asked or questioned whether or not the control room clock had been 5 minutes fast, or even 10 minutes fast...
-
Lets explore what PC HOLTBY - SMITH has said, against the timing of PC Wests log of 03.36hrs, he states that the control room clock is inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus - so lets assume the real time of Jeremys call was not made at 03.36hrs, but at 03.41hrs. Since Jeremy did not arrive at the scene until 03.52hrs, this would have afforded him 11 minutes to get himself dressed, out into his astra GTE and arrive at whf in Pages Lane in good time. Bearing in mind that PC West testified to the effect that he may have misread the control room clock wrong, not that he knew it was either 10 minutes, or five minutes fast. He was never asked or questioned whether or not the control room clock had been 5 minutes fast, or even 10 minutes fast...
Jeremy's initial conversation with West lasted at least 3 minutes, then he was hold for another 3-5 minutes, then he spoke to West for another couple of minutes. That a minimum of 7-8 minutes before hanging up. You want to pretend his call to police lasted 1 minute total including his time on hold. What a tool...
-
I have a grip and you just supported my position. West's clock being 5 minutes off is more than enough to meet the explanations I provided west and Bonnet said the difference was 10 minutes, now your changing what they said to 5 minutes, try stickinng with the known facts and the testimony given....
I said West either wrote down the time at the end of the call OR Jeremy phoned between 3:20 and 3:23 but the clock read 3:26 but West screwed it up and wrote 3:36. Indeed in his statement West wrote 3:26 West didn't type his own witness statement, someone else edited the correct time of 03.36hrs, to 03.26hrs, as part of the attempt to merge both separate calls into the same one. The statement bearing the wrong time was typed up later, whereas the time of the log was recorded accurately by reference to the control room clock (inaccurate as it were by 5 minutes, plus or minus)though he meant to write 3:36 West didn't type his statement, it was typed by a lady typist in the office typing pool...which just goes to show how easy such an error is. They made an error, alright, they stretched the 5 minutes of inaccuracy, to 10 minutes, but the timings still don't fit thier explanations. It's still probable that the real time of Jeremy's call to PC West occurred or concluded at 03.41hrs, and that Jeremy got to the scene in good time, still arriving there at 03.52hrs. Bonnet and Wests accounts do not tally, when you factor into the equation the inaccuracy by 5 minutes of the HOLTBY - SMITH evidence. Whichever way you decide to adjust the 03.36hrs of PC Wests timing recorded of his phone log contents, it can never be 10 minutes different to the Bonnet clock in the information room. That's why they hid and consealed the HOLTBY - SMITH statement and its contents, since if the control room clock was 5 minutes fast, there would only have been 5 minutes difference in real / true time, between the control room clock where West was situated, and the information room clock where Bonnet was located. On the other hand, had the control room clock been 5 minutes slow, the time difference between the control room clock, and the information room clock would have been a whopping 15 minutes inaccurate, one way, or the other...
Jeremy calls 3:23 Jeremy did not give a time, until years later when he was trying to make sense of all the lies told about clocks by prosecution witnesses, and police officers...when the clock reads 3:26 if the control room clock read 03.26hrs, the true time according to HOLTBY - SMITH would have been 03.31hrs...and yet West makes a mistake and writes 3:36 He doesn't make a mistake, he records 03.36hrs because that is the time the control room clock is reading, and its inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus...
West calls Bonnet at 3:26 No, he did not, he couldn't have done, not on HOLTBY - SMITHS estimatation regarding the control room clocks accuracy...
There you go perfect explanation. My explanation is, yes...
Alternative explanation:
Jeremy calls 3:23 West puts him on hold at 3:26 and at that point goes to write down the time of the call so looks at the clock and makes a mistake and writes 3:36 instead of 3:26
West then calls Bonnet at 3:26 There is no alternative explanation...
Alternative explanation:
Jeremy calls 3:23 West forgets to write down a time for the call until after he hangs up so after hanging up looks at the clock, it says 3:36 and he writes it down or he forgot to record a time until even later and when he realized it was missing he had to try to guess when the call came so he just guessed it came at 3:36. There was no guess work, they got thier heads together and tried to merge both calls together as the same call...
One of these 3 is what happened. You believe what you like...
-
west and Bonnet said the difference was 10 minutes, now your changing what they said to 5 minutes, try stickinng with the known facts and the testimony given....
I am sticking with the facts and evidence. Jeremy phoned West 3:20-3:23, West placed Jeremy on hold and phoned Bonnett at 3:26. West screwed up and recorded Jeremy's call as coming at 3:36. Those are the facts, it is quite simple. Everything you are posting is nonsense.
-
Jeremy's initial conversation with West lasted at least 3 minutes, then he was hold for another 3-5 minutes, then he spoke to West for another couple of minutes. That a minimum of 7-8 minutes before hanging up. You want to pretend his call to police lasted 1 minute total including his time on hold. No, I do not, I think the control room clock, read 03.36hrs, but that it was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus. This put the probable real time of Jeremys call to police at say 03.31hrs, still 6 minutes too late for it to have been the same call made to Bonnet at 03.26am... What a tool...
-
I am sticking with the facts and evidence. Jeremy phoned West 3:20-3:23, West placed Jeremy on hold and phoned Bonnett at 3:26. West screwed up and recorded Jeremy's call as coming at 3:36. Those are the facts, it is quite simple. Everything you are posting is nonsense.
Neither West or Bonnet, or HOLTBY - SMITH say anything to remotely support your imaginative version of events. Lets get the facts right, Bonnet log (information room) timed at 03.26hrs, West log (control room) timed at 03.36hrs, HOLTBY - SMITH claims control room clock inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus. Conclusion, West could not have called Bonnet any sooner than 03.31hrs...
-
Neither West or Bonnet, or HOLTBY - SMITH say anything to remotely support your imaginative version of events. Lets get the facts right, Bonnet log (information room) timed at 03.26hrs, West log (control room) timed at 03.36hrs, HOLTBY - SMITH claims control room clock inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus. Conclusion, West could not have called Bonnet any sooner than 03.31hrs...
No-one has suggested at any stage, that the information room clock was inaccurate, so we have to accept that the timing of Ralph Bambers Bonnet log (03.26hrs) either commenced, or concluded at precisely that (03.26hrs) time...
-
FACT - if the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus, reading 03.36hrs, but with a true / correct time of 03.31hrs, the timing of Jeremys call to Mugford at around 03.30hrs, was still before that call to PC West, but after Jeremys earlier failed call (unanswered) he made to Witham police station, beforehand...
-
FACT - if the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus, reading 03.36hrs, but with a true / correct time of 03.31hrs, the timing of Jeremys call to Mugford at around 03.30hrs, was still before that call to PC West, but after Jeremys earlier failed call (unanswered) he made to Witham police station, beforehand...
HOLTBY - SMITHS evidence of the control room clock (03.36hrs) being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, sufficiently establishes that the contents of Bonnets 03.26hrs log, cannot have been a reference to Jeremys call to PC West, relayed to Bonnet at, or prior to 03.26hrs, because the earliest time PC West could have contacted Bonnet, was after 03.31hrs, not beforehand...
-
No-one has suggested at any stage, that the information room clock was inaccurate, so we have to accept that the timing of Ralph Bambers Bonnet log (03.26hrs) either commenced, or concluded at precisely that (03.26hrs) time...
There is no such thing as a Ralph Bamber log just a log of Jeremy's call to West and log of West's to to Bonnett. The notion Nevill called police is entirely fictional.
-
Contrary to what the guilty mob would have us believe, both versions of the PC West (control room clock) log, timed at 03.36hrs, and the Bonnet (information room clock) log, timed at 03.26hrs, were not physically disclosed, only debate about PC West having misread the control room clock which read 03.36hrs, but it was 03.26hrs. This is all very well and good, but imagine for one moment, that the contents of both logs had been subject of evidence in chief, and cross examination, with all the distinct differences involved, from one to the other, like daughter, sister, etc, and then PC HOLTBY - SMITH testifies, with his claim that at best the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus - it casts a huge shadow over the testimony of PC West, and Bonnet...
-
Contrary to what the guilty mob would have us believe, both versions of the PC West (control room clock) log, timed at 03.36hrs, and the Bonnet (information room clock) log, timed at 03.26hrs, were not physically disclosed, only debate about PC West having misread the control room clock which read 03.36hrs, but it was 03.26hrs. This is all very well and good, but imagine for one moment, that the contents of both logs had been subject of evidence in chief, and cross examination, with all the distinct differences involved, from one to the other, like daughter, sister, etc, and then PC HOLTBY - SMITH testifies, with his claim that at best the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus - it casts a huge shadow over the testimony of PC West, and Bonnet...
Both logs were in the master index of court exhibits meaning the defense and prosecution saw both. Bonnett's log was submitted into evidence while West read form his log while on the witness stand. Your lies are a waste of time.
-
There is no such thing as a Ralph Bamber log just a log of Jeremy's call to West and log of West's to to Bonnett. The notion Nevill called police is entirely fictional.
No, it is not. The 03.26hrs log contents could not possibly have been a reference in any terms to Jeremys call to PC West at 03.36hrs (03.31hrs), by a reliance upon the withheld statement of PC HOLTBY - SMITH, who states that the control room click was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus. PC West could not have called Malcolm BONNET at 03.26hrs to speak to him about Jeremys call, because Jeremys call had not yet been made to or received by PC West until at the very earliest 03.31hrs, by a reliance upon PC HOLTBY - SMITH's evidence...
-
Both logs were in the master index of court exhibits meaning the defense and prosecution saw both. Bonnett's log was submitted into evidence while West read form his log while on the witness stand. Your lies are a waste of time.
Your account cannot be true, otherwise there wiuld have been cross examination by Mr Rivlin, QC, regardung tge different terms recorded in each of the two different logs. That issue aside, the evidence that PC HOLTBY - SMITH could have off loaded into the equation regarding the accuracy or otherwise of the control room clock by 5 minutes, plus, or minus, would hace been sufficient enough to expose the ploy being adopted by both West and Bonnet, to merge the two totally separate logs becoming merged as the same one, as nothing but a dishonest scam designed to hood wink the jury into dismissing evidence favourable to the defence case...
-
No, it is not. The 03.26hrs log contents could not possibly have been a reference in any terms to Jeremys call to PC West at 03.36hrs (03.31hrs), by a reliance upon the withheld statement of PC HOLTBY - SMITH, who states that the control room click was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus. PC West could not have called Malcolm BONNET at 03.26hrs to speak to him about Jeremys call, because Jeremys call had not yet been made to or received by PC West until at the very earliest 03.31hrs, by a reliance upon PC HOLTBY - SMITH's evidence...
Jeremy phoned West between 3:20-3:23
West phoned Bonnett 3:26
West made an error in writing 3:36 as the time of Jeremy's call to him. He either a) meant to write 3:26 but accidentally wrote 3:36; b) forgot to write the time till after he got off the phone with Jeremy and wrote the time the call ended - 3:36 ; or c) forgot to write down the time until well later then tried to guess the time Jeremy called and guessed it was 3:36.
Bonnett's log is from West's call to him.
-
Jeremy phoned West between 3:20-3:23
West phoned Bonnett 3:26
West made an error in writing 3:36 as the time of Jeremy's call to him. He either a) meant to write 3:26 but accidentally wrote 3:36; b) forgot to write the time till after he got off the phone with Jeremy and wrote the time the call ended - 3:36 ; or c) forgot to write down the time until well later then tried to guess the time Jeremy called and guessed it was 3:36.
Bonnett's log is from West's call to him.
you were not a witness who testified in this particular matter, nor someone who could have possibly testified. You cannot alter the facts spoken about, or that were eventually relied upon. West and Bonnet were key witnesses, so was PC HOLTBY - SMITH, although the police and the prosecution deliberately withheld the contents of his statement, so that the defence were never in a favourable position to challenge what West and Bonnet were claiming at trial. HOLTBY - SMITH's testimony was not available to them at the time of the trial in 1986, but is available now. This new evidence if presented properly is capable of helping to establish that Ralph Bamber had indeed contacted the police, independently of Jeremy Bamber, himself, despite the prosecution arguing during the trial that Ralph Bamber would have contacted the police himself, it appears that was exactly what he had done, and did...
-
you were not a witness who testified in this particular matter, nor someone who could have possibly testified. You cannot alter the facts spoken about, or that were eventually relied upon. West and Bonnet were key witnesses, so was PC HOLTBY - SMITH, although the police and the prosecution deliberately withheld the contents of his statement, so that the defence were never in a favourable position to challenge what West and Bonnet were claiming at trial. HOLTBY - SMITH's testimony was not available to them at the time of the trial in 1986, but is available now. This new evidence if presented properly is capable of helping to establish that Ralph Bamber had indeed contacted the police, independently of Jeremy Bamber, himself, despite the prosecution arguing during the trial that Ralph Bamber would have contacted the police himself, it appears that was exactly what he had done, and did...
You are trying to alter West and Bonnett's words not me. West said he spoke to Jeremy then place dhim on hold and phoned Bonnett. Bonnett said West phoned him to report Jeremy's call. Jeremy confirms he was placed on hold so West could call Bonnett.
If Nevill called Bonnett then he would have dispatched police and told them of Nevill's call and they would have gone there to meet Nevill. Bonnett would have told West who would have told Jeremy that police were already dispatched because Nevill phoned the police already and he would neither have asked Jeremy to go meet police nor have phoned the telephone company to have them check Nevill's line. He would have let Bonnett and the police Bonnett sent handle it. The only reason West stayed involved was because he fielded the initial call.
-
You are trying to alter West and Bonnett's words not me. Their words are lies, because of the way the clocks were set in (a) the control room , and (b) the information room, and the independent evidence that PC HOLTBY -SMITH can now provide regarding the fact that the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus, what was proposed during the testimony of West and Bonnet, could not possibly be true, establishing beyond doubt that the contents of the Bonnet log must be a record of what Ralph Bamber spoke to the police about, some 5 minutes or so before the earliest opportunity Jeremy had to contact PC West at 03.31hrs, as a result of the control room clock being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus. The control room clock which showed the time as 03.36hrs, was inaccurate by 5 minutes, so the true time was 03.31hrs, not 03.26hrs. Since there was not and is no suggestion that the information room clock was not always accurate, Bonnets timing of the Ralph Bamber call, took place exactly 5 minutes prior to the earliest possible time that Jeremy could have made his call to PC West at 03.31hrs. If PC West spoke to Bonnet at all prior to 03.31hrs, then the topic of conversation could not possibly have had anything at all with what Jeremy could have told West later, because Jeremy did not speak to PC West until at the very earliest until 03.31hrs, so West could not have relayed what Jeremy would have told him about at 03.31hrs, to Bonnet at 03.26hrs, because at that stage Jeremy had not yet made the call to PC West. The upshot of all this, is that Bonnets 03.26hrs log must be a true record of what Ralph Bamber told the police about at 03.26hrs, nobody else could be in the frame for making that 03.26hrs call, other than Ralph Bamber, himself. If Ralph made that call as he almost certainly did, then what better ground could Jeremy Bamber hope for, to prove once and for all, that he did not kill anybody... West said he spoke to Jeremy then place dhim on hold and phoned Bonnett. He may have done so, after Jeremys call to him at 03.31hrs at the earliest, but West did certainly not contact Malcolm Bonnet about anything Jeremy could have told him, at 03.26hrs, because West did not know that Jeremy would be calling him later, or be able to guess what Jeremy might want to talk to him about... Bonnett said West phoned him to report Jeremy's call. That could be true, but he could not have done that prior to 03.31hrs... Jeremy confirms he was placed on hold so West could call Bonnett. as I say that could be true, but he duid not put Jeremy on hold anytime prior to 03.31hrs...
If Nevill called Bonnett then he would have dispatched police he did...and told them of Nevill's call he probably did, unless Bonnet despatched them in response to the attack alarm being activated at the scene at 03.29am...and they would have gone there to meet Nevill. not necessarily, since en route to the scene, the officers could have been updated about the later call received from Jeremy Bamber at 03.31hrs, which concerned the same matter, as reported by Ralph Bamber as per the 03.26hrs log contents, and in response to the attack alarm activated at 03.29hrs... Bonnett would have told West who would have told Jeremy that police were already dispatched PC West did inform Jeremy to go directly to the farmhouse where he would be met by police officers who had already been despatched to the farmhouse... because Nevill phoned the police already yes...and he would neither have asked Jeremy to go meet police But, West did ask Jeremy to go directly to the police, nor have phoned the telephone company to have them check Nevill's line. But West did, because Ralph was no longer communicating directly with the police, but this may have been as a result of the attack alarm overriding the line once it got activated... He would have let Bonnett who would? and the police Bonnett sent handle it. Police who arrived at the scene did handle it, in one form or another... The only reason West stayed involved was because he fielded the initial call. If that be true, and he fielded the original call to enable him as it were, to contact Bonnet in the information room, then Ralph contacted PC West, before Jeremy did, and West spoke to Bonnet about Ralphs call (03.26hrs), the activation of the attack alarm (03.29hrs), and Jeremys call (03.31hrs)...
-
Their words are lies,
So you now admit you are the one ignoring their words not me.
because of the way the clocks were set in (a) the control room , and (b) the information room, and the independent evidence that PC HOLTBY -SMITH can now provide regarding the fact that the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus, what was proposed during the testimony of West and Bonnet, could not possibly be true, establishing beyond doubt that the contents of the Bonnet log must be a record of what Ralph Bamber spoke to the police about, some 6 minutes or so before the earliest opportunity Jeremy had to contact PC West at 03.31hrs, as a result of the control room clock being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus. The control room clock which showed the time as 03.36hrs, was inaccurate by 5 minutes, so the true time was 03.31hrs, not 03.26hrs. Since there was and is no suggestion that the information room clock was always accurate, Bonnets timing of the Ralph Bamber call, took place exactly 5 minutes prior to the earliest possible time that Jeremy could have made his call to PC West at 03.31hrs. If PC West spoke to Bonbett at all prior to 03.31hrs, then the topic of conversation could not possibly have had anything at all with what Jeremy could have told West later, because Jeremy did not speak to PC West until at the very earliest until 03.31hrs, so West could not have relayed what Jeremy would have told him about at 03.31hrs, to Bonbett at 03.26hrs, because at that stage Jeremy had not yet made the call to PC West. The upshot of all this, is that Bonnets 03.26hrs log must be a true record of what Ralph Bamber told the police about at 03.26hrs, nobody else could be in the frame for making that 03.26hrs call, other than, Ralph Bamber, himself. If Ralph made that call as he almost certainly did, then what better ground could Jeremy Bamber hope for, to prove once and for all, that he did not kill anybody...
You have constructed accusations of Bonnett and west lying out of thin air around nothing.
None of the babble you keep posting refutes that one of the following scenarios happened.
West made an error in writing 3:36 as the time of Jeremy's call to him. He either a) meant to write 3:26 but accidentally wrote 3:36; b) forgot to write the time till after he got off the phone with Jeremy and wrote the time the call ended - 3:36 ; or c) forgot to write down the time until well later then tried to guess the time Jeremy called and guessed it was 3:36.
-
So you now admit you are the one ignoring their words not me. What your saying they said, simply cannot be true because the control room clock was not inaccurate by 10 minutes, plus, or minus, it was only inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, as per HOLTBY - SMITHS fresh evidence...
You have constructed accusations of Bonnett and west lying out of thin air around nothing. No, by reference to the known, established facts involving the true time kept by the information room clock, and the fact that the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, resulting in what West and Bonnet have said being exposed as a deliberate lie, introduced to try and portray the call made by Ralph Bamber to police at 03.26hrs, as the same call made to police by Jeremy Bamber at 03.31hrs, when it could not possibly be true for all the reasons given previously...
None of the babble TRUE FACTS...you keep posting refutes that one of the following scenarios happened.
West made an error in writing 3:36 as the time of Jeremy's call to him. He did not, he recorded the time that the control room clock was reading (03.36hrs), albeit that clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus, or minus. The actual time of Jeremys call was 03.31hrs, so in that respect, yes he technically recorded the wrong time (03,36hrs ), because the coreect time was 5 minutes sooner... He either a) meant to write 3:26 03.31 hrs.. but accidentally wrote 3:36 he wrote it because that was the time being shown by the control room clock at that time..; b) forgot to write the time till after he got off the phone with Jeremy and wrote the time the call ended - 3:36 no, he did not, you cannot say he recorded the time (03.36hrs) at the end of Jeremys call to him, police almost always record events in logs and statements by reference to the time such an event happened or was occurring, why would the circumstances of this case be any different to any other police matter? ; or c) forgot to write down the time until well later then tried to guess the time Jeremy called and guessed it was 3:36. No...
-
They expect us to believe that PC West mistook this time on the control room clock (03.36hrs) , for this time on the control room clock (03.26hrs):-
-
The control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus or minus, so the correct time was actually 03.31hrs - when Jeremy Bamber made his call to PC West...
-
They must think we are behind the door when it comes to intelligence...
Thick BASTARDS, no wonder people like them have to resort to fabricating evidence...
-
Basically put, the fresh evidence which the previously deliberately withheld witness stament made by PC HOLTBY - SMITH, which states that the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus, means that although the control room clock gave the time of 03.36hrs, the correct time was 03.31hrs. Jeremys call to PC West commence at 03.31hrs, and West had to make a note of the things Jeremy started to tell him about from that point onwards. Therefore, PC West could not possibly relay anything Jeremy had not begun to tell him until 03.31hrs, to Malcolm Bonnet at 03.26hrs, because PC West had not yet recieved the call from Jeremy by that stage...
INACCURATE TIME Control room clock (03.36hrs)...
-
CORRECT TIME Control room clock (03.31hrs)...
-
PC West could not possibly have relayed the information given to him by Jeremy Bamber at 03.31hrs, at the control room, to Malcolm Bonnet in the information room at 03.26hrs - impossible, not a cat in hells chance, West must have been in contact with Bonnet about some other matter...
-
In order for PC West to have relayed the information recived by him from Jeremy Bamber at 03.31hrs, to Malcolm Bonnet in the information room at 03.26hrs, it would amount to an evidential paradox, otherwise known as 'FABRICATED EVIDENCE'...
-
In the real world, of every day life, time moves forward, yet Essex police entrepeners, West and Bonnet, expect ordinary folk to believe that time moved backwards, from 03.31hrs, to 03.26hrs, so that PC West could tell Malcolm Bonnet about something Jeremy Bamber had not yet contacted him about, and would not do so until 5 minutes after PC West had already repeated to Bonnet...
-
Basically put, the fresh evidence which the previously deliberately withheld witness stament made by PC HOLTBY - SMITH, which states that the control room clock was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus, means that although the control room clock gave the time of 03.36hrs, the correct time was 03.31hrs. Jeremys call to PC West commence at 03.31hrs, and West had to make a note of the things Jeremy started to tell him about from that point onwards. Therefore, PC West could not possibly relay anything Jeremy had not begun to tell him until 03.31hrs, to Malcolm Bonnet at 03.26hrs, because PC West had not yet recieved the call from Jeremy by that stage...
INACCURATE TIME Control room clock (03.36hrs)...
You are less accurate than a broken analog clock and they are only accurate 2 minutes a day.
The defense was well aware that some police said the control room clock was often inaccurate and thus West was asked on cross examination if the clock was often wrong. He responded it was occasionally wrong but usually accurate.
The goal of the defense was to make sure the jury didn't think Jeremy waited until 3:36 to call police because the longer he took the worse it looked for him. That was why they wanted the jury to know he called at minimum ten minutes earlier. The defense made sure they told the jury he wrote 3:26 as the time of Jeremy's call in one of his statements.
-
you were not a witness who testified in this particular matter, nor someone who could have possibly testified. You cannot alter the facts spoken about, or that were eventually relied upon. West and Bonnet were key witnesses, so was PC HOLTBY - SMITH, although the police and the prosecution deliberately withheld the contents of his statement, so that the defence were never in a favourable position to challenge what West and Bonnet were claiming at trial. HOLTBY - SMITH's testimony was not available to them at the time of the trial in 1986, but is available now. This new evidence if presented properly is capable of helping to establish that Ralph Bamber had indeed contacted the police, independently of Jeremy Bamber, himself, despite the prosecution arguing during the trial that Ralph Bamber would have contacted the police himself, it appears that was exactly what he had done, and did...
Very clever wording, that, you naughty, NAUGHTY boy!!!! "THIS NEW EVIDENCE IF PRESENTED PROPERLY IS CAPABLE OF HELPING TO ESTABLISH................................." here one could add ".................that Elvis still lives" or "..................the moon is made of cheese" or ".......................Scipio is the most popular poster on the forum"!!!!!!! PROPERLY presented, one can convince people of anything. ;)
-
You are less accurate than a broken analog clock tick, tock, tick, tock, went the police control room clock....and they are only accurate 2 minutes a day. How could you possibly know, that when PC West looked at the control room clock which read 03.36am, was not accurate at that time? I cannot accept that any body could misread a clock that reads 03.36hrs, for a time of 03.26hrs. It is much more likeky, that later on when Wests statement was being prepared, that the officer in charge of co-ordinating the evidence in the investigation, realized that by the time the matter came to court, the defence stood a good chance of discovering that the reason why Jeremy's attempt to re-establish contact with his father back at the house was met with a 'constant engaged tone', was because within a minute of Ralphs call to Jeremy coming to an abrupt halt, was because Ralph had terminated the brief call to Jeremy andJeremy had tapped the reciever of his telephone clearing the original call made by Ralph to Jeremy, thus allowing Ralph to have made the 03.26hrs call to the police. It would appear to me that Malcolm Bonnet either, recieved the 03.26hrs call directly from Ralph Bamber at the scene at that time, or alternatively that another person (possibly PC West, but not necessarily him) relayed the message to Bonnet who in turn recorded what had been said or had been told to him at 03.26hrs. The co-ordinating officer, introduced the 03.26hrs timing into PC Wests statement with the deliberate intention of trying to conseal the fact that Ralph Bamber had made contact with the police about his daughter having gone crazy and got one of his guns. It was a very clever attempt to try and keep the lid on the fact that Ralph Bamber had indeed contacted the police himself. What still falls to be reconstructed, is whether or not Ralph spoke directly with Bonnet in the information room, or whether or not, the information recorded in the 03.26hrs log, was as a result of what Ralph Bamber had told someone else in a much earlier call made from the scene? If Bonnets 03.26hrs log was relayed to him by another, it is probably true that Ralph could have contacted the police himself, prior to Ralph calling Jeremy to alert him to ongoing developments at the scene. (as per the contents of the 03.26hrs log...
The defense was well aware that some police said the control room clock was often inaccurate none that mentioned the control room clock was 10 minutes fast, none that mentioned it was fast or slow by a specific number of minutes, except HOLTBY- SMITH, whose statement was not disclosed...and thus West was asked on cross examination if the clock was often wrong. He responded it was occasionally wrong but usually accurate. I don't believe they were the exact words he used in his reply, I will check and get back to you on this point...
The goal of the defense was to make sure the jury didn't think Jeremy waited until 3:36 to call police because it was never Jeremy's case that he phoned the police at any specific time, only that he did made such a call. I questioned Jeremy on many occasions, and he had no idea at all about specific timings of events, it was more a case of the sequence of events which was in the forefront of his mind. Any timings he may later hàve relied upon seems to me to be purely guess work... the longer he took the worse it looked for him. the length of delay in Jeremy calling the police has little relevance when you rely upon the sequence of events, as opposed to timed events. As I have said earlier, Jeremy had no recollection of timed events, only the sequence with which events occurred... That was why they wanted the jury to know he called at minimum ten minutes earlier. I disagree, I believe the point Rivlin was trying to make was that West was not only at sixes and sevens with his time keeping, but the contents he recorded in his 03.36hrs, log, did not match the contents of the witness statement made in PC Wests name bearing the crucial time change to 03.26hrs. PC West could not explain why the contents of his statement (03.26hrs) did not match the contents of his log (03.36hrs) .. The defense made sure they told the jury he wrote 3:26 as the time of Jeremy's call in one of his statements. yes, but only for the reasons I have already alluded to...
-
How could you possibly know, that when PC West looked at the control room clock which read 03.36am, was not accurate at that time?
PC West did not know any of the following:
1) Whether his clock was in sync with the clock from the HQ IR Control room or not
2) Whether he wrote down the time immediately before Jeremy said anything, in the middle of the call at some point or after he completely hung up the phone
3) Whether he wrote down the time that the clock read or made a mistake and accidentally recorded 3:36 when he meant to write something else.
All he knows is that Jeremy called, he put Jeremy on hold and contacted Bonnett and they dispatched police then he got back on the phone with Jeremy and asked him to go there and at some stage during the call or after he wrote 3:36 as the time of the call.
He was made aware Bonnett recorded the time of West's call to him at 3:26 so he accepted that he must have made a mistake of some sort in recording Jeremy's call to him as coming later than this.
You take nothing and try weaving a conspiracy around it and in the process look extremely dishonest or liek someone who is totally lacking in comprehension skills.
-
PC West did not know any of the following:
1) Whether his clock was in sync with the clock from the HQ IR Control room or notthe contents of his log (03.36hrs) did not match the contents of his witness statement where the time was altered to 03.26hrs. West was caught out in 'no mans land', he didn't know whether he was coming or going, he was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, all because the police were trying hard to keep a lid on the fact that Ralph Bamber had contacted the police, the details of which were recorded as per Malcolm Bonnets, 03.26hrs, log. What becomes obvious is that during the trial the two completely different versions of the log ( 03.36hrs, and 03.26hrs), were not both subject of the courts scrutiny, only the timings recorded by PC West (03.36hrs), and Malcolm Bonnet (03.26hrs), on the pretense that Bonnets log (03.26hrs) contained the same information that was written and contained in PC Wests log (03.36hrs), but we now know the contents of one log, contradicts the content of the other log, and vice versa. There is absolutely no evidence that the contents of the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) were brought to the attention of the court, or that any discussion took place trying to deal with both different versions purporting to be a reference to the same event. Infact, Wests statement contents, about what Jeremy told him over the phone, not only do not match the contents of the PC West log (03.36hrs), but they don't match the contents of the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), so we have three separate versions of Jeremys purported call to police, and all three tell a completely different story...
2) Whether he wrote down the time immediately before Jeremy said anything, in the middle of the call at some point or after he completely hung up the phone Police are trained to record the time events occurred. That is all anybody needs to know, unless otherwise stated in his testimony during the trial. Since, this scenario that you are throwing into the circus ring was not alluded to by PC West, himself either in his log (03.36hrs), in his witness statement (03.26hrs), or when giving his testimony in chief for the prosecution during the trial (October 1986), or in cross examination by defence counsel at the same trial, it is not open to someone such as yourself to start meddling with the times mentioned at different sources by PC West. If snything, one thing everybody interested in this case will never put any faith in the old addage, "if you want to know the time, ask a policeman". What does one do now if for one reason or another, we have to ask a policeman the time, and he gives it to us, do we ask further questions about the accuracy of his timepiece? "Excuse me, officer, is your watch accurate, is it fast, or slow, and if so by how many minutes? Is your watch synchronised with the clock in the force control room, or the clock in the information room?
3) Whether he wrote down the time that the clock read or made a mistake and accidentally recorded 3:36 when he meant to write something else. PC West knew exactly what he was doing, he simply daren't say anything that might put himself in the shit, or which might jeopardise the prosecutions chances of securing a conviction. West lied through his teeth, he knows it, and I know it, and thats good enough for me...
All he knows is that Jeremy called, yes, just like Jeremy, but in the contemporaneously recorded phone log, in keeping with his training and experience, he glanced at the control room clock, which read, 03.36hrs, and he wrote the time at the beginning of the log, as one would expect him to have done. If the sequence had been any different, PC West would have said something about it, but since he didn't, I think its fair to say that he recorded the time he received Jeremys call in keeping with the control room clock reading 03.36hrs, which according to PC HOLTBY - SMITH, was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or minus.The correct time, therefore had to have been 03.31hrs. Since, the information room clock was never suspected of being inaccurate at all, by anybody, the clocks in the control room and the information room, were only out of synchcronisation by 5 minutes, not 10. So, on that basis, PC Wests account about receiving the call from Jeremy at 03.36hrs (03.31hrs), could not have been recorded by Bonnet at 03.26hrs, because there exists a 5 minute period at all times, between the correct time shown by the control room clock, and the information room clock. You never never make up any story by trying to suggest that these two separate logs, were a record of the same call, which Jeremy had made to PC West, this is becaise when the information room clock showed the time 03.26hrs, the clock in the control room showed the time to be 03.31hrs (but the correct time was 03.26hrs). There would always be a 5 minute disparity between the time shown by the control room clock, as opposed to the information room clock. PC West could not have misread the control room clock which showed a time of 03.36hrs, but it was really 03.26hrs, because the control clock was only ever known to be inaccurate by 5 minutes, in keeping with the deliberately withheld PC HOLTBY - SMITH, statemeht, confirming this... he put Jeremy on hold and contacted Bonnett and they dispatched police hang on a minute, in the court of appeal judgement (2002), the judges said it still remained something of a mystery, how the occupants of CA07 had been dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy had even called the police. So, there is no reason to suppose why police had not already been eespatched to the scene before PC West heard from Jeremy at all, responding to the earlier call from Ralph Bamber, or the activation of the attack alarm at 03.29am from the farmhouse. ?. then he got back on the phone with Jeremy and asked him to go there great...and at some stage during the call or after he wrote 3:36 as the time of the call. not only was he trained to recall the time he recieved the call (03.36hrs), but the layout and composition of the form PC West filled out, is also designed for the reciver if the call to make a note of the time the event was recieved...
He was made aware Bonnett recorded the time of West's call to him at 3:26 so he accepted that he must have made a mistake of some sort in recording Jeremy's call to him as coming later than this. this can't be true for all the reasons I have thus far given...
You take nothing and try weaving a conspiracy around it and in the process look extremely dishonest or liek someone who is totally lacking in comprehension skills. all my answers, are honest, factual and plausable, I'll leave all the dishonesty to that set of scoundrels who helped to frame Jeremy Bamber for murders he could not have committed...
-
Very clever wording, that, you naughty, NAUGHTY boy!!!! "THIS NEW EVIDENCE IF PRESENTED PROPERLY IS CAPABLE OF HELPING TO ESTABLISH.. that the contents of the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) is a true record of Ralph Bambers call made to them from the scene either at or before 03.26hrs, and that Jeremys call to PC West was made at 03.31hrs, not 03.36hrs.................................." here one could add ".................that Elvis still lives" or "..................the moon is made of cheese" or ".......................Scipio is the most popular poster on the forum"!!!!!!! PROPERLY presented, one can convince people of anything. ;)
-
Hmm, that's as MAYbe, but thus far, we have no evidence, save what you have told us -and because it comes from another party we have no way of knowing if what they say is true- so we can't say, with any confidence, it's more than cleverly put together words
-
The contents of the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), do not correspond with the contents of the PC West log (03.36hrs), and neither of these two logs match or correspond with the contents of Wests statement about what was supposedly said by Jeremy to PC West in the same call. Lets put some undisputeable facts in place. Bonnet makes a record in his log (03.26hrs, purporting to be a message passed to him by PC West, who in turn claims to be repeating to Bonnet what Jeremy supposedly had told PC West prior to 02.26hrs. This is problematic because Bonnet records his log (03.26hrs), before PC West records his own log (03.36hrs). The matter is further complicated, by the known fact that the clock in the control room was inaccurate by 5 minutes (according to PC HOLTBY - SMITH. So, although the control room clock read 03.36hrs, the correct time being 03.31hrs. The control room clock being inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus. It couldn't realistically have been inaccurate by 5 minutes minus, because the correct time would have been 03.41hrs, with insufficient time for the actual duration of Jeremys call to PC West to unfold forward in time, and for Jeremy to get dressed, get himself out to his car, and away to the farmhouse, in time for him to arrive at the farmhouse by 03.52hrs...
If Bonnet received the detail for his 03.26hrs log, it could not have been given to him, after Jeremys call to West which commenced at 03.31hrs, because the Jeremy to West conversation did not occur until 5 minutes after Bonnet started to recieve the contents of the 03.26am log from PC West. This implies that West had knowledge of both calls, one call from Ralph Bamber, and the other from Jeremy Bamber. There was no need for two logs to be made for either the log of Ralph Bamber, or the log of Jeremy Bamber. There was in fact, one log made for the Ralph Bamber call in log 03.26hrs, and another log made for the Jeremy Bamber call in log 03.36hrs (03.31hrs). Evidence exists to prove that PC West contacted Bonnet after Jeremy called him, and there is some evidence that PC West may have also been in contact with Bonnet, after the earlier call made by Ralph Bamber...
-
Jeremy told police, that in the call from his father, his father had said, "Sheila had got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", or "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", or "he has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly"...
When Jeremy phoned the police, this is what he told the police (PC West) - "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly". Yet, a month later, during police interview, he brought it to the attention of interviewing officers, that his father could have said, "SHE HAS GOT THE GUN, SHE HAS GONE CRAZY, COME QUICKLY", because he said it sounded similar phonetically to, " Sheila's got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly". Years later, during a discussion between us both, he agreed that, "he has got the gun, he has gone crazy, come quickly", also sounded phonetically similar to the other two versions aforementioned...
The funny thing is...
that the content of the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), nor the content of the PC West log (03.36hrs / 03.31hrs) replicate exactly, what Ralph told Jeremy, and what Jeremy repeated to the police. Why is this?
-
I have had an opportunity to re-examine the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), and the PC West log (03.36 / 03.31hrs), discovering facts not previously noticed...
-
I have had an opportunity to re-examine the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), and the PC West log (03.36 / 03.31hrs), discovering facts not previously noticed...
for the purpose of ease, I shall from here on in, refer to the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) as the Ralph Bamber call, and the West log (03.36hrs /03.31hrs), as the Jeremy Bamber call. Bonnet being present in the communications room, which I shall call the information room. PC West being present in the control room...
-
Jeremy Bamber call log, reveals that as a result of PC West recieving his call from Jeremy, the occupants of CA05 (03.36hrs) got deployed to the scene, not the occupants of CA07...
-
Jeremy Bamber call log, reveals that as a result of PC West recieving his call from Jeremy, the occupants of CA05 (03.36hrs) got deployed to the scene, not the occupants of CA07...
In response to Ralph Bambers call log, (03.26hrs) Malcolm Bonnet, deployed the occupants of CA07 (03.35hrs)...
-
Jeremy Bamber call log, reveals that as a result of PC West recieving his call from Jeremy, the occupants of CA05 (03.36hrs) got deployed to the scene, not the occupants of CA07...
We are in the control room, with PC West, he is looking at the control room clock which shows the time of 03.36hrs. By a reliance upon PC HOLTBY - SMITH, the clock we are talking about is inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus. The correct time is 03.31hrs. West deploys the occupants of CA05 to the scene, which according to Ralph Bambers call log (03.26am) occurred at 03.36hrs. The question which needs answering is, which clock is being used to time the deployment of the occupants of CA05, the control room clock, which was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or the information room clock at the correct time of 03.36hrs? Based on the balance of probabilities, and the fact that PC West deployed the occupants of CA05, and his timing of events is out of sequence by 5 minutes, plus, I am satisfied that West deployed them at 03.31hrs, some 4 minutes before the occupants of CA07 were deployed by Bonnet (Ralph Bamber call log) in the information room at 03.35hrs. What is interesting about these facts, is that the occupants of CA07, were deployed 9 minutes after Ralph Bamber called police, as per the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), at face value they were deployed 1 minute before the Jeremy Bamber call that he made to PC West at 03.36hrs (which we now know involved an inaccurate control room clock, that was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus), which places the deployment of the occupants of CA05, some 4 minutes before the occupants of CA07 who were deployed by Bonnet at 03.35hrs...
In a nutshell, CA05 were deployed by PC West (03.31hrs), and CA07 were deployed by Malcolm Bonnet (03.35hrs)...
-
We are in the control room, with PC West, he is looking at the control room clock which shows the time of 03.36hrs. By a reliance upon PC HOLTBY - SMITH, the clock we are talking about is inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus. The correct time is 03.31hrs. West deploys the occupants of CA05 to the scene, which according to Ralph Bambers call log (03.26am) occurred at 03.36hrs. The question which needs answering is, which clock is being used to time the deployment of the occupants of CA05, the control room clock, which was inaccurate by 5 minutes, plus, or the information room clock at the correct time of 03.36hrs? Based on the balance of probabilities, and the fact that PC West deployed the occupants of CA05, and his timing of events is out of sequence by 5 minutes, plus, I am satisfied that West deployed them at 03.31hrs, some 4 minutes before the occupants of CA07 were deployed by Bonnet (Ralph Bamber call log) in the information room at 03.35hrs. What is interesting about these facts, is that the occupants of CA07, were deployed 9 minutes after Ralph Bamber called police, as per the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), at face value they were deployed 1 minute before the Jeremy Bamber call that he made to PC West at 03.36hrs (which we now know involved an inaccurate control room clock, that was inaccurate by 5 minutes plus), which places the deployment of the occupants of CA05, some 4 minutes before the occupants of CA07 who were deployed by Bonnet at 03.35hrs...
In a nutshell, CA05 were deployed by PC West (03.31hrs), and CA07 were deployed by Malcolm Bonnet (03.35hrs)...
I think it is safe to assume that West and Bonnet were in contact with eachother at various times in this crucial period, between 03.36hrs and 04.23hrs...
-
A number of events need to be factored into this crucial period of time, in order to properly reconstruct what actually occurred -(1) - Ralph Bambers call to police, (2) - Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy Bamber, (3) - Jeremy Bambers call to Ralph Bamber, (4) - Jeremy Bambers call to Witham police station, (5) - activation of attack alarm at the farmhouse, (6) - Jeremy Bambers call to Julie Mugford, (7) - Jeremy Bambers call to PC West, (8) - deployment of CA05 to incident, (9) - deployment of CA07 to incident, (10) - arrival of CA07 at the scene, (11) - arrival of Jeremy Bamber at the scene, (12) - arrival of CA05 at the scene...
-
Key to reconstructing what actually happened centres around the deployment of both CA05 and CA07 at different times of the police operation, in particular why deploy the occupants of CA05 at 03.31, which coincided with the timing of Jeremy Bambers call to PC West at the same time. I am satisfied that PC West deployed the occupants of CA05 to the scene at 03.31hrs, in response to the worsening circumstances believed to be unfolding inside whf, since Ralph Bambers call (03.26hrs), and activation of the attack alarm at 03.29hrs, within 2 minutes of the attack alarm being activated, PC West was deploying the occupants of CA05 to the incident. Yet 4 minutes (03.35hrs) into Jeremy Bambers call (03.31hrs) to PC West, Bonnet was deploying the occupants of CA07 to liase with Jeremy at the scene (in Pages Lane)...
-
There is something of a pattern which emerges, involving the deployment of the occupants of CA05 to the incident (03.31hrs) which took place 5 minutes after Bonnet recorded the Ralph Bamber call log at 03.26am, and the deployment of the occupants of CA07 4 minutes (03.35hrs) after the commencement of the Jeremy Bamber call to PC West (03.31hrs). The former being deployed prior to Jeremy having had time to tell PC West what he did tell him, or for West to be in a position to deploy CA05 to the scene at the beginning of the call...
-
03.25hrs - Ralph Bamber call to Jeremy Bamber
03.26hrs - Bonnet starts to record Ralph Bamber phone log, received from PC West, or another source
03.26hrs - Jeremy Bamber attempts to re-establish contact with Ralph Bamber at whf, phone engaged
03.28hrs - Jeremy Bamber phones Witham police station but gets no answer
03.29hrs - alarm at whf activated
03.30hrs - Jeremy Bamber phones Julie Mugford ("there's something wrong at the farm")
03.31hrs - PC West deploys occupants of CA05 to the incident
03.31hrs - Jeremy Bamber phones PC West who starts to record phone log
03.35hrs - Bonnet deploys occupants of CA07 to incident
03.48hrs - Occupants of CA07 arrive at scene
03.52hrs - Jeremy Bamber arrives at scene
04.23hrs - Occupants of CA05 arrive at scene
-
Why did PC West deploy the occupants of CA05 to the incident at 03.31hrs, before he had an opportunity to get Jeremy Bambers account? Furthermore, why did it take CA05 52 minutes to arrive at the scene?
-
Who were the occupants of CA05?
-
I'll have to look Mike.Was it West ? I've forgotten,but one question was why CA05 and CA07 sent if there was only one call supposedly made ?
-
Detail contained in Ralph Bamber phone log, completed by Malcolm Bonnet at 03.26hrs log...
Occupants of CA05 deployed 03.36hrs (03.31hrs), arrived at scene 04.23hrs
Occupants of CA07 deployed 03.35hrs, arrived at scene 03.48hrs
Ps Bews
Pc Myall
Ps Saxby
Occupants of CA06 deployed 04.22hrs, arrived at scene 04.23hrs
Occupants of QK50 deployed 04.35hrs, arrived at scene 04.58hrs
Occupants of QK26 deployed 04.37hrs, arrived at scene 04.58hrs
Occupants of Q25 deployed 04.37hrs, arrived at scene 04.58hrs
-
I'll have to look Mike.Was it West ? I've forgotten,but one question was why CA05 and CA07 sent if there was only one call supposedly made ?
Ok...
-
I'll have to look Mike.Was it West ? I've forgotten,but one question was why CA05 and CA07 sent if there was only one call supposedly made ?
Because Bonnett sent CA07 and West sent CA05,
-
Details at REPLY 553 will be completed as a "work in progress" project, as and when information comes to light...
-
The first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene, at 05.00hrs, hence why deployment and arrival of vehicles at the scene recorded in the Ralph Bamber (Bonnet) log, 03.26hrs, finish with reference to the arrival at the scene of the occupants of Qk50, QK26, and Q25, at 04.58hrs. Since, once armed officers arrive at the scene they are no longer under the direct control of the force control room, but take orders from'THE TERRITORIAL SUPERVISOR'...
-
The first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene, at 05.00hrs, hence why deployment and arrival of vehicles at the scene recorded in the Ralph Bamber (Bonnet) log, 03.26hrs, finish with reference to the arrival at the scene of the occupants of Qk50, QK26, and Q25, at 04.58hrs. Since, once armed officers arrive at the scene they are no longer under the direct control of the force control room, but take orders from'THE TERRITORIAL SUPERVISOR'...
We have yet to see any report, or any witness statement, or any records kept by 'THE TERRITORIAL SUPERVISOR', at the scene, or elsewhere, kept by him regarding the events which unfolded at whf once the first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene from 05.00hrs, onward...
-
We have yet to see any report, or any witness statement, or any records kept by 'THE TERRITORIAL SUPERVISOR', at the scene, or elsewhere, kept by him regarding the events which unfolded at whf once the first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene from 05.00hrs, onward...
'THE TERRITORIAL SUPERVISOR' (TTS) had control of the team of firearm officers who arrived at the scene, under the leadership of PS Adams. It was the 'TTS' responsibility to keep full and proper records of events which unfolded at the scene from 05.00hrs, onward, like when firearm officers at the scene were engaged in a conversation with someone inside the farmhouse...
-
On the front page of the PC Wests log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, is recorded, 'PTO'...
-
On the front page of the PC Wests log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, is recorded, 'PTO'...
Written on the reverse of PC Wests log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, are messages relayed from the scene by the control car, CA07, yet all other messages from the same source, are recorded on official 'WIRELESS MESSAGE LOG' documents. Some years ago, Jeremy himself was playing merry hell about this, claiming that the content of the original messages passed from the scene by CA07, were recorded on an official wireless message log kept and recorded in the communications room, otherwise known as the information room, except for the messages recorded on the reverse of PC Wests phone log, completed in the control room...
-
Written on the reverse of PC Wests log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, are messages relayed from the scene by the control car, CA07, yet all other messages from the same source, are recorded on official 'WIRELESS MESSAGE LOG' documents. Some years ago, Jeremy himself was playing merry hell about this, claiming that the content of the original messages passed from the scene by CA07, were recorded on an official wireless message log kept and recorded in the communications room, otherwise known as the information room, except for the messages recorded on the reverse of PC Wests phone log, completed in the control room...
Jeremy was wondering what has happened to the original messages written up on the original page 1 of the wireless message log, before the contents were re-written on the reverse of Wests log...?
-
I'll have to look Mike.Was it West ? I've forgotten,but one question was why CA05 and CA07 sent if there was only one call supposedly made ?
Because it is common practice to send backup instead of a single unit when there is a claim of firearms. The back up unit took a while to leave the station and didn't arrive until substantially later than CA7.
-
Jeremy Bamber call log, reveals that as a result of PC West recieving his call from Jeremy, the occupants of CA05 (03.36hrs) got deployed to the scene, not the occupants of CA07...
Contents of two seperate witness statements, made in his name, give two conflicting times he recieved the call from Jeremy Bamber, in his 9th August 1985, statement, he claims the time of this call occurred at 03.26hrs, yet in his other witness statement, dated, 13th September 1985, he changes the timing of the Jeremy Bamber call, back to 03.36hrs (same time recorded on the log of events, recorded temporaneously, on the morning in question)...
So which version, is true?
-
PC West has not told the truth, he has given three different versions (above) of what Jeremy Bamber told him during that (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, distress call
-
PC West has not told the truth, he has given three different versions (above) of what Jeremy Bamber told him during that (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, distress call
During the trial he testified, evidence in chief, and was also cross examined:-
-
Bearing in mind, what PC West says in the two witness statements, and during his court testimony (above), he could only have relayed what Jeremy said to him, as per the contents of his witness statements to Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, which does not correspond with the contents of the Bonnet phone log (03.26hrs)...
-
There is something seriously wrong with PC Wests testimony, and witness statements regarding this matter...
-
There is something seriously wrong with PC Wests testimony, and witness statements regarding this matter...
According to PC West, after he had spoken to the information room, he contacted Witham police station control room by police radio and relayed to them what Jeremy Bamber had in fact told him minutes beforehand, yet there is no record on / in the West log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, that West had made such a radio message to Witham police station control room, or who he spoke to there, or what he told them. Instead, we are given two logs to take into consideration, the PC West log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, and the Malcolm Bonnet log (03.26hrs), which contain conflicting and contradictory accounts. We do not have the Witham police station information room log, giving details of what PC West spoke to them about, after West had already spoken to the information room at Chelmsford police station (Malcolm Bonnet), and PC West says in his testimony, that a police unit from Witham had been deployed to the incident, which in the grand scheme of things turns out to be the occupants of CA07, yet PC West had already deployed the occupants of CA05 to the scene, which because of the time CA05 had been deployed (03.31hrs), must have already been done, prior to PC West contacting the Chelmsford police station information room, to find out which police station dealt with the area where whf was located. Now, something is very wrong here, wrong because in the grand scheme of things, the occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene (03.31hrs), before the occupants of CA07 were eventually deployed to the same incident at 03.35hrs. PC West deployed the occupants of CA05, and the information room at Witham police station, deployed the occupants of CA07...
Details of the deployment of the occupants of CA07 by the information room at Witham police station, is recorded in the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) written up in the information room at Chelmsford police station, where it is recorded that CA07 was deployed at 03.35hrs, arriving at the scene at 03.48hrs. Yet, there is no mention at all in the Bonnet log (03.26hrs), that Witham police station information room has been in contact with the information room at Chelmsford police station, to relay information about the time the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident, or indeed arrived there...
Clearly, whatever role the police at Witham had in this matter has been suppressed to hide the true involvement of police officers deployed by that information room, in this matter. The key to resolving what big secret Essex police have for nigh on 30 years been trying to keep the lid on, can be unravelled and reconstructed by the roles played by the occupants of CA05 (03.31hrs), and CA07 (03.35hrs) in the matter, who deployed them, and what expectations the two groups of police officers had in thier minds when they reached the scene, namely, CA07 at 03.48hrs, and CA05 at 04.23hrs...
-
What remit was given by the information room at Witham police station, to the occupants of CA07 when they got deployed to the scene at 03.35hrs?
-
Similarly, what remit was given to the occupants of CA05, when PC West deployed them to the scene at (03.36hrs),03.31hrs?
-
According to the testimony of PC West during the trial, his original conversation with Jeremy Bamber lasted about 1 minute, and he spent another 3 minutes contacting the information room at Chelmsford police station using the exchange line, followed by the information room at Witham police station by use of the police radio system, before returning back to deal with Jeremy Bamber. The occupants of CA07 had of course already been deployed (03.35hrs) by the time PC West returned to continue his conversation with Jeremy Bamber. West maintained by that stage some 4 minutes had already elapsed, time took up by 1 minute of conversation dealing with the first part of Jeremys call, and a further 3 minutes taken up dealing with the information room at Chelmsford police station, via the telephone exchange line, and the information room at Witham police station via the police radio. These 4 minutes which West speaks about fit in snugly with the time of deployment of the occupants of CA07 to the incident at 03.35hrs, if Jeremy Bambers call had indeed occurred at 03.31hrs (rather than at 03.36hrs)...
-
Deployment of CA05 having occurred at more or less the same time that Jeremy Bambers call had been made, and recieved by PC West at 03.31hrs. It is documented in the West log (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, that West deployed, or knew about the deployment of the occupants of CA05, which is mentioned in the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) as having occurred at 03.36hrs, but it is not clear by which clock the timing that is recorded there was being referred to, was it the (inaccurate) control room clock, or the (accurate) Chelmsford information room clock? Since, PC West appears to have deployed the occupants of CA05 to the scene, it is almost certainly the case that the time of deployment of CA05 given in the Bonnet log (03.26hrs) as 03.36hrs, is a reference to the inaccurate control room clock, producing a more accurate time of deployment as 03.31hrs, or in other words, more or less the same time as the call made by Jeremy Bamber, recieved by PC West...
-
My interest is focussed on the timing and reason for the deployment of the occupants of CA05 by PC West, before he had time to recive the information given to him by Jeremy Bamber, and contact the information room at Chelmsford police station via use of the telephone exchange line. There simply wasn't enough time to enable PC West to deploy the occupants of CA05 to the incident unfolding at whf, at 03.31hrs, for them to be heading toward the incident in terms described by Jeremy Bamber in his call to PC West at (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs...
The occupants of CA05, therefore had a different remit when West deployed them, a remit that was different to the one given to the occupants of CA07, who were not deployed until 4 minutes after Jeremy's call to West, including West contacting the information rooms at Chelmsford (by exchage line), and Witham police stations (radio)...
-
My interest is focussed on the timing and reason for the deployment of the occupants of CA05 by PC West, before he had time to recive the information given to him by Jeremy Bamber, and contact the information room at Chelmsford police station via use of the telephone exchange line. There simply wasn't enough time to enable PC West to deploy the occupants of CA05 to the incident unfolding at whf, at 03.31hrs, for them to be heading toward the incident in terms described by Jeremy Bamber in his call to PC West at (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs...
The occupants of CA05, therefore had a different remit when West deployed them, a remit that was different to the one given to the occupants of CA07, who were not deployed until 4 minutes after Jeremy's call to West, including West contacting the information rooms at Chelmsford (by exchage line), and Witham police stations (radio)...
The mystery concerning why it appeared to all and sundry that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed (03.35hrs) to the scene, before Jeremys call to PC West (03.36hrs), has now been properly reconstructed to a high degree of satisfaction. The simple truth is that the occupants of CA07 were deployed after Jeremys call (03.31hrs) to PC West, not beforehand. The real mystery, now being the remit of the occupants of CA05, deployed to the scene at around the same time Jeremy made the aforementioned call recieved by PC West (03.31hrs)...
-
The truth only having been possible to reconstruct, by a reference to the evidence now available from PC HOLTBY - SMITH, who would have been able to testify to the fact that the control room clock was inaccurate at the material time by as much as 5 minutes, plus, or minus. We now know that the control room clock was not inaccurate by 5 minutes, minus, because had that been the case, the time of Jeremys call (03.36hrs) would have occurred at 03.41hrs, which if the 5 minutes of duration of the call between Jeremy Bamber and PC West is added, takes the end of that call to around 03.46hrs, which in turn when considered against the time of arrival of CA07 at the scene (03.48hrs), and Jeremys own arrival at the scene by 03.52hrs, is not plausible for obvious reasons...
-
The truth only having been possible to reconstruct, by a reference to the evidence now available from PC HOLTBY - SMITH, who would have been able to testify to the fact that the control room clock was inaccurate at the material time by as much as 5 minutes, plus, or minus. We now know that the control room clock was not inaccurate by 5 minutes, minus, because had that been the case, the time of Jeremys call (03.36hrs) would have occurred at 03.41hrs, which if the 5 minutes of duration of the call between Jeremy Bamber and PC West is added, takes the end of that call to around 03.46hrs, which in turn when considered against the time of arrival of CA07 at the scene (03.48hrs), and Jeremys own arrival at the scene by 03.52hrs, is not plausible for obvious reasons...
The control room clock was not inaccurate by 5 minutes minus, because otherwise PC West would not have been able to contact the GPO Operator (03.42hrs) at the end of Jeremys call to him, if his call started at 03.41hrs...
-
It would appear to me, that PC West knew about the deployment of the occupants of CA05 (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, to the scene, was with a remit linked either to Ralph Bambers call to the police (as per the Bonnet log, timed at 03.26hrs), or the activation of the attack alarm at 03.29hrs, or both. That the deployment of the occupants of CA07 (03.35hrs) was with a remit relating to the call made to PC West, by Jeremy Bamber (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, relayed to the information room at Witham police station by PC West via police radio system...
-
Why did it take the occupants of CA05, some 42 minutes from the time of deployment (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, to the scene, until it arrived there (04.23hrs), considering that it was the very first vehicle to be immobilized to the incident?
-
Why did it take the occupants of CA05, some 42 minutes from the time of deployment (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs, to the scene, until it arrived there (04.23hrs), considering that it was the very first vehicle to be immobilized to the incident?
In stark contrast, it only took the occupants of CA07 some 13 minutes, to travel from Witham police station, to the scene at Pages Lane (deployed at 03.35hrs, arrived at the scene by 03.48hrs)...
-
By reference to the testimony of PC West during the trial, evidence was adduced to confirm that Jeremy had tried to make contact with Witham police station prior to him calling the police at Chelmsford (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs - thus setting the record straight about Jeremy having seemingly made contradictory statements to the police at one time or another, after he had called the police and before he called the police. It is not until you know that Jeremy did indeed make an unsuccessful telephone call to Witham police station, and followed this by contacting the police at Chelmsford police station, that his answers can be shown to have been truthful ones, he called the police "before" (unsuccessful call to Witham police station) and "after" (Jeremy's call to PC West) he called Julie Mugford...
-
By reference to the testimony of PC West during the trial, evidence was adduced to confirm that Jeremy had tried to make contact with Witham police station prior to him calling the police at Chelmsford (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs - thus setting the record straight about Jeremy having seemingly made contradictory statements to the police at one time or another, after he had called the police and before he called the police. It is not until you know that Jeremy did indeed make an unsuccessful telephone call to Witham police station, and followed this by contacting the police at Chelmsford police station, that his answers can be shown to have been truthful ones...
Both of these calls, either side of the 03.30hrs call Jeremy made to Julie Mugford...
-
The occupants of CA07, would have been in radio contact with thier own information room based at Witham police station, not necessarily the control room at Chelmsford police station, directly...
Any log kept by Witham police station information room therefore is critical towards establishing the credibility of PS Bews evidence, where he has maintained that the silhoetted figure seen at the bedroom window had merely been a trick of light...
Objective - obtain a copy of the 'Witham police station, information room log' containing PS Bews situation report, requesting armed officers to attend the scene regarding a potential seige situation...
-
The fact that it is now 'officially recognised', that Jeremy Bamber had indeed made two attempts to contact the police (once unsuccessfully to Witham police station, and secondly the call recieved by PC West), after the call he claims he had recieved from his father (Ralph Bamber), sandwiched either side of a different call he had made to Julie Mugford, can now also be put into its proper perspective. In the sequence of events, the following almost certainly happened - (1) Ralph Bamber made the short call to Jeremy Bamber, (2) Ralph Bamber called the police, (3) Jeremy Bamber tried to call Ralph Bamber back, but kept getting an engaged tone, (4) Jeremy Bamber tried unsuccessfully to contact Witham police station, (5) attack alarm at farmhouse activated, (6) Jeremy Bamber called Julie Mugford, (7) occupants of CA05 deployed to incident, (8) Jeremy Bamber called Chelmsford police station and was dealt with by PC West, (9) PC West put Jeremy on hold whilst he contacted the information room at Chelmsford by exchange line, (10) PC West then contacted Witham police station by police radio (not by telephone) because that police station dealt with incidents where whf is located, (11) occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene from Witham information room, (12) PC West continued with call recieved from Jeremy Bamber, told him to go directly to the scene where he would be met by police officers, who had already been deployed there, (13) PC West spoke with a GPO operator who checked telephone line at the scene, and reported that phone left off hook, (14) Occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy Bamber en route to scene on the Tollsbury Road travelling in the direction towards the scene, (15) Occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene, (16) Jeremy Bamber arrived at the scene, (17) Bews, Myall, and Jeremy Bamber observe a person moving around inside the main bedroom through the bedroom window, observations lasted several minutes, and could not have been a trick of light, (18) Bews, Myall and Jeremy Bamber run back to the police car parked up in nearby Pages Lane, and PS Bews passes a situation report, where he mentions that a person who may be armed with a firearm has been seen to be moving around in an upstairs bedroom, and could the firearms officers be deployed to the scene, (19) Bews and Myall return into grounds of farmhouse to carry out further recce's, leaving Jeremy Bamber with PS Saxby in the patrol car parked in Pages lane, (20) Occupants of CA05 arrive at the scene...
-
The fact that it is now 'officially recognised', that Jeremy Bamber had indeed made two attempts to contact the police (once unsuccessfully to Witham police station, and secondly the call recieved by PC West), after the call he claims he had recieved from his father (Ralph Bamber), sandwiched either side of a different call he had made to Julie Mugford, can now also be put into its proper perspective. In the sequence of events, the following almost certainly happened...
Bear the following in mind - Why did PC West contact his own information room and speak with Malcolm Bonnet using the telephone exchange line, yet when PC West contacts Witham police station he uses the police radio system? The obvious conclusion must surely be that PC West was not able to contact Witham with use of the telephone exchange line, reaffirming that what Jeremy himself had tried to do, but had been unsuccessful, was an accurate discription of What Jeremy had told PC West minutes beforehand. By the time Jeremy had spoken with PC West at (03.36hrs) 03.31hrs, Jeremy had already made the call to Julie Mugford (at around 03.30hrs). Hence, the call Jeremy made to Julie Mugford, was indeed sandwiched between his calls to Witham and Chelmsford, police stations...
-
I have undertaken the following research involving the distances between Witham police station to whf, and Chelmsford police station to whf, relating to the deployment of the occupants of CA05 (Chelmsford), and CA07 (Witham):-
CHELMSFORD POLICE STATION to WHF, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY - 19.7 miles (32 minutes)
It took the occupants of CA05 42 minutes to make this journey... (SLOW)
-
I have undertaken the following research involving the distances between Witham police station to whf, and Chelmsford police station to whf, relating to the deployment of the occupants of CA05 (Chelmsford), and CA07 (Witham):-
WITHAM POLICE STATION to WHF, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY - 10.7 miles 22 minutes
It took the occupants of CA07 13 minutes to make this journey... (FAST)
-
Distance between 9 Head Street, Goldhanger (Jeremy Bambers cottage), and White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex:-
9 HEAD STREET to WHF, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY - 3.8 miles (8 minutes)
It took Jeremy Bamber 7 minutes to make this journey... (FAST)
-
A Great deal has been made about the speed with which Jeremy Bamber travelled from his cottage at 9 head street, Goldhanger towards the farmhouse, scene of the tragedy. It is a distance of 3.8 miles, and would normally take a person driving at average speed about 8 minutes to make the journey. Jeremy Bamber did it in about 7 minutes, which demonstrates in the clearest possible terms, that he was not hanging around for much of the journey, other than slowing down to allow a speeding police car with blue flashing lights to overtake him on the Tollsbury road in the direction of whf...
-
A Great deal has been made about the speed with which Jeremy Bamber travelled from his cottage at 9 head street, Goldhanger towards the farmhouse, scene of the tragedy. It is a distance of 3.8 miles, and would normally take a person driving at average speed about 8 minutes to make the journey. Jeremy Bamber did it in about 7 minutes, which demonstrates in the clearest possible terms, that he was not hanging around for much of the journey, other than slowing down to allow a speeding police car with blue flashing lights to overtake him on the Tollsbury road in the direction of whf...
If Jeremy drove away from his cottage at the following times, it would demonstrate how fast or slow he was going en route to the scene (Average time to complete journey is 8 minutes):-
03.44hrs - 8 minutes - Average speed
03.45hrs - 7 minutes
03.46hrs - 6 minutes - Fast speed
03.47hrs - 5 minutes
-
Bear the following in mind - Why did PC West contact his own information room and speak with Malcolm Bonnet using the telephone exchange line,
Are you suggesting he phoned his own information room? Face to face he briefed the person in control of the Information Room he was in because that was the appropriate thing to do.
yet when PC West contacts Witham police station he uses the police radio system? The obvious conclusion must surely be that PC West was not able to contact Witham with use of the telephone exchange line, reaffirming that what Jeremy himself had tried to do, but had been unsuccessful, was an accurate discription of What Jeremy had told PC West minutes beforehand. By the time Jeremy had spoken with PC West at (03.36hrs) 03.31hrs, Jeremy had already made the call to Julie Mugford (at around 03.30hrs). Hence, the call Jeremy made to Julie Mugford, was indeed sandwiched between his calls to Witham and Chelmsford, police stations...
Bonnett told West to phone Witham's control room. Maybe did so but forgot and erroneously claimed his first contact was by radio. Maybe he decided not to bother and simply decided to contact CA7 directly since Bonnett told him about CA7. Perhaps he tried the phone but got no answer so then resorted to radio as you suggest. We have no way to know which of these 3 is the case nor doe sit matter which of these 3 is the case.
-
Are you suggesting he phoned his own information room? Yes, PC West testified during trial that he contacted the information room situated in the next building to the control room at Chelmsford police station. Furthermore, Bonnet himself confirmed that he was contacted via the phone by PC West... Face to face he briefed the person in control of the Information Room he was in PC West was located in the control room, Malcolm Bonnet was located in the communications room / information room. One could not talk verbally to one another face to face, since each was located in a seperate building next to eachother...because that was the appropriate thing to do. in the circumstances of this matter, impossible to be true...
Bonnett told West to phone Witham's control room. West phoned Bonnet to find out the closest sub police station to whf and was told by Bonnet that Witham police station patrolled that area. PC West then took it upon himself to contact Witham police station and may have tried to contact the information room by telephone and got no response, in the same way that Jeremy Bamber unsuccessfully tried to contact them minutes beforehand, so PC West used the police radio system to make contact with the information room at Witham police station. PC West confirms that he did speak to the information room at Witham police station, using the police radio... Maybe did so but forgot and erroneously claimed his first contact was by radio. Maybe he decided not to bother and simply decided to contact CA7 directly PC West testified during trial testimony that he contacted the information room at Witham police station by radio... since Bonnett told him about CA7. PC West did not deploy the occupants of CA07, there is no evidence recorded anywhere that he did, or that he had done, or that he even knew that CA07 had been deployed by Witham, whether or not CA07 was deployed by the information room at Witham police station, or by Malcolm Bonnet who had deployed CA07 from the information room at Chelmsford police station. All that PC West told Jeremy when he returned from speaking with Malcolm Bonnet in the Chelmsford information room (phone), and the information room at Witham (radio), that Jeremy should go directly to the farmhouse where he would be met with police officers who had already been deployed to the scene. West did not specify which police officers had been deployed, or where they had been deployed from. We now know that the occupants of CA05 was deployed (03.36hrs) 03.31hrs, to the incident 5 minutes before CA07 was deployed (03.35hrs) from Witham police station. What is disconcerting is that the occupants of CA07 were not made aware that other police officers had already been deployed to the incident, or where these other (CA05) were based, or the location they had been deployed from... Perhaps he tried the phone but got no answer yes...so then resorted to radio yes...as you suggest. We have no way to know which of these 3 is the case nor doe sit matter it matters, because if this is true, it suggests that PC West was unable to make contact with Witham police station by use of the telephone, only by use of the police radio system, supports Jeremys contention that he had earlier been unsuccessful in contacting Witham police station... which of these 3 is the case.
-
It was Pc Holby Smith, not Holtby Smith. Saying a clock is accurate ± 5 minutes isn't a way of saying that it was out by 5 minutes. It is a way of saying that the clock was unreliable and, from memory, was sometime fast or slow by as much as about 5 minutes. This assertion was clearly rubbish anyway, as such a clock would have been reported and fixed, not tolerated (and that applies regardless of which clock Pc Holby Smith was referring to). Also, Pc West gave a different (and far more believable) account of the clock's accuracy. He clearly believed the clock was correct and that his recorded time of Jeremy's call was correct as well.
My understanding is that Jeremy has never confirmed trying to call Witham police station, but not getting an answer. I think he has denied doing so.
We can't be certain about when CA5 was sent, but its driver, Pc Cracknell, made a statement (available on this forum) in which he said that he and Pc Norcup (who together were the crew of CA5) were on duty in the Chelsmford police station control room (the room where Pc West was working) at 3:33 am when they were requested to attend White House Farm. There is nothing known to explain why they took about 48 minutes to drive to WHF. Once on their way, they would have confirmed their departure by radio, allowing Bonnett to update his log accordingly.
The kind of conversation suggested by Caroline (even with the suggested additions) would easily fit into two minutes, which leaves Jeremy just enough time to arrive at WHF at the time suggested by the police. He was estimated to be doing about 30 mph when overtaken by the police, which is consistent with the times I have mentioned. It's clear that Jeremy had called Julie before he called Pc West.
-
PC West testified during trial that he contacted the information room situated in the next building to the control room at Chelmsford police station.
Pc West didn't say that. He clearly stated that the Chelmsford police station building was next door to the court, not to the police HQ information room where Bonnett was working (which was in Springfield).
-
Pc West gave a different (and far more believable) account of the clock's accuracy. He clearly believed the clock was correct and that his recorded time of Jeremy's call was correct as well. Yes, PC West maintained the control room clock was accurate, and that he recorded the time correctly, as 03.36hrs, the time he recieved the call:-
-
My understanding is that Jeremy has never confirmed trying to call Witham police station, but not getting an answer. I think he has denied doing so. PC West confirmed that Jeremy did tell him that he had tried unsuccessfully to make contact with Witham police station, prior to contacting him at the control room at Chelmsford police station:-
-
We can't be certain about when CA5 was sent, but its driver, Pc Cracknell, made a statement (available on this forum) in which he said that he and Pc Norcup (who together were the crew of CA5) were on duty in the Chelsmford police station control room (the room where Pc West was working) at 3:33 am when they were requested to attend White House Farm. The occupants of CA05, were deployed from Chelmsford police station, HQ...
-
Pc West didn't say that. He clearly stated that the Chelmsford police station building was next door to the court, not to the police HQ information room where Bonnett was working (which was in Springfield).
-
Distance between 9 Head Street, Goldhanger (Jeremy Bambers cottage), and White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex:-
9 HEAD STREET to WHF, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY - 3.8 miles (8 minutes)
It took Jeremy Bamber 7 minutes to make this journey... (FAST)
Has anyone ever attempted to ride a bike from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger to White House Farm? to see how long it would take? do the prosecution believe he took the roads or over the fields?
-
We can't be certain about when CA5 was sent, but its driver, Pc Cracknell, made a statement (available on this forum) in which he said that he and Pc Norcup (who together were the crew of CA5) were on duty in the Chelsmford police station control room (the room where Pc West was working) at 3:33 am when they were requested to attend White House Farm. There is nothing known to explain why they took about 48 minutes to drive to WHF. Once on their way, they would have confirmed their departure by radio, allowing Bonnett to update his log accordingly. If the occupants were deployed to the incident at whf as per the timing recorded in the Bonnet log (03.36hrs), how can PC Cracknell an PC Norcup have been requested to attend whf at 03.33hrs? If the control room clock was acurrate, as maintained by PC West during his trial testimony, and at the beginning of the call he recieved from Jeremy Bamber the control room clock read 03.36hrs, and he spent 1 minute taking down details which he recorded on the log pad, before contacting the information room and Malcolm Bonnet, since by the time PC West enquired about the closest police unit available to HQ, the time would almost certainly have moved on to either 03.37hrs / 03.38hrs, via the information room, as testified too, during the trial proceedings, then it exposes the deployment of the occupants of CA05 totally out of sequence with the purported events. PC Cracknell and PC Norcup, could not have been deployed to the scene, or requested to attend whf at 03.33hrs, if the control room clock was accurate in keeping with what PC West testified at the trial. Cracknell and Norcup, therefore were sent to attend whf for some other reason other than what Jeremy Bamber had brought to PC Wests attention...
-
Has anyone ever attempted to ride a bike from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger to White House Farm? to see how long it would take? do the prosecution believe he took the roads or over the fields?
(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance
Typical speeds
In utility cycling there is a large variation; an elderly person on an upright roadster might do less than 10 km/h (6.2 mph) while a fitter or younger person could easily do twice that on the same bicycle. For cyclists in Copenhagen, the average cycling speed is 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph).[10]
-
It was Pc Holby Smith, not Holtby Smith. Saying a clock is accurate ± 5 minutes isn't a way of saying that it was out by 5 minutes. It is a way of saying that the clock was unreliable and, from memory, was sometime fast or slow by as much as about 5 minutes. This assertion was clearly rubbish anyway, as such a clock would have been reported and fixed, not tolerated (and that applies regardless of which clock Pc Holby Smith was referring to). Here is my source...
-
Thanks for that source, Mike. I think it's more likely to have the correct spelling than the transcript of Pc West's evidence, so I stand corrected... Pc Holtby-Smith it is. The time of 03:36 that Malcolm Bonnett logged as CA5's departure time was probably the time when they contacted him by radio to confirm they were on their way, and therefore slightly later than when they received instructions to go to WHF.
Has anyone ever attempted to ride a bike from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger to White House Farm?
DI Robert Wilkinson did so, as he states here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4983.0.html) (page 3 of his statement). His statement also confirms the distance by road from Jeremy's cottage to White house Farm.
-
Thanks for that source, Mike. I think it's more likely to have the correct spelling than the transcript of Pc West's evidence, so I stand corrected... Pc Holtby-Smith it is. The time of 03:36 that Malcolm Bonnett logged as CA5's departure time was probably the time when they contacted him by radio to confirm they were on their way, and therefore slightly later than when they received instructions to go to WHF.
DI Robert Wilkinson did so, as he states here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4983.0.html) (page 3 of his statement). His statement also confirms the distance by road from Jeremy's cottage to White house Farm.
Hi Reader,
You may find the following police telex record (616) helpful - which confirms that PC West (3) an employee at HQ incident room recieved a call from PC West, and that cars were sent to the scene. This occurred prior to PC West (5) communicating with a person at HQ incident room re Jeremy's call...
-
So, we now know that PC West contacted an employee at the HQ incident room, before Jeremy made his call to the police (whatever time Jeremy made his call), and police cars were deployed to the scene without knowing anything about what Jeremy would say later to PC West. Why would police patrol cars be deployed to the scene, prior to Jeremy Bamber making contact with PC West?
Police recieved information from a different source than Jeremy Bamber, and whatever information they recieved it warranted the deployment of patrol cars to the scene, long before Jeremy had even started dialling the telephone number to Chelmsford police station. We are now on the verge of discovering the truth about what really took place inside whf at the time the shootings had already begun...
-
There are two events of note which we all already know about, which were capable individually, or collectively, of causing police cars to be deployed to the scene at whf, prior to Jeremy speaking with PC West on the telephone, at (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs:-
(1) - Ralph Bambers call to police at 03.26hrs, as per the Bonnet log, and (2) - activation of the attack alarm...
-
The other interesting thing, is that this record was made for the attention of DCS Mick Ainsley, (2nd October, 1986) head of the 2nd part of the police investigation, who later after his retirement from Essex police, worked as a security advisor for the relatives...
This suggests that at the start of Jeremy Bambers October 1986, Chelmsford Crown court trial, that DCS Ainsley obtained confirmation that PC West had already been in contact with HQ information room, and spoken to an employee which caused police cars to instantly be deployed to the scene. All this, before Jeremy had even made contact with the police. Clearly this information would have been very helpful to the defence, in proving that the unfolding events had got nothing to do with Jeremy Bamber raising the alarm, because PC West was already responding to whatever was taking place at the scene (whf) before Jeremy spoke to PC West, afterwards...
-
Why did DCS Ainsley keep this significant evidence from the defence, the court, and from the Crown Prosecutor, and the judge, and the jury, or everyone else who favoured Jeremy Bambers innocence?
-
We need to identify what PC West contacted HQ information room about, and what police cars were deployed to the scene, before Jeremys call to the police, since this is extremely important evidence capable of providing Jeremy Bamber with an alibi, rendering his convictions erroneous...
-
There was obviously a different call made to the police, before Jeremy called the police, upon which PC West acted upon by contacting the HQ information room and deploying police cars to the scene. The only other phone call we all know about already, is the Bonnet log, timed at 03.26hrs, containing information which Bonnet claims was passed to him by PC West...
Well, well, well, it seems like Ralph Bamber did contact the police afterall, before Jeremy contacted the police, and that PC West contacted Bonnet at HQ information room about Ralph Bambers call (03.26hrs), and the later call made by Jeremy Bamber (03.36hrs), 03.31hrs...