Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 29, 2015, 10:16:PM
-
https://youtu.be/8ow_YqRICT4
-
https://youtu.be/9seXCDo4nlA
Sorry here is the link.
-
I see Trudie wasn't discussing with Leo Mckinsty this time. Don't blame here.
-
The police are withholding evidence which could free Bamber ?
Bleedin hell. The police have been naughty.
-
Nothing Trudie has read 'in the last five years has convinced Trudie Bamber is guilty'.
Bleedin hell. Talk about giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
-
It sounds a bit like a staple gun with the silencer attached. What exactly is Trudi's status anyway?
-
I don't think she is being vague, I just think she doesn't know.
-
'Non disclosure has been huge'.
Bleedin hell. CAL, Poppy, Jan, Lookout, Caroline and Jeremy have said they have everything.
-
'Jeremy hasn't had a fair trial or fair appeals'.
Bleedin hell. Try telling that to the tax payers.
-
A petition two months old has nearly a 1000 signatures.
That's 16 a day from the campaign juggernaut.
-
I would like to see evidence that the police are withholding evidence. Bamber supporters just stating this to the media is not enough.
Similar to the supporters not having any evidence to support Bambers innocence. Or not having any evidence to refute the evidence that there was a massive frame. Just repeating something does not make it correct.
-
Trudie claims a huge amount of documents were released after the 2002 appeal.
That must be why the 2012 CCRC application failed.
-
Apparently the documents they have received since 2002 highlights what documents are still missing.
So that explains the failed CCRC application failure. Nice more Trudie.
-
Yes Trudie you are not a 'sad woman'.
-
Trudie says Jeremy 'doesn't have a family that's rallying behind him'.
No Trudie, he doesn't.
-
Trudie says Jeremy 'doesn't have a family that's rallying behind him'.
No Trudie, he doesn't.
Because he shot 5 of them and accuses the rest of stitching him up, but that seems lost on her. ;D
-
It would be a surprise if after a long 1985 trial, two failed appeals, a dismissed complaint against the police & a CCRC rejection, the police released documents that showed Bamber's innocence. Thought they would have shredded it.
It seems that Bamber's cell with 2 million documents in hasn't come up trumps.
-
Because he shot 5 of them and accuses the rest of stitching him up, but that seems lost on her. ;D
That's why posting his mothers recipes didn't ring warning bells! ::)
-
Because he shot 5 of them and accuses the rest of stitching him up, but that seems lost on her. ;D
Did you see the video I posted on the silencer.
It justifies why Bamber would use a silencer. It negates virtually all sound from the rifle. Not surprised the twins and (almost certainly) Sheila didn't wake.
-
That's why posting his mothers recipes didn't ring warning bells! ::)
We hear (on repeat) of all the people working for him - yet the only person publicly speaking is Trudi! ;D
Did you see the video I posted on the silencer.
It justifies why Bamber would use a silencer. It negates virtually all sound from the rifle. Not surprised the twins and (almost certainly) Sheila didn't wake.
Yes, I agree that the reason for using the silence was obviously to to make the shots quieter which would be possibly needed in a house whilst shooting in doors, but I don't know if that woke Sheila up or if she slept through shots.
-
Did you see the video I posted on the silencer.
It justifies why Bamber would use a silencer. It negates virtually all sound from the rifle. Not surprised the twins and (almost certainly) Sheila didn't wake.
Yes I was surprised what a difference it made.
-
It would be a no brainer for Bamber to use the silencer.
And a 'curious coincidence' that human blood was found in it.
-
Yes I was surprised what a difference it made.
Why are you surprised? If the difference wasn't appreciable there would be no reason to market them. In any event videos don't tell the full story of what you hear in person. A moderator lessens the report sufficiently to help protect ears from injury but will still be audible.
-
Trudie Benjamin is basically saying the police are withholding evidence that would prove Bamber's innocence. Although she has provided no evidence of this or reason why the police would do this.
The police would have had this evidence 30 years ago but decided to change stance after one month and go for a very risky frame. Why they would do this I do not know.
This is a massively serious accusation. Which has Bamber's full support as TB says she engages with him on a regular basis.
-
Of course the other serious accusations are that Julie committed very serious perjury because he 'jilted her', and the relatives framed him because they wanted his money. Although the relatives would need the help of the lab technicians.
-
I've never read about a convicted criminal claiming to the media that the police are deliberately withholding evidence that would free them.
But if any prisoner was going to make a long term claim, it was Bamber.
-
After 30 years and hundreds of other avenues explored, everything is now full steam ahead. To say the police are withholding evidence that would free Bamber.
Very distasteful.
-
N.B. Notice how EP said " no comment " when asked the reason about withheld files/documents ?
-
N.B. Notice how EP said " no comment " when asked the reason about withheld files/documents ?
EP are not going to get involved in a public spat with Bamber. That is what he would want to create more publicity.
EP did their job in 1985. The rest is for the DPP, jury, COA and CCRC to decide.
-
EP are not going to get involved in a public spat with Bamber. That is what he would want to create more publicity.
EP did their job in 1985. The rest is for the DPP, jury, COA and CCRC to decide.
That's you told Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
EP are not going to get involved in a public spat with Bamber. That is what he would want to create more publicity.
EP did their job in 1985. The rest is for the DPP, jury, COA and CCRC to decide.
And neither was JB going to commit himself to EP while they twisted his words-------hence that is why JB also answered them by saying no comment.
So why do you think EP aren't committing themselves ? Something to hide ?
Afterall you repeated many times that all JB had said was no comment and made your own mind up as to the reason why. It works both ways.
-
EP did their job ?
Then why do you think that Neville had his name for them of " Dad's Army ?".Do you think he'd seen it all as a magistrate many years before ?
-
Their so-called investigation was a joke !
-
'Non disclosure has been huge'.
Bleedin hell. CAL, Poppy, Jan, Lookout, Caroline and Jeremy have said they have everything.
you just cant help yourself can you . :)
-
EP are not going to get involved in a public spat with Bamber. That is what he would want to create more publicity.
EP did their job in 1985. The rest is for the DPP, jury, COA and CCRC to decide.
they did a crap job - hence the subsequent enquiry . If they had done their job properly then we would not be here now discussing the case
-
you seem worried by Trudie ? No one else has bothered much about the interviews.
Feel free to pm me if you need help
-
And neither was JB going to commit himself to EP while they twisted his words-------hence that is why JB also answered them by saying no comment.
So why do you think EP aren't committing themselves ? Something to hide ?
Afterall you repeated many times that all JB had said was no comment and made your own mind up as to the reason why. It works both ways.
I told you why.
They are not going to degrade themselves in a public spat with a vile murderer. Whatever they say, supporters will just refute and it creates more publicity for Bamber.
-
EP did their job ?
Then why do you think that Neville had his name for them of " Dad's Army ?".Do you think he'd seen it all as a magistrate many years before ?
Can I have a source for this.
-
they did a crap job - hence the subsequent enquiry . If they had done their job properly then we would not be here now discussing the case
Well the media reported it as murder/suicide on the front pages.
Bamber would suggest to anyone who would listen it was Sheila.
Some police were suspicious from the beginning, but were overruled by Taff Jones, who later changed stance. A month after the crime when the evidence had been processed, an important witness came forward and more investigation was done, Bamber was charged.
The way supporters bang on, you would think the police had never changed stance on a case before. Bamber was certainly not happy and made a complaint in 1994, which was dismissed, Bamber reacting by making a'dirty protest'.
My recent thread had most people agreeing the police were correct and Bamber should not have been charged from day one.
People are here now because it was a vile and famous case. Bamber has been getting himself in the media for 30 years, making wild claims which have no supporting evidence. Which a tiny amount of people agree with.
He is now going on about his 'mate' Neville, 'mum's baked cakes' and being a 'mummies boy'. And of course the withheld documents which would amazingly prove his innocence. Again there is no supporting evidence of this.
-
http://www.yellowad.co.uk/article.cfm?id=107752&headline=Essex%20Police%20remains%20silent%20over%20Jeremy%20Bamber's%20'cover-up'%20claims,%20as%20convicted%20murderer%20publishes%20article%20maintaining%20his%20innocence§ionIs=news&searchyear=2015
-
“Much material generated before the trial, including Sheila’s medical records and statements by foster carers for the twins, as well as audios and logs of my dad’s call to the police, were not disclosed to the trial court or subsequent appeals in 1998 and 2002".
The police have been naughty. Not telling the courts in 1986 that they had audio's and logs of Neville's call to the police. Mind you if they did that the case would collapse.
Makes me wonder why they decided to attempt to frame Bamber, a month after the massacre, if they knew Neville had called them. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
-
“Much material generated before the trial, including Sheila’s medical records and statements by foster carers for the twins, as well as audios and logs of my dad’s call to the police, were not disclosed to the trial court or subsequent appeals in 1998 and 2002".
The police have been naughty. Not telling the courts in 1986 that they had audio's and logs of Neville's call to the police. Mind you if they did that the case would collapse.
Makes me wonder why they decided to attempt to frame Bamber, a month after the massacre, if they knew Neville had called them. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
It's easy to keep asking for things that don't exist - there is always someone that just 'might' believe it.
-
It's easy to keep asking for things that don't exist - there is always someone that just 'might' believe it.
what is then caroline that keeps us all here. Its weird isnt it, guilters or supporters, theres just something about this case isnt there .
-
what is then caroline that keeps us all here. Its weird isnt it, guilters or supporters, theres just something about this case isnt there .
I had the wool pulled over my eyes for a short while so I am trying to make sure that the red herrings that almost caught me - don't snare too many others. Or that at least there is an alternative argument to the fairy stories that end up on the OS.
-
https://youtu.be/vM-VchkZpf4
Trudie's in love ?
-
https://youtu.be/vM-VchkZpf4
Trudie's in love ?
that's strange I have seen the video - must have missed that bit?
You sound a bit jealous?
-
Adam sounds rather childish to me.
However as interviews go I think Trudi did well. She's a calm person which is what you want during such an interview. Well done to her. Since I first saw the video late this morning,21 more have viewed it since.
-
Adam sounds rather childish to me.
However as interviews go I think Trudi did well. She's a calm person which is what you want during such an interview. Well done to her. Since I first saw the video late this morning,21 more have viewed it since.
It would be a mistake to underestimate her,appealing to the average housewife and more as she does.
-
It would be a mistake to underestimate her,appealing to the average housewife and more as she does.
She's supposed to be appealing to the public in general Steve,not just housewives. ;D
-
Those who remember the case will be old enough to be his mother,such as myself,so the word housewives today won't mean anything that concerns a 50 odd year old man whose looks have faded,unless they genuinely believe that there has been a gross injustice.
-
https://youtu.be/vM-VchkZpf4
Trudie's in love ?
There is enough on the OS to prove his innocence?? Errrr really?? Clearly this lady has seen nothing more, she just buys into the withheld documents drivel.
-
There is enough on the OS to prove his innocence?? Errrr really?? Clearly this lady has seen nothing more, she just buys into the withheld documents drivel.
Trudi might be party to information that we don't know about seeing as she works full time on the case.
-
Trudi might be party to information that we don't know about seeing as she works full time on the case.
Yeah and ig might fly!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Those who remember the case will be old enough to be his mother,such as myself,so the word housewives today won't mean anything that concerns a 50 odd year old man whose looks have faded,unless they genuinely believe that there has been a gross injustice.
Are you referring to me or Jeremy Bamber?
-
There is enough on the OS to prove his innocence?? Errrr really?? Clearly this lady has seen nothing more, she just buys into the withheld documents drivel.
There's more here: http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
-
Are you referring to me or Jeremy Bamber?
Jeremy,Steve.
-
Yeah and ig might fly!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've seen it... :(
-
I've seen it... :(
Ha, ha!! That should have said 'Pigs might fly'. ;D ;D
You've seen the flying pig? I would believe that before believing the guff about hidden documents!! ;)
-
There's more here: http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
Thanks for putting that up.
-
There's more here: http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
There is nothing new there Steve.
-
There is nothing new there Steve.
if you still think the moderator is a red herring , then how do you know that EP are not keeping back documents in respect of this most vital bit of evidence? After all if it is not a genuine bit of evidence they are not going to hand it to Jeremy on a plate are they ?
-
if you still think the moderator is a red herring , then how do you know that EP are not keeping back documents in respect of this most vital bit of evidence? After all if it is not a genuine bit of evidence they are not going to hand it to Jeremy on a plate are they ?
What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.
-
What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.
Even supposing for a moment that it was a RH, HOW does it explain why Jeremy, after allegedly getting a call, circa 3am, telling him his sister had gone mad and had a gun, failed to dial 999, on the grounds that he didn't think it would make any difference to how quickly they got there, instead choosing to idle his way through the phone book, phone Julie, then telling the police his father sounded terrified and saying later that his father sounded "panicked." With this as a backdrop, it rather makes an hypocrisy of trying to introduce RH's.
-
What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.
that's not what I said - you know that I am asking a genuine question .
If you think the moderator is a red herring that must mean the blood evidence was planted or false . IF that is the case then the police are not going to admit to that are they? So it is possible they would keep back some evidence? Or do you think the family are responsible and EP took the moderator at face value?
-
that's not what I said - you know that I am asking a genuine question .
If you think the moderator is a red herring that must mean the blood evidence was planted or false . IF that is the case then the police are not going to admit to that are they? So it is possible they would keep back some evidence? Or do you think the family are responsible and EP took the moderator at face value?
6 of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't think EP (as a whole) 'helped the evidence along'. I think it was a select few, I believe the family may have gone along with it because if the police are telling you something is OK - it would help legitimise it. I don't think they kept back any evidence though, I think they simply added to it to secure a conviction.
-
Even supposing for a moment that it was a RH, HOW does it explain why Jeremy, after allegedly getting a call, circa 3am, telling him his sister had gone mad and had a gun, failed to dial 999, on the grounds that he didn't think it would make any difference to how quickly they got there, instead choosing to idle his way through the phone book, phone Julie, then telling the police his father sounded terrified and saying later that his father sounded "panicked." With this as a backdrop, it rather makes an hypocrisy of trying to introduce RH's.
Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.
It is unlikely - but not impossible .
As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents. And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .
-
6 of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't think EP (as a whole) 'helped the evidence along'. I think it was a select few, I believe the family may have gone along with it because if the police are telling you something is OK - it would help legitimise it. I don't think they kept back any evidence though, I think they simply added to it to secure a conviction.
I said a few posts ago that I had changed my mind about a few things . this is only my opinion nothing else. I don't think JB was framed by EP as such , but I do get the feeling that EP were under more pressure than we think because of the mistakes they made . And genuinely I don't think they knew who was responsible. So if they were seen to let JB off after he became a suspect it would have looked even worse. So I do think the family and EP did everything to get him convicted . I don't think they were above "buying" testimony . And I think they could "coach " witnesses . I have a feeling Sheilas body was moved during before the photos so the jury may not have seen the correct crime scene.
Does this make JB guilty or innocent ? I don't know.
-
Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.
It is unlikely - but not impossible .
As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents. And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .
That's true, I once thought he could be innocent. However, I have said many times that I was never happy with the phone call and him not calling 999 and I know I made excuses for that at the time and know that others are also doing it now (not saying you are). I get what you say about them being private people but his actions don't support his claims. His father supposedly asked him to go over; he didn't. His father sounded frightened; he didn't call the police for 26 minutes and when he did. he meandered around looking for the number of a local station?? Before this though, he called Julie - some say he called her for advice on what to do and yet, he didn't ask her anything nor tell her that "Sheila had gone crazy, she's got the gun'. If he called the police before calling Julie, he didn't tell Julie he'd called the police. It all sounds a bit rooster and male cow to me.
-
That's true, I once thought he could be innocent. However, I have said many times that I was never happy with the phone call and him not calling 999 and I know I made excuses for that at the time and know that others are also doing it now (not saying you are). I get what you say about them being private people but his actions don't support his claims. His father supposedly asked him to go over; he didn't. His father sounded frightened; he didn't call the police for 26 minutes and when he did. he meandered around looking for the number of a local station?? Before this though, he called Julie - some say he called her for advice on what to do and yet, he didn't ask her anything nor tell her that "Sheila had gone crazy, she's got the gun'. If he called the police before calling Julie, he didn't tell Julie he'd called the police. It all sounds a bit rooster and male cow to me.
I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?
-
I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?
It only becomes ridiculous when he tries to defend it later and muddled. He never intended to be a suspect and obviously couldn't anticipate what questions he would be asked so clearly couldn't make a story for every eventuality.
-
It seems a bit far fetched that someone who had never been really physically violent to another human being ( to the extent they had been reported) would be so confident that their alibi could be so flaky an be acceptable?
It is difficult I admit because after the recent Bristol murder ( which no one would imagine would happen) ones conceptions of human behaviour is tested. But it was obvious from his behaviour he had a mental problem and he cracked under questioning immediately . But then again the girlfriend did not .
-
It seems a bit far fetched that someone who had never been really physically violent to another human being ( to the extent they had been reported) would be so confident that their alibi could be so flaky an be acceptable?
It is difficult I admit because after the recent Bristol murder ( which no one would imagine would happen) ones conceptions of human behaviour is tested. But it was obvious from his behaviour he had a mental problem and he cracked under questioning immediately . But then again the girlfriend did not .
The motives are different, Jeremy didn't murder anyone for the thrill of the kill or the violence - the murders were simply a means to an end and he has previous history of that. Robbing his own family for financial gain, he risked getting caught then too - he didn't care. Selling drugs is also risky - but again, he didn't care. Every time he got away with something, his confidence grew. the risk was worth taking because the prize was worth having.
-
Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.
It is unlikely - but not impossible .
As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents. And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .
Jan, I'm sorry if you feel that I've insulted your intelligence.
Back when I thought he was innocent, I DID accept the phone call. THAT was the problem. I didn't LOOK at it. It was when I started to, and broke it down -to humanize- it that I realized that something was missing. I know it's been said that the Bambers were very private -I concur- and Nevill was old school, stiff upper lip, but Jeremy eventually told police that his father had sounded panicked - terrified. That fact alone, hearing, maybe for the first time EVER, real fear in his father's voice, would SURELY have galvanized Jeremy into immediate action, but it didn't.
It's also been said that he was half asleep. Having, sadly, received numerous calls at that time of morning, all I can say is, however tired I may have been, the moment the phone rang, my senses were on high alert. It MAY turn out to be a hoax or wrong number but it's far more likely to be a problem -and a serious one- for the phone to ring at that hour.
-
I have nearly finished the CAL book - and strangely enough - and I promise I did not know this apparently there is a bit about Jeremy accusing an officer of finding a silencer under the bed. But of course it was denied.
But that still would be strange because it would have meant Sheila would have put the silencer on the gun before the shooting - which does seem unlikely ( not impossible ) but unlikely . I was trying to remember where Jeremy said where he thought his father would have put the rifle if he had tidied it away? I think he said the den?
I have got to say I have found the book interesting and on the whole I don't think she has tried to force a conclusion on the reader .
-
I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?
Because he realized that Julie was on a shared line. As it was he saved his chuckling for when he thought he had Julie alone at Bourtree Cottage,but DS Jones was listening at the door and overheard it.
-
Because he realized that Julie was on a shared line. As it was he saved his chuckling for when he thought he had Julie alone at Bourtree Cottage,but DS Jones was listening at the door and overheard it.
If JB realised Julie was on a shared line and therefore spoke in code, it would explain the strange conversation Julie reported but also reinforces the fact Julie knew all about his plans imo.
-
Because he realized that Julie was on a shared line. As it was he saved his chuckling for when he thought he had Julie alone at Bourtree Cottage,but DS Jones was listening at the door and overheard it.
Steve, I'm not certain who the line was shared with. I recall that when my parents first had a phone, the line was shared with an opposite neighbour.
-
Well I was thinking primarily of her flatmates,one of whom answered the telephone before her. What really was the purpose of Jeremy telephoning at that hour if not a clumsy attempt to rope her in as an accessory,instead of waiting a few hours until he (as he did) telephoned from Goldhanger in the company of Police?
-
Well I was thinking primarily of her flatmates,one of whom answered the telephone before her. What really was the purpose of Jeremy telephoning at that hour if not a clumsy attempt to rope her in as an accessory,instead of waiting a few hours until he (as he did) telephone from Goldhanger in the company of Police?
I don't agree Steve. The fact that Julie had room mates was an advantage because there were others that could corroborate his 'call from Nevill' - not only was Julie party to the call in the early hours, the rest of the household were too.
-
Well I was thinking primarily of her flatmates,one of whom answered the telephone before her. What really was the purpose of Jeremy telephoning at that hour if not a clumsy attempt to rope her in as an accessory,instead of waiting a few hours until he (as he did) telephone from Goldhanger in the company of Police?
Sorry Steve. I obviously misunderstood what you meant by "shared line."
-
I don't agree Steve. The fact that Julie had room mates was an advantage because there were others that could corroborate his 'call from Nevill' - not only was Julie party to the call in the early hours, the rest of the household were too.
I don't see what advantage would be gained just for a few hours between (as happened) telephone calls two and three, but I do think Julie can be blamed for not protesting vocally enough at the time he was telling her about his evil scheme.
-
I don't see what advantage would be gained just for a few hours between (as happened) telephone calls two and three, but I do think Julie can be blamed for not protesting vocally enough at the time he was telling her about his evil scheme.
Jeremy calls Julie to say that there is something wrong, this can be corroborated by several other people which gives weight to his story that his father had called and he was distressed enough to call Julie. That's the advantage.
-
I don't see what advantage would be gained just for a few hours between (as happened) telephone calls two and three, but I do think Julie can be blamed for not protesting vocally enough at the time he was telling her about his evil scheme.
10p Steve. As Adam keeps reminding us, Jeremy made certain to pick up 10p -before he left Goldhanger- in anticipation of making the call. Actually, he cadged it from the constable, but never mind the details. The point is, 10p didn't allow him much time to say anything, which I believe Adam suggested to have been his plan.
-
10p Steve. As Adam keeps reminding us, Jeremy made certain to pick up 10p -before he left Goldhanger- in anticipation of making the call. Actually, he cadged it from the constable, but never mind the details. The point is, 10p didn't allow him much time to say anything, which I believe Adam suggested to have been his plan.
If we're on the subject of conspiracy theories the "I only have one 10p" could also have been code,though wasn't he in the presence of Police in Goldhanger? Whatever the witnesses in Julie's digs at Caterham Road overheard this was always going to be proxy evidence at best.
-
what about the note he sent to Julie that the police intercepted - was that code as well.
He said that he just hoped if he told her he wished they had not split up she would just come to her senses and retract what she had said.
-
10p Steve. As Adam keeps reminding us, Jeremy made certain to pick up 10p -before he left Goldhanger- in anticipation of making the call. Actually, he cadged it from the constable, but never mind the details. The point is, 10p didn't allow him much time to say anything, which I believe Adam suggested to have been his plan.
Have you got a source that he was given the 10p.
It was very generous of the police to give him one 10p. Bamber's phone call would be as short as Neville's. Now I know why Bamber made a complaint in 1994.
-
Have you got a source that he was given the 10p.
It was very generous of the police to give him one 10p. Bamber's phone call would be as short as Neville's. Now I know why Bamber made a complaint in 1994.
Do you mean Source or original source ;D
-
Have you got a source that he was given the 10p.
It was very generous of the police to give him one 10p. Bamber's phone call would be as short as Neville's. Now I know why Bamber made a complaint in 1994.
Yes, thank-you.