http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/The stress of overwork can be a killer: Jeremy had had enough by 24,Prince Harry gave up the more challenging job of helicopter pilot at 30 and Nevill at 61 would surely be feeling the strain. The most successful long-livers are those who can delegate tasks to their subordinates but I doubt that this was the case in this father and son relationship. Didn't Nevill ask why Barbara had not been that day when it was her day off anyway? With Sheila and the twins present that week there's the quandary of extra work falling on everyone and the obligation to be pleasant in keeping up appearances,yet with many of the characters all on separate trajectories.
"And so the cycle went on that is until we got back to the van. From then on we called each other ‘Matey’ which fairly quickly was shortened to ‘Mate’. Right up to the 6th August 1985 and my going home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning. My last words to dad when I left that evening were, “Thanks Mate, I’ll see you in the morning.” I said a “Good night” to mum and Sheila and off I went.
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
Obviously this is not a point to be taken to the Appeal Court, it would mean nothing to them, but to dad and I our 'in' joke was important to both of us on so many levels. In order for me to clear all of our names, I’ve had to try to understand everything, including my own actions and motivations."
...................................................................
Since WHEN did he take the call seriously? He didn't call 999 and it took him 26 mins to call the police and ONLY after calling Julie first. And where did this 'matey' thing come from, this is the first time he's mentioned it and certainly the first time in relation to the phone call. The smell of BS weighs heavily!!
The first paragraph (I feel) is really telling, he's trying to convince people that he left his dad on really good terms and yet BW recognised that Nevill wasn't in the best of moods. Personally, I think it was because Jeremy left his father to finish a job he should have done and Nevill wasn't happy. He made a BIG thing of leaving the farm that day, making sure Len Foakes saw him leave and was aware that Nevill was bringing back the rape seed - there is something about the final interaction between Jeremy and Nevill that just doesn't ring true and I feel there is more to it. I don't believe that Nevill was happy with Jeremy when he left that night.
Since WHEN did he take the call seriously? He didn't call 999 and it took him 26 mins to call the police and ONLY after calling Julie first. And where did this 'matey' thing come from, this is the first time he's mentioned it and certainly the first time in relation to the phone call. The smell of BS weighs heavily!!
The first paragraph (I feel) is really telling, he's trying to convince people that he left his dad on really good terms and yet BW recognised that Nevill wasn't in the best of moods. Personally, I think it was because Jeremy left his father to finish a job he should have done and Nevill wasn't happy. He made a BIG thing of leaving the farm that day, making sure Len Foakes saw him leave and was aware that Nevill was bringing back the rape seed - there is something about the final interaction between Jeremy and Nevill that just doesn't ring true and I feel there is more to it. I don't believe that Nevill was happy with Jeremy when he left that night.
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/
"And so the cycle went on that is until we got back to the van. From then on we called each other ‘Matey’ which fairly quickly was shortened to ‘Mate’. Right up to the 6th August 1985 and my going home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning. My last words to dad when I left that evening were, “Thanks Mate, I’ll see you in the morning.” I said a “Good night” to mum and Sheila and off I went.
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
Obviously this is not a point to be taken to the Appeal Court, it would mean nothing to them, but to dad and I our 'in' joke was important to both of us on so many levels. In order for me to clear all of our names, I’ve had to try to understand everything, including my own actions and motivations."
...................................................................
Since WHEN did he take the call seriously? He didn't call 999 and it took him 26 mins to call the police and ONLY after calling Julie first. And where did this 'matey' thing come from, this is the first time he's mentioned it and certainly the first time in relation to the phone call. The smell of BS weighs heavily!!
The first paragraph (I feel) is really telling, he's trying to convince people that he left his dad on really good terms and yet BW recognised that Nevill wasn't in the best of moods. Personally, I think it was because Jeremy left his father to finish a job he should have done and Nevill wasn't happy. He made a BIG thing of leaving the farm that day, making sure Len Foakes saw him leave and was aware that Nevill was bringing back the rape seed - there is something about the final interaction between Jeremy and Nevill that just doesn't ring true and I feel there is more to it. I don't believe that Nevill was happy with Jeremy when he left that night.
His supporters are so biased he feels free to make up any BS without fear and they do exactly what he expects they will.
Its the other way round. He is at the mercy of what his supporters do.Mike is doing a better job than any "legal team"..
Ever since Mike decided to go off on his own theories Jeremy has been reluctant or too paranoid to share information with anyone except his legal team.
Mike is doing a better job than any "legal team"..
What a pile of rubbish. In the past Jeremy has said his Dad sounded "terrified" and "really scared" that should be reason enough why he took the call seriously.His "legal team" have evidently tried to induce him to recall anecdotes from his long long-lost idyllic bucolic childhood in an effort to humanize the individual and palliate the crime of slaughtering five,yet in the endeavour of embellishment they are doomed to failure as they impugn the bald facts of the case and aggravate an already hopeless cause..
But he didn't take the call seriously.
All that blog is trying to do is plug the holes in the story he knows exist, those that want to buy into that, will buy into that.
It appears to me that JB has been told about some of the concerns posters have here regarding things like - the phone call, the timing of the phone call, the rapeseed etc...
It appears he's written his blog in response to the above imo.
His "legal team" have evidently tried to induce him to recall anecdotes from his long long-lost idyllic bucolic childhood in an effort to humanize the individual and palliate the crime of slaughtering five,yet in the endeavour of embellishment they are doomed to failure as they impugn the bald facts of the case and aggravate an already hopeless cause..
His "legal team" have evidently tried to induce him to recall anecdotes from his long long-lost idyllic bucolic childhood in an effort to humanize the individual and palliate the crime of slaughtering five,yet in the endeavour of embellishment they are doomed to failure as they impugn the bald facts of the case and aggravate an already hopeless cause..
I agree, the anecdotes just add salt to the wounds! Also the notion of him winning his freedom is somehow 'clearing his families name'? I don't get that - it just leaves a nasty taste!!
I wonder why it's taken him all of 30 years to reveal that the "in joke" between him and his father was that they referred to each other as "Matey"?
Mate,Matey has no relevance at all. It's more an afterthought when looking back over the years,otherwise it's of no importance.
he has just MADE it relevant because now he's saying that because his father didn't use this nickname - he KNEW the incident must have been SERIOUS. You tend not to think of the niceties? Really? Because Jeremy is saying that he DID think of it - it was the REASON he knew things were SERIOUS. ;) ;D ;D
Its the other way round. He is at the mercy of what his supporters do.
Ever since Mike decided to go off on his own theories Jeremy has been reluctant or too paranoid to share information with anyone except his legal team.
he has just MADE it relevant because now he's saying that because his father didn't use this nickname - he KNEW the incident must have been SERIOUS. You tend not to think of the niceties? Really? Because Jeremy is saying that he DID think of it - it was the REASON he knew things were SERIOUS. ;) ;D ;D
I don't attach any importance to it at all.
I don't attach any importance to it at all.
It doesn't matter whether you do or not, Lookout. I imagine he may have, and I think it's hoped the majority will buy it.
He made this up not them. Some of the other things they ran with were made up by him as well which is why he now has to be more careful because as he is trying out lies to see which ones will be good they are busy publicizing them.
Some of his supporters are not real supporters they just want to use his case for their own purposes while he is trying to use the for his purposes so you have people who deserve eachother trying to use one another.
As far as I know he changed the time of the call in 2004. When he saw new police logs that's about it.
The exact time can never really be known as everything was recorded via pen and paper unlike today
As far as I know he changed the time of the call in 2004. When he saw new police logs that's about it.
The exact time can never really be known as everything was recorded via pen and paper unlike today
He didn't see new logs David - he saw the log that the jury saw and why should he change his argument that he DIDN'T call as late as 03:36 in 1985 - to he did in 2004? He thought he could hoodwink people into believing that there was a call from Nevill and some people fell for it.
From the phone logs. we have two separate times 3:26 and 3:36. If Neville did not call the police. then police operators have made a mistake on the time this enables Jeremy to argue either way. Besides its another debate that's not going to prove anything. If Neville did call Jeremy I doubt he would have considered exactly what time it was when the call came only leaving him with a rough estimate to memory.
(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article239792.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/jeremy-bamaber-police-phone-log-133519465.jpg)
All in all it wont determine anything.
From the phone logs. we have two separate times 3:26 and 3:36. If Neville did not call the police. then police operators have made a mistake on the time this enables Jeremy to argue either way. Besides its another debate that's not going to prove anything. If Neville did call Jeremy I doubt he would have considered exactly what time it was when the call came only leaving him with a rough estimate to memory.
(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article239792.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/jeremy-bamaber-police-phone-log-133519465.jpg)
All in all it wont determine anything.
those times do not match up at all with julies original statement . So to pick and chose times to suit a scenario is pretty pointless .
those times do not match up at all with julies original statement . So to pick and chose times to suit a scenario is pretty pointless .
What im uncomfortable with is where it says ' got hold of one of my guns'
I realised you dan argue that point away but it doesnt feel right to me
What im uncomfortable with is where it says ' got hold of one of my guns'
I realised you dan argue that point away but it doesnt feel right to me
" One of my guns " and not my rifle ?
There are eyes everywhere and walls have ears! ;)
How is that relevant Lookout? The rifle was used to kill everyone! ;D ;D ;D
" One of my guns " and not my rifle ?
Guns being a generic?
But I feel pretty sure that Neville would have been precise.
If he'd said rifle he'd have meant the rifle. Because he only stipulated " gun " it could have been any one of them that Sheila was waving/threatening but not necessarily using,which we now know.
And - not sure what your point is Lookout? West was paraphrasing but Jeremy also said gun - so?
It's as easy to say rifle as it is gun. It wouldn't have taken any more time.
West simply paraphrased what Jeremy told him - the evidence for this is the word 'Berserk'. West used the word to Bonnet instead of 'crazy' - how do we know that? because West used the word in his rolling log of events as they unfolded.
He is saying the two dogs are going bezerk
OK, Jeremy said Nevill said 'gun', Jeremy repeated 'gun' to West, West said 'gun'. Are you saying that Nevill should have said 'rifle'? If so I don't understand your point - basically you're arguing against Jeremy! ;D
Not at all. Let's not forget that the shotgun was found lying around and it had Sheila's fingerprints on it,so that would be referred to as a gun as opposed to a rifle. But it doesn't mean to say that the shotgun was used because we know it wasn't,it would have been picked up by Sheila by way of a threat.
Where is the document that confirms Sheila's prints were on any shot gun? They didn't take any shots guns away so that's clearly yet another myth.
Where is the document that confirms Sheila's prints were on any shot gun? They didn't take any shots guns away so that's clearly yet another myth.
They did eventually take possession of the shot guns but no evidence has been put forth to establish her prints were found on any- the claim seems to have been made up by Jeremy supporters.
Mike said he would post proof BUT- insert drumroll here- big surprise he never did...
The shotgun was found by AE in the upstairs office and was broken. The document is around somewhere because it stated that 3 of the guns had Sheila's prints on them.
There are only allegations about shotguns having her prints on them no documents have been posted that establish it. Documents were posted establishing they fingerprinted shotguns not that her prints were found on any.
Police took out the shotgun from the downstairs office closet and left it out in the "broken open" position.
I meant initially - I doubt any finger prints would have remained from Sheila even if she HAD touched the shotgun that late in the investigation. I don't know why people make these things up but it doesn't help anyone.
Some people are so desperate to convince others they will make up anything. They use the notion that Sheila touched the shotguns for things ranging from claiming it proves she did like guns and had no problem handling them to claiming she collected all the weapons and was preparing to confront police with a variety of weapons.
You even have people claiming she was firing at Nevill in the fields with the shotguns after Jeremy went home but she missed.
That made me laugh!! ;D ;D
Oh even funnier some claim she did hit him and that he had damage to his clothing and/or body from buckshot. I forgot about those claims.
Just look at how they spin though. They take the claim of the neighbor thinking he heart a shotgun being fired; the bogus claim of her prints being found on a shotgun; the unfired Raker shotgun shell found in the closet in a box, misrepresent that it was a spent casing that popped out of the shotgun with her prints when it was opened by police and claimed this proves Sheila shot at Nevill. This is the kind of crap that shows they have nothing legitimate to raise to defend Jeremy because if they did then they would be raising it instead of resorting to such desperate nonsense.
I guess it's like the CT who recently claimed they HAVE compelling evidence that will be submitted to the CCRC very soon, on the one hand - yet on the other, have a petition to have documents released that they are sure will free Jeremy. If they have compelling evidence, where is it and why the need for the petition? I kind of screams 'we don't have anything but we're desperate to find SOMETHING'!
I guess it's like the CT who recently claimed they HAVE compelling evidence that will be submitted to the CCRC very soon, on the one hand - yet on the other, have a petition to have documents released that they are sure will free Jeremy. If they have compelling evidence, where is it and why the need for the petition? I kind of screams 'we don't have anything but we're desperate to find SOMETHING'!
That is rather like their claim that they know police are concealing evidence proving they framed him and if the police would release this evidence then they would be able to prove his innocence. You have to see all the evidence and find proof he was framed among it in order to know police have evidence they framed him and were keeping a secret.
Of course it is ludicrous to believe they would create any documents establishing they framed him let alone retain such documents. So the basis upon which they operate doesn't make sense on so many levels.
Yes it makes no sense, are they expecting to find a document, hand written by conspirators documenting the plan for the frame job, a document that was then put in the case file! ;D Wanting things released because they may contain information relevant to innocence doesn't make much sense to e.
Would that be the hand written document stating "It wuz us wot dun it"?
Would that be the hand written document stating "It wuz us wot dun it"?
Well, that's what Jeremy is doing to fit in a call from Nevill!
really!!!
If he is innocent he does not know whether his father called or not. Fact!!!!
So he might be using sloppy police logs to say he did. If he is innocent its worth a TRY!!!!!!
really!!!
If he is innocent he does not know whether his father called or not. Fact!!!!
So he might be using sloppy police logs to say he did. If he is innocent its worth a TRY!!!!!!
So Jeremy expects us to believe that his Father called the police before he did, yet no one bothered to mention this to him when he called that night. When the police were still investigating this as a murder/suicide all they had to say to the relatives, who had doubts, was that Neville had called that night - so Bamber had an alibi. Bamber expects us to believe this? Does he think we're idiots?
'Some' people might/do believe it but the CCRC won't.
It would be embarrassing to even present it to them, I don't think Bamber will.
So Jeremy expects us to believe that his Father called the police before he did, yet no one bothered to mention this to him when he called that night. When the police were still investigating this as a murder/suicide all they had to say to the relatives, who had doubts, was that Neville had called that night - so Bamber had an alibi. Bamber expects us to believe this? Does he think we're idiots?
I never said I thought the call existed . what I was saying is that after 30 years of trying to prove your innocence one may become desperate.
I never said I thought the call existed . what I was saying is that after 30 years of trying to prove your innocence one may become desperate.
So Jeremy expects us to believe that his Father called the police before he did, yet no one bothered to mention this to him when he called that night. When the police were still investigating this as a murder/suicide all they had to say to the relatives, who had doubts, was that Neville had called that night - so Bamber had an alibi. Bamber expects us to believe this? Does he think we're idiots?
Considering they used a strowger exchange line. The only possible scenario of Neville calling the police would be that he rang the local police and they identified Neville as Mr Bamber and later Jeremy Bamber rang, So you have Mr Bamber and Jeremy Bamber calling but go down on the assumption they were the same call same person. For this to happen would require the police telephone operator to be someone like trigger from fools and horses or something.
really!!!
If he is innocent he does not know whether his father called or not. Fact!!!!
So he might be using sloppy police logs to say he did. If he is innocent its worth a TRY!!!!!!
No, you didn't say that it exists - but that is what Bamber is asking people to buy into.
do you think his Father called the police that night?
Yes really!!!FACT JULIE completely changed her timings
He adamantly refuted that he called the police as late as 03:36 at the trial - now he's saying it WAS 03:36 - FACT!!!
Oh he's certainly USING the logs (sloppy or not) to pull the wool.
So Jeremy expects us to believe that his Father called the police before he did, yet no one bothered to mention this to him when he called that night. When the police were still investigating this as a murder/suicide all they had to say to the relatives, who had doubts, was that Neville had called that night - so Bamber had an alibi. Bamber expects us to believe this? Does he think we're idiots?
I never said I thought the call existed . what I was saying is that after 30 years of trying to prove your innocence one may become desperate.
FACT JULIE completely changed her timings
FACT the police have a ten minute discrepancy as we all know .
FACT Jeremy in the beginning said his timings were approximate
FACT that 1/2hour plus is a mess .
FACT - Julie initially supported his story so went with his timings
FACT - West has a 10 minute discrepancy, Bonnet does not
FACT - he initially argued that he called the police before 03:36
FACT - he can't account for 26 minutes
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/
"And so the cycle went on that is until we got back to the van. From then on we called each other ‘Matey’ which fairly quickly was shortened to ‘Mate’. Right up to the 6th August 1985 and my going home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning. My last words to dad when I left that evening were, “Thanks Mate, I’ll see you in the morning.” I said a “Good night” to mum and Sheila and off I went.
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
Obviously this is not a point to be taken to the Appeal Court, it would mean nothing to them, but to dad and I our 'in' joke was important to both of us on so many levels. In order for me to clear all of our names, I’ve had to try to understand everything, including my actions and motivations.
"But to dad and I our 'in ' joke was important to both of us on so many levels"
How and why was this 'in' joke so important on so many levels? What is he talking about? What levels?
And what about his. "Actions and motivations?" Is this a subtle hint of his guilt?
What's he talking about?
I think he could be telling porkies about the rapeseed...
We do know that Bamber left the farmhouse for Bourtree Cottage at about 9.30pm – neighbour Dorothy Foakes heard his car speeding down the lane. By then, all was not well at the farm.
Nevill was uncharacteristically brusque with his secretary Barbara Wilson when she phoned just after 9.30pm, and neither June nor Sheila were themselves when Pamela Boutflour, June’s sister, called just before 10pm. Barbara was under the impression that she had interrupted a row.
Dorothy's husband Len was the last person to see any member of the household alive. At about 10.15pm he saw Nevill on his tractor, collecting the last of the rapeseed harvest. The house was fully secured on the ground floor that night. Two external doors had been bolted from the inside and the rear door was fastened with a mortice lock.
All ground-floor windows were fastened except the dairy window, which was protected by a metal mesh. Upstairs, the window in Nevill and June’s bedroom was slightly open at the top.
Bamber telephoned his girlfriend Julie Mugford from Bourtree Cottage at about 10pm. He sounded angry, telling her: ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’
Aware that he was talking about killing his entire family, Julie told him not to be stupid.
At the end of the 20-minute conversation, he told her she might hear from him later, although Julie ‘thought nothing of this’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html#ixzz3qA3j45Ky
So what time was it?
9.30pm or 10.00pm?
"Right up to the 6th August 1985 and my going home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning. My last words to dad when I left that evening were, “Thanks Mate, I’ll see you in the morning.” I said a “Good night” to mum and Sheila and off I went."
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
Who collected the rape seed?
Neville or Jeremy?
Nevill must have because Len Foakes saw him. However, Jeremy is evasive on this issue in his statement, so I think there is more to this incident.
I cannot find Len Foakes statement?
I agree and I think that's another reason he has decided to blog about it now - some 30 years later ::)
Something doesn't add up does it?
No, it's not on here it's in Carol Ann Lee's book. Jeremy took the trailer to the field and walked back (not sure why he couldn't have waited until it was loaded), then walked back to the house. He said he asked Nevill if he would collect it and then told Len Foakes that his father would get the last loy and he (Jeremy) would process it in the morning. Len said he saw Nevill on the tractor at 10pm and Dorothy Foakes said she heard Jeramy drive away at 09:30pm.
No, it's not on here it's in Carol Ann Lee's book. Jeremy took the trailer to the field and walked back (not sure why he couldn't have waited until it was loaded), then walked back to the house. He said he asked Nevill if he would collect it and then told Len Foakes that his father would get the last loy and he (Jeremy) would process it in the morning. Len said he saw Nevill on the tractor at 10pm and Dorothy Foakes said she heard Jeramy drive away at 09:30pm.
Thanks btw... ;DHis car was seen outside Bourtree Cottage all night so he would have had to walk to the Farm or use the now infamous bicycle.
Something's bothering me.....
So JB planted in Len Foakes mind that Neville would get the rape seed in? Was Len 100% certain he had seen Neville on the tractor?
JB drives off at speed at around 9.30pm? How do we know he didn't stop somewhere up the road and walk back at this point?
Hasn't he already left the gun and bullets out at this point..
His car was seen outside Bourtree Cottage all night so he would have had to walk to the Farm or use the now infamous bicycle.
I would like to see witness statements confirming this....
Only I don't believe what has been written on the OS:
"At Jeremy's trial, the Prosecution had to overcome the problem that no one saw anyone on the roads or paths that night who fitted Jeremy’s description. Police accounted for every section of roads and paths, interviewing over 500 people in a determined effort to place Jeremy between the two houses. Neighbours had seen Jeremy’s car outside his house all night. The investigation had been fruitless. This factor, coupled with the absence of any evidence linking Jeremy to the scene, the Prosecution had to be more creative in their thinking."
The above means nothing IMHO...
The same was said in the SH case which we now know to be wrong.
Nor would they have been likely to, Steph. It's an area where, if you want to avoid being seen, there are plenty of ways of doing it.
Hi Jane, I live in a country area and away from the main roads it's pitch back at night, to the point you would be disorientated almost immediately. Is it the same on the route Jeremy would have taken?
Nor would they have been likely to, Steph. It's an area where, if you want to avoid being seen, there are plenty of ways of doing it.
I would have thought a car would be more likely to have been seen.
Hi Jane, I live in a country area and away from the main roads it's pitch back at night, to the point you would be disorientated almost immediately. Is it the same on the route Jeremy would have taken?
Maggie, if you spend your life in such a place, you know it like the back of your hand. There where untold ways in which -on foot- he could have hidden himself. A car would just be one other vehicle.I'm not sure what you mean by "just one other vehicle". Surely the sound of any car engine would be heard at 2am by someone in that row of cottages..
Maggie, if you spend your life in such a place, you know it like the back of your hand. There where untold ways in which -on foot- he could have hidden himself. A car would just be one other vehicle.I understand but I know the area I live in like the back of y hand but without moonlight it is completely black and I would be lost in no time.
I'm not sure what you mean by "just one other vehicle". Surely the sound of any car engine would be heard at 2am by someone in that row of cottages..
I'm not sure what you mean by "just one other vehicle". Surely the sound of any car engine would be heard at 2am by someone in that row of cottages..
I understand but I know the area I live in like the back of y hand but without moonlight it is completely black and I would be lost in no time.
Not if they slept sound. And I'm sure he wasn't home in bed every night by 10-10.30pm. I'm sure the neighbours would have got used to JB's care driving past at all hours.It's too risky taking the car. There are the farm cottages near the White House as well as the occupants inside hearing the engine.
Unless you believe the neighbours sat up all night keeping tabs on when his car was and wasn't there? Unlikely imo.
Then I guess, over time, Jeremy may have taken many a wetting when he tumbled off the sea wall at night ;D........................Ooooh!!! Just noticed the new and expressive "faces".Not with a torch but if he didn't want to be seen he wouldn't have any lights whether walking or biking, would he? :-\
It's too risky taking the car. There are the farm cottages near the White House as well as the occupants inside hearing the engine.
Not with a torch but if he didn't want to be seen he wouldn't have any lights whether walking or biking, would he? :-\
Yes, we have, what d'you think? ;D
Yes, we have, what d'you think? ;D
I'll use the word 'fluke' - there were no guarantees he would have been heard.... It wasn't a built up area.. And even in built up areas cars 'can' drive past unnoticed by anyone... It does happen...
I'd agree with that. It simply wouldn't have been possible for him to allow for all possibilities...................especially the ones that hadn't occurred to him to need to.
Can we delete these past three posts please..
Hahaha. Serves you right for being an intellectual snob, doesn't it ;) ;) :)) :)) :-* :-*
Can we delete these past three posts please..
Thank you. I was certainly not criticizing anyone on this site. Just I can't believe Jeremy would risk taking the car living as he did in a row of houses with the car parked in full view. Along with him hinting to Julie beforehand what he was planning I'm surprised he didn't put a small advert in the local newspaper as in the plot of Agatha Christie's "A Murder is Announced".
There ya go Steve. Deleted!!! Just for YOU!!!! Don't say I never do anything for you :D
Thank you. I was certainly not criticizing anyone on this site. Just I can't believe Jeremy would risk taking the car living as he did in a row of houses with the car parked in full view. Along with him hinting to Julie beforehand what he was planning I'm surprised he didn't put a small advert in the local newspaper as in the plot of Agatha Christie's "A Murder is Announced".
Thank you. I was certainly not criticizing anyone on this site. Just I can't believe Jeremy would risk taking the car living as he did in a row of houses with the car parked in full view. Along with him hinting to Julie beforehand what he was planning I'm surprised he didn't put a small advert in the local newspaper as in the plot of Agatha Christie's "A Murder is Announced".
I missed the posts you asked to be deleted but I totally disagree with you Steve (think you've watched too many movies?.But Jeremy is not parking his car round the side of Waterstones in Deansgate,Manchester on a Saturday night. Isn't this a rural area where everybody knows everyone else's business or have I missed something?
I've seen the entire disclosure in relation to another case where the 'siting of the car' was completely missed, and in a built up area.
So no advert required - these things can happen IMHO.
JB wasn't a professional, if he had been he wouldn't have been caught...
But Jeremy is not parking his car round the side of Waterstones in Deansgate,Manchester on a Saturday night. Isn't this a rural area where everybody knows everyone else's business or have I missed something?
But Jeremy is not parking his car round the side of Waterstones in Deansgate,Manchester on a Saturday night. Isn't this a rural area where everybody knows everyone else's business or have I missed something?
I think you've missed something...I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Sounds to me as though you are basing this on your own experiences? Or those you've read/seen about.
You can live in a rural area where everybody knows everybody and not know everyone's business.
Steve, I'm inclined to think the locals were so used to Jeremy's comings and goings that, whilst he possibly wasn't the most popular guy in the village, there probably weren't smudges on the inside of village windows, from the noses of neighbours watching his movements.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Maybe Caroline can set up a poll,as with the faux furlined grandad slippers..