Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 09, 2017, 10:53:AM
-
The facts could not be any clearer, When Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, the time that PC West 'reveived the call' was clearly recorded in unambiguous terms, '3.36am'...
Time Call Received:-
-
Jeremy was placed on hold for 5 minutes, whilst PC West finished dealing with another (related matter). Therefore, it was not until around 3.40/ 3.41am, that Jeremy finally got to say anything at all to PC West, and at this time PC West made a record of the time he had received Jeremy's call 5 minutes earlier. Not only did PC West make a record of the time that I received Jeremy's call (3.36am), but he also selected the option to say he had received Jeremy's call at 3.36am, not that the call had been made to him by that stage!!!
At around 3.40 / 3.41am, Jeremy finally got to inform PC West, of the following...
-
Jeremy was placed on hold for 5 minutes, whilst PC West finished dealing with another (related matter). Therefore, it was not until around 3.40/ 3.41am, that Jeremy finally got to say anything at all to PC West, and at this time PC West made a record of the time he had received Jeremy's call 5 minutes earlier. Not only did PC West make a record of the time that I received Jeremy's call (3.36am), but he also selected the option to say he had received Jeremy's call at 3.36am, not that the call had been made to him by that stage!!!
At around 3.40 / 3.41am, Jeremy finally got to inform PC West, of the following...
Hi Mike,
It has been showed Jeremy called PC West at 3.26am and that PC West made a mistake in the log
I am notsure if you are aware you have also contradicted your previous posts on this point?
Anyway, Buddy has publicly admitted he was hoodwinked
There are no photos of Sheila on the bed
All the conspiracy theories have been proven to be conspiracy theories and nothing more
I'm notsure why you keep going round and round with this
Everyone on the board is in agreement apart from you
-
Why does anyone keep going " round and round ?"
-
Hi Mike,
It has been showed Jeremy called PC West at 3.26am and that PC West made a mistake in the log No, unfortunately, it hasn't been showed or proven by anybody that Jeremy's call to PC West got made any sooner than 3.36am. Scrutiny of the actual log, not only gives PC Wests timing of Jeremy's call, but he alsio selects the 'option' regarding when he had 'received the call'...
PC West did not just record the time he received the call from Jeremy, but he also selected the option of the time the call was received. It's all well and good anyone now suggesting at such a late stage that PC West got his time wrong, but in addition to this, he also chose the option of declaring in clear unambiguous terms, that he had received Jeremy's call at 3.36am. This is despite the fact, that during the trial, under cross examination by Rivlin QC, PC West conceded that he couldn't be sure of the actual time he had received Jeremy's call, albeit he did admit that it was his practice to always make a note of the time is received. Rivlin QC left the matter there feeling that he had made sufficient of the point. However, he could have gone a step further, and picked PC West up regarding the option he had chosen when recording the timing of Jeremy's call at 3.36am...
Buddy has publicly admitted he was hoodwinked it's none of my business who feels they have been hoodwinked. That's a personel matter...
There are no photos of Sheila on the bed Yes, there are, and 'prison security confiscated one of these'. In addition two cops who had seen Sheila's body on top of the bed before leaving the farmhouse to go with Jeremy to his cottage to take a witness statement (7th August 1985) told Ann Eaton that Sheila's body had been found on top of the bed, with a bible on her chest. Nobody could make up details like that. It was also reported in some newspaper reports of the day, that Sheila's body had been laid on the bed. I have seen the photographs with my own two eyes of Sheila on the bed. I say photographs because another one I have seen was taken to the CCRC by an informant and left with security there. Two photograph negatives are missing from a crucial stage in the SOCO investigation whilst DC Oakey (not to be confused with DC Oakley) and PC Bird took photographs of Sheila's body! Lets get the facts right, cops have removed DC Oakeys involvement at the scene on that first morning of the police investigation, because to concede his presence there, means they would have to disclose all the photographs they took of Sheila on top of the bed and on the floor before her body was staged by police as depicted by a series of photographs taken by PC Bird (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33). DC Oakey had taken photograph 25 according to PC Birds Crown Court testimony, and image 25 shows the barrel of the anshuzt rifle resting against the left side of Sheila's neck at that time! We also know, that prior to cops staging Sheila's death scene on the main bedroom floor as per PC Birds, photographs (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33), and DC Oakeys photograph, (25), that 'Sheila's body must have been laid upon its right hand side' (as confirmed by Professor Herbert Leon MacDonnels report) in the 'recovery position' in order for the 'triangular blood stain which appears at the armpit and right hand shoulder of Sheila's light blue nightdress'. Now, the prosecution adduced no evidence to try and explain to the court, exactly how that triangular stain of blood had got there, nor given any indivcation as to how rivlets of blood were present upon her right forearm, and the top part of her right hand, and right wrist? In addition to this, no mention of how the bloodied fingermarks had got onto the front lower right hand side of her nightdress!!! So, everyone must surely know that if police had found Sheila's body like it has been presented by reference to PC Birds, and DC Oakeys presentation of photographs, that something is seriously wrong here. Why are cops saying Sheila's body was downstairs in the kitchen 7.34am to 810am, why are they saying her body was on the bed, and on the bedroom floor, why are cops saying that the only rifle found upstairs was resting against a first floor window, (from around 7.15am) and yet it to have been found and first photographed with Sheila's body after 10am? Why are photographic negatives missing? On and on, we could go, mentioning that contradiction, and this contradiction. Goddamit they even had to grow a badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) so that by the time their ballistic expert examined it, the damn bullet had grown whole again!!! lets not forget about the second silencer (DRB/1) which Ann Eaton did not hand over to a DC Oakley on the 11th September, 1985. Was it really just a coincidence that her brother telephoned the police that very same day (11th September 1985) to tell them that he had found the gun silencer? Worse still, that second silencer was not fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davidson until the 13th September 1985, and not sent to the lab' for its first time until the 20th September 1985!!! Astonishingly by that stage (20th September 1985) blood had already been found in the first silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) which police had already submitted to the lab' on the 30th August 1985!!! More significantly, the blood found in the first silencer, had already been analysed and blood group results obtained at the lab (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985), long before cops submitted Ann Eatons second silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985!!! [ Worse still to come, this vile prosecutions case which people like yourself support, had the audacity and the cheek to say that the blood found inside the first silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1), had been found inside the second silencer (DRB/1) along with red paint from the kitchen aga, by the time the matter came to court (October, 1986). Now, you tell me how that is right and proper, and you tell me how any of this serves to prove that Jeremy Bamber killed his sister on the main bedroom floor, staging her death scene there with the rifle from a first floor window, after 8.10am? You explain to me in plain English what the fuck has been going on here, and what the fuck is going on here. I don't care if everyone in the world dislikes Jeremy Bamber, I don't care whether or not he's a psychopath, a puff, arrogant, and profoundly selfish - I know the difference between right and wrong, and I know when I hear the truth, or somebody is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Cops, CPS, relatives and prosecution witness simply 'wanted him to be the killer' in the end. By early September 1985, Essex police were of a mindset to 'nail Bamber for these killings', and that is what they did. Everything in those days, is exactly like it is nowadays, an investigation is run by cops who are of a particular mindset. They get something in their heads which they believe to be truth, which might not necessarily by true, and they set out to gather evidence to support those beliefs. In August 1985, almost all the cops that really mattered were of a mindset that Sheila had killed the others, and then taken her own life. Whether they shot her or not, that was the mindset of the police for the first month, and so they set about gathering evidence to prove that stance. By mid September, their stance had changed, and so from that point onward they set out to gather evidence to help them prove that new stance. In so doing they either 'destroyed' or 'withheld any of the key information or evidence which they had gathered during the first part of their investigation proving or showing Sheila's culpability'. But not all of it got destroyed, or was deliberately withheld. To me that is why so many inconsistencies, ambiguos and contradictory facts and features crop up in this case - The cops have merged the two separate investigations which adopted different approaches in the investigation of them, into the same investigation.../color]
All the conspiracy theories have been proven to be conspiracy theories and nothing more You don't honestly know what your talking about in this case...
I'm notsure why you keep going round and round with this I will decide what I do, I don't need advice, I can make up my own mind about things
-
The facts could not be any clearer, When Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, the time that PC West 'reveived the call' was clearly recorded in unambiguous terms, '3.36am'...
Time Call Received:-
He could have avoided that if he'd called 999
-
The facts could not be any clearer, When Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, the time that PC West 'reveived the call' was clearly recorded in unambiguous terms, '3.36am'...
Time Call Received:-
That is what I said two days ago Mike.
How could Bamber ring the police ar 3:36am if the call lasted 10 minutes, until 3:46am. And how could he ring Julie at 3:38am which the CT say he did ?
-
He could have avoided that if he'd called 999
Then again,their response mightn't have been any quicker,we don't know,as by the time police collect details over the phone,it was as broad as it was long during their time of arrival if there'd been a skeleton staffing arrangement,as I guess it would have been back then.
-
He could have avoided that if he'd called 999
If he had dialled 999, he could have only told them, what he told them. His call would have gone through a switchboard operator, who would in all liklihood have put Jeremy through to somebody like, for instance, 'PC West'...
This thread, is about the call which Jeremy did make. Everyone on both sides are in agreement that he made such a call. Only Rivlin QC has taken issue with what PC West says Jeremy spoke to him about, as per PC Wests witness statement account, which gives the time of the call as 3.26am. Well, for all anyone knows, the typist who typed out and prepared the statement might have 'typed the wrong digit', a '2' instead of a '3'. This possibility was never explored but to me if there is an innocent explanation in all of this, a mistake by the typist in recording the actual time of the call sits confortably with me, rather than it be suggested PC West himself recorded the time wrong by 10 minutes. As I say, he did not only record the time of Jeremy's call as 3.36am, but he also chose the option of declaring when he had received Jeremy's call, that two separate actions amounting to the same event - PC West received Jeremy's call at 3.36am, and he autheticated this by choosing the option on the same document to say that the recorded time of 3.36am, was the time he received Jeremy's call.
-
Then again,their response mightn't have been any quicker,we don't know,as by the time police collect details over the phone,it was as broad as it was long during their time of arrival if there'd been a skeleton staffing arrangement,as I guess it would have been back then.
Calling 999, unless the caller is a child in need of support, is understood to guarantee a much faster response that calling a local number...................but he never gave it a chance, did he?
-
There has been many a headline stating that 999 calls aren't always adhered to as being urgent.
-
If he had dialled 999, he could have only told them, what he told them. His call would have gone through a switchboard operator, who would in all liklihood have put Jeremy through to somebody like, for instance, 'PC West'...
This thread, is about the call which Jeremy did make. Everyone on both sides are in agreement that he made such a call. Only Rivlin QC has taken issue with what PC West says Jeremy spoke to him about as per PC Wests witnmess statement account which gives the time of the call as 3.26am. Well, for all anyone knows, the typist who typed out and prepared the stastement might have typed the wrong digit, a '2' instead of a '3'. This possibility was never explored but to me if there is an innocent explanation in all of this, a mistake by the typist in recording the actual time of the call sits confortably with me, rather than it be suggested PC West himself recorded the time wrong by 10 minutes. As I say, he did not only record the time of Jeremy's call as 3.36am, but he also chose the option of declaring when he had received Jeremy's call, that two separate actions amounting to the same event - PC West received Jeremy's call at 3.36am, and he autheticated this by choosing the option on the same document to say that the recorded time of 3.36am, was the time he received Jeremy's call.
Sorry Mike, that doesn't wash. 999 calls go through to a central system who direct the call to relevant emergency services. Vehicles may be dispatched whilst the caller is still on the line. No one is denying that Jeremy made a call. If he'd have called 999 it MAY have negated the necessity for this discussion.
-
There has been many a headline stating that 999 calls aren't always adhered to as being urgent.
That would have been in 1985, would it? They'd have diddled away time like Jeremy did when HE was allegedly informed that his sister had gone mad and got hold of a gun? IF such was universally true, Lookout, and not just headline grabbing, Daily Mail type copy, no one would ever use the 999 system.
-
Sorry Mike, that doesn't wash. 999 calls go through to a central system who direct the call to relevant emergency services. Vehicles may be dispatched whilst the caller is still on the line. No one is denying that Jeremy made a call. If he'd have called 999 it MAY have negated the necessity for this discussion.
Not only that Jane, it would not take 10mins to look the number up. Your right they usually say, an ambulance or police are on their way.
-
Calling 999, unless the caller is a child in need of support, is understood to guarantee a much faster response that calling a local number...................but he never gave it a chance, did he?
There's a heck of a difference in calls now,as so many are bogus,which emergency services have come to recognise,but in 1985,and ordinary call to the police under such circumstances as JB was in,would have sent cars just as quick as phoning 999.
-
There's a heck of a difference in calls now,as so many are bogus,which emergency services have come to recognise,but in 1985,and ordinary call to the police under such circumstances as JB was in,would have sent cars just as quick as phoning 999.
Without spending 10 mins to look the number up.
-
There's a heck of a difference in calls now,as so many are bogus,which emergency services have come to recognise,but in 1985,and ordinary call to the police under such circumstances as JB was in,would have sent cars just as quick as phoning 999.
You'll have to back that up, Lookout. I refute, ENTIRELY the claim you're making, because the 999 system would have put out an All Cars Alert and the nearest car(s) to the area/scene would have responded immediately.
-
Without spending 10 mins to look the number up.
So he dallied about for 10 minutes ? Why is that seen as such a crime when he was probably half asleep and wondering what to do for the best ? This would apply to any 24 year old who was least expecting such news at that hour of the morning.
No doubt he was getting dressed at that point,so what ?
-
That is what I said two days ago Mike.
How could Bamber ring the police ar 3:36am he did ring Chelmsford police station at 3.36am if the call lasted 10 minutes, until 3:46am. This is true. His call to Julie was at 3.30am...And how could he ring Julie at 3:38am He couldn't have, and he didn't... which the CT say he did ?
The claim that Jeremy called Julie at 3.38am, is plainly wrong, and as such it can only hamper any CCRC application. I wish them good luck in trying to prove that claim.
-
So he dallied about for 10 minutes ? Why is that seen as such a crime when he was probably half asleep and wondering what to do for the best ? This would apply to any 24 year old who was least expecting such news at that hour of the morning.
No doubt he was getting dressed at that point,so what ?
He wouldn't have had to had he called 999. WASTING 10 precious minutes when his (terrified/sounding panicked) father may have a gun in his face? What WOULD it have taken to have persuaded him that 999 was the best option?
-
He wouldn't have had to had he called 999. WASTING 10 precious minutes when his (terrified/sounding panicked) father may have a gun in his face? What WOULD it have taken to have persuaded him that 999 was the best option?
As I said,he'd have been getting dressed during that time-----------as well as feeling scared as fear holds some people back especially if they've never been faced with an emergency.
-
Calling 999, unless the caller is a child in need of support, is understood to guarantee a much faster response that calling a local number...................but he never gave it a chance, did he?
He had no reason to call '999', he did not know that any shots had been fired by that stage, unless I have missed this occurence somehow. For all Jeremy might have known, his father was alive, at the time his father called him, and his father had not given him cause to suspect anybody else in the household had been shot. In addition he may have been further reassured that his father was taking control of the situation because when Jeremy tried to call Neville back, Jeremy had got an engaged tone - Jeremy might have thought his father was informing the police himself. Hence, why soon adterwards when he himself had tried to phone Witham police station, how he could not raise a response. For all we know Jeremy might have thought at the time that the reason why Witham police were not responding was because they had left to attend the incident as instructed by Neville as per his 3.26am phone log (C1). This feeling might have been exaserbated when upon finally getting through to Chelmsford police station (at 3.36am) he was placed on hold for five minutes, whislt PC West was dealing with another matter. It is this 5 minute period in which Jeremy was placed on hold by PC West at 3.36am, which is of interest to me? What was PC West doing in any part of that first 5 minute period of Jeremy's 10 minute call? Well, we know, or should that be, we suspect that he had some involvement in deploying the occupants of CA05 to the scene at 3.36am, that is. But what was PC West doing for the next four minutes into Jeremy's call? The occupats of CA07 had already been deployed to the scene a minute or more prior to PC West receiving Jeremys call at 3.36am...
At 3.41am, or thereabouts, when Jeremy did eventually get to speak to PC West, he had the following to say:-
-
As I said,he'd have been getting dressed during that time-----------as well as feeling scared as fear holds some people back especially if they've never been faced with an emergency.
I don't believe he was UNdressed. I believe he was wasting time. However, if I suppose he was getting dressed, if he'd have called 999 first, cars would have already been on their way and if he'd wanted to delay getting there he'd have had time to make a cup of tea. Saying he held back out of fear doesn't wash, I'm afraid as there had been nothing previously to suggest a fearful personality.
-
He had no reason to call '999', he did not know that any shots had been fired by that stage, unless I have missed this occurence somehow. For all Jeremy might have known, his father was alive, at the time his father called him, and his father had not given him cause to suspect anybody else in the household had been shot. In addition he may have been further reassured that his father was taking control of the situation because when Jeremy tried to call Neville back, Jeremy had got an engaghed tone - Jeremy might have thought his father was informing the police himself. Hence, why soon adterwards when he himself had tried to phone Witham police station, how he could not raise a response. For all we know Jeremy might have thought at the time that the reason why Witham police were not responding was because they had left to attend the incident as instructed by Neville as per his 3.26am phone log (C1). This feeling might have been exaserbated when upon finally getting through to Chelmsford police station (at 3.36am) he was placed on hold for five minutes, whislt PC West was dealing with another matter. It is this 5 minute period in which Jeremy was placed on hold by PC West at 3.36amwhich is of interest to me? What was PC West doing in any part of that first 5 minute period of Jeremy's 10 minute call? Well, we know or should that be we suspect that he had some involvement in deploying the occupants of CA05 to the scene at 3.36am, that is. But was was PC West doing for the next four minutes into Jeremy's call? The occupats of CA07 had already been deployed to the scene a minute or more prior to PC West receiving Jeremys call at 3.36am...
At 3.41am, or thereabouts, when Jeremy did eventually get to speak to PC West, he had the following to say:-
Are you saying that 999 can only be used if shots are fired? To the best of my understanding, calling 999 is also about PREVENTION, not just cure.
-
Not only that Jane, it would not take 10mins to look the number up. Your right they usually say, an ambulance or police are on their way.
It didn't take 10 minutes to look up the telephone number of Chelmsford police station - where do you get that idea from? It took 4 to 5 minutes maximum, after 3.32 / 3.33am when he ended his call to Julie Mugford...
-
It didn't take 10 minutes to look up the telephone number of Chelmsford police station - where do you get that idea from? It took 4 to 5 minutes maximum, after 3.32 / 3.33am when he ended his call to Julie Mugford...
I got the idea from Bamber.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5791
-
Calling 999, unless the caller is a child in need of support, is understood to guarantee a much faster response that calling a local number...................but he never gave it a chance, did he?
There was no requirement given the then known circumstances for Jeremy to call the police by using the '999' system. In any event, Jeremy's call to PC West was recorded on audio tape, similarly to what occurs using the '999' system. It seems to me, that the same units which attended the scene, would in any event have been the same police units which would be sent to the scene, had Jeremy thought to dial '999' instead. That being the case, I doubt whether someone on a switchboard could have got PC West, or the occupants of CA07, and CA05, to act any quicker than they already had done? Not only that, but what difference would Jeremy dialling 999 have made in any event after the call from Neville had got cut short? Since, by that stage (3.26am) Neville was already talking to the police, hence why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene a minute prior to Jeremy contacting Chelmsford police station via the landline route. Jeremy dialling '999', as soon as the line between himself and Neille ended abruptly wouldn't have been an option for Jeremy. He might not have had that option until after he had tried to ring Neville back at least twice, and been met with an engaged tone on both occasions. So, at that stage, what good would it have done if Jeremy had dialled '999' at say 3.26am, considering that Neville was already speaking to the police by then (see (C1) Communications log, 3.26am)?
Nothing which Jeremy could have done any differently, was capable of alerting the police to deal with the unfolding drama, any sooner, because Neville was already in contact with police, regarding the same matter!!!
-
There has been many a headline stating that 999 calls aren't always adhered to as being urgent.
I am utterly satisfied that if Jeremy had gone the route of dialling '999', instead of the option he chose, that police would not have been alerted any sooner, nor acted any faster than they did, acting on the information received at 3.26am, from Neville Bamber, 'my daughter has got one of my guns'...
-
There's a heck of a difference in calls now,as so many are bogus,which emergency services have come to recognise,but in 1985,and ordinary call to the police under such circumstances as JB was in,would have sent cars just as quick as phoning 999.
Yes, no difference in the circumstances of this matter, since the police which responded to Nevilles call at 3.26am, were the same cops who responded to the same call, deployed to the incident at the farm, before Jeremy made his own 3.36am call to PC West...
-
I don't believe he was UNdressed. I believe he was wasting time. However, if I suppose he was getting dressed, if he'd have called 999 first, cars would have already been on their way and if he'd wanted to delay getting there he'd have had time to make a cup of tea. Saying he held back out of fear doesn't wash, I'm afraid as there had been nothing previously to suggest a fearful personality.
There's no proof one way or the other as to whether he was dressed/undressed.
There's a possibility that he was awaiting another call from his father.
I would have said that JB would have been useless in a crisis-------as a lot of people are. If JB had had a fearless personality he'd have been classed as one of the local thugs,so he really couldn't win any which way could he ?
If he'd have been undressed when he rang 999,the police could have been outside his door ? It would have taken 10 minutes to have got dressed anyway while they waited.
As it happened,he was MADE to make his own way to WHF without their initial contact with him ?
-
You'll have to back that up, Lookout. I refute, ENTIRELY the claim you're making, because the 999 system would have put out an All Cars Alert and the nearest car(s) to the area/scene would have responded immediately.
But, that's just it, the closest units to whf were deployed, and did race to the incident - the occupants of CA07 being one such vehicle (3.35am), obviously responding to Neville Bambers 3.26am call...
-
There was no requirement given the then known circumstances for Jeremy to call the police by using the '999' system. In any event, Jeremy's call to PC West was recorded on audio tape, similarly to what occurs using the '999' system. It seems to me, that the same units which attended the scene, would in any event have been the same police units which would be sent to the scene, had Jeremy thought to dial '999' instead. That being the case, I doubt whether someone on a swutchboard could have got PC West, or the occupants of CA07, and CA05, to act any quicker than they already had done? Not only that, but what difference would Jeremy dialling 999 have made after the call from Neville got cut short? Since, by that stage (3.26am) Neville was already talking to the police, hence why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene a minute prior to Jeremy contacting Chelmsford police station via the landline route. Jeremy dialling '999', as soon as the line between himself and Neille wouldn't have been an ioption for Jeremy. He might not have had that option until after he had tried to ring Neville back at least twice and been met with an engaged tone on both occasions. So, at that stage, what good would it have done if Jeremy had dialled '999' at say 3.26am, considering that Neville was already speaking to the police by then (see (C1) Communications log, 3.26am)?
Nothing which Jeremy could have done any different was capable of alerting the police to deal with the unfolding drama, any sooner, because Neville was already in contact with police, regarding the same matter!!!
There was EVERY requirement. The alleged call from "panicked/terrified" Nevill told him his sister had gone mad and got hold of a gun.
-
He wouldn't have had to had he called 999. WASTING 10 precious minutes when his (terrified/sounding panicked) father may have a gun in his face? What WOULD it have taken to have persuaded him that 999 was the best option?
In all the circumstances of the case, it would not have made any difference if Jeremy had dialled '999', since, as I have already stated in clear unambiguous terms, that Neville Bamber was already in contact with the police by 3.26am, That which Jeremy was eventually able to tell PC West in his 3.36am call, which was clearly and unambiguosly recroded at the correct time he received Jeremy's call (3.36am), served to only confirm using a different set of words, that which Neville had told cops earlier - no mystery there then...
-
But, that's just it, the closest units to whf were deployed, and did race to the incident - the occupants of CA07 being one such vehicle (3.35am), obviously responding to Neville Bambers 3.26am call...
But Jeremy waited 10 minutes before making a local call. 999 would have had cars, possibly closer, already making their way there. We're told that one of the cars was driving very slowly. Would not have occurred -IF that's true- on a 999 shout.
-
But, that's just it, the closest units to whf were deployed, and did race to the incident - the occupants of CA07 being one such vehicle (3.35am), obviously responding to Neville Bambers 3.26am call...
I thought the occupants of CA07 was meeting Bamber, if they were responding from a call from Neville they would have told Bamber this?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3132.0;attach=38123
-
In all the circumstances of the case, it would not have made any difference if Jeremy had dialled '999', since, as I have already stated in clear unambiguous terms, that Neville Bamber was already in contact with the police by 3.26am, That which Jeremy was eventually able to tell PC West in his 3.36am call, which was clearly and unambiguosly recroded at the correct time he received Jeremy's call (3.36am), served to only confirm using a different set of words, that which Neville had told cops earlier - no mystery there then...
So it's safe to inform the general public that they're wasting their time calling 999, is it? Yes, you have stated in unambiguous terms that you believe NB was already in contact .................in equally unambiguous terms, I don't believe he was.
-
Are you saying that 999 can only be used if shots are fired? To the best of my understanding, calling 999 is also about PREVENTION, not just cure.
No, I'm not saying that at all - the bottom line is that it doesn't matter a jot that Jeremy did not dial '999', at least not in the circumstances of the now known case. There may have been many reasons why he chose not to dial '999'. I can think of one straight off the top of my head. He knew he wanted to speak to the police, so he might have beleived it might take longer having to be asked, 'which service' he required? But it really doesn't matter that he didn't dial '999', because even if he had, the police could not possibly have been alerted any quicker than they already had been at 3.26am, by Neville Bambers call. Now, you might want to argue that Neville Bamber had not made that 3.26am call, but I assure you that he did, and it can be proven that he did. Now, what I am interested in, is the initial 5 minute period when Jeremy made his 3.36am call to Chelmsford police station. I understand you will be suggesting that Jeremys call is the 3.26am call, although I do not agree with that suggestion because in order for that to be true, Jeremy couldn't have made his 3.29am call to Witham police station, or made his 3.30am telephone call to Julie Mugford...
So, a good starting point would be for everyone to ask themselves the following questions:-
(1) - Did Neville try to contact Witham police station YES / NO?
(2) - Did Neville contact Jeremy YES / NO?
(3) - Did Neville contact the police at 3.26am YES / NO?
(4) - Did Jeremy try to call Neville back YES / NO?
(5) - Did Jeremy try to contact Witham police station and get no response YES / NO?
(6) - Did Jeremy call Julie Mugford YES / NO?
(7) - Did CA07 get deployed to the scene at 3.35am before Jeremys call to police YES / NO?
(8) - Did CA05 get deployed to the scene at 3.36am before Jeremy's call to police YES / NO?
(9) - Did Jeremy contact Chelmsford police at 3.36am YES / NO?
(10) - Was Jeremy kept on hold for 5 minutes before he could speak to PC West YES / NO?
(11) - Did PC West speak to a female operator at 3.41am regarding the telephone at whf YES / NO?
(12) - Did the operator contact police at 3.56am to say phone at fam off hook YES / NO?
-
There was EVERY requirement. The alleged call from "panicked/terrified" Nevill told him his sister had gone mad and got hold of a gun.
You have hit the nail on the head - Yes, Neville told Jeremy in his lets us say, in his abrupt call to Jeremy at around 3.25am, that his 'sister had got one of Nevilles guns', and when Jeremy eventually got to talk to PC West, this was precisely what Jeremy told PC West at around 3.41am (5 minutes into his 3.36am call):-
-
You have hit the nail on the head - Yes, Neville told Jeremy in his lets us say, in his abrupt call to Jeremy at around 3.25am, that his 'sister had got one of Nevilles guns', and when Jeremy eventually got to talk to PC West, this was precisely what Jeremy told PC West at around 3.41am (5 minutes into his 3.36am call):-
So you agree that Jeremy's best course of action would have been to call 999. I believe, that had he, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
You have hit the nail on the head - Yes, Neville told Jeremy in his lets us say, in his abrupt call to Jeremy at around 3.25am, that his 'sister had got one of Nevilles guns', and when Jeremy eventually got to talk to PC West, this was precisely what Jeremy told PC West at around 3.41am (5 minutes into his 3.36am call):-
There is no proof Nevill telephoned Jeremy; only Jeremy's claims that he had.
Jeremy's witness statements, police interviews, evidence he gave in court and indeed evidence he has given since, give no further substantiated proof this call occurred
-
So you agree that Jeremy's best course of action would have been to call 999. I believe, that had he, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm sure that in hindsight he'd wished he'd had called 999 then he wouldn't have carried the can for the murders,but I'm sure again,that he hadn't the slightest idea he would do either.
-
You have hit the nail on the head - Yes, Neville told Jeremy in his lets us say, in his abrupt call to Jeremy at around 3.25am, that his 'sister had got one of Nevilles guns', and when Jeremy eventually got to talk to PC West, this was precisely what Jeremy told PC West at around 3.41am (5 minutes into his 3.36am call):-
Put aside for the moment all original case files that convicted Jeremy and bring forward evidence since his conviction that he received a call from his father. What has Jeremy said about his fathers alleged phone call since he was convicted? Has he answered any of the questions the police asked him yet?
Or has he avoided this crucial point like the plaque?
-
I am interested in the first 5 minutes of Jeremy's 10 minute call, which everyone seems to be in agreement with, was a call which did take place. There was a 5 minute period at the commencement of Jeremys call to Chelmsford police station where Jeremy was placed on hold!!!
So be it - a 5 minute period when Jeremy was placed on hold, where he was speaking to no-one, and no-one, least of all PC West, was speaking to him. Now, what lies behind this 5 minute period of seemingly inactivity on the part of the police (3.36am / 3.41am opposed to 3.26am / 3.31am)? Well if we choose to say that Jeremy's call had been received at 3.26am, then of course this tells us, that Jeremy did not try to ring Neville back, and that he couldn't therefore have got an engaged tone on each of the two occasions he says he tried to ring him back. It also tells us, that Jeremy could not have tried unsuccessfully to contact Witham police station at around 3.29am. It tells us that his call to Julie Mugford could not have been made at 3.30am, he could not have told Julie at 3.30am, 'There's something wrong at the farm', and she could not have said to him in response, 'go back to bed'. Yet further still, Jeremy could not have phoned PC West at 3.36am, he could not have been placed on hold for a further 5 minutes until 3.41am, and he could not still have been on the phone speaking to PC West at 3.46am. All these features in the evidence would have to be thrown out of the window, and discarded. As a side thought to this, why would Jeremy Bamber seek to introduce such things?
On the other hand, adopting the time when PC West recorded the time of Jeremy's call as 3.36am, what we find is that everything conveniently falls into place, not I would suggest purely by chance, but because it really did happen and unfold in this way.
-
So you agree that Jeremy's best course of action would have been to call 999. I believe, that had he, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
I am agreeing that what Jeremy says Neville told him about his sister having one of Nevilles guns, in his call to Jeremy, is precisely what Jeremy eventually got to speak to PC West about 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The only difference I suggest in what Neville told Jeremy was the mention of his 'sister' having one of his guns, as opposed to the reference of 'Sheila', or 'She has'...
I believe this was argubly the only difference in the interpretation of what Neville actuall might have said to Jeremy, and what Jeremy relayed to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call!!!
-
I am interested in the first 5 minutes of Jeremy's 10 minute call, which everyone seems to be in agreement with, was a call which did take place. There was a 5 minute period at the commencement of Jeremys call to Chelmsford police station where Jeremy was placed on hold!!!
So be it - a 5 minute period when Jeremy was placed on hold, where he was speaking to no-one, and no-one, least of all PC West, was speaking to him. Now, what lies behind this 5 minute period of seemingly inactivity on the part of the police (3.36am / 3.41am opposed to 3.26am / 3.31am)? Well if we choose to say that Jeremy's call had been received at 3.26am, then of course this tells us, that Jeremy did not try to ring Neville back, and that he couldn't therefore have got an engaged tone on each of the two occasions he says he tried to ring him back. It also tells us, that Jeremy could not have tried unsuccessfully to contact Witham police station at around 3.29am. It tells us that his call to Julie Mugford could not have been made at 3.30am, he could not have told Julie at 3.30am, 'There's something wrong at the farm', and she could not have said to him in response, 'go back to bed'. Yet further still, Jeremy could not have phoned PC West at 3.36am, he could not have been placed on hold for a further 5 minutes until 3.41am, and he could not still have been on the phone speaking to PC West at 3.46am. All these features in the evidence would have to be thrown out of the window, and discarded. As a side thought to this, why would Jeremy Bamber seek to introduce such things?
On the other hand, adopting the time when PC West recorded the time of Jeremy's call as 3.36am, what we find is that everything conveniently falls into place, not I would suggest purely by chance, but because it really did happen and unfold in this way.
No one has ever disputed that Jeremy called the police. The police have it logged. He wouldn't have been put on hold for 5 minutes had he called 999. He made a non urgent call which was treated as such. I think this fudging of times just blurs the issue and probably may not help Jeremy's cause.
-
I am agreeing that what Jeremy says Neville told him about his sister having one of Nevilles guns, in his call to Jeremy, is precisely what Jeremy eventually got to speak to PC West about 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The only difference I suggest in what Neville told Jeremy was the mention of his 'sister' having one of his guns, as opposed to the reference of 'Sheila', or 'She has'...
I believe this was argubly the only difference in the interpretation of what Neville actuall might have said to Jeremy, and what Jeremy relayed to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call!!!
Why are you agreeing with what Jeremy claims his father said if you have yet to prove Jeremy received a call from his father in the first place?
-
I am agreeing that what Jeremy says Neville told him about his sister having one of Nevilles guns, in his call to Jeremy, is precisely what Jeremy eventually got to speak to PC West about 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The only difference I suggest in what Neville told Jeremy was the mention of his 'sister' having one of his guns, as opposed to the reference of 'Sheila', or 'She has'...
I believe this was argubly the only difference in the interpretation of what Neville actuall might have said to Jeremy, and what Jeremy relayed to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call!!!
The call to the police in which Jeremy alleged what Nevill said about Sheila allegedly having one of his guns has never been in dispute and as what Jeremy said was written down by the police, they have proof of what Jeremy alleged Nevill said. As I've previously said, calling 999 could have saved him a whole 'case' load of trouble.
-
I am agreeing that what Jeremy says Neville told him about his sister having one of Nevilles guns, in his call to Jeremy, is precisely what Jeremy eventually got to speak to PC West about 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The only difference I suggest in what Neville told Jeremy was the mention of his 'sister' having one of his guns, as opposed to the reference of 'Sheila', or 'She has'...
I believe this was argubly the only difference in the interpretation of what Neville actuall might have said to Jeremy, and what Jeremy relayed to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call!!!
The mention of the phrase 'My Daughter' was never mentioned by either Neville in his (3.25am) call to Jeremy, or by Jeremy in his (3.36am) call to PC West. There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere in anything which Jeremy said his father had said, and certainly nothing in what Jeremy actuall had said in his call to PC West, which resembles the phrase, ' My Daughter', or the singular word ' Daughter'. Now, if the purpose of recording the call on audio tape was to make sure that the handwritten record matched precisely what was being said by the person making the call, where is the evidence that PC West contacted Malcom Bonnet and told him that Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns? There is no reference at all to PC West being told that by Jeremy, or even saying such a thing to Malcom Bonnet after he received and dealt with Jeremy's call. Are we expected to believe, then that Bonnett made it up in his head, that he chose to make a log containing his interpretation of 'what Jeremy had told PC Wes't, even though Jeremy did not even get to speak with PC West until 5 minutes into his 3.36am call between them? How could Bonnett know about what Neville had told Jeremy, and what Jeremy had eventually been able to tell PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call, and record details of the conversation 15 minutes before Jeremy had got to speak to PC West?
Impossible!!!
-
The mention of the phrase 'My Daughter' was never mentioned by either Neville in his (3.25am) call to Jeremy, or by Jeremy in his (3.36am) call to PC West. There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere in anything which Jeremy said his father had said, and certainly nothing in what Jeremy actuall had said in his call to PC West, which resembles the phrase, ' My Daughter', or the singular word ' Daughter'. Now, if the purpose of recording the call on audio tape was to make sure that the handwritten record matched precisely what was being said by the person making the call, where is the evidence that PC West contacted Malcom Bonnet and told him that Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns? There is no reference at all to PC West being told that by Jeremy, or even saying such a thing to Malcom Bonnet after he received and dealt with Jeremy's call. Are we expected to believe, then that Bonnett made it up in his head, that he chose to make a log containing his interpretation of 'what Jeremy had told PC Wes't, even though Jeremy did not even get to speak with PC West until 5 minutes into his 3.36am call between them? How could Bonnett know about what Neville had told Jeremy, and what Jeremy had eventually been able to tell PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call, and record details of the conversation 15 minutes before Jeremy had got to speak to PC West?
Impossible!!!
It hardly matters WHO was being referred to in the alleged call. The thrust of it was that someone had gone mad and got hold of a gun. I think we may be clear that Jeremy wouldn't, if he'd adopted the third person, have referred to his sister as being his daughter. The message wouldn't have been passed over as Jeremy Bamber saying his daughter had got hold of a gun but may well have been passed of as Jeremy Bamber said Nevill Bamber had claimed his daughter had got hold of a gun.
-
Why are you agreeing with what Jeremy claims his father said if you have yet to prove Jeremy received a call from his father in the first place?
I am saying that there is real proof that Neville did call Jeremy at around 3.25am. This proof is borne out by the fact that Neville himself had called the police at 3.26am. I am suggesting that this has the support of whatever exchange you want to place upon Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, 5 minutes into that telephone call. I am saying that Jeremy never said that Neville had told him, 'My Daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and I am saying, that Jeremy never told PC West, that Neville had said, 'My Daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. If such evidence exists and you know about it, please refer me to it. No, Neville never spoke those words to Jeremy in his 3.25am, telephone call. Jeremy has never said Neville had used those words. Jeremy refers to 'Sheila has got the gun' when he reports Nevilles phone call to him, and what Neville said - albeit, and since, Jeremy has questioned himself as to whether Neville had used the term, 'She has', or 'your sisters, got the gun'. He has never said, and as far as I am aware, that he has never mention it once, has Jeremy ever been quoted as saying that 'Sheila', or 'She has', or Your sister has got one of my guns'....
No, he hasn't, and he didn't!!!
Moreover, what PC West says that Jeremy told him, is there for all to see, in PC Wests Police Communications log, timed at 3.36am:-
-
I am saying that there is real proof that Neville did call Jeremy at around 3.25am. This proof is borne out by the fact that Neville himself had called the police at 3.26am. I am suggesting that this has the support of whatever exchange you want to place upon Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, 5 minutes into that telephone call. I am saying that Jeremy never said that Neville had told him, 'My Daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and I am saying, that Jeremy never told PC West, that Neville had said, 'My Daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. If such evidence exists and you know about it, please refer me to it. No, Neville never spoke those words to Jeremy in his 3.25am, telephone call. Jeremy has never said Neville had used those words. Jeremy refers to 'Sheila has got the gun' when he reports Nevilles phone call to him, and what Neville said - albeit, and since, Jeremy has questioned himself as to whether Neville had used the term, 'She has', or 'your sisters, got the gun'. He has never said, and as far as I am aware, that he has never mention it once, has Jeremy ever been quoted as saying that 'Sheila', or 'She has', or Your sister has got one of my guns'....
No, he hasn't, and he didn't!!!
Moreover, what PC West says that Jeremy told him, is there for all to see, in PC Wests Police Communications log, timed at 3.36am:-
Jeremy had no need to say those words, but West would hardly relay whatever words by referring to Sheila as Jeremy's daughter. He'd have had to clarify who she was by saying that Nevill had allegedly called Jeremy to say his daughter -because she wasn't Nevill's sister- had gone mad.
-
The mention of the phrase 'My Daughter' was never mentioned by either Neville in his (3.25am) call to Jeremy, or by Jeremy in his (3.36am) call to PC West. There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere in anything which Jeremy said his father had said, and certainly nothing in what Jeremy actuall had said in his call to PC West, which resembles the phrase, ' My Daughter', or the singular word ' Daughter'. Now, if the purpose of recording the call on audio tape was to make sure that the handwritten record matched precisely what was being said by the person making the call, where is the evidence that PC West contacted Malcom Bonnet and told him that Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns? There is no reference at all to PC West being told that by Jeremy, or even saying such a thing to Malcom Bonnet after he received and dealt with Jeremy's call. Are we expected to believe, then that Bonnett made it up in his head, that he chose to make a log containing his interpretation of 'what Jeremy had told PC Wes't, even though Jeremy did not even get to speak with PC West until 5 minutes into his 3.36am call between them? How could Bonnett know about what Neville had told Jeremy, and what Jeremy had eventually been able to tell PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call, and record details of the conversation 15 minutes before Jeremy had got to speak to PC West?
Impossible!!!
But Mike you still haven't proved to us that Nevill phoned Jeremy in the first instance. Neither has Jeremy. In 32 years he has yet to answer the difficult questions the police put forward to him regarding the alleged call from his father and one has to wonder why this is.
What do we know of Jeremy's reputation at the time of his arrest?
He was a thief. A thief has a reputation for dishonesty.
Why then should we believe anything he says?
Why should we believe his claims that his father phoned. He knew he had a reputation for dishonesty. What efforts did he make to show he was a reformed character?
-
It hardly matters WHO was being referred to in the alleged call. The thrust of it was that someone had gone mad and got hold of a gun. I think we may be clear that Jeremy wouldn't, if he'd adopted the third person, have referred to his sister as being his daughter. The message wouldn't have been passed over as Jeremy Bamber saying his daughter had got hold of a gun but may well have been passed of as Jeremy Bamber said Nevill Bamber had claimed his daughter had got hold of a gun.
Jeremy had not told PC West that Neville had said his 'daughter' had got hold of 'one of my guns'. Furthermore, PC West did not record it as such. Hardly likly then, that PC West would couch what Jeremy says Neville told him, and what Jeremy told PC West, and what PC West recorded in his 3.36am log, differently when PC West spoke at some point to Malcom Bonnet at any stage after 3.36am (3.41am). PC West would surely use the words, and the phrases spoken to him by Jeremy, which he himself had recorded in his 3.36am log...
What this strongly suggests is that the contents of the 3.26am (C1) Communications found its way to the police by other means, and not from anything that Jeremy Bamber could have told PC West, simply because the body of the 3.26am log, are couched differently to Jeremys and PC Wests 3.36am log. Furthermore, If Jeremy's call had been at 3.26am, he couldn't have tried to call his father back a couple of times (3.25/3.26am), he couldn't have tried to contact Witham police station (3.29am), and he couldn't have telephoned Julie Mugford at 3.30am. He couldn't have been on hold for 5 minutes between 3.36am until 3.41am, with the length of his overal call lasting a maximum of 10 minutes, with PC Wests 3.42am call to a female operator taking place whilst he still had Jeremy on hold. None of this sits well when you try to move the timing of Jeremy's 3.36am call, back 10 minutes to 3.26am...
Finally, Nevilles call to the police was also not a '999' call, and he was present at the scene, maybe that should tell us all, that at around that time (3.26am) Ralph might have thought that he could get the better of his daughter...
-
The claim that Jeremy called Julie at 3.38am, is plainly wrong, and as such it can only hamper any CCRC application. I wish them good luck in trying to prove that claim.
So the CT should make a retraction and say Bamber's WS was wrong, and that Jeremy phoned Julie before the police. I always suspected he did.
How did Jeremy get to WHF by 3:50am if he was still at home at 3:46am ?
-
He may have been a thief but he was no liar and I'd rather a thief if there was a choice between the two.
Though I don't relish either.!
-
Jeremy had not told PC West that Neville had said his 'daughter' had got hold of 'one of my guns'. Furthermore, PC West did not record it as such. Hardly likly then, that PC West would couch what Jeremy says Neville told him, and what Jeremy told PC West, and what PC West recorded in his 3.36am log, differently when PC West spoke at some point to Malcom Bonnet at any stage after 3.36am (3.41am). PC West would surely use the words, and the phrases spoken to him by Jeremy, which he himself had recorded in his 3.36am log...
What this strongly suggests is that the contents of the 3.26am (C1) Communications found its way to the police by other means, and not from anything that Jeremy Bamber could have told PC West, simply because the body of the 3.26am log, are couched differently to Jeremys and PC Wests 3.36am log. Furthermore, If Jeremy's call had been at 3.26am, he couldn't have tried to call his father back a couple of times (3.25/3.26am), he couldn't have tried to contact Witham police station (3.29am), and he couldn't have telephoned Julie Mugford at 3.30am. He couldn't have been on hold for 5 minutes between 3.36am until 3.41am, with the length of his overal call lasting a maximum of 10 minutes, with PC Wests 3.42am call to a female operator taking place whilst he still had Jeremy on hold. None of this sits well when you try to move the timing of Jeremy's 3.36am call, back 10 minutes to 3.26am...
Finally, Nevilles call to the police was also not a '999' call, and he was present at the scene, maybe that should tell us all, that at around that time (3.26am) Ralph might have thought that he could get the better of his daughter...
Put aside what the relatives said about Jeremy. What were the known facts of Jeremy at that time?
He was a thief!
The reasons he gave for the burglary showed he thought he could take the law into his own hands.
Why didn't he tell his family about his concerns about security at the caravan park?
What right did he think he had for robbing the site of £900 and then going off and blowing the money?
Surely if he was proving a point as he suggested he wouldn't have spent the money? What did spending the money prove?
-
Jeremy had not told PC West that Neville had said his 'daughter' had got hold of 'one of my guns'. Furthermore, PC West did not record it as such. Hardly likly then, that PC West would couch what Jeremy says Neville told him, and what Jeremy told PC West, and what PC West recorded in his 3.36am log, differently when PC West spoke at some point to Malcom Bonnet at any stage after 3.36am (3.41am). PC West would surely use the words, and the phrases spoken to him by Jeremy, which he himself had recorded in his 3.36am log...
What this strongly suggests is that the contents of the 3.26am (C1) Communications found its way to the police by other means, and not from anything that Jeremy Bamber could have told PC West, simply because the body of the 3.26am log, are couched differently to Jeremys and PC Wests 3.36am log. Furthermore, If Jeremy's call had been at 3.26am, he couldn't have tried to call his father back a couple of times (3.25/3.26am), he couldn't have tried to contact Witham police station (3.29am), and he couldn't have telephoned Julie Mugford at 3.30am. He couldn't have been on hold for 5 minutes between 3.36am until 3.41am, with the length of his overal call lasting a maximum of 10 minutes, with PC Wests 3.42am call to a female operator taking place whilst he still had Jeremy on hold. None of this sits well when you try to move the timing of Jeremy's 3.36am call, back 10 minutes to 3.26am...
Finally, Nevilles call to the police was also not a '999' call, and he was present at the scene, maybe that should tell us all, that at around that time (3.26am) Ralph might have thought that he could get the better of his daughter...
Is not one's sister USUALLY also one's father's daughter -biological, foster, step, or adopted?
-
What did spending the money prove?
These facts prove to me he had no morals, no scruples and no respect for his family and was out for all he could get
-
Why are you agreeing with what Jeremy claims his father said if you have yet to prove Jeremy received a call from his father in the first place?
What Jeremy reports Neville said in his 3.25am call, was reported by Neville himself in Nevilles 3.26am call, which in turn was reported by Jeremy to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The proof that Jeremy was told what he was told by Neville, lies in the message that Neville passed to police at 3.26am, and the wording in the 3.36am log of Jeremy's account. What you end up with, are accurate accounts by different parties to the same matter, separated by time, and why records exist spoken, and recorded in the first person, the second person, or the third person. This combination of accounts at different sources is what makes what I am suggesting as being true, the universal truth in this matter. If all this information, recorded at different sources, by this person saying this and that person saying that, you would not be here in this situation trying to make it all fit into one person being accountable for everything that is said by anybody, recorded here there and everywhere, at this time and that time. The reason it sits like it does is because the different events spoken about came from two original sources, one at 3.26am, the other timed at 3.36am...
-
Is not one's sister USUALLY also one's father's daughter -biological, foster, step, or adopted?
Police are there to record the facts, and to record accurate times for recordable events. It is not a policemans role to speculate or to change what has been said, into what he/she thinks should have been said. Nothing further to add...
-
These facts prove to me he had no morals, no scruples and no respect for his family
What would be the next step up for a burglar?
The facts are Jeremy robbed from his own family for personal gain.
He says his motive was to prove a point but the facts say otherwise.
What was the classification of this crime? Does anyone know?
-
Police are there to record the facts, and to record accurate times for recordable events. It is not a policemans role to speculate or to change what has been said, into what he/she thinks should have been said. Nothing further to add...
So what are you suggesting that Jeremy didn't tell them that they wrongly recorded OR are you suggesting Jeremy withheld what could have been vital information. WHO did Jeremy suggest to them had hold of the gun? If you're insisting that Jeremy mentioned didn't mention sister, who would he have relayed as having the gun?
-
That's for Mike to know and you to find out. ;)
-
Those first 5 minutes into Jeremy's 3.36am call to Chelmsford police station, then presenting themselves as a platform to enable the enquirer a unique opportunity to test the validaty of the claim that (a) Jeremy Bamber was the killer, (b) that Neville did not call Jeremy about any unfolding drama back at the farmhouse, (c) that Jeremy had not tried to ring his father back at least twice, or got an engaged tone, (d) that Jeremy had not tried to contact Witham police station, (e) that Jeremy had not rung his girlfriend at 3.30am, etc, etc, etc...
But, stop!!!
If such a call was received from Neville, by Jeremy at 5.25am, then surely he didn't kill his family, because what he has said all along is the truth. Something which is problematic to the argument that Jeremy's call had been at 3.26am, rather than at 3.36am, is the relationship between the deployment of the occupants of CA07 (3.35am) and CA05 (3.36am) prior to Jeremy being able to speak at all to PC West until around 3.41am, and PC Wests contacting the operator at 3.42am, whilst Jeremy was still on the line? In the court of appeal judgement, the appellate bench acknowleged with bewilderment the fact that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene prior to Jeremy having made his 3.36am call to PC West at Chelmsford police station. It seems obvious to me, that if the appellate court sitting in judgement in a case such as this, can come to a decision which effectively accepts that at least three police officers, Bews, Myall and Saxby, were en route to the incident prior to Jeremy alerting them to anything untoward occurring at the farmhouse, that the police must have been in possession of some evidence or other that was not given to them by Jeremy Bamber...
With Jeremy's call being put back 10 minutes, as suggested to 3.26am, from 3.36am, it goes against that, which the appellate court has already made a judgement upon - the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident prior to Jeremy's call to the police!!!
I need go no further...
-
What would be the next step up for a convicted burglar?
The facts are Jeremy robbed from his own family for personal gain. He did not, that is not true. It wasn't certain at the time of the tragedy who all the beneficiaries to the parents estate(s) might have been...
He says his motive was to prove a point but the facts say otherwise.
What was the classification of this crime? Does anyone know?
-
What Jeremy reports Neville said in his 3.25am call, was reported by Neville himself in Nevilles 3.26am call, which in turn was reported by Jeremy to PC West 5 minutes into his 3.36am call. The proof that Jeremy was told what he was told by Neville, lies in the message that Neville passed to police at 3.26am, and the wording in the 3.36am log of Jeremy's account. What you end up with, are accurate accounts by different parties to the same matter, separated by time, and why records exist spoken, and recorded in the first person, the second person, or the third person. This combination of accounts at different sources is what makes what I am suggesting as being true, the universal truth in this matter. If all this information, recorded at different sources, by this person saying this and that person saying that, you would not be here in this situation trying to make it all fit into one person being accountable for everything that is said by anybody, recorded here there and everywhere, at this time and that time. The reason it sits like it does is because the different events spoken about came from two original sources, one at 3.26am, the other timed at 3.36am...
You're certainly managing to make intricately difficult what is actually supremely simple. If we take what you suggest as being fact, it's convoluted. If we take what was presented, it's clear. Jeremy took an age to make a non urgent call rather than calling 999. He alleges his father gave him a message which he passes on to the police. Muddling sister/daughter to try to nudge in another call from Nevill and accusing police of losing/withholding it doesn't do it for me.
-
Are you saying Julie did the Osea break in on her own?
-
There is nothing at all convoluted in the way all these reported events panned out, overlapped, or attach themselves to one or other of the accepted events. That's what happens with real events, they can never be explained in isolation, a sequence of true events sits well with other features in the same event/matter. As a result of such events all being linked as such in sequential order, if anyone tries to argue an event out of sequence it throws all the other sequential events into chaos...
That is why I can say that Jeremy received a call from Neville, I can rely upon that being the truth because this event (3), is proven by events (4) and (11). I also know that Jeremy spoke the truth when he said that he rung Neville back twice but got the engaged tone each time. How do I know this? I know this to be true because of events (3), (4), (5) and (6). I know that Jeremy tried to contact Witham police station prior to phoning Julie at 3.30am. How do I know this? I know this to be true by reference to the events (1), (2), (7) and (9). I know that what Jeremy has said at different times that he phoned Julie after he phoned the police, and he phoned Julie before he phoned police, to both be true, by reference to events (7), (8), and (11). I know that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station was not made at 3.26am, but rather at 3.36am, by reference to events (9), (10), (11), and (12) - Jeremy was not in touch with Chelmsford police (3.36am) until after the deployment of CA07, he was still on the line when PC West spoke to a female operator at 3.42am, things which do not sit in sequence once you dishonestly seek to move the timing of Jeremy's call back to 3.26am, from 3.36am...
My methods are tried and tested. If you start inteferring with timed events by suggesting they occurred at a different time, it throws everything in the sequential line of events into chaos. That is where Essex police, and the prosecuting authorities have dug a very deep hole for themselves. If anyone wants to believe in all the lies which these people have told and are telling, you are all welcome to jump or fall into the huge hole they have dug for themselves, and any of you who may unwisely choose to follow blindly into the abyss!!!
The sequence of events (Now known) (19 Events in 'sequential of order')...
Event 1
Around 3.15am - CA07 (Bews, Myall and Saxby) leave Witham police station to deal with a separate incident
Event 2
10 minutes
Prior to 3.25am - Nevill attempts to call Witham police Station but gets 'no response'...
Event 3
under a minute
Around 3.25am - Neville alerts Jeremy with brief telephone call
Event 4
1 minute?
3.26am - Neville contacts Chelmsford police station, as per the 3.26am (C1) Communications Log. He leaves phone off hook (indefinitely)...
Event 5
under a minute
Around 3.26am, - Jeremy attempts to call Nevill back but gets an engaged tone
.
Event 6
1 minute?
Around 3.27am?, - Jeremy attempts to call Neville back but gets an engaged tone
Event 7
2 minutes
Around 3.29am - Jeremy attempts to contact Witham police station but gets no response
Event 8
1 minute
3.30am - Jeremy calls Julie, 'there's something wrong at home, she tells him to 'go back to bed'
Event 9
5 minutes
3.35am - Occupants CA07 (Bews, Myall, Saxby) deployed to scene
Event 10
1 minute?
3.36am - Occupants CA05 deployed to scene
Event 11
under a minute?
3.36am - Jeremy calls Chelmsford police station and speaks to PC West, who then places him on hold for 5 minutes
Event 12
5 minutes
3.41am - 'PC West' contacts female operator regarding telephone at white house farm
Event 13
5 minutes
3.46am - Jeremy is sent to scene by PC West, and told he will be met there by police who have already been deployed to the incident
Event 14
2 minutes
3.48am - arrival of CA07 at the scene. Information recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communications log
Event 15
4 minutes
3.52am - arrival of Jeremy at scene
Event 16
4 minutes
3.56am - Operator confirms phone at farmhouse has been left off hook. Information recorded on Bonnets (CA) Communication log
Event 17
2 minutes
Around 3.58am - Jeremy tells Bews, Myall and Saxby, about types of firearm which are kept inside the farmhouse. This information is relayed to CD and recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communication log
Event 18
4 minutes
4.02am - Bews, Myall and Jeremy, enter grounds of farmhouse, and see figure at main bedroom window
Event 19
20 minutes
4.22am - Occupants of CA05 arrive at scene. Information is recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communication log
-
He did not, that is not true. It wasn't certain at the time of the tragedy who all the beneficiaries to the parents estate(s) might have been...
I am referring to the Caravan park robbery Mike, you appear to be jumping ahead.
-
What would be the next step up for a convicted burglar?
The facts are Jeremy robbed from his own family for personal gain - The caravan park
He says his motive was to prove a point but the facts say otherwise.
What was the classification of this crime? Does anyone know?
Mike why are you ignoring these facts?
Jeremy had a track record for dishonesty. He burgled the family caravan park.
Why should we believe his claims about the alleged call from Nevill?
He wasn't reformed!
He was growing and supplying weed when he was arrested for the murders. This suggests a progression in terms of his criminality.
-
Mike why are you ignoring these facts? I don't ignore any facts, fact is I like facts, something which to pin my hat upon without having to worry about whether this is true or that is true/ Facts are important when you have a number of events that you want to try and work out the sequence with which each event in the overal sequence of events occurred. This is where timings come into play. This allows you, or me, or anyone to satisfy ourselves that this or that occurred in this sequence or that sequence...
Why should we believe his claims about the alleged call from Nevill? I have given my explanation in my previous post. Event (3) is proven by Events (4) and (11)...
He wasn't reformed!
He was growing and supplying weed when he was arrested for the murders. This suggests a progression in terms of his criminality. I don't seek to deny this aspect of his criminality, however, let us also not forget that Julie was selling drugs, not only on Jeremy's behalf, but on behalf of other house mates of hers, who were drug dealors, and drug users. The lot of them had Criminal convictions for drug dealing or drug abuse. With this in mind, how does this reflect upon the potential for Julie Mugford to be a killer one day? What about her housemates? Perhaps if the prosecuting authorities turn you into a prosecution witness, it somehow makes you a reformed character!!! Yeah, Right...
-
There is nothing at all convoluted in the way all these reported events panned out, overlapped, or attach themselves to one or other of the accepted events. That's what happens with real events, they can never be explained in isolation, a sequence of true events sits well with other features in the same event/matter. As a result of such events all being linked as such in sequential order, if anyone tries to argue an event out of sequence it throws all the other sequential events into chaos...
That is why I can say that Jeremy received a call from Neville, I can rely upon that being the truth because this event (3), is proven by events (4) and (11). I also know that Jeremy spoke the truth when he said that he rung Neville back twice but got the engaged tone each time. How do I know this? I know this to be true because of events (3), (4), (5) and (6). I know that Jeremy tried to contact Witham police station prior to phoning Julie at 3.30am. How do I know this? I know this to be true by reference to the events (1), (2), (7) and (9). I know that what Jeremy has said at different times that he phoned Julie after he phoned the police, and he phoned Julie before he phoned police, to both be true, by reference to events (7), (8), and (11). I know that Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station was not made at 3.26am, but rather at 3.36am, by reference to events (9), (10), (11), and (12) - Jeremy was not in touch with Chelmsford police (3.36am) until after the deployment of CA07, he was still on the line when PC West spoke to a female operator at 3.42am, things which do not sit in sequence once you dishonestly seek to move the timing of Jeremy's call back to 3.26am, from 3.36am...
My methods are tried and tested. If you start inteferring with timed events by suggesting they occurred at a different time, it throws everything in the sequential line of events into chaos. That is where Essex police, and the prosecuting authorities have dug a very deep hole for themselves. If anyone wants to believe in all the lies which these people have told and are telling, you are all welcome to jump or fall into the huge hole they have dug for themselves, and any of you who may unwisely choose to follow blindly into the abyss!!!
The sequence of events (Now known) (19 Events in 'sequential of order')...
Event 1
Around 3.15am - CA07 (Bews, Myall and Saxby) leave Witham police station to deal with a separate incident
Event 2
10 minutes
Prior to 3.25am - Nevill attempts to call Witham police Station but gets 'no response'...
Event 3
under a minute
Around 3.25am - Neville alerts Jeremy with brief telephone call
Event 4
1 minute?
3.26am - Neville contacts Chelmsford police station, as per the 3.26am (C1) Communications Log. He leaves phone off hook (indefinitely)...
Event 5
under a minute
Around 3.26am, - Jeremy attempts to call Nevill back but gets an engaged tone
.
Event 6
1 minute?
Around 3.27am?, - Jeremy attempts to call Neville back but gets an engaged tone
Event 7
2 minutes
Around 3.29am - Jeremy attempts to contact Witham police station but gets no response
Event 8
1 minute
3.30am - Jeremy calls Julie, 'there's something wrong at home, she tells him to 'go back to bed'
Event 9
5 minutes
3.35am - Occupants CA07 (Bews, Myall, Saxby) deployed to scene
Event 10
1 minute?
3.36am - Occupants CA05 deployed to scene
Event 11
under a minute?
3.36am - Jeremy calls Chelmsford police station and speaks to PC West, who then places him on hold for 5 minutes
Event 12
5 minutes
3.41am - 'PC West' contacts female operator regarding telephone at white house farm
Event 13
5 minutes
3.46am - Jeremy is sent to scene by PC West, and told he will be met there by police who have already been deployed to the incident
Event 14
2 minutes
3.48am - arrival of CA07 at the scene. Information recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communications log
Event 15
4 minutes
3.52am - arrival of Jeremy at scene
Event 16
4 minutes
3.56am - Operator confirms phone at farmhouse has been left off hook. Information recorded on Bonnets (CA) Communication log
Event 17
2 minutes
Around 3.58am - Jeremy tells Bews, Myall and Saxby, about types of firearm which are kept inside the farmhouse. This information is relayed to CD and recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communication log
Event 18
4 minutes
4.02am - Bews, Myall and Jeremy, enter grounds of farmhouse, and see figure at main bedroom window
Event 19
20 minutes
4.22am - Occupants of CA05 arrive at scene. Information is recorded on Bonnets (C1) Communication log
Mike, Bamber said Nevill called him at 3:10am.
If Nevill had time to call Bamber, then the police straight afterwards, surely Nevill had time to say more than 11 words to Bamber.
Why didn't Nevill or Bamber call 999 ?
Chelmsford were able to get through to Witham straight away.
-
Why didn't JM report his growing and supplying ?
Because her and her flat-mates were doing well out of him ! A right mug wasn't he ? JM was also selling it long before she met JB,bringing it in from abroad. Who was her supplier there ? We've never found that out have we ?
-
Why didn't JM report his growing and supplying ?
Because her and her flat-mates were doing well out of him ! A right mug wasn't he ? JM was also selling it long before she met JB,bringing it in from abroad. Who was her supplier there ? We've never found that out have we ?
Please provide evidence of that one, Lookout. I wonder how she was able, prior to not meeting Jeremy until she was 20 and still a student, to afford the luxury of going abroad to deal/negotiate drugs?
-
Please provide evidence of that one, Lookout. I wonder how she was able, prior to not meeting Jeremy until she was 20 and still a student, to afford the luxury of going abroad to deal/negotiate drugs?
It's been well documented about her smuggling drugs back from Canada.Something that JB hadn't known about until after their relationship developed.
Who knows what she'd been up to before meeting JB. Wasn't she also in France where it was alleged that she got raped ?
-
It's been well documented about her smuggling drugs back from Canada.Something that JB hadn't known about until after their relationship developed.
Who knows what she'd been up to before meeting JB. Wasn't she also in France where it was alleged that she got raped ?
That would be well documented by WHOM, Lookout? Prior to meeting Jeremy she was in full time education. Students don't normally have sufficient cash -her family weren't wealthy- to take trips to Canada. NOBODY knows what she did before she met Jeremy but you've clearly decided it has to be illegal or dirty.
-
Mike, Bamber said Nevill called him at 3:10am. If the timing of Nevilles call had been at this time, you would then have Jeremy trying to call Neville back twice and getting an engaged tone. You would have Jeremy then trying to contact Witham police station 3 minutes later (around 3.14am), followed by his call to Julie at 3.15am, followed by Jeremys call to the police I presume you are suggesting at 3.26am. This would be problematic, because there was I as understand it only a maximum of 10 minutes duration between Jeremy receiving Nevilles call and Jeremy calling Chelmsford police station, which had ordered and structured events built into that overall 10 minute period. You will appreciate there being a vastly increased time period of the accepted 10 minute duration, increasing by some additional 6 minutes providing an overall period between Nevilles call to Jeremy, and Jeremys call to Chelmsford police station, in particular PC West of 16 minutes. Of course this produces the type of chaos I was trying to draw everyones attention to, since obviously a call by Neville to Jeremy at 3.10am does not sit accurately in sequence with all the structured events (1) to (19). Of course, Jeremy could have been lying about the timing of his call at that time, or as the case may be, DC Clarke introduced the time as an estimate because Jeremy could not be specific about the exact time. Another problem as we have seen, is that the appellate court accepted that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident prior to the police receiving any information at all from Jeremy, and CA07 was deployed to the scene at 3.35am, and so are you really asking me to believe that Jeremy made his call to police at 3.26am, and that the occupants had not been deployed to the scene prior to Jeremy contacting the police at all, they had been deployed there afterwards? What is one to do, when there exist certain, as it were timed events upon which we can all hang our hats without disquiet? Court of Appeal was satisfied though somewhat bewildered that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident prior to Jeremy's call to Chelmsford, and in particular, to PC West?
If Nevill had time to call Bamber, then the police straight afterwards, surely Nevill had time to say more than 11 words to Bamber. Maybe not. Since neville had possibly tried to contact his local police at Witham at event (2) only to have not got a response because of event (1), so he decides to let Jeremy know whats happenning, intending to keep the call to Jeremy short, because he wanted to phone headquarters at Chelmsford (3.26am. One thing is certain, and that is that Neville kept what he had to say to the police short and to the point. The reason for that/this may well have been that he was drawn away from the telephone by happennings elsewhere upstaits in the farmhouse, or even downstairs in the kitchen. In any event, the phone was subsequently left of the hook, but not neccessarily as it was later shown to be on the kitchen worktop, because DCI Harris used the kitchen phone to call ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15am and 8.30am after Sheila had disappeared from the kitchen...
Why didn't Nevill or Bamber call 999 ? that is something I can't answer, but rest assured that they both did phone the police at different times...
Chelmsford were able to get through to Witham straight away. If Chelmsford had tried to ring Witham police station at any stage between before 3.25am and 3.34am, there would not have been anyone there to answer their call, because the only officers on duty there that night were Bews, Myall and Saxby, who had been called out on another job, which they didn't return back to Witham from, until 3.34am, or there abouts...
-
That would be well documented by WHOM, Lookout? Prior to meeting Jeremy she was in full time education. Students don't normally have sufficient cash -her family weren't wealthy- to take trips to Canada. NOBODY knows what she did before she met Jeremy but you've clearly decided it has to be illegal or dirty.
NGB can verify this.Documents are in the PII dept. Importing and supplying.
-
NGB can verify this.Documents are in the PII dept. Importing and supplying.
Are you saying that NGB is privy to -has READ- those things held under PPI?
-
Are you saying that NGB is privy to -has READ- those things held under PPI?
I'm saying that NGB was aware of her importing drugs for the purpose of selling them.
-
I'm saying that NGB was aware of her importing drugs for the purpose of selling them.
Then I'll await his confirmation. I have the feeling that MUCH of what NGB has to say becomes, whatever the relayer of his words, wishes them to convey.
-
I don't remember any complaints emanating from JM as she supped her champagne and enjoyed lobster bought,or helped with the proceeds of ill-gotten gains. So she too liked the high life whatever it took !!
-
I don't remember any complaints emanating from JM as she supped her champagne and enjoyed lobster bought,or helped with the proceeds of ill-gotten gains. So she too liked the high life whatever it took !!
What complaints would you expect to hear from a girl who was besotted with her boyfriend and the life he appeared to be offering?
-
What complaints would you expect to hear from a girl who was besotted with her boyfriend and the life he appeared to be offering?
Besotted with money more like,as it was proven.
-
Besotted with money more like,as it was proven.
She MAY have been, but it would have been Jeremy who led her to believe such was available.............but this isn't about Julie.
-
She MAY have been, but it would have been Jeremy who led her to believe such was available.............but this isn't about Julie.
Christ,I give up.
-
Christ,I give up.
That'll be the day. Go have a cup of tea and a cigarette ;D
-
The 5 minute delay at the beginning of Jeremy's 10 minute call to Chelmsford police station proves a piece of very compelling evidence in support of the case for Jeremy's call being received at 3.36am, after the deployment of the occupants of CA07 to the scene at 3.35am...
-
The 5 minute delay at the beginning of Jeremy's 10 minute call to Chelmsford police station proves a piece of very compelling evidence in support of the case for Jeremy's call being received at 3.36am, after the deployment of the occupants of CA07 to the scene at 3.35am...
PC Wests admission during his court appearence at Jeremy's October 1986 Crown Court trial, that he had been in contact with Malcom Bonnett before he received Jeremy's call at 3.36am. He could not remember what he spoke to Bonnet about on that earlier occasion. He could not remember whether or not he contacted him, on that occasion by way of the telephone exchange line, or by radio. I can solve the mystery, PC West spoke to Malcom Bonnet via the exchange line at 3.26am. At that time the event which PC West claimed he could not remember talking to him about, were the contents of Neville Bambers 3.26am, recorded by PC Bonnet in his (C1) Communications log...
I can show this by reference to a series of edited log contents, showing the additions which Bonnett made to his log, as and when new information came to light. Lets start at the beginning of the (C1) Communications log, as follows...
The Occupants of CA07 (Bews, Myall, and Saxby) were deployed to the incident at whf, based upon the information provided to the police by Neville Bamber (below)...
-
Much later, once PC West got to acually speak to Jeremy (after 5 minutes delay in Jeremy's 3.36am, call also to Chelmsford police station)...
Here is the insert which Malcom Bonnett added into Neville Bambers 3.26am (C1) Communications log, once PC West had spoken to Jeremy Bamber, and Bamber himself, had arrived at the scene and had given the occupants of CA07 information about the collection of guns held by Neville Bamber inside the farmhouse...
-
The introduction of information from Bamber, not having been inserted into Neville Bambers (C1) Communications log, until after Jeremy had arrived at the scene after 3.52am (26 minutes after the first details were recorded in Neville Bambers phone log at 3.26am)...
-
The bottom line, is that you can't build into the 3.26am (C1) Communications log, the 5 minute delay whilst Jeremy was placed on hold by PC West, a call from Jeremy which could only have been made to Chelmsford police station after the occupants of CA07 (Bews, Myall and Saxby) had been deployed to the incident at whf at 3.35am, an unchallenged timed event...
Logic dictates the absolute truth in this matter, no room for error or speculation, except by anxious prosecution supporters who find it difficult to accept that Jeremy Bamber is at the heart of one of the UK's worst ever miscarriages of Justice in its entire history...
-
Jeremy Bamber, for all his many faults in the popularity charts, he really did receive a distress call from Neville Bamber at around 3.25am. He really did try at least twice to re-establish contact with Neville, only to be met with an engaged tone, suggestive that Neville had already obtained a dialing tone at his end, or that Neville was already talking to somebody else. Jeremy, being the son of the Chairman of the Witham Magistrates bench, did what Neville would have done had he got the chance, he would have contacted the local police at Witham, with whom Neville had a good working relationship linked to his part time employment as a local Magistrate. So, impulsively Jeremy tried contacting the local police at Witham police station, to check to see if they had heard from Neville. His call went unanswered. Maybe this caused Jeremy to suspect that the local police were already on their way to the incident which Neville had just brought to his attention. So, in a state of subdued frustration he decided to call Julie Mugford at 3.30am, 'There's something wrong at home', he found himself saying to her. She responed with a cold 'go back to bed'...
Still somewhat confused about the nature of Nevilles call, how the line had been cut short so unexpectedly, how the line was producing 'an engaged tone' when he rang back, how the local police at Witham were not responding to his call, and to top it all off Julie showing no interest or concern, she simply telling him in a rather cold off hand manner to, 'go back to bed'...
How did Julie know that he had been in bed, prior to receiving Nevilles call, and prior to making his call to her? 'Go back to bed', she had told him, 'Go back to bed'...
This was an interesting comment on Julies part, in view of her later stating that on the previous evening Jeremy had told her in another telephone conversation, allegedly, 'tonight's the night'...
'Tonight's the night', and 'Go back to bed', somehow don't smack of a plan carefully arranged with Julies knowlege, to murder his entire family, now does it?
'Go back to bed'...
But, he didn't go back to bed. Maybe he then started getting himself dressed, and then found time to pick up the telephone directory and look up Chelmsford police station telephone number. Whilst he was looking up the number, the occupants of CA07 were being deployed to the same incident which Neville had told him about. Jeremy didn't know this at the time, of course, but the deployment of Bews, Myall and Saxby to the farmhouse at 3.35am, prior to Jeremy's own answered call to Chelmsford police station at precisely 3.36am, would eventually in the year 2017 contribute significantly to his release from custody after serving 32 years behind bars for a series of crimes he could not have, and did not commit. Evidence provided on behalf of 'a philosophical Internationally acclaimed expert' would in that year (2017) outline the case for Jeremy's innocence, based upon the sequential occurrence of known timed events, some unchallenged, others open to interpretation. This presentation will be supported by specially prepared versions of the (C1) Communications log entries, and the second police Communication log entries, showing the state of play on a minute to minute blow of the unfolding drama as witness by Malcom Bonnett from 3.26am, onwards, and from PC Wests perspective involving Jeremy's influence in the proceedings from 3.36am, onward. I know this will come to pass, and when it happens I will sit quietly in my room, and I doubt that anyone will stop to think for one moment about the contribution I have made, to try and make this happen. I am no expert, the only qualification I got in philosophy, was a pass with a distinction, after taking philosophy up whilst a serving prisoner at HMP Full Sutton between 1989 and 1990, as part of an advanced certificate in education, at Hull University, which also included a course on sociology, and economics...
-
QC's are philosophers, so are High Court Judges who sit in judgement of judgements and verdicts of a jury in Criminal and civil cases...
I can forsee the legal argument now, in my minds eye - 'How could Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police have been any sooner than 3.36am, by acceptance of the unargued/accepted fact that the occupants of CA07 (Bews, Myall, and Saxby) being deployed to the incident at the farmhouse (3.35am) prior to Jeremy making his own call to Chelmsford police station?
-
QC's are philosophers, so are High Court Judges who sit in judgement of judgements and verdicts of a jury in Criminal and civil cases...
I can forsee the legal argument now, in my minds eye - 'How could Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police have been any sooner than 3.36am, by acceptance of the unargued/accepted fact that the occupants of CA07 (Bews, Myall, and Saxby) being deployed to the incident at the farmhouse (3.35am) prior to Jeremy making his own call to Chelmsford police station?
A mind, or a series of minds, far superior in intelligence, experience and philosophical thought, will eventually come to the table where they will present the facts, consider and argue its implications, and settle upon an explanation that no human mind could think up a counter argument to try to alter or change its findings of fact, in this particular matter. This will be presented, argued, concluded upon, and settle the question or otherwise of Jeremy Bambers culpability in these five murders, in the next 12 month period...
-
Jeremy was placed on hold for 5 minutes, whilst PC West finished dealing with another (related matter). At around 3.40 / 3.41am, Jeremy finally got to inform PC West . . .
That's just an estimate, and wasn't supported by Pc West during the trial. Hence all the times you've deduced from that could well be a couple of minutes later than the correct times. In particular, after Jeremy's call had ended, Pc West could have had time to call the operator (regarding the WHF telephone lline) and then receive a reply whilst his clock showed 3:42. Also, Jeremy could have reached WHF at about the time that corresponds with Bonnett's log (around 3:50am), rather than the slightly later time of 3:52am that you mention as though it's firmly established.
Jeremy's call to PC West was recorded on audio tape, similarly to what occurs using the '999' system.
There's no evidence that Jeremy's call to Pc West was recorded on audio tape. It was Bonnett that later mentioned audio recording, not Pc West. However, Pc West's telephone call to Bonnett was recorded according to Bonnett.
I am utterly satisfied that if Jeremy had gone the route of dialling '999', instead of the option he chose, that police would not have been alerted any sooner
That doesn't imply that Jeremy would have thought the same, though he might have done so.
It didn't take 10 minutes to look up the telephone number of Chelmsford police station - where do you get that idea from? It took 4 to 5 minutes maximum, after 3.32 / 3.33am when he ended his call to Julie Mugford...
I think it took even less time than that, because it's quite easy to find police telephone numbers. I think Jeremy said it took 2 minutes at most, which was misrecorded as 10 minutes at most. We don't know exactly when his call to JM ended, but I think it's likely he got dressed before calling Pc West (as I don't think he had enough time to dress after that call).
. . . the closest units to WHF were deployed, and did race to the incident
According to Bonnett's log, car CA5 took about 47 minutes to reach WHF, so it didn't "race" there, instead averaging considerably less than 30mph.
I thought the occupants of CA07 was meeting Bamber, if they were responding from a call from Neville they would have told Bamber this?
Not necessarily, as it wouldn't have served any useful purpose.
There is no proof Nevill telephoned Jeremy; only Jeremy's claims that he had.
The prosecution failed to provide evidence that Nevill didn't call Jeremy. The police seemed to think it plausible that he did.
I am interested in the first 5 minutes of Jeremy's 10 minute call, which everyone seems to be in agreement with, was a call which did take place. There was a 5 minute period at the commencement of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station where Jeremy was placed on hold!!
At trial, Pc West estimated that period as being about 3 minutes.
How did Jeremy get to WHF by 3:50am if he was still at home at 3:46am?
He left a few minutes earlier than that. We don't know exactly when, but he needed to drive for around 7 minutes, as Mike Tesko took about 7 minutes 21 seconds to drive a similar journey, albeit during daytime.
So, impulsively Jeremy tried contacting the local police at Witham police station, to check to see if they had heard from Neville. His call went unanswered.
Jeremy must have no recollection of this, as he's specifically denied trying to call Witham.
-
I agree with Mike that -
Bamber called Julie before the police.
Bamber was kept on hold for 5 minutes by the police.
Bamber only spent a short time looking for the number of Chelmsford police.
-
That's just an estimate, and wasn't supported by Pc West during the trial. Hence all the times you've deduced from that could well be a couple of minutes later than the correct times. In particular, after Jeremy's call had ended, Pc West could have had time to call the operator (regarding the WHF telephone lline) and then receive a reply whilst his clock showed 3:42. Also, Jeremy could have reached WHF at about the time that corresponds with Bonnett's log (around 3:50am), rather than the slightly later time of 3:52am that you mention as though it's firmly established.
There's no evidence that Jeremy's call to Pc West was recorded on audio tape. It was Bonnett that later mentioned audio recording, not Pc West. However, Pc West's telephone call to Bonnett was recorded according to Bonnett.
That doesn't imply that Jeremy would have thought the same, though he might have done so.
I think it took even less time than that, because it's quite easy to find police telephone numbers. I think Jeremy said it took 2 minutes at most, which was misrecorded as 10 minutes at most. We don't know exactly when his call to JM ended, but I think it's likely he got dressed before calling Pc West (as I don't think he had enough time to dress after that call).
According to Bonnett's log, car CA5 took about 47 minutes to reach WHF, so it didn't "race" there, instead averaging considerably less than 30mph.
Not necessarily, as it wouldn't have served any useful purpose.
The prosecution failed to provide evidence that Nevill didn't call Jeremy. The police seemed to think it plausible that he did.
At trial, Pc West estimated that period as being about 3 minutes.
He left a few minutes earlier than that. We don't know exactly when, but he needed to drive for around 7 minutes, as Mike Tesko took about 7 minutes 21 seconds to drive a similar journey, albeit during daytime.
Jeremy must have no recollection of this, as he's specifically denied trying to call Witham.
Quote from: justice on Yesterday at 01:49 PM
I thought the occupants of CA07 was meeting Bamber, if they were responding from a call from Neville they would have told Bamber this?
From Reader Not necessarily, as it wouldn't have served any useful purpose.
Well they found it useful to ask him why his Father called him and not the police?
Quote from: mike tesko on Yesterday at 11:16 PM
So, impulsively Jeremy tried contacting the local police at Witham police station, to check to see if they had heard from Neville. His call went unanswered.
From Reader, Jeremy must have no recollection of this, as he's specifically denied trying to call Witham.
Well he does tell Bews he phoned Witham?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3132.0;attach=38124
Quote from: mike tesko on Yesterday at 01:19 PM
It didn't take 10 minutes to look up the telephone number of Chelmsford police station - where do you get that idea from? It took 4 to 5 minutes maximum, after 3.32 / 3.33am when he ended his call to Julie Mugford...
From Reader. I think it took even less time than that, because it's quite easy to find police telephone numbers. I think Jeremy said it took 2 minutes at most, which was misrecorded as 10 minutes at most. We don't know exactly when his call to JM ended, but I think it's likely he got dressed before calling Pc West (as I don't think he had enough time to dress after that call).
This is your own spin, Read this and tell me how you get two minutes or Mike gets 4/5 minutes?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5791
The problem is I agree with Mike, he did phone Witham, after making the mistake of telling Bews he had phoned Witham which they had questioned him regarding not phoning 999, he never mentions Witham again because he has looked stupid spending ten minutes looking for two local police numbers. If you spend time looking for one and get no reply why spend time looking for another, when all you have to do is call 999.
-
Quote from: justice on Yesterday at 01:49 PM
I thought the occupants of CA07 was meeting Bamber, if they were responding from a call from Neville they would have told Bamber this?
From Reader Not necessarily, as it wouldn't have served any useful purpose.
Well they found it useful to ask him why his Father called him and not the police?
Quote from: mike tesko on Yesterday at 11:16 PM
So, impulsively Jeremy tried contacting the local police at Witham police station, to check to see if they had heard from Neville. His call went unanswered.
From Reader, Jeremy must have no recollection of this, as he's specifically denied trying to call Witham.
Well he does tell Bews he phoned Witham?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3132.0;attach=38124
Quote from: mike tesko on Yesterday at 01:19 PM
It didn't take 10 minutes to look up the telephone number of Chelmsford police station - where do you get that idea from? It took 4 to 5 minutes maximum, after 3.32 / 3.33am when he ended his call to Julie Mugford...
From Reader. I think it took even less time than that, because it's quite easy to find police telephone numbers. I think Jeremy said it took 2 minutes at most, which was misrecorded as 10 minutes at most. We don't know exactly when his call to JM ended, but I think it's likely he got dressed before calling Pc West (as I don't think he had enough time to dress after that call).
This is your own spin, Read this and tell me how you get two minutes or Mike gets 4/5 minutes?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5791
The problem is I agree with Mike, he did phone Witham, after making the mistake of telling Bews he had phoned Witham which they had questioned him regarding not phoning 999, he never mentions Witham again because he has looked stupid spending ten minutes looking for two local police numbers. If you spend time looking for one and get no reply why spend time looking for another, when all you have to do is call 999.
H also told West he phoned Witham.
-
H also told West he phoned Witham.
Thanks Caroline, so Bews was right.
-
Thanks Caroline, so Bews was right.
He certainly was ;)
-
Well they found it useful to ask him why his Father called him and not the police?
That may be what they eventually said happened, but Jeremy doesn't recall it. The statements by the occupants of CA7 don't concentrate sufficiently on details, and they seem to be all much the same, as though they had carefully agreed on their content instead of writing them separately. However, they do indicate that CA7 went to WHF at very high speed. In contrast, car CA5 averaged somewhere between 25mph and 30mph, which seems very odd if both cars were sent in response to just one telephone call to the police. Also, if Jeremy's call was received at 3:26 rather than 3:36, there was a considerable delay
before car CA5 departed, despite the fact that its occupants were with Pc West in the Chelmsford control room at the time. Pc West told Jeremy to meet with car CA7 (the police from Witham), but didn't mention to him that CA5 was also on its away, although it would get there second due to the greater distance it needed to go.
Read this and tell me how you get two minutes or Mike gets 4/5 minutes?
When interviewed, Jeremy was asked how long it took him to lookup the police number. He replied "10 minutes at the outside" (or words to that effect) according to the transcript of the interview. I used to accept that was his answer. However, "10 minutes" and "2 minutes" can sound very similar when spoken as the beginning of a sentence, and I suspect that Jeremy said "2 minutes", which was misrecorded as "10 minutes" when his interview was typed out (because 10 minutes would be unreasonably long just to look up a telephone number, as would 4/5 minutes). There are no explicit references to 4/5 minutes for this, so I would think that Mike Tesko was going more by the time available than by the transcript.
. . . he never mentions Witham again because he has looked stupid spending ten minutes looking for two local police numbers.
That doesn't make sense. He didn't tell the police at the time that he had spent 10 minutes doing that. He allegedly mentioned 10 minutes when interviewed about a month later. He needn't have done that if he thought it seemed stupid, as he wasn't being asked to account for all the time he took. If the police interviewing him had a concern about why Jeremy took so much time, they would have asked him "Why would it have taken you 10 minutes to look up a police telephone number?" (or words to that effect), but they didn't. The fact that they didn't suggests that Jeremy actually gave the much more reasonable reply of "2 minutes at the outside".
-
Personally Reader I don't think it took him 10 mins, the trouble is, when you are being questioned you don't know what the police have in evidence against you, if that makes sense. So he could have invented the 10 mins to buy him time in between phone calls, or to account for why he delayed? Not saying this is certain though.
Why would he mention Witham to two people then never mention it again or deny as you clam? Why would West and Bews say he called a Witham? There must be a reason Bamber never mentions Witham again or Denys calling them?
-
That may be what they eventually said happened, but Jeremy doesn't recall it. The statements by the occupants of CA7 don't concentrate sufficiently on details, and they seem to be all much the same, as though they had carefully agreed on their content instead of writing them separately. However, they do indicate that CA7 went to WHF at very high speed. In contrast, car CA5 averaged somewhere between 25mph and 30mph, which seems very odd if both cars were sent in response to just one telephone call to the police. Also, if Jeremy's call was received at 3:26 rather than 3:36, there was a considerable delay
before car CA5 departed, despite the fact that its occupants were with Pc West in the Chelmsford control room at the time. Pc West told Jeremy to meet with car CA7 (the police from Witham), but didn't mention to him that CA5 was also on its away, although it would get there second due to the greater distance it needed to go.
When interviewed, Jeremy was asked how long it took him to lookup the police number. He replied "10 minutes
Why can Jeremy not recall certain aspects of his timings one minute but can the next. If you read his witness statements along with his police interviews and his evidence given his court you will see how it is Jeremy who has purposely mixed up the timings in order to confuse. If you look at Jeremys evidence only and put aside all other evidence and any thoughts you have on the other evidence it becomes clear.
If you ask yourself why Jeremy wasn't giving the police all his evidence, the next question should be why is he withholding it?
There should only be one story from Jeremy and that story should remain firm, not change over 32 years. The facts, if they are facts won't change. The police have never changed the facts they presented - only Jeremy has changed the facts. Why has he done this?
-
Personally Reader I don't think it took him 10 mins, the trouble is, when you are being questioned you don't know what the police have in evidence against you, if that makes sense. So he could have invented the 10 mins to buy him time in between phone calls, or to account for why he delayed? Not saying this is certain though.
Why would he mention Witham to two people then never mention it again or deny as you clam? Why would West and Bews say he called a Witham? There must be a reason Bamber never mentions Witham again or Denys calling them?
I agree justice. There's no doubt the police have made errors and it's clear Jeremy has used these errors in an attempt to confuse his original evidence given in his first statement, police interviews and subsequently during his trial.
It's also clear Jeremy has a selective memory when it suits him. I've noticed how he tells his supporters he cannot recall some things but can others. I was reading a blog last night and it's evident he's telling one person one thing and another person something else entirely.
I believe he did mention Witham but because he wasn't questioned on it and as he was figuring out where the police were going with regards to the timings etc, he thought it best to keep his mouth shut.
This is not the behavior of an innocent man.
-
Why can Jeremy not recall certain aspects of his timings one minute but can the next. If you read his witness statements Written and paraphrased by DC Clark... along with his police interviews questioned differently by the interviewing officer... and his evidence given his court Questioned differently by prosecution counsel...you will see how it is Jeremy who has purposely mixed up the timings in order to confuse. different circumstances, questioned by different people, in different suroundings...If you look at Jeremys evidence only and put aside all other evidence and any thoughts you have on the other evidence it becomes clear. I don't think it does become clear...
-
I agree justice. There's no doubt the police have made errors and it's clear Jeremy has used these errors in an attempt to confuse his original evidence given in his first statement, police interviews and subsequently during his trial.
It's also clear Jeremy has a selective memory when it suits him. I've noticed how he tells his supporters he cannot recall some things but can others. I was reading a blog last night and it's evident he's telling one person one thing and another person something else entirely.
I believe he did mention Witham but because he wasn't questioned on it and as he was figuring out where the police were going with regards to the timings etc, he thought it best to keep his mouth shut.
This is not the behavior of an innocent man.
Excellant post and well put Steph.
-
He also told West he phoned Witham.
According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.
-
If the police interviewing him had a concern about why Jeremy took so much time, they would have asked him "Why would it have taken you 10 minutes to look up a police telephone number?" (or words to that effect), but they didn't. The fact that they didn't suggests that Jeremy actually gave the much more reasonable reply of "2 minutes at the outside".
They didn't believe him Reader. They weren't interested. What was the point questioning him further if he was going to lie.
It was Jeremy who remained firm that his first statement was exact. He said the words exact. His first statement was the one he was sticking to. He was questioned about the timings several times. He wasn't under pressure as the police allowed Jeremy to call the shots. He had a break when he wanted, he went to the toilet when he wanted. They went along at his pace. They were already on to him. They would have dealt with men like him on a regular basis. They let Jeremy lead the way. The interviews weren't rushed nor was he put under pressure.
If his timings were correct, why didn't he get his defence team to bring them up during the trial? Why didn't he insist his barrister break all the timings down into tiny little pieces in order for the jury to hear. Jeremy couldn't afford to make the same mistakes he had made previously so the less said about them the better.
It wasn't the police who were at fault for having not asked him certain questions. It was Jeremy's fault for choosing to not answer them and choosing to not tell them what he had told the police outside the farmhouse.
He was playing games Reader.
-
I agree justice. There's no doubt the police have made errors try substituting the word 'errors' with the term 'fabricated the evidence' and it's clear Jeremy has used these errors in an attempt to confuse his original evidence given in his first statement Written and paraphrased by DC Clark... , police interviews Interviewed by a different officer, who may not have asked the exact same question, as on the other occasions...and subsequently during his trial. Again, you can't accurately make a comparison between these three events, without setting out the circumstances of the approach in the making his first witness statement, or when interviewed, or as the case may be, whilst testifying, and say 'Look here, he has given different answers'...
It's also clear Jeremy has a selective memory when it suits him. It is not a criminal offence, or at least back in 1985 it was not an offence, indeed, a suspect was encouraged to remain silent by those representing his interests... I've noticed how he tells his supporters he cannot recall some things but can others. nothing abnormal in being like this or that, is there? I was reading a blog last night and it's evident he's telling one person one thing Perfectly normal behaviour in my opinion, since we all know people in our own lives who we might tell something to, but others who we might choose to be guarded against saying anything to... and another person something else entirely. Normal behaviour...
I believe he did mention Witham but because he wasn't questioned on it and as he was figuring out where the police were going with regards to the timings etc, he thought it best to keep his mouth shut.
This is not the behavior of an innocent man. In 1985, it was what suspects, interviewees, and defendants were encouraged to do to help prove their innocence...
-
Excellant post and well put Steph.
Refer to 'Reply No. 109' in this thread...
-
Re-education on police procedures wouldn't go amiss. I remember Adam saying that all JB answered questions with was----" No Comment ".
That's all I'd say too to avoid words being put into my mouth !!
-
If you read his witness statements along with his police interviews and his evidence given his court you will see how it is Jeremy who has purposely mixed up the timings in order to confuse. If you look at Jeremy's evidence only and put aside all other evidence and any thoughts you have on the other evidence it becomes clear.
Jeremy explicitly stated during his interviews that it was the police who were confusing him. There is no transcript of Jeremy's evidence in court on this website. It's not clear whether Jeremy now has a copy of this, but his campaign team may have a copy of a transcript of his cross-examination (as the official site has made occasional reference to it).
-
According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.
And here's an even bigger clue Reader. Where and when has Jeremy maintained he was innocent throughout his interviews and throughout his trial? When did he shout out, "I didn't do it! I'm being framed? It wasn't me!
Count how many times he suggested this.
If you were arrested for the murder of 5 of your family members and knew you hadn't done it. Wouldn't you have shouted from the roof tops that you were innocent?
When Simon Hall confessed he wrote in letters that had he been innocent he would have shouted it from the roof tops. Which made me think; when had he ever shouted from the roof tops he was innocent. I thought he had. But he hadn't. He had used others to shout his innocence from the roof tops. Just as Jeremy Bamber has done.
Don't be mistaken by his cool, calm and collected demeanour. This isn't how a truly innocent person behaves. A truly innocent person would be all over the place. They would be suffering from some kind of PTSD.
The cool, calm and collected nature that is Jeremy Bamber is that of a psychopath. He is but an empty vessel. He doesn't have a conscience. He doesn't care what he did to his family and it's why he's found 32 years in prison easy. It has nothing to do with inner strength and everything to do with the fact he is still duping people.
-
Jeremy explicitly stated during his interviews that it was the police who were confusing him. There is no transcript of Jeremy's evidence in court on this website. It's not clear whether Jeremy now has a copy of this, but his campaign team may have a copy of a transcript of his cross-examination (as the official site has made occasional reference to it).
He does say this yes but read back through his interviews. Not now of course ;D when you have some quiet time. Read from the beginning to end and take a note of when they break for the day or when Jeremy asks to go to the toilet. Also make a mental note of when the police leave the room and return.
Re read his interview from start to finish and keep a copy of his witness statements to hand so that when he refers to them you can look at them to remind yourself.
Jeremy may have said he was confused but he doesn't appear confused. The police aren't confusing him. They are clear with their questions to him. They repeat them and don't introduce things to confuse him.
There are excerpts from the transcripts on here and if you look at the appeal documents they will give you some idea of what evidence Jeremy gave.
-
Excellant post and well put Steph.
Thanks Justice I thought yours was too :-*
-
The CA7 car------took 15 minutes to arrive at WHF. Was this Neville's 999 call ??
The CA5 car------took 45 minutes to arrive at WHF. Jeremy's non 999 call ??
-
CA7 travelled at speed from Chelmsford to WHF. In answer to a distressed call from Neville.
Pity this hadn't been sorted out at the trial.
-
According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.
I shall reiterate once again that his first statement was taken BEFORE Jeremy became a suspect and as such, the 'specifics' of what Jeremy said weren't as important as the basics. Once he became a suspect a more detailed account of what he actually said would have been the prime objective. In this case, they aren't 'discrepancies' simply more detailed and specific information in respect to Bamber himself.
-
They didn't believe him Reader. They weren't interested. What was the point questioning him further if he was going to lie.
It was Jeremy who remained firm that his first statement was exact. He said the words exact. His first statement was the one he was sticking to. A witness statement which came into existence by DC Clark adopting the following approach - Clark asked questions (the nature of which are not recorded in the said statyement. Jeremy answered the question put to him by DC Clark. The answer recorded by DC Clark in his own handwriting, was not recorded in the 'exact' way that Jeremy had answered the question. What DC Clark did was to paraphrase his question, and Jeremy's answer, so that what DC Clark recorded flowed as part of an ongoing narrative. For this reason, thats why mistakes crop up under cross examination, because a witness has their statement made for them by a police officer, who at the time a statement is being taken, is of a particular mindset... He was questioned about the timings several times. He wasn't under pressure as the police allowed Jeremy to call the shots. It was his legal right to remain silent back in 1985. Now, your trying to prove him guilty because he chose to exercise his legal right to remain silent...He had a break when he wanted, How does this make him guilty? he went to the toilet when he wanted. Oh, he must be guilty then, because he was allowed to go to the toilet when he wanted to?They went along at his pace. Jeremy controlled everything the police did in this case. He fooled them into thinking his sister had killed herself upstairs on the bedroom floor, even though police found Sheila in the kitchen upon entry (7.37am) They were already on to him. They would have dealt with men like him on a regular basis. They let Jeremy lead the way. The interviews weren't rushed nor was he put under pressure.
If his timings were correct, why didn't he get his defence team to bring them up during the trial? Why didn't he insist his barrister break all the timings down into tiny little pieces in order for the jury to hear. Jeremy couldn't afford to make the same mistakes he had made previously so the less said about them the better Jeremy Bamber was framed for these murders by Essex police, the evidence is all there support it...
It wasn't the police who were at fault for having not asked him certain questions. [ Police didn't need to ask any of the questions you say they did not ask, because they knew that Jeremy did not shoot and kill his sister on the main bedroom floor, with use of the rifle from a first floor window, any time after 8.10am, nor did he have anything to do with Sheila being shot in the kitchen around 7.37am...[/i]It was Jeremy's fault for choosing to not answer them and choosing to not tell them what he had told the police outside the farmhouse.
He was playing games Reader.
-
Re-education on police procedures wouldn't go amiss. I remember Adam saying that all JB answered questions with was----" No Comment ".
That's all I'd say too to avoid words being put into my mouth !!
Your hostility would stand out a mile, Lookout
-
I shall reiterate once again that his first statement was taken BEFORE Jeremy became a suspect and as such, the 'specifics' of what Jeremy said weren't as important as the basics. Once he became a suspect a more detailed account of what he actually said would have been the prime objective. In this case, they aren't 'discrepancies' simply more detailed and specific information in respect to Bamber himself.
Good points Caroline.
I also think it may help Reader to forget about innocence or guilt and start from scratch, as though the murders have just occurred. Forget about all that has been written and said about all those involved but start with Jeremy's evidence first.
His first statement isn't taken at the police station either, it's taken in the presence of others, at his home.
-
Re-education on police procedures wouldn't go amiss. I remember Adam saying that all JB answered questions with was----" No Comment ".
That's all I'd say too to avoid words being put into my mouth !!
Does this mean you haven't read Jeremy's statements?
-
According to his second statement and his evidence at trial, yes, but there's no mention of this in his first statement. Another discrepancy is that Pc West had stated that his conversations with Bonnett and Witham (Pc Saxby) each lasted about 3 minutes, but when cross-examined at trial he said "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations", thus indicating that Jeremy was put on hold for about 3 minutes rather than about 6 minutes. This is a significant difference, as it allows Jeremy enough time to arrive at WHF by the time suggested by the call logs.
According to the note on Neville Bambers 3.26am (C1) Communications log, the occupants of CA07 set off to attend the incident at WHF at 3.35am, and arrived there at 3.48am. According to the occupants of CA07, Jeremy arrived there 3 to 4 minutes afterwards (around 3.52)...
-
According to the note on Neville Bambers 3.26am (C1) Communications log, the occupants of CA07 set off to attend the incident at WHF at 3.35am, and arrived there at 3.48am. According to the occupants of CA07, Jeremy arrived there 3 to 4 minutes afterwards (around 3.52)...
Its about 11 miles there one route and 10miles the other route but ''this route is slower. 20 mins and 23 mins?
-
CA7 travelled at speed from Chelmsford to WHF.
CA7 was at Witham (around 10.4 miles from WHF, depending on route), not Chelmsford.
-
Its recorded on Nevilles (C1) Communication log, that the occupants arrived at the scene at 3.48am, and we know that they were not deployed to the incident until 3.35am. We know they were deployed before Jeremy called Chelmsford at 3.36am. We know
-
Apparently, Pc Saxby's pocketbook gave 03:20 as the time he returned to Witham police station, 03:35 as the time when he received a radio message from HQ regarding WHF, and 03:39 as the time when CA07 set out for WHF.
-
Apparently, Pc Saxby's pocketbook gave 03:20 as the time he returned to Witham police station, 03:35 as the time when he received a radio message from HQ regarding WHF, and 03:39 as the time when CA07 set out for WHF.
So Bamber didn't call the police at 03:36!
-
Apparently, Pc Saxby's pocketbook gave 03:20 as the time he returned to Witham police station, 03:35 as the time when he received a radio message from HQ regarding WHF, and 03:39 as the time when CA07 set out for WHF.
And in 'Malcom' Bonnetts 'Communication log' the occupants of CA07 were deployed to event at whf at 3.48am, arriving there at 3.48am!
-
And in 'Malcom' Bonnetts 'Communication log' the occupants of CA07 were deployed to event at whf at 3.48am, arriving there at 3.48am!
Infact, a book full of timed events regarding the times various police units were not only deployed to the event at whf, but the precise times each unit arrived at the scene! All inaccurately timed, then?
-
Infact, a book full of timed events regarding the times various police units were not only deployed to the event at whf, but the precise times each unit arrived at the scene! All inaccurately timed, then?
I don't think so!!!
-
I don't think much of what the occupants of CA97 have to say can be treated as impartial evidence. We cannot believe everything they say! These coppers were at the hub of the police investigation since prior to Jeremy contacting Chelmsford police station at around 3.36am, and being placed on hold for around 5 minutes before finally being able to speak to PC West at all!!!
Crew of CA07 witnessing the figure inside the main bedroom via the main bedroom window moving around unexplainably, and the follow up 'situation report' requesting that the firearm team should be deployed to the scene! Add to this, the knowlege that the crew of CA07 had regarding the discovery of two bodies upon entry to the farmhouse kitchen at around 7.37am, and only a further three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am!!!
How can anyone trust anything said by Bews, Myall and Saxby, when they deliberately fail to deal with, either by way of notebook entry, or in a witness statement, the sighting of a person in the bedroom, or the fact that Sheila Caffells body was discovered downstairs in the kitchen along with the body of Neville Bamber upon entry to the kitchen by firearm officers? Notice how, the occupants of CA07 choose to fudge these important issues of the case! See how they don't seek to alter the times of police messages (7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am) that were past, by claiming that these messages had been passed 10 minutes sooner, or later, than 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am!
You can't trust coppers like these, who are selective about what to mention in witness statements, and pocketbook entries! Clearly, their involvement in the relaying of the key police messages between the scene and the control room at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, now arguably being the focal point of any fresh application to get Jeremy Bambers case back to the court of appeal with a view of quashing these convictions!
-
I don't think much of what the occupants of CA97 have to say can be treated as impartial evidence. We cannot believe everything they say! These coppers were at the hub of the police investigation since prior to Jeremy contacting Chelmsford police station at around 3.36am, and being placed on hold for around 5 minutes before finally being able to speak to PC West at all!!!
Crew of CA07 witnessing the figure inside the main bedroom via the main bedroom window moving around unexplainably, and the follow up 'situation report' requesting that the firearm team should be deployed to the scene! Add to this, the knowlege that the crew of CA07 had regarding the discovery of two bodies upon entry to the farmhouse kitchen at around 7.37am, and only a further three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am!!!
How can anyone trust anything said by Bews, Myall and Saxby, when they deliberately fail to deal with, either by way of notebook entry, or in a witness statement, the sighting of a person in the bedroom, or the fact that Sheila Caffells body was discovered downstairs in the kitchen along with the body of Neville Bamber upon entry to the kitchen by firearm officers? Notice how, the occupants of CA07 choose to fudge these important issues of the case! See how they don't seek to alter the times of police messages (7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am) that were past, by claiming that these messages had been passed 10 minutes sooner, or later, than 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am!
You can't trust coppers like these, who are selective about what to mention in witness statements, and pocketbook entries! Clearly, their involvement in the relaying of the key police messages between the scene and the control room at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, now arguably being the focal point of any fresh application to get Jeremy Bambers case back to the court of appeal with a view of quashing these convictions!
The occupants of CA07 being Jeremy's alibi witnesses to the fact that he did not kill his sister on the main bedroom rifle by shooting her dead there, any sooner than 8.10am! He could not have shot and killed her there on the bedroom floor with use of the only rifle found upstairs being spotted resting against the first floor box room window at around 7.15am. He could not have staged his sister's death scene there on the main bedroom floor with use of 'that' rifle any time until after 8.10am. This being the case, and supported by the messages relayed from the scene by the occupants of CA07 at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, as recorded by the keepers of these police message log contents, which are admissible in evidence!!!
-
The matter goes further! Since, not only is this about the involvement of the occupants of CA07 in a Conspiracy to suppress the truth regarding the number of bodies found to be present once firearm officers entered the kitchen of the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, but also the fact that they only found three bodies upstairs by 8.10am! Who gave them (a) that information that two bodies were present inside the kitchen upon entry? Who did they relay (b) that information to? Who gave them (c) that information that by 8.10am, only three bodies were present upstairs? And, who (d) did they relay that information to?
-
The matter goes further! Since, not only is this about the involvement of the occupants of CA07 in a Conspiracy to suppress the truth regarding the number of bodies found to be present once firearm officers entered the kitchen of the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, but also the fact that they only found three bodies upstairs by 8.10am! Who gave them (a) that information that two bodies were present inside the kitchen upon entry? Who did they relay (b) that information to? Who gave them (c) that information that by 8.10am, only three bodies were present upstairs? And, who (d) did they relay that information to?
The parties at, a, b, c and D, have thus far chosen to remain silent on these significant issues!
But, sooner or later, somebody is going to have to provide answers to these key enquiries!!!
-
What we are dealing with here, is a state supported conspiracy, to suppress the truth regarding the manner with which one of the five victims met her death, on the main bedroom floor after 8.10am!
-
Well, let's put it this way - the attempt to 'wash over' the claim that two bodies were found upon entry to the kitchen by firearm officers, does not sit well, between the explanation offered by PC Collins regarding the mistaken identity of Neville Bambers body, for that of a female body, a mistake Collins claimed he had made prior to entry of the farmhouse even being attempted, and clarified once firearm officers entered the kitchen, versus the role played out by the occupants of CA07 in the reporting of two bodies being present inside the kitchen after entry was gained! Not just two bodies, after firearm officers got into the kitchen, but the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am) found upon entry!!! One of these two bodies being described by Linda (Civilian employee) as a murder, the other described as a suicide (before 7.45am)!!
Where did 'Linda' get this information from?
-
Well, let's put it this way - the attempt to 'wash over' the claim that two bodies were found upon entry to the kitchen by firearm officers, does not sit well, between the explanation offered by PC Collins regarding the mistaken identity of Neville Bambers body, for that of a female body, a mistake Collins claimed he had made prior to entry of the farmhouse even being attempted, and clarified once firearm officers entered the kitchen, versus the role played out by the occupants of CA07 in the reporting of two bodies being present inside the kitchen after entry was gained! Not just two bodies, after firearm officers got into the kitchen, but the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am) found upon entry!!! One of these two bodies being described by Linda (Civilian employee) as a murder, the other described as a suicide (before 7.45am)!!
Where did 'Linda' get this information from?
You would not get such contradictions, such irregularities, such inconsistencies, such ambiguities, if police and it's witnesses were being truthful!
-
So, what is the truth?
-
So, what is the truth?
There are many different and conflicting versions of the truth!
-
There are many different and conflicting versions of the truth!
You cannot easily distinguish the actual truth, sometimes from so many conflicting truths relied upon, and exercised by one source, or another - except by applying the following test, to each of these (such) approaches...
Always read very carefully what someone has said, or is saying!
Then ask yourself the following questions?
Is what is being advocated, realistic? Contradictory? Inconsistent? Ambiguous?
-
You cannot easily distinguish the actual truth, sometimes from so many conflicting truths relied upon, and exercised by one source, or another - except by applying the following test, to each of these (such) approaches...
Always read very carefully what someone has said, or is saying!
Then ask yourself the following questions?
Is what is being advocated, realistic? Contradictory? Inconsistent? Ambiguous?
Yes, or no?
-
And in Malcolm Bonnett's 'Communication log' the occupants of CA07 were deployed to event at whf at 3.48am, arriving there at 3.48am
No. According to Bonnett's log, CA7 was sent at 03:35 and arrived at 03:48.