Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on March 06, 2017, 09:55:PM
-
Many people who believe Jeremy is innocent, just can't get their head around the notion that the police may have been in conversation with someone inside the 'farmhouse'.
That one line conjures up images of Sheila holding on to the rifle in a 'you'll never take me alive coppers' type scenario.
I have previously argued that Bonnett probably just wrote the wrong phrase when he used the words 'in conversation', until I noticed something that I hadn't rationalised before. Something gets repeated here so many times that we often take for granted what we believe is written and miss was is actually stated. I was under the assumption that Bonnett's log stated "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARMHOUSE, however, what Bonnett actually wrote was "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM' not FARMHOUSE - just FARM. His next line is "Challenge to persons inside HOUSE met with no response". Bonnett distinguishes FARM from HOUSE and the distinction is important when compared with the various TFG statements. Just before the TFG approached the farm with the loud hailer, they WERE in conversation with someone, they were in conversation with Jeremy Bamber; Jeremy Bamber was someone FROM the farm; an inside man so to speak. I believe that the line "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM " is a reference to the conversation between Jeremy and the TFG as referenced below - (see Collins's statement below the relevant page of Bonnett's log). It's important because JUST AFTER the conversation with Jeremy, the TFG made their challenge to 'persons inside the HOUSE' which as we know was 'met with no response'. So no mystery after all as far as I am concerned - Bonnett's comment was in respect to the conversation with Jeremy! Hence the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3200)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4954.0;attach=34848)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4954.0;attach=34851)
-
Many people who believe Jeremy is innocent, just can't get their head around the notion that the police may have been in conversation with someone inside the 'farmhouse'.
That one line conjures up images of Sheila holding on to the rifle in a 'you'll never take me alive coppers' type scenario.
I have previously argued that Bonnett probably just wrote the wrong phrase when he used the words 'in conversation', until I noticed something that I hadn't rationalised before. Something gets repeated here so many times that we often take for granted what we believe is written and miss was is actually stated. I was under the assumption that Bonnett's log stated "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARMHOUSE, however, what Bonnett actually wrote was "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM' not FARMHOUSE - just FARM. His next line is "Challenge to persons inside HOUSE met with no response". Bonnett distinguishes FARM from HOUSE and the distinction is important when compared with the various TFG statements. Just before the TFG approached the farm with the loud hailer, they WERE in conversation with someone, they were in conversation with Jeremy Bamber; Jeremy Bamber was someone FROM the farm; an inside man so to speak. I believe that the line "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM " is a reference to the conversation between Jeremy and the TFG as referenced below - (see Collins's statement below the relevant page of Bonnett's log). It's important because JUST AFTER the conversation with Jeremy, the TFG made their challenge to 'persons inside the HOUSE' which as we know was 'met with no response'. So no mystery after all as far as I am concerned - Bonnett's comment was in respect to the conversation with Jeremy! Hence the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3200)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4954.0;attach=34848)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4954.0;attach=34851)
Bonnett did not record the wrong phrase, knowing that what was said by Neville Bamber at 3.26am was recorded on Audio tape, and checkable for accuracy!
-
Bonnett did not record the wrong phrase, knowing that what was said by Neville Bamber at 3.26am was recorded on Audio tape, and checkable for accuracy!
I know he didn't, now! The reference is to the conversation the TFG had with Jeremy before making the challenge to the HOUSE.
-
I know he didn't, now! The reference is to the conversation the TFG had with Jeremy before making the challenge to the HOUSE.
Jeremy wasn't present at the scene when that radio message got passed at 5.25am, he had already left the scene to go to a local phone box accompanied by a uniform officer!
-
Jeremy wasn't present at the scene when that radio message got passed at 5.25am, he had already left the scene to go to a local phone box accompanied by a uniform officer!
PC Collins edited typed composite statement created for him by a faceless, nameless, cop! -there's the original handwritten version bearing his signature?
-
So a loud-hailer was used for two hours to speak to Jeremy who was outside the farmhouse ?? Deaf ??
-
So a loud-hailer was used for two hours to speak to Jeremy who was outside the farmhouse ?? Deaf ??
'A trick of words'!!
-
,
-
So a loud-hailer was used for two hours to speak to Jeremy who was outside the farmhouse ?? Deaf ??
It's not difficult Lookot, the first entry in the log states that the firearms team were in conversation with A PERSON (Jeremy) from inside the FARM. They then approached the HOUSE and used the loud hailer to try and get a response, however, such attempts to rouse PERSONS from inside the HOUSE met with no response.
Nothing could be clearer - Bonnett's comment is in reference to the TFG being in conversation with Jeremy. Both the log and Collins's statement prove this.
-
,
Adams arrived at 5am to the scene, and the ccupants of CA07 had already gleaned information about the guns, Ammunition and persons inside the farmhouse by that stage! Jeremy was not even still at the scene at 5.25am, he had already left to go to a village call bs!!
-
Adams arrived at 5am to the scene, and the ccupants of CA07 had already gleaned information about the guns, Ammunition and persons inside the farmhouse by that stage! Jeremy was not even still at the scene at 5.25am, he had already left to go to a village call bs!!
The entry in the log was made at 05:25 - the conversation wasn't JUST about guns (see below). JUST PRIOR to challenging the house, Jeremy was in conversation with the TFG - the log entry is correct and the person from inside the farm who was 'in conversation' could ONLY be Jeremy.
More of Jeremy being 'in conversation'
-
Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.
God some people are stupid.
-
The entry in the log was made at 05:25 - the conversation wasn't JUST about guns (see below). JUST PRIOR to challenging the house, Jeremy was in conversation with the TFG - the log entry is correct and the person from inside the farm who was 'in conversation' could ONLY be Jeremy.
More of Jeremy being 'in conversation'
These conversations as you put it, occurred closer to 5am after the arrival of the TFG, Jeremy had left the vicinity by 5.25am and gone to the village with a uniform cop to call Mugford! Your interpretation, therefore, cannot be accurate!
-
. . . knowing that what was said by Neville Bamber at 3.26am was recorded on Audio tape
There's no proof that Nevill spoke directly to Bonnett, as distinct from speaking to Pc West (with no audio recording), who then spoke to Bonnett.
-
There's no proof that Nevill spoke directly to Bonnett, as distinct from speaking to Pc West (with no audio recording), who then spoke to Bonnett.
That's not true! Cops accepted that Jeremy's call to PC West was originally recorded on Audio tape, but have subsequently claimed it was destroyed after 28 days! PC West was in the control room! Therefore any calls made there, rather than the incident room were recorded! Now, if Neville spoke to PC West his call would have also been recorded on Audio tape, as would any communication between PC West concerning Neville Bambers call to him, and Malcom Bonnett! Same thing applied after Jeremy spoke to PC West, when West spoke to Bonnett about Jeremy phoning police as well, the conversation between West and Bonnet was recorded by the same technology!
-
That's not true! Cops accepted that Jeremy's call to PC West was originally recorded on Audio tape, but have subsequently claimed it was destroyed after 28 days! PC West was in the control room! Therefore any calls made there, rather than the incident room were recorded! Now, if Neville spoke to PC West his call would have also been recorded on Audio tape, as would any communication between PC West concerning Neville Bambers call to him, and Malcom Bonnett! Same thing applied after Jeremy spoke to PC West, when West spoke to Bonnett about Jeremy phoning police as well, the conversation between West and Bonnet was recorded by the same technology!
Unless the police received a 'spirit' recording, there cannot exist a recording of a call which never happened. Thus far, we only have your belief that Nevill made a call to the police.
-
Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.
God some people are stupid.
And I knew it wasn't me !!
-
And I knew it wasn't me !!
Also known as making something out of nothing which is what EP did from start to finish.
You can fool all the people some of the time,and some of the people all of time,but you can't fool all the people all the time---Abraham Lincoln.
-
And I knew it wasn't me !!
He was identified by WEST as Mr Bamber, the TFG were passing information from the scene, Bonnett wasn't a mind reader so wrote what he was told. The person in conversation with someone from inside the FARM' was Jeremy - the log and the statements prove it!
-
Also known as making something out of nothing which is what EP did from start to finish.
You can fool all the people some of the time,and some of the people all of time,but you can't fool all the people all the time---Abraham Lincoln.
All of the people aren't fooled, just some of them!
-
All of the people aren't fooled, just some of them!
Except that this one isn't !
-
Except that this one isn't !
You MORE than anyone!
-
Unless the police received a 'spirit' recording, there cannot exist a recording of a call which never happened. Thus far, we only have your belief that Nevill made a call to the police.
Exhibit CAG/2!!!
Oh, and Malcom Bonnetts, 3.26am handwritten message log!!!
-
Exhibit CAG/2!!!
Oh, and Malcom Bonnetts, 3.26am handwritten message log!!!
Some people ignore evidence because to acknowledge it, undermines there own beliefs!
All telephone calls and police radio messages to the control room and the incident room were recorded on Audio tape! In addition, police were using telex messaging!
-
Some people ignore evidence because to acknowledge it, undermines there own beliefs!
All telephone calls and police radio messages to the control room and the incident room were recorded on Audio tape! In addition, police were using telex messaging!
If no recording of Neville Bambers call to police existed because as it were, no such call was made, or received, why hasn't a cop made a statement saying as much?
-
If no recording of Neville Bambers call to police existed because as it were, no such call was made, or received, why hasn't a cop made a statement saying as much?
Who makes a statement about something that didn't happen?
-
If no recording of Neville Bambers call to police existed because as it were, no such call was made, or received, why hasn't a cop made a statement saying as much?
What we are dealing with here, is a scenario where it has been suggested that the timing of Jeremy's call to police (3.36am) was recorded wrongly. It might have been 3.26am! PC West testified that he couldn't be sure which of these times were right! Nothing about the contents of Jeremy's call being recorded incorrectly at two different sources, namely in Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, or PC Wests 3.36am log!!
-
Who makes a statement about something that didn't happen?
The contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log and exhibit CAG/2 prove that Neville Bamber did call the police, just like the prosecution said he would have done as part of its case!
-
If no recording of Neville Bambers call to police existed because as it were, no such call was made, or received, why hasn't a cop made a statement saying as much?
I'm not expecting you to phone me tonight, so when you don't phone me there'll be no reason for me to make a statement saying you haven't phoned me.
-
I'm not expecting you to phone me tonight, so when you don't phone me there'll be no reason for me to make a statement saying you haven't phoned me.
The contents of Malcom Bonnetts log timed at 3.26am, and the existence of exhibit CAG/2, tells it's own story!
-
The cover up has run its course! The cat is now we'll and truly out of the bag!
During the trial, and at the appeal hearing, it was presented as just a case of PC West recording the wrong time of Jeremy's call! But now out of the glare of court proceedings it is being argued that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, and PC Wests 3.36am log are records of the only call that was made by Jeremy! Funny how this arguement was not aired during the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing!
-
I'm not expecting you to phone me tonight, so when you don't phone me there'll be no reason for me to make a statement saying you haven't phoned me.
Thanks Jane for bringing some humour, that tickled me. Although I can't see why his name wasn't used , it's all very odd.
-
The cover up has run its course! The cat is now we'll and truly out of the bag!
During the trial, and at the appeal hearing, it was presented as just a case of PC West recording the wrong time of Jeremy's call! But now out of the glare of court proceedings it is being argued that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, and PC Wests 3.36am log are records of the only call that was made by Jeremy! Funny how this arguement was not aired during the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing!
Under cross examination, PC West could not be sure which of the two timings was correct! Only one could be!
Imagine how confused PC West and everybody else would have been if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial for consideration! How could Malcom Bonnett record the details of Jeremy's call at 3.26am, if Jeremy had not telephoned police until 3.36am!!
Surely, if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial, PC West would not have been so unsure about which time was right, if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log was a recording of Jeremy's call, not Neville Bambers call!
-
Thanks Jane for bringing some humour, that tickled me. Although I can't see why his name wasn't used , it's all very odd.
My pleasure, Notsure :) Re HIS? name not being used. If it's Nevill to whom you refer, why would his name be used other than as the person alleged to have called Jeremy?
-
Under cross examination, PC West could not be sure which of the two timings was correct! Only one could be!
Imagine how confused PC West and everybody else would have been if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial for consideration! How could Malcom Bonnett record the details of Jeremy's call at 3.26am, if Jeremy had not telephoned police until 3.36am!!
Surely, if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial, PC West would not have been so unsure about which time was right, if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log was a recording of Jeremy's call, not Neville Bambers call!
The prosecution would almost certainly have made great play on the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log if it was a written record of Jeremy's call! There would have been no room for error or mistake, because how could Bonnett have made his log10 minutes before PC West received his call from Jeremy?
The contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log were not available during the trial on that footing because the contents in no way, shape or form, could be presented as a true record of what Jeremy told PC West, because it was a record of Neville Bambers call!!
-
Police / prosecution did not seek to rely upon the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log in the timing argument of PC Wests call from Jeremy, because to have done so would have alerted everybody who might need to know that Neville Bamber did call police himself, prior to Jeremy also calling them!
-
One thing everyone can agree on, was that only the timing of Jeremy's call to PC West was in issue during the trial (1986) and at the appeal (2002), not the differences between the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am, and Wests 3.36am logs!!
-
Let's not lose sight of the fact, that it was part of the prosecutions case, that if Neville Bambers daughter had got one of his guns, and had gone berserk that he would have telephoned the police, not Jeremy!
Well, not only did Neville phone Jeremy, but the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log show that he also telephoned the police! Hence why it's contents never became an issue either during the trial, or the subsequent appeal!
-
Your not telling me that had the contents of the 3.26am Bonnett message log been disclosed and available during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal hearing, that defence counsel, the trial judge, and the appellate court which sat in judgement would not have picked up on it, and made comment about it?
-
Your not telling me that had the contents of the 3.26am Bonnett message log been disclosed and available during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal hearing, that defence counsel, the trial judge, and the appellate court which sat in judgement would not have picked up on it, and made comment about it?
If Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk, and Neville Bamber had called the police, there would surely have been a record of this fact! The contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log is that record, as distinct as the 3.36am record of Jeremy's call to PC West recorded in the other message log!!
-
The court which tried Jeremy Bamber was deceived regarding this matter! The appellate court which rejected his appeal in 2002 were also deceived regarding the same issue!
Ponder the following - remember how during the appeal judgement the appellate court raised concerns about how the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident at the farmhouse before Jeremy had called the police? Well, how could that have been a mystery to these so called learned people if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log had been disclosed by that stage, on the footing that the details within were a true record of what Jeremy had told PC West, who had in turn spoken to Malcom Bonnett?
There would have been no mystery!
But, as we have seen even the appellate court was deceived in this matter!
-
How many people think that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts (3.26am) message log were disclosed during the 1986 trial, or by the time of the 2002 appeal, and that defence counsel did not take the opportunity to state that Neville Bamber did call the police after all!
-
How many people think that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts (3.26am) message log were disclosed during the 1986 trial, or by the time of the 2002 appeal, and that defence counsel did not take the opportunity to state that Neville Bamber did call the police after all!
If the contents of the Bonnett log had been made available to the defence, the court, and the jury, the prosecution would have been hard pressed trying to convince everybody or anyone that the information contained within was a record of what Jeremy told police, and not what Neville Bamber had told them!
I can picture it now in my mind's eye, defence counsel raising to his feet at the commencement of his closing speech to the jury - ' Ladies and Gentlemen, may I ask you to please pay attention to what has been a significant feature of the prosecutions case. Something which no doubt the learned judge will direct you upon regarding the issue of why didn't Neville Bamber call the police himself, if as the prosecution in this case allege, that Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk? Indeed, members of the jury, it has not been part of the defence in this matter that he had not made such a call to the police! The fact is, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that not only would Neville Bamber have made such a call, but he did make such a call! Not only did he make that call, but a record was kept by Malcom Bonnet, a record timed at 3.26am of Nevill Bambers call, 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and 'she has gone berserk'!!
-
Why did the prosecution in this case, introduce the claim that if Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk, that he would have called police, and the very evidence proving the opposite argument have been disclosed to all parties to the court proceedings, and nobody batted an eye lid at the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log?
-
The contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log is capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Sheila Caffell was responsible for four of the deaths that took place, after 3.26am. Since, if Neville made that call to police, then obviously he had not been already shot dead by that stage! Furthermore, there was no mention in Neville's call that anybody else in the family had been shot either by that stage! The shootings, and the killings must have occurred after Neville had called police at 3.26am, and not beforehand!
-
...
-
You can always tell when you've touched a nerve - the feeding frenzy starts! No matter who posts what, it doesn't alter the FACT that Bonnett's log entry was in reference to Jeremy Bamber, which is why a distinction was made between FARM and HOUSE. I am SURE you all realise that but just won't admit it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can always tell when you've touched a nerve - the feeding frenzy starts! No matter who posts what, it doesn't alter the FACT that Bonnett's log entry was in reference to Jeremy Bamber, which is why a distinction was made between FARM and HOUSE. I am SURE you all realise that but just won't admit it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Does anyone know if this was brought up at trial.
-
You can always tell when you've touched a nerve - the feeding frenzy starts! No matter who posts what, it doesn't alter the FACT that Bonnett's log entry was in reference to Jeremy Bamber, which is why a distinction was made between FARM and HOUSE. I am SURE you all realise that but just won't admit it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Feeding frenzy ? HA ! I've come across the word " house " many a time.It saves writing its full title of " farmhouse ". You need your bumps feeling. :o
-
This thread is what is known as a bum steer. You'll have to try harder than this. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Does anyone know if this was brought up at trial.
Dunno, but what do you think? Can you see the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'?
-
Feeding frenzy ? HA ! I've come across the word " house " many a time.It saves writing its full title of " farmhouse ". You need your bumps feeling. :o
You leave my 'bumps alone'! :o I see you are deliberately missing the point. Yes, the word 'house' saves writing 'farmhouse' the word 'farm' saves writing what? He makes a distinction for a reason!
-
This thread is what is known as a bum steer. You'll have to try harder than this. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
This post is known as a bum steer - and it's about your limit!
-
There is only one small part of Bonnetts log, and that is after 3.36am when Jeremy called PC West, and West himself then contacted Malcom Bonnett!
-
There is only one small part of Bonnetts log, and that is after 3.36am when Jeremy called PC West, and West himself then contacted Malcom Bonnett!
The remaining main body of the 3.26am log is information Neville Bamber gave to the police!
The main contents of Bonnetts 3.26am and PC Wests 3.36am logs, do not match together as though both recordings related to the same call! Bonnetts 3.26am log, includes Neville Bambers phrases, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my gun', and 'she has gone berserk', in stark contrast to what PC Wests 3.36am records in the phraseology of Jeremy Bamber, 'come quickly, Sheila has got the gun, she's gone crazy'!!
The contents of the former (3.26am) completely different to the contents of the latter (3.36am)! No request at all in Neville Bambers call to police (3.26am) for them to 'come quickly' to the farmhouse, whereas in Jeremy's call to PC West (3.36am) there is! Reference to Neville's 'daughter having got hold of one of his guns' in the former, whereas in Jeremy's call 3.36am he refers to 'the gun'!
-
Dunno, but what do you think? Can you see the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'?
I can see the distinction you're trying to make Caroline , I am just notsure if it's correct. Why didn't he just say bamber ? Why wouldn't he use his name?
-
Or say someone outside the farmhouse. To say from the farm seems an odd phrase so I'm not convinced
-
I can see the distinction you're trying to make Caroline , I am just notsure if it's correct. Why didn't he just say bamber ? Why wouldn't he use his name?
Bonnett wasn't at the scene - he was relying on messages been passed through to him. He wouldn't know it was Bamber the TFG were talking to. How can you say there is no distinction between 'farm' and 'house'. Just prior to using the loud hailer Collins was asking Jeremy what he should say to Sheila etc and makes reference to being 'in conversation' with him. By the same token from your question, why would Bonnett refer to the Farm in one sentence but use house in the next if referring to the same thing?
-
At 5.25am, Jeremy wasn't at the scene he had left accompanied by a uniform officer to go find a telephone box in the village!
-
At 5.25am, Jeremy wasn't at the scene he had left accompanied by a uniform officer to go find a telephone box in the village!
According to Myall. Jeremy requested making a phone call at "5.34 or there about".
-
This post is known as a bum steer - and it's about your limit!
Myall in his trial evidence referred to WHF as " the house ".( He and JB were a distance from the " house )"
-
Myall in his trial evidence referred to WHF as " the house ".( He and JB were a distance from the " house )"
Did he? So he didn't refer it it as the FARM then? ;D ;D ;D
-
Did he? So he didn't refer it it as the FARM then? ;D ;D ;D
A frayed knot. ;D
-
A frayed knot. ;D
Good, then you will see there is a distinction between 'farm' and 'house' ;)
-
Good, then you will see there is a distinction between 'farm' and 'house' ;)
A house attached to a farm is a farmhouse. Which most would have referred to. It was no ordinary house.
You don't call it "a house attached to a farm" do you ? When writing notes.
-
A house attached to a farm is a farmhouse. Which most would have referred to. It was no ordinary house.
You don't call it "a house attached to a farm" do you ? When writing notes.
Lookout, this just won't wash - Bonnett (like it or not) made a distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'. He wasn' talking about the same thing or person when he made that distinction.
-
Lookout, this just won't wash - Bonnett (like it or not) made a distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'. He wasn' talking about the same thing or person when he made that distinction.
I just don't understand your logic.
-
I just don't understand your logic.
Well it isn't difficult Lookout. Perhaps that's because you aren't logical?
-
Well it isn't difficult Lookout. Perhaps that's because you aren't logical?
I don't understand what you're getting at regarding the thread. It's not making any sense to me at all.
-
I don't understand what you're getting at regarding the thread. It's not making any sense to me at all.
OK let me spell it out for you.
Jeremy and the CT claim that Sheila was alive inside the farmhouse and the proof of that is written on Bonnett's log "Firearms team in conversation with person from inside the FARM Which goes on to say "Challenge to persons inside the HOUSE met with no response'.
So the conversation (as per Collin's statement) was with JEREMY just prior to him making the challenge through the loud hailer and NOT with anyone inside the house so it is NOT proof that anyone was alive inside the farmhouse. Capiche?
-
OK let me spell it out for you.
Jeremy and the CT claim that Sheila was alive inside the farmhouse and the proof of that is written on Bonnett's log "Firearms team in conversation with person from inside the FARM Which goes on to say "Challenge to persons inside the HOUSE met with no response'.
So the conversation (as per Collin's statement) was with JEREMY just prior to him making the challenge through the loud hailer and NOT with anyone inside the house so it is NOT proof that anyone was alive inside the farmhouse. Capiche?
To me,it spells out poor grammar and should read " from within the farm ". It still means the same that " there was no response from inside the house ". Still speaking about the farmhouse,but not as the whole word.
Where is " inside the farm,anyway ?" Barn,Field,Shed.
-
To me,it spells out poor grammar and should read " from within the farm ". It still means the same that " there was no response from inside the house ". Still speaking about the farmhouse,but not as the whole word.
Where is " inside the farm,anyway ?" Barn,Field,Shed.
No it doesn't because he distinguished FARM from HOUSE. There is no getting away from it - he was talking about JEREMY being in conversation with COLLINS!
-
Does Sheila still being alive at 7.37am, and perhaps thereafter, for up to an hour and a half later, get reflected by the findings of fact regarding 'death having occurred several hours beforehand' by the pathologist, as distinct from a similar finding of fact relating to the estimated time of death in Neville Bambers case?
I believe it does, because the timing of estimated death provided by the pathologist has to be offset against the time he saw both of the bodies in question!
Sheila's autopsy was performed hours after Neville's had already been concluded!
If Sheila was the person who removed the anshuzt rifle from the first floor box room window after 7.37am, then the pathogists findings of fact that in her case 'death had occurred several hours beforehand' has to take that / this into account!!
-
No it doesn't because he distinguished FARM from HOUSE. There is no getting away from it - he was talking about JEREMY being in conversation with COLLINS!
In YOUR mind,perhaps.
-
05.38------From HQR,believed 3 adults and 3 children in HOUSE. HOUSE contained TFG. Challenged HOUSE on loudspeaker. No response ( PC Adams commander )
Dated---7/8/85.
-
In YOUR mind,perhaps.
Lookout, you are far to biased to debate with - that lovely boy will always be innocent to you no matter what. You keep living in your dream world.
-
Requested-------2 ambulances.One for immediate,one for standby ? 06.25. ( someone would have been alive at that point )
-
Requested-------2 ambulances.One for immediate,one for standby ? 06.25. ( someone would have been alive at that point )
Desperate! ::)
-
Lookout, you are far to biased to debate with - that lovely boy will always be innocent to you no matter what. You keep living in your dream world.
Biased ? And what are you,then ? Lovely boy ? Grow up and get real. ::)
-
Biased ? And what are you,then ? Lovely boy ? Grow up and get real. ::)
What am I? A lot more open minded than you given that I have looked at both sides and argued from both sides. You don't like admitting you're WRONG so would stick to innocent even if he admitted it. You talk about him as though he were a naive, innocent, little boy - he's been in the nick for over 30 years, he's anything but!
-
Desperate! ::)
I know you are.Hence all the snide jibes after everyone's posts.
-
I know you are.Hence all the snide jibes after everyone's posts.
No, just yours and Jackie's.
Here is one of my posts telling Bambergate he was wrong - unlike some, I was never a fan http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5290.msg228227.html#msg228227
-
No, just yours and Jackie's.
Here is one of my posts telling Bambergate he was wrong - unlike some, I was never a fan http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5290.msg228227.html#msg228227
Oh dear,just because we have different views to you-----------as I said,grow up,unless of course you ARE a teenager then spite and b********s goes with the territory and you have a lot to learn. One never can tell who is on the other end of posts. Thank God I never believe who folk say they are.
-
Oh dear,just because we have different views to you-----------as I said,grow up,unless of course you ARE a teenager then spite and b********s goes with the territory and you have a lot to learn. One never can tell who is on the other end of posts. Thank God I never believe who folk say they are.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say, only yesterday, that because you practice what you believe is the bible's meaning of humility, it enables you to accept people for who they are and rise above what you believe to be their shortcomings and deficiencies?
-
Oh dear,just because we have different views to you-----------as I said,grow up,unless of course you ARE a teenager then spite and b********s goes with the territory and you have a lot to learn. One never can tell who is on the other end of posts. Thank God I never believe who folk say they are.
No, actually it's because you both post things that have no basis in fact. You read something and as long as it's favourable to Jeremy Bamber, you post it - when it's pointed out to you that it isn't true or you're asked to post proof, you take the huff, become personal and never provide evidence. I have given up trying have a sensible debate with you and can understand why others have given up in the past. I really don't care what you believe, I'm glad we're now on opposite sides of the fence because I couldn't defend anything you post with any real confidence. I'm not a teenager nor am I a bitter old woman. I have no idea what the edited part of the above post says - nor to I care.
-
Cops accepted that Jeremy's call to PC West was originally recorded on Audio tape, but have subsequently claimed it was destroyed after 28 days!
The police may well have said that certain audio recordings may be destroyed or recorded over after 28 days, but I've seen nothing that shows they accepted that an audio recording was made of Jeremy's call to Pc West.
-
The police may well have said that certain audio recordings may be destroyed or recorded over after 28 days, but I've seen nothing that shows they accepted that an audio recording was made of Jeremy's call to Pc West.
Existence of CAG/2 and CAG/3...
-
Lookout, this just won't wash - Bonnett (like it or not) made a distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'. He wasn' talking about the same thing or person when he made that distinction.
It is not the use of 'Farm' or 'House' that is informative. It's the word 'From'.
-
It is not the use of 'Farm' or 'House' that is informative. It's the word 'From'.
But he didn't say "IN" the house/farm.
-
It is not the use of 'Farm' or 'House' that is informative. It's the word 'From'.
And Jeremy was FROM the farm. But it's the distinction between FARM and HOUSE that is the key!
-
And Jeremy was FROM the farm. But it's the distinction between FARM and HOUSE that is the key!
Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.
-
Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.
But they would have known the difference between a male and female voice.
-
Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.
Different people are providing the information and Bonnett and West were not there to see who was being referred to. The only times he would have been referred to as Mr Bamber was if the person relaying the info, notified them of such.
-
And Jeremy was FROM the farm. But it's the distinction between FARM and HOUSE that is the key!
Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.
-
Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.
If you were speaking to someone in the house, you'd say that you "were in conversation with someone in the house"
-
FFS this old chesnut again zzzz
-
But they would have known the difference between a male and female voice.
Not if it was a one way conversation.
-
Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.
It's not how you or I might have said it BUT they made a clear distinction between farm and house.
-
FFS this old chesnut again zzzz
Nothing t all constructive to add yet again zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Not if it was a one way conversation.
This has been done to death. It isn't a conversation unless it involves two or more people. That part of a conversation used to resolve problems is dialogue.
-
FFS this old chesnut again zzzz
Feel free to leave. Any time soon will do.
-
This has been done to death. It isn't a conversation unless it involves two or more people. That part of a conversation used to resolve problems is dialogue.
The communication can still be one way.
-
The communication can still be one way.
It's possible to communicate something without knowing if there is anyone there to receive it -we can open a door/window.stand on top of a building and yell- but to be "in communication WITH" requires that another person is responding.
-
It's possible to communicate something without knowing if there is anyone there to receive it -we can open a door/window.stand on top of a building and yell- but to be "in communication WITH" requires that another person is responding.
If you're going to take what is written that literally. Then either they spoke to Sheila or an accomplice employed by Jeremy.
-
If you're going to take what is written that literally. Then either they spoke to Sheila or an accomplice employed by Jeremy.
OR they didn't have a grammatical handle on the English language?
-
OR they didn't have a grammatical handle on the English language? I prefer to go with that as nothing was said about whom they were "in conversation with" -which would have been huge- and I don't believe that the word had gone out to 'get Jeremy' because they had no reason.
-
OR they didn't have a grammatical handle on the English language? I prefer to go with that as nothing was said about whom they were "in conversation with" -which would have been huge- and I don't believe that the word had gone out to 'get Jeremy' because they had no reason.
Much of the 'evidence' that is supposed to show Jeremy is innocent is just grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
-
Much of the 'evidence' that is supposed to show Jeremy is innocent is just grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
Oh,plenty of those and mistakes that are deliberate too !
-
OR they didn't have a grammatical handle on the English language?
Then you should not take it literally. ^-^
-
Then you should not take it literally. ^-^
There are usually alternatives to what looks immediately obvious. I imagine this is one of those things we'll never know an answer too....................other that what we believe it to be ^-^
-
Nothing t all constructive to add yet again zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Your posts bore me and you bring nothing new to the table
-
Your posts bore me and you bring nothing new to the table
You are free to leave.
-
Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.
Inside says exactly what it means, lebaleb.
On a farm, not in a farm. The use of the unidentified person, as well as describing that person as from inside the farm make it crystal clear to most.
-
Your posts bore me and you bring nothing new to the table
So stop reading them and don't bother to comment. You being nothing to the table - either new or old! You know nothing about this case - if Jack Sh*t was a person, you wouldn't even know him!
-
Inside says exactly what it means, lebaleb.
On a farm, not in a farm. The use of the unidentified person, as well as describing that person as from inside the farm make it crystal clear to most.
Oh try harder Gingo!
-
Oh try harder Gingo!
Dig deeper,Caroline !
-
Dig deeper,Caroline !
::)