Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on February 02, 2018, 11:15:AM
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
Page 11 has the police telling Bamber that Julie knew about the lockable from outside window.
Obviously the relatives told Julie about this window as Bamber told the police he wasn't aware of such a window. Bit strange that Bamber then said he 'didn't think' he had told Julie about this window.
The relatives had very limited opportunities in which to tell Julie about the lockable from outside window. Julie was with Bamber 99% of the time, usually out of Essex. The other 1% of the time Julie was with friends such as Susan Battersby.
The relatives also didn't find out about the lockable from outside window until a long time after the massacre. So had a short time scale to get in touch with Julie.
In the 4 weeks before Julie approached the police, when did the relatives tell Julie about the lockable from outside window ?
-
A good start would be the date the relatives found out the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. This will give the relatives their time scale.
Once we know their time scale, we can see what Julies movements were in that period. To try to work out when the relatives told Julie.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5815.0.html
Found it. Page 15.
The relatives found out about the kitchen window on the 26th August.
Although Julie had spent 18 months with Bamber, both before & after the massacre, he couldn't have told Julie about this window as he told the police he was not aware of it. It had to be the relatives.
This gives the relatives a very short time scale to tell Julie about this window.
They wouldn't have met Julie after the 26th August, certainly not without Bamber being present. After Bamber & Julie split up, Julie was in London with friends.
The relatives had to have telephoned Julie & told her about the window. But did they have Julie's London phone number ?
-
It's a bit weird, the relatives out of the blue ringing Julie & saying the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Why an earth would they do that ? But it's the only thing supporters can cling onto.
If Bamber told Julie about the kitchen window as Julie says he did in her WS, it makes Bamber guilty & means he lied in his police interviews.
The relatives have never said they told Julie about the kitchen window. However it needs to be proved they had the opportunity to do so in their short time scale.
-
It's a bit weird, the relatives out of the blue ringing Julie & saying the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Why an earth would they do that ? But it's the only thing supporters can cling onto.
If Bamber told Julie about the kitchen window as Julie says he did in her WS, it makes Bamber guilty & means he lied in his police interviews.
The relatives have never said they told Julie about the kitchen window. However it needs to be proved they had the opportunity to do so in their short time scale.
Why indeed, they could know that she wouldn't go straight to Jeremy and tell him that his relatives were suspicious. They couldn't afford that!
-
Julie was also telling other people what she knew in August. Before approaching the police.
If she mentioned the window then that gives the relatives a tiny time scale.
-
Why indeed, they could know that she wouldn't go straight to Jeremy and tell him that his relatives were suspicious. They couldn't afford that!
That is correct.
It's very clear that Bamber told Julie about the kitchen window. This doesn't make him guilty. But shows he knew how to exit WHF & bang shut the kitchen window. Which is a big motivation to attempt the massacre/frame.
It also shows he lied in his police interviews.
-
Obviously Bamber would only commit the massacre if he knew he could leave WHF with all windows shut from inside.
Apart from a ridiculous theory that the relatives had Julie's London telephone number & rang her after the 26th August, the evidence is Bamber knew about the kitchen window as Julie said in her WS.
-
AE informed DC Barlow the kitchen window could be closed from the outside on the 20th of August.
You can infer Julie was told of this in the same or similar circumstances to when she was told of Sheila being on the bed with the bible on her chest.
-
AE informed DC Barlow the kitchen window could be closed from the outside on the 20th of August.
You can infer Julie was told of this in the same or similar circumstances to when she was told of Sheila being on the bed with the bible on her chest.
Guess AE's WS on the 26th August must be wrong then.
AE does say in cross examination the police told her a bible was across Sheila's chest. However she can't remember if she told Julie this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,211.msg592.html#msg592
Anyway this thread is about exonerating Bamber on the window issue.
Julie says he told her about the window. The relatives have never said they spoke to Julie about the window.
Why did & when did the relatives tell Julie ?
-
AE perhaps telling Julie about the bible is not similar to telling Julie about the lockable kitchen window.
A bible on Sheila's chest does not obviously incriminate Bamber. The kitchen window does.
There would be a strong chance Julie would alert Bamber. If the relatives had the opportunity & crazily told Julie about the kitchen window.
Julie was with Bamber for 18 months. The most practical explanation is he told her & lied to the police in his interviews.
-
Guess AE's WS on the 26th August must be wrong then.
I am going by Barlow and Millers handwritten notes. According to them AE told them on the 20th.
AE does say in cross examination the police told her a bible was across Sheila's chest. However she can't remember if she told Julie this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,211.msg592.html#msg592
Anyway this thread is about exonerating Bamber on the window issue.
Julie says he told her about the window. The relatives have never said they spoke to Julie about the window.
Why did & when did the relatives tell Julie ?
You've answered your own question. Ann conveniently "can't remember" ::)
-
I am going by Barlow and Millers handwritten notes. According to them AE told them on the 20th.
You've answered your own question. Ann conveniently "can't remember" ::)
I don't know why AE would lie about claiming to 'not remember' whether she told Julie the bible was on Sheila's chest. Telling or not telling Julie this benefits no one.
Have you got the sources for Barlow's & Millers notes ? I provided a source for AE saying she found out on the 26th.
20th or 26th, after this date, when & why do you think the relatives told Julie about the kitchen window. Or do you believe Bamber told Julie ?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647.msg50140.html#msg50140
Page 11 of Julies WS says Bamber told her about the kitchen window. Prior to the massacre. Julie would of course have testified this.
Bamber didn't have to be a criminal mastermind to locate such a window. He had lived /worked at WHF virtually all his life. WHF was a big house with lots of old windows. One was likely to do what he wanted. If he couldn't find a window which banged shut from outside, it wouldn't be hard to do some minor DIY.
-
AE informed DC Barlow the kitchen window could be closed from the outside on the 20th of August.
You can infer Julie was told of this in the same or similar circumstances to when she was told of Sheila being on the bed with the bible on her chest.
Yes, by Bamber!
-
I appreciate supporters like to stone wall difficult aspects of the case. But there needs to be some explanations on this important issue. The simple questions are -
Why did the relatives tell Julie about the kitchen window ?
When did the relatives tell Julie about the kitchen window ?
------------
At present only David has posted making a statement with no source & trying to deflect attention onto the bible.
-
The undisputed facts are -
The kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.
The sink tidy & utensils by the kitchen window were moved on the massacre night.
Bamber had lived & worked at WHF virtually all his life.
Julie knew about the kitchen window & told the police this.
Julie said in her WS & testified that Bamber told her about the kitchen window.
The relatives found out about the kitchen window on the 26th August 1985.
No relatives have ever said they told Julie about the kitchen window.
Bamber has never claimed a third party told Julie about the kitchen window.
---------------
To counter the above, supporters need to give credible answers to why & when the relatives told Julie.
Does Bamber telling Julie there is a window which can be banged shut from outside make him 100% guilty ? No, it makes him 99% guilty.
-
we dont know theydid tell her the police could of told her.
she could of asked jeremy these plenty of ways she could of found out.
-
we dont know theydid tell her the police could of told her.
she could of asked jeremy these plenty of ways she could of found out.
The police told Julie about the kitchen window. Was that after they told her about Matthew Macdonald ?
Anyway, I agree the relatives wouldn't & had no opportunity to tell Julie.
If the police told her, then a lot of other things in her WS were given to her by the police.
This can only mean the industrial frame happened. If the police were prepared to create false WS's, then they will fabricate all other required evidence.
-
The undisputed facts are -
The sink tidy & utensils by the kitchen window were moved on the massacre night.
Photos taken on that morning show obstacles on and around sink right in-front of the window.
(https://s10.postimg.org/g1xjbd7p5/window.png)
The undisputed facts are -
The relatives found out about the kitchen window on the 26th August 1985.
Miller and Barlows police notes show the relatives informed the police about the window on the 20th of August.
Furthermore they did not "find out" about it, it was their idea in the first place.
(https://s10.postimg.org/a0zueadd5/millerlogs.png)
The undisputed facts are -
Bamber has never claimed a third party told Julie about the kitchen window.
It was claimed in court by defence counsel that she got the information from either the police or AE.
To counter the above, supporters need to give credible answers to why & when the relatives told Julie.
To counter the above all you need to do is expose it for the bullshit that it is. And that I have done
-
Photos taken on that morning show obstacles on and around sink right in-front of the window.
(https://s10.postimg.org/g1xjbd7p5/window.png)
Miller and Barlows police notes show the relatives informed the police about the window on the 20th of August.
Furthermore they did not "find out" about it, it was their idea in the first place.
(https://s10.postimg.org/a0zueadd5/millerlogs.png)
It was claimed in court by defence counsel that she got the information from either the police or AE.
To counter the above all you need to do is expose it for the bullshit that it is. And that I have done
The photograph shows nothing.
Do you believe Jean Boutflour created a false WS as well ?
I would rather go a submitted WS from AE rather than a scribbled note. More likely the note has a wrong date. Not that it's that important. Either way the relatives still had a very limited time scale.
Have you got a source that the defence claimed at trial Julie got the window information from the police or relatives ? A very serious accusation by the defence.
-
Photos taken on that morning show obstacles on and around sink right in-front of the window.
(https://s10.postimg.org/g1xjbd7p5/window.png)
Miller and Barlows police notes show the relatives informed the police about the window on the 20th of August.
Furthermore they did not "find out" about it, it was their idea in the first place.
(https://s10.postimg.org/a0zueadd5/millerlogs.png)
It was claimed in court by defence counsel that she got the information from either the police or AE.
To counter the above all you need to do is expose it for the bullshit that it is. And that I have done
I would hardly call a distressed ornamental garden pedestal an obstacle designed to thwart the ambition of a ruthless operator bent on inheriting a £436,000 estate. But thanks for reminding me that Julie was entreated to hang around so Bamber had the excuse to keep the bicycle at Bourtree Cottage.
-
I would hardly call a distressed ornamental garden pedestal an obstacle designed to thwart the ambition of a ruthless operator bent on inheriting a £436,000 estate. But thanks for reminding me that Julie was entreated to hang around so Bamber had the excuse to keep the bicycle at Bourtree Cottage.
I think DDavid means the objects inside the house in front of the window. Not sure how what looks to be a couple of bottles would stop someone climbing out of that window, also not sure that it HAS to be that window that he used as his exit.
-
The police told Julie about the kitchen window. Was that after they told her about Matthew Macdonald ?
Anyway, I agree the relatives wouldn't & had no opportunity to tell Julie.
If the police told her, then a lot of other things in her WS were given to her by the police.
This can only mean the industrial frame happened. If the police were prepared to create false WS's, then they will fabricate all other required evidence.
well dont know as most of the orginal transcripts are still being kept secret.
if she had been inside whf i dont know weather she had or not she might know anyway without being told.
-
well dont know as most of the orginal transcripts are still being kept secret.
if she had been inside whf i dont know weather she had or not she might know anyway without being told.
How would Julie know the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside, just because she had been inside WHF. Did she check when Nevill wasn't looking ? No.
An 'industrial frame' is one big conspiracy. So you are better off saying the police fabricated Julie's WS.
-
How would Julie know the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside, just because she had been inside WHF. Did she check when Nevill wasn't looking ? No.
An 'industrial frame' is one big conspiracy. So you are better off saying the police fabricated Julie's WS.
you don't know she could of seen somone locking when she visited if she visited you
-
you don't know she could of seen somone locking when she visited if she visited you
Julie saw someone locking the window when she visited WHF.
You lock windows from inside, not bang them shut from outside.
-
The photograph shows nothing.
Do you believe Jean Boutflour created a false WS as well ?
I would rather go a submitted WS from AE rather than a scribbled note. More likely the note has a wrong date. Not that it's that important. Either way the relatives still had a very limited time scale.
Have you got a source that the defence claimed at trial Julie got the window information from the police or relatives ? A very serious accusation by the defence.
Hopefully David will provide my requested source.
That the defence counsel claimed in court that Julie got information about the kitchen window from the police or relatives. Both very serious accusations.
Wilkes's book says the defence optimistically claimed Julie got information from the batch of newspapers Bamber bought the day after the massacre. However the media did not know about the kitchen window until months afterwards.
-
At the moment no progress has been made on when & why the relatives told Julie about the kitchen window. So far -
Nugs has claimed the police told Julie which supports an industrial frame.
Nugs then seemed to change his mind and said Julie may have seen someone bang the kitchen window shut from outside when she was at WHF. Although windows are always locked from inside.
David has brought up the bible & posted a snippet of scrap paper.
David has said the defence counsel claimed at court that the police or the relatives told Julie. But has not provided a requested source.
------------
Bamber & Julie were together for 18 months. Currently the only plausible explanation of how Julie knew, is Bamber told her.
Bamber would only tell Julie about this window if he was planning the massacre.
-
I think DDavid means the objects inside the house in front of the window. Not sure how what looks to be a couple of bottles would stop someone climbing out of that window, also not sure that it HAS to be that window that he used as his exit.
It doesn't.
-
It doesn't.
What other window could Bamber bang shut from outside ?
There are 20 sources which say the kitchen window could. None that mention any other window.
-
Hopefully David will provide my requested source.
That the defence counsel claimed in court that Julie got information about the kitchen window from the police or relatives. Both very serious accusations.
Wilkes's book says the defence optimistically claimed Julie got information from the batch of newspapers Bamber bought the day after the massacre. However the media did not know about the kitchen window until months afterwards.
It seems thar David was posting untrue bullshit when he said the defence counsel said the police or relatives told Julie about the kitchen window.
-
What other window could Bamber bang shut from outside ?
There are 20 sources which say the kitchen window could. None that mention any other window.
Give us your 20 sources------I'm all ears.
-
Give us your 20 sources------I'm all ears.
Already did it, when Jan asked me. So 'no'.
You should know most of them anyway.
-
Already did it, when Jan asked me. So 'no'.
You should know most of them anyway.
I'm not buying that---------prove your 20 ways.
-
I'm not buying that---------prove your 20 ways.
Sorry, Jan asked me for 10. Which I have supplied. Original list below -
Prosecution opening statement - Wilkes's book.
Julie Mugford.
"Killers without conscience' thread.
Barlow
Ann Eaton.
2002 appeal.
Wikipedia.
Crimes & Criminals - Youtube.
Inheritance Killers - Youtube.
Murder UK - Jeremy Bamber.
'St Tropez and more suspicions' thread.
Bamber's interview transcripts. Mentioned by the police.
-----------------
It has since increased to 20 with sources from other people. Such as CAL's book.
-
David has also provided a new source in reply 19 of this thread.
-
It's surprising that Lookout requested 20 sources. When I have asked her for one source, the replies I have received have been -
'Find it yourself.'
'Use you're eyes'.
'It's on the forum somewhere'.
'No'.
'I read it in a book'.
---------------
Regarding this thread. Bamber told Julie about the lockable from outside window. Prior to the massacre. As Julie said in her WS & testified.
-
It's surprising that Lookout requested 20 sources. When I have asked her for one source, the replies I have received have been -
'Find it yourself.'
'Use you're eyes'.
'It's on the forum somewhere'.
'No'.
'I read it in a book'.
---------------
Regarding this thread. Bamber told Julie about the lockable from outside window. Prior to the massacre. As Julie said in her WS & testified.
That's right, use me to wriggle out of your theory ::)
-
What other window could Bamber bang shut from outside ?
There are 20 sources which say the kitchen window could. None that mention any other window.
The bathroom window could be opened from the outside. One of the officers checked the window and although it was shut, it was NOT secure.
-
The bathroom window could be opened from the outside. One of the officers checked the window and although it was shut, it was NOT secure.
I know it could be opened from the outside. But is there a source saying it could it be banged shut from the outside ?
-
I know it could be opened from the outside. But is there a source saying it could it be banged shut from the outside ?
Why does it need to be 'banged' shut? It was a sash window. You just had to close it. Like I said, one of the officers found it to be shut, but not secure.
-
Why does it need to be 'banged' shut? It was a sash window. You just had to close it. Like I said, one of the officers found it to be shut, but not secure.
So you can open & close the window using the outside handle. Bit easy to get in & out unless locked from inside. Doubt that Bamber needed to use his flick knife to get into the bathroom window.
Why do you think everyone say Bamber exited out of the kitchen window ?
-
So you can open & close the window using the outside handle. Bit easy to get in & out unless locked from inside. Doubt that Bamber needed to use his flick knife to get into the bathroom window.
Why do you think everyone say Bamber exited out of the kitchen window ?
Take a look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IKqszsnE2M
-
Take a look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IKqszsnE2M
That made me realise there would not be a handle on the outside of the bathroom window.
Are there any sources that the latch on the bathroom window could be banged shut from outside ?
-
That made me realise there would not be a handle on the outside of the bathroom window.
Are there any sources that the latch on the bathroom window could be banged shut from outside ?
You don't need a handle on a sash window and you wouldn't need to bang it shut.
-
A sash window can only be locked from the inside.
-
A sash window can only be locked from the inside.
The bathroom window is the window Jeremy used when he entered after the murders so he could certain;y open it from the outside. I think it would be possible to lock the window from the outside using a piece of cord, wrapped around the catch and pulled from the outside.
Still, one of the officers said that the bathroom window was shut but the latch was not secured. I think he used the bathroom window and not the kitchen.
-
The bathroom window is the window Jeremy used when he entered after the murders so he could certain;y open it from the outside. I think it would be possible to lock the window from the outside using a piece of cord, wrapped around the catch and pulled from the outside.
Still, one of the officers said that the bathroom window was shut but the latch was not secured. I think he used the bathroom window and not the kitchen.
When he entered after the murders ? Meaning that someone must have left it off the catch ?
-
When he entered after the murders ? Meaning that someone must have left it off the catch ?
Nope, he had a way of opening it when locked.
-
Nope, he had a way of opening it when locked.
It's impossible from the outside as there's usually a screw-down mechanism in case a knife is used to slide the lever across. I know how these windows work as I've lived in an old house with the same windows.
-
The bathroom window is the window Jeremy used when he entered after the murders so he could certain;y open it from the outside. I think it would be possible to lock the window from the outside using a piece of cord, wrapped around the catch and pulled from the outside.
Still, one of the officers said that the bathroom window was shut but the latch was not secured. I think he used the bathroom window and not the kitchen.
Yes I think there was some similar plot in Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot's Christmas.
-
It's impossible from the outside as there's usually a screw-down mechanism in case a knife is used to slide the lever across. I know how these windows work as I've lived in an old house with the same windows.
Except it's not because from Bambers own ADMISSION he was able to gain access that way! I know how they work, there are lots of houses around here that still have them!
-
Yes I think there was some similar plot in Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot's Christmas.
All you had to do was drape the cord over the latch, push the ends of the cord out of the window, pull the window down to close it pull on the cord to lock the latch and then pull the cord free.
-
Except it's not because from Bambers own ADMISSION he was able to gain access that way! I know how they work, there are lots of houses around here that still have them!
Perhaps they now don't trust Bamber? Add him to the conspiracy.
-
The bathroom window is the window Jeremy used when he entered after the murders so he could certain;y open it from the outside. I think it would be possible to lock the window from the outside using a piece of cord, wrapped around the catch and pulled from the outside.
Still, one of the officers said that the bathroom window was shut but the latch was not secured. I think he used the bathroom window and not the kitchen.
-
All you had to do was drape the cord over the latch, push the ends of the cord out of the window, pull the window down to close it pull on the cord to lock the latch and then pull the cord free.
What a performance when time was of the essence ? Then to make sure that no evidence was left behind-----prints/fibres etc ?
A murder is either planned or committed on the spur of the moment and I say it was done without forethought or planning.
-
Being as the windows had been freshly painted any interference with the locks would have left their mark,being tacky in the areas such as the locking devices unless the painter was a thorough tradesman who first burnt the old paint off---------which I'd very much doubt.
Even the Aga had layers of old paint which made it prone to the least scuffing-----as was seen.
-
Even the painter himself had been working right up until the tragedy which would mean that certain areas there'd have been wet paint outside. JB would have known that at the time so would he have taken the chance to have risked leaving his mark ? No of course not.
-
Being as the windows had been freshly painted any interference with the locks would have left their mark,being tacky in the areas such as the locking devices unless the painter was a thorough tradesman who first burnt the old paint off---------which I'd very much doubt.
Even the Aga had layers of old paint which made it prone to the least scuffing-----as was seen.
Even the painter himself had been working right up until the tragedy which would mean that certain areas there'd have been wet paint outside. JB would have known that at the time so would he have taken the chance to have risked leaving his mark ? No of course not.
What a performance when time was of the essence ? Then to make sure that no evidence was left behind-----prints/fibres etc ?
A murder is either planned or committed on the spur of the moment and I say it was done without forethought or planning.
Lookout, constantly saying that the windows had only recently been painted doesn't make it fact. Certainly, they'd been painted but "recently" is entirely relative.
The painter may well have been working right up until the murders, but as the windows were closed it stands to reason that they'd gone well passed the sticking stage. We may be entirely certain that any "wet paint" outside did not include the windows, much as you'd like us to believe.
I'd say it's a certainty that the murders were planned and calculated to take place at such time when the entire family -including Sheila- was gathered. How else was it going to be possible to make it look as if she'd been responsible? No planned crime is ever carried out with the thought in mind that it might fail. The potential gains being a greater carrot than fear of failure. Whilst you may look at the best part of half a million as not being worth Jeremy getting out of bed for, to we, less well cushioned members of 1985 society, it was a small fortune.
-
Even the painter himself had been working right up until the tragedy which would mean that certain areas there'd have been wet paint outside. JB would have known that at the time so would he have taken the chance to have risked leaving his mark ? No of course not.
The nessesaties to make things fit as a result of entrenchment are so severe, it will be argued that JB repainted the window that night to cover his tracks.
If all else fails, include Sheila as a participant in Jeremy’s plan.
-
The nessesaties to make things fit as a result of entrenchment are so severe, it will be argued that JB repainted the window that night to cover his tracks.
If all else fails, include Sheila as a participant in Jeremy’s plan.
Well if he fiddled and faffed around using cord/string to unlock a window,he'd have also found time for a bit of re-painting while he was at it,or even Sheila as she was the artist.
All JB seemed to have done in all this was cover his tracks. It's a miracle he found time to do anything else,in particular murdering 5 people as well.
-
Well if he fiddled and faffed around using cord/string to unlock a window,he'd have also found time for a bit of re-painting while he was at it,or even Sheila as she was the artist.
All JB seemed to have done in all this was cover his tracks. It's a miracle he found time to do anything else,in particular murdering 5 people as well.
He wouldn't have needed to "fiddle and faff". He'd have had it down to a fine art, because he'd have had to know, in advance, that it was possible. Having to shoot Sheila twice and wrestle with Nevill wouldn't have been something he'd bargained for.
-
Well if he fiddled and faffed around using cord/string to unlock a window,he'd have also found time for a bit of re-painting while he was at it,or even Sheila as she was the artist.
All JB seemed to have done in all this was cover his tracks. It's a miracle he found time to do anything else,in particular murdering 5 people as well.
::)
-
The nessesaties to make things fit as a result of entrenchment are so severe, it will be argued that JB repainted the window that night to cover his tracks.
If all else fails, include Sheila as a participant in Jeremy’s plan.
Oh, that's rich coming from you! Mr square peg in a round hole! :o
-
Being as the windows had been freshly painted any interference with the locks would have left their mark,being tacky in the areas such as the locking devices unless the painter was a thorough tradesman who first burnt the old paint off---------which I'd very much doubt.
Even the Aga had layers of old paint which made it prone to the least scuffing-----as was seen.
Lookout, Jeremy DID enter through this window and left no marks after the murders. If he had left the window open, he only had to push it up - however, the window wasn't painted the day before, how long do you think it takes paint to dry? If he did lock it, the cord would leave no marks. I don't know why you always have to make excuses, the FACT is that he could have entered and left this way. It doesn't mean he did - just that it was possible!
-
Lookout, Jeremy DID enter through this window and left no marks after the murders. If he had left the window open, he only had to push it up - however, the window wasn't painted the day before, how long do you think it takes paint to dry? If he did lock it, the cord would leave no marks. I don't know why you always have to make excuses, the FACT is that he could have entered and left this way. It doesn't mean he did - just that it was possible!
C'mon Caroline,they're no more " excuses " than some of yours are they ? The last time I looked,everything that's been posted here has been based on speculation and not including any backup from a proven source,so our " excuses " are every bit as good as yours ?
-
C'mon Caroline,they're no more " excuses " than some of yours are they ? The last time I looked,everything that's been posted here has been based on speculation and not including any backup from a proven source,so our " excuses " are every bit as good as yours ?
Not when you keep on insisting that the paint on the windows was still wet.
-
Lookout, Jeremy DID enter through this window and left no marks after the murders. If he had left the window open, he only had to push it up - however, the window wasn't painted the day before, how long do you think it takes paint to dry? If he did lock it, the cord would leave no marks. I don't know why you always have to make excuses, the FACT is that he could have entered and left this way. It doesn't mean he did - just that it was possible!
Okay,I'd like to see the latest submission/proof reporting that JB HAD entered via the window,please. None of your cobbled afterthoughts thankyou.
No " coulds/possibly's/may-haves allowed as you appear to be brutally certain about this-----as with the wallet and trailer. Weren't these also excuses to implicate him even further ?
-
Okay,I'd like to see the latest submission/proof reporting that JB HAD entered via the window,please. None of your cobbled afterthoughts thankyou.
No " coulds/possibly's/may-haves allowed as you appear to be brutally certain about this-----as with the wallet and trailer. Weren't these also excuses to implicate him even further ?
Tell us, Lookout, please, which you consider to be more misleading. "Could/possibly/may have which are all admissions of speculation/uncertainty, OR blatant statements of made up/say it with enough conviction and it will be believed "fact"?
-
Caroline,you've emphasised that JB DID enter via the window---------then tailed off by stating that " could have and possibly. Do I detect uncertainty or what ? He either DID or he DIDN'T. Remember,you're on the side of the" prosecution ".
-
Caroline,you've emphasised that JB DID enter via the window---------then tailed off by stating that " could have and possibly. Do I detect uncertainty or what ? He either DID or he DIDN'T. Remember,you're on the side of the" prosecution ".
You've insisted that the "recently painted" window frames were still sticky. The prosecution only had to establish that it was possible for him to have entered via a window. As he'd already admitted to having done so......................
-
C'mon Caroline,they're no more " excuses " than some of yours are they ? The last time I looked,everything that's been posted here has been based on speculation and not including any backup from a proven source,so our " excuses " are every bit as good as yours ?
Errrrr, just a sec, I always post sources - the same can NOT be said of you. The FACT is that Bamber could enter WHF when the windows were locked by his OWN ADMISSION. No one has to prove which window he used because by his OWN ADMISSION, it was possible for him to do so!
-
Caroline,you've emphasised that JB DID enter via the window---------then tailed off by stating that " could have and possibly. Do I detect uncertainty or what ? He either DID or he DIDN'T. Remember,you're on the side of the" prosecution ".
What I sated was that AFTER the murders he DID enter WHF via the bathroom window so COULD have done so on the night of the murders! Read his interview - he admits it! (JEEEEEEZE!!!!!).
-
Errrrr, just a sec, I always post sources - the same can NOT be said of you. The FACT is that Bamber could enter WHF when the windows were locked by his OWN ADMISSION. No one has to prove which window he used because by his OWN ADMISSION, it was possible for him to do so!
"Could "----but didn't.
-
Because he entered AFTER the murders doesn't mean that he entered before or during.
-
"Could "----but didn't.
Mmm, but as he previously AND subsequently had, he already knew he "could".................and did.
-
Except it's not because from Bambers own ADMISSION he was able to gain access that way! I know how they work, there are lots of houses around here that still have them!
Why are you privy to how other peoples windows work in your area? Is there something you'd like to tell us?
-
Why are you privy to how other peoples windows work in your area? Is there something you'd like to tell us?
I know how a sash window works and lots of people here have those windows - not sure what ypu don't understand about that but sorry if it's confusing! ::)
-
I know how a sash window works and lots of people here have those windows - not sure what ypu don't understand about that but sorry if it's confusing! ::)
Well lets summarise.
I know how they work, there are lots of houses around here that still have them!
All you had to do was drape the cord over the latch, push the ends of the cord out of the window, pull the window down to close it pull on the cord to lock the latch and then pull the cord free.
I don't have a clue about other peoples windows or how they work nor have I ever given it much thought. The only reason why I would know such thing is if id been burglarizing their homes. :-\
I guess this could explain how you can be on this forum all day and not work. ;D
-
Because he entered AFTER the murders doesn't mean that he entered before or during.
He did enter before - he ADMITTED IT! ::)
-
Well lets summarise.
I don't have a clue about other peoples windows or how they work nor have I ever given it much thought. The only reason why I would know such thing is if id been burglarizing their homes. :-\
I guess this could explain how you can be on this forum all day and not work. ;D
Jeremy told Liz Rimington he wanted to burgle a few large homes in the area. Why did he return to White House Farm via a window anyway one September night?
-
Well lets summarise.
I don't have a clue about other peoples windows or how they work nor have I ever given it much thought. The only reason why I would know such thing is if id been burglarizing their homes. :-\
I guess this could explain how you can be on this forum all day and not work. ;D
Well, lets summarise even further;
Only buglers know how locks work or notice that people have sash windows ::). Yes, this would be the conclusion a dip shit like you would come to.
The problem with making such gormless statements is that you make yourself look like and even bigger prick - if that is even possible!
-
Sash window latch.
-
The ones which we had screwed down once the lever was locked over. Whether that device screws down I wouldn't know.
-
The bathroom window is the window Jeremy used when he entered after the murders so he could certain;y open it from the outside. I think it would be possible to lock the window from the outside using a piece of cord, wrapped around the catch and pulled from the outside.
Still, one of the officers said that the bathroom window was shut but the latch was not secured. I think he used the bathroom window and not the kitchen.
According to Barlow, the bathroom window couldn't be shut from outside. This explains why AE chose the kitchen window.
So what now to make things fit?
A) He climbed out the master bedroom window via a ladder. (That's Harley's fall-back position)
B) He gives Sheila the gun after commiting four murders. Leaves via the maindoor after instructing Sheila to secure all downstairs doors and windows before shooting herself.
C) Secretly leaves a Motorola DynaTAC 8000X Mobile phone in Sheila's room. Calls her from his cottage and tells her to carry out the whole thing. And Nevills subsequent call is an added bonus alibi that does not actually exonerate him.
It seems you are spoilt for choice! Decisions decisions decisions ;D
-
Once a metal object ( usually a penknife ) is slid underneath the lever,it's virtually impossible to slide that lever back over to enable you to lock a sash window from the outside. Yes,you can bang it shut but it won't lock and secure it.
-
According to Barlow, the bathroom window couldn't be shut from outside. This explains why AE chose the kitchen window.
So what now to make things fit?
A) He climbed out the master bedroom window via a ladder. (That's Harley's fall-back position)
B) He gives Sheila the gun after commiting four murders. Leaves via the maindoor after instructing Sheila to secure all downstairs doors and windows before shooting herself.
C) Secretly leaves a Motorola DynaTAC 8000X Mobile phone in Sheila's room. Calls her from his cottage and tells her to carry out the whole thing. And Nevills subsequent call is an added bonus alibi that does not actually exonerate him.
It seems you are spoilt for choice! Decisions decisions decisions ;D
Shut or locked? Because it was actually found to be unlocked on the afternoon of the murders!
I know you think you're amusing, but you're really just embarrassing - CRINGE FEST! :-[
-
Shut or locked? Because it was actually found to be unlocked on the afternoon of the murders!
I know you think you're amusing, but you're really just embarrassing - CRINGE FEST! :-[
And found LOCKED on the morning of the murders.
So what's it going to be?. I have given you three options. Its OK take your time :P
-
And found LOCKED on the morning of the murders.
So what's it going to be?. I have given you three options. Its OK take your time :P
I see, so Jones's word on this is acceptable because it supports the defense? ;D ;D I question whether they were all checked as the bathroom was found to be closed but not secured with no reason for it to have been unsecured during the morning.
As for your tree options - you know where yo can stick those!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
The relatives had very limited opportunities in which to tell Julie about the lockable from outside window.
Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones. Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.
-
Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones. Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.
Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?
-
Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?
I would imagine that police would know how to manipulate a witness and suspect without the use of 'masses'. I wouldn't describe a family with inheritance concerns and a cosy relationship with police, as equating to 'masses'.
-
Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?
I would imagine that police would know how to manipulate a witness and suspect without the use of 'masses'. I wouldn't describe a family with inheritance concerns and a cosy relationship with police, as equating to 'masses'.
The 'coincidence theory' of Jeremy being the killer and telling Julie the same false information that the police told AE. Has no plausible basis in reality. It only works in the fictional game of "lets make things fit" by blaming Jeremy for Julies lies.
-
Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones. Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.
You agree there was an Industrial frame ?
Why did the police tell Julie to include Matthew Macdonald in her WS. Or was that part true ?
-
Every individual concerned had THEIR own interests at heart,regardless.
-
Every individual concerned had THEIR own interests at heart,regardless.
Do you believe the police told Julie to include both the kitchen window & Matthew Macdonald in her WS ?
-
Do you believe the police told Julie to include both the kitchen window & Matthew Macdonald in her WS ?
Whenever EP shouted sh+t,they ALL jumped on the shovel. That's how it was.
-
You agree there was an Industrial frame ?
Why did the police tell Julie to include Matthew Macdonald in her WS. Or was that part true ?
I have asked this before - there is no reason whatsoever to include MacDonald but perhaps it's because RWB mentioned 'A' MacDonald at some point or maybe they threw him in there just for the hell of it? :-\
-
The 'coincidence theory' of Jeremy being the killer and telling Julie the same false information that the police told AE. Has no plausible basis in reality. It only works in the fictional game of "lets make things fit" by blaming Jeremy for Julies lies.
What false information? That Sheila was on the left side of the bed with a bible on her chest? She was on the left of the bed and maybe the bible WAS on her chest when Bamber left, but it slid off? So actually, in that respect, it wouldn't be false - just open to interpretation.
-
I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?
-
I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?
She was, if one is looking at the bed from the foot to the head. However, if one looks from the head to the foot, the blood staining -from June's wounds- are on the left.
-
I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?
That's what I meant by interpretation ....... left side of the bed but on the floor. Think I have said this several times but if you were to describe object in your own room (not you personally), you might refer to a bedside table being 'on the left side of the bed'. You wouldn't mention it being on the floor because that is taken as read. I would also have described Sheila as being 'on the left side of the bed' but someone else may that that literally. Perhaps when Jeremy told Julie that 'Sheila was on the left side of the bed' she took it literally'.
-
If Bamber had used MM as a proxy to Julie, the police would still remove MM from her WS.
There is no way the police would insert the kitchen window & then not remove MM from a created false WS for Julie.
Only the relatives could have told Julie about the kitchen window in their short time scale. My thread post asks why & when.
-
Perhaps Bamber told Julie about MM & the kitchen window & Julie's WS is not false.
Too simple an explanation.
-
The 'coincidence theory' of Jeremy being the killer and telling Julie the same false information that the police told AE. Has no plausible basis in reality. It only works in the fictional game of "lets make things fit" by blaming Jeremy for Julies lies.
The bit about Sheila and June being found dead on the bed with a bible between them was going the rounds that first morning at Bourtree Cottage, Goldhanger and did not emanate exclusively from Julie.