...
It indicates that there was someone operating them though ?
No it doesn't
If lights had been going on and off outside the house. Jeremy would have been saying lights were going on and off. Surely? >:( :oAs you well know Jeremy was not on observation duty. In fact he was taken to a call box at some point and as far as I recall spent most of the time at the end of Pages lane. Regardless of where exactly he was, he was most certainly not observing the farmhouse so your observation is based on a false premise.
As you well know Jeremy was not on observation duty. In fact he was taken to a call box at some point and as far as I recall spent most of the time at the end of Pages lane. Regardless of where exactly he was, he was most certainly not observing the farmhouse so your observation is based on a false premise.
Ah, so this happened after Jeremy had been removed from outside the Farmhouse. How unlucky, this man seems to be the unluckiest man alive.Where exactly "outside" do you think Jeremy was all night?
It's based on the premise that someone would have said something. No one has said they saw a light go on or off. Not one person.
Ah, so this happened after Jeremy had been removed from outside the Farmhouse. How unlucky, this man seems to be the unluckiest man alive.
It's based on the premise that someone would have said something. No one has said they saw a light go on or off. Not one person.
Where exactly "outside" do you think Jeremy was all night?
Several officers have reported the same lights as being both off and on. Are you basing your argument on the spurious fact that there isn't one reported observation of the lights changing from off to on?
Because it didn't happen.
It should have been proof enough that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse. What a bunch of dozy individuals.
HOW? Unless any WS stated that whilst they stood and watched, a particular light in a particular room was switched on and off -although WHY, unless someone was sending morse code- there's nothing to validate such an occurrence.
There will be in the original murder/suicide logs.
You have frequently asked me why, because I think he's guilty, do I bother to post. Now, I'm asking you why, if your blanket answer to everything is that 'the truth' is in the original logs/in PII, do you bother to debate? It occurs to me that nothing changed as a result of me changing my mind. I simply looked at the same evidence from another perspective -much of what was fact then, remains so now, ie those characters I found so dislikeable then are no more so, now. The difference being in that I understand more about where they were coming from- so it's perfectly possible that the original logs say little that's different.
How do any of us know what the original logs say when EP are " suspiciously " holding on to them ? I say suspiciously because if they've nothing to hide then show the world. If there was anything to JB's detriment then they obviously wouldn't have been hidden and would have been amalgamated with the paperwork when it had been decided it was murder. So why after 33 years do EP still need any paperwork at all ?
We're looking at this from entirely different perspectives. If there's as little that differs between the individual investigations as makes no difference, UNLESS the originals were destroyed immediately, there may NOT be a first set and a second set. After all, the scenario for the 'second' set won't be any different from the scenario for the 'first' set.
You go on using the word "suspicious". I see no reason for it because I see no reason why police should have to reveal anything "to the world". It's not "the world's" business, and contrary to what it's being portrayed by some, as being, I don't believe it to be the cover-up that was Hillsborough, therefore, I don't believe there's anything hidden which would benefit Jeremy. To suggest that it would only be revealed if it was to Jeremy's detriment is anon-starter. WHERE, when he's in prison, on a whole life tariff is the necessity? I can think of little more stupid than to employ manpower to search through WS's and logs, nearly 35 years old, that show up, in a bad light, someone convicted of 5 murders.
The reason why no police officer says that he or she saw a particular room light being switched on and off, or that a light which was not on, being switched on was because for that to be said by anybody, or written about by anybody, would have resulted in the prosecution being unable to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for the five murders on the footing that he had shot and killed everyone, and staged the scene with one of the guns in his sister's possession, because the lights in the rooms of the farmhouse could not have switched themselves off and on, or as the case may be, on and then off.
It is just as important to note, that there does not exist one statement by any of the two dozen or so police officers who were present at the farmhouse throughout the entire incident that none of the rooms lights were not always off or on, or on or off continuosly...
It seems somewhat obvious to me, that the lighting arrangements inside the farmhouse in every room both downstairs, and upstairs would or should have been a major consideration. In that respect, the police would ordinarily have created a log identifying each window and door on all four sides of the house, on the ground floor and first floor respectively.
So, where is the part of this lighting register?
Withheld?
Destroyed?
Or, are parts of its truth incorporated into witness statements in such a way that no one single person actually says they saw any light in any part of the farmhouse being switched off and on, or on and being switched off, even though lights were being switched off or turned on, or vice versa? It was an operational decision to deal with this issue so as to not Provide Jeremy Bamber with an alibi...
It seems to me that the police at the scene were aware of and that they did see various lights being switched on and off in the farmhouse..
And what if these ancient statements and logs show JB to be innocent ? Would you still feel that it's acceptable for someone to remain incarcerated just because the jury voted the way they did ?
You say that the death sentence is inhumane but isn't keeping someone locked up without having had the full evidence as bad ?
As for telling the world----what do you think the WWW is ? We're on it whether you like it or not.
All I can say is that you must have a very high opinion of yourself to argue against the likes of a QC, a woman who was a magistrate for over 40 years and a team of up to date professionals and not the dinosaurs which were present years ago. I wouldn't like to pit my wits against any of them.
And what if these ancient statements and logs show JB to be innocent ? Would you still feel that it's acceptable for someone to remain incarcerated just because the jury voted the way they did ?
You say that the death sentence is inhumane but isn't keeping someone locked up without having had the full evidence as bad ?
As for telling the world----what do you think the WWW is ? We're on it whether you like it or not.
All I can say is that you must have a very high opinion of yourself to argue against the likes of a QC, a woman who was a magistrate for over 40 years and a team of up to date professionals and not the dinosaurs which were present years ago. I wouldn't like to pit my wits against any of them.
What ancient statements? They ones that are only 'claimed' to exist? I don't believe for one second that there are any other logs. It just allows supporters to claim anything under the sun under the guise of 'it;s all hidden'. If it was hidden, you wouldn't know about it an as for the WWW, EP aren't posting on the WWW - so THEY aren't telling the world anything.
I couldn't give a stuff what the woman does for a living, there are plenty of QC's that believe Bamber guilty - you're arguing against them! ::)
Why not have the courage of your convictions and find out if there are any more documents by contacting someone in the legal team instead of forever crowing that there aren't any ??
EP are there in all their glory on the WWW so far as " dismissed " named and shamed officers are concerned. The world sees that doesn't it ? Of course they wouldn't show ALL their " mistakes " online, there'd be no room for anything else.
Let me remind you too are arguing against a lot of people ! Where are the high-profile pics in your corner ?
Why on EARTH would we need 'high-profile' pics or people in "our" corner? Why on EARTH do we need to to "find out if..............." when it's you who's gagging for there to be secret store rooms full of hidden information which will mean immediate release for Jeremy information. It's all in your imagination that "EP are there in all their glory............" Why WOULD the "named and shamed" care? After nearly 35 years? Get real.
Huh ! I'm not " gagging " for anything, it's you who's arguing that there isn't. Before you fall off your high horse the named and shamed were only in the last couple of years---------I wouldn't have dared go back 30 odd years ! So it's up to you to get real.
Your first paragraph appears to be suggesting that either police weren't permitted to write their witness statements until the prosecution had worked out which tack they were going to use Which is exactly what they did, they had a whole month to figure out the approach they would need to be taking! Stop pretending that cops don't put people in the frame and that part of this process is making sure that they don't give anything away which will upset the apple cart! You are restricted into thinking that whatever exists proves Bambers guilt, but you and those like you, have got it all wrong! OR they conspired to write 'the truth' in a code which only those present could decipher. if only you and yours had been so unlucky in your lives in the hands of the corrupted Criminal Justice system! You can't see the wood for the trees, that's your problem! But, hey you have got to face your own demons on your judgement day!Stupid to think you'd suggest such, Well, if I'm stupid, what does that make you, and all those like you?wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't say that I am stupid at all - the trial judge who incarcerated me for what turned out to be a 54 year term of imprisonment, said 'THE PICTURE I HAVE OF YOU, IS OF A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, CUNNING, RESOURCEFUL AND AN ILLUSIVE CROOK', So either he got it right or wrong, or you got it wrong or right!
I'm going to suggest that the reason "there does not exist one statement.... this.............." is simply, and for NO other reason than there WERE NO lights going on and off, and off and on either continuously or intermittently and the ONLY lights they saw were any that were on when they arrived. well, something that the cops saw or heard, or were being told by someone who must have been alive inside the farmhouse, to keep over 25 police officers at bay for over three and a half hours suggests that you must be totally wrong in what you are saying and believing, five dead bodies inside the farmhouse, and one living dog was surely not responsible for keeping the armed cops at bay until just after 7.30am, that morning!
Your foray into creating double negatives therefore appears merely as ploy to confuse. I don't set out to confuse anyone, the only people responsible for doing that are Essex police and people like yourself who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face!I see NO reason, that being so, for the police to have wasted their time on creating a "lighting register". You simply don't appear to have a clue about what the police would have done, or did do in connection with these events..
Why not have the courage of your convictions and find out if there are any more documents by contacting someone in the legal team instead of forever crowing that there aren't any ??
EP are there in all their glory on the WWW so far as " dismissed " named and shamed officers are concerned. The world sees that doesn't it ? Of course they wouldn't show ALL their " mistakes " online, there'd be no room for anything else.
Let me remind you too are arguing against a lot of people ! Where are the high-profile pics in your corner ?
Ok Mike. Firstly, what comes to my attention a thousand times more than your -ALLEGED- belief in Jeremy's innocence (actually, the jury's STILL out on that) is you very obvious detestation of police and a strong desire to get even, EVEN if it means helping a guilty man get off. DO I think you believe Jeremy's innocent? The most honest I can be is to say that I think you may have seen a potential loop hole when you shared a cell with him and you've worked on it. I understand that you have to keep it going.
Believe me, Mike, I've NEVER underestimated you -but just for the record, you've misread me. I NEVER implied YOU were stupid -in fact, I'm in total agreement with what your particularly astute trial judge said of you- I implied that it would be "I" who was stupid to believe what you were saying. Did not Jeremy ALSO compliment you on your cleverness?
You're perfectly correct in your belief that I and as you so rudely put it -my kind- HAVEN'T experienced corrupt trial judges. NOR, just in case you were wondering, have I experienced being in the presence of a presiding judge since the day of my adoption, although I do know one or two socially.
I will say again, I DON'T believe there was corruption at ground level at WHF. Police admitted that they were out of their depth. I do NOT believe that lights were seen to be going on/off/on either continuously or intermittently -if only because Jeremy would have shouted it from the roof tops- nor do I believe that not one member of that alleged HUGE conspiracy wouldn't have wanted a share of the 1 million pound reward at one time on offer. I DON'T believe police shot Sheila once, let alone twice. I DO believe that other than a dog, there wasn't a single soul alive at WHF after 3am, probably earlier.
Your ability with words -those sneaky double negatives thrown in? VERY clever- actually makes you an ideal person to practice confusion on some. I have NO axe to grind. I call it as I see it. You have the oneupmanship of knowing how (SOME) police work, far better than I, but I read papers and I'm fully cognisant that there's corruption out there. The way I see it is that Jeremy's case lends itself to that accusation. I agree there was confusion -much of it Jeremy led- I deny there was corruption.
Lights were believed to have been turned off or on, or vice versa, as a result of different firearm officers providing updates of what they could see to PS Adams in a nearby forward control point at the scene! It was this perception, as well as the belief that at one time or another that Sheila Caffell was mimicking the barks of 'Crispy' the family pet, in response to the many challenges the cops made to the occupants inside the farmhouse using a loud gailer!
The police 'doggedly' set about trying to resolve the conflict but ended up barking up the wrong tree!
Sheila was alive, as you or me, it anyone, at the time the six man firearms team set forth to burst into the premises at just before 7.30am...
If Sheila was still alive by that stage then of course, it means that Jeremy could not have shot and killed his sister! If she was still alive at the time a police officer was involved in a struggle in the kitchen which resulted in Sheila being shot in horizontal fashion across the neck at around 7.35am, then it must be the case that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister dead, because it was the second shot (PV/19) which actually finished Sheila off..
The two shots received by Sheila were not inflicted within seconds, or minutes of eachother, there was infact there was a substantial delay in-between both shots being fired and received. For a huge part of this period (7.35am and / to 9.13am) Sheila had been rendered unconscious, and believed to have died, once downstairs in the kitchen, and secondly upstairs in the bedroom...
Well, as everyone knows, "believed to have been" means there's a question mark. In this case a huge one. Grown men spooked to the point that they believed a poor, mentally ill girl -who was already dead- was mimicking a dog. Jeremy certainly did a good one on them, didn't he -I wonder, had they NOT heard "mentally ill", would they STILL have believed there to have been a living human mimicking a dog? Had they NOT been told she was gun competent with every weapon in the house, might they have gone in sooner than they did?- all this would certainly have contributed to the right hand having no idea what the left hand was doing.
As if to highlight the potential involvement in the death of Sheila Caffell by the police, consider the following anomalies:-
How come that at 8.44am when Dr Craig pronounced Sheila dead her body was laid on the far side of the bed, and by that stage there was only a single bullet entry wound to her neck? There was still only one bullet entry wound to Sheila's neck when Stan Jones and Mick Clark viewed Sheila's body at just after 9.05am - yet according to all the witness statements made by firearms officers who found Sheila dead on the parents bedroom floor she had already been shot twice in the neck?
How can this be true?
How could Sheila have been already shot twice and have two bullet entry wounds to her neck when the firearms officers who entered the farmhouse had first come across her body on the bedroom floor, and she be in possession of the only rifle found upstairs which at around 7.15am had been resting against the box room window, and all this be true, if what Dr Craig said at 8.44am, and what Stan Jones and Mick Clark both said at around 9.05am?
If Sheila had been found already dead on the bedroom floor, as opposed to the kitchen downstairs, or on top of the bed in her parents room, when first stumbled upon by the firearms officers, in possession of the anshuzt rifle, and she already having received the second instaneously fatal shot to her neck, this would have to have been the case by 8.10am that morning, because according to the contents of the variously timed log contents police reported that five dead bodies had been found at that specific time!
So, firearms officers find Sheila's body on the bedroom floor in possession of the anshuzt rifle, she has been shot twice to the neck and she is dead!
So, how come that by the time PC bird starts to take photographs of Sheila's two wounds (after 11.00am) that the wounds and the blood flow from the two wounds does not have the consistency of someone having been shot and killed off around three hours previously?
There is no way that Sheila Caffell had already been shot twice by 8.10am...
With this in mind, it stands to reason and common sense that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot dead his sister with the .22 semi-automatic anshuzt rifle, because he had no access to the farmhouse and was in the company of various police officers from 3.52am that morning! So please, let's examine what we can deduce from this fact?
And...
How could all this / that be true, if Sheila's body had remained untouched and unmoved after the firearms team had first stumbled upon her body by 8.10am, until PC Bird came along at around 11.00 am to capture her body insitu where it had been since the moment it had been found, if what Dr Craig (8.44am) and Stan Jones and Mick Clark had seen (9.05am)?
The pics of June and Sheila that are on the forum aren't how they'd been originally found. I've always been struck by the fact that there's a folded/rolled up large rug on the floor by the side of a bed. This rug/carpet would have been over the existing fitted beige ? carpet and would also have been saturated in blood given the injuries which June had. So the pics of Sheila and June that we see aren't the " true " pics of the scene as it had happened.
Therefore their bodies would have been moved in order to have removed the large rug/carpet which would have been beneath them. The rug/carpet would have been a similar arrangement as is seen in Sheila's bedroom.
Why didn't EP admit to moving the bodies when removing the carpet ? This would have been the carpet that was burned along with other items.
Are the original pics of the scene as it happened being withheld ?
Well, first of all, everyone was not dead whilst the police remained outside of the Farmhouse!
And the truth of the matter is that the police did believe that it was Sheila who was mimicking the dog barking, in response to their challenges by loud hailer! I guess it was a case of, Sheila responding with one bark for yes, and two barks for no! We know for example, because it states it in one of the police message logs, that firearms officers were in conversation with a person from inside the farm - now if this conversation which the firearms team were having with that person was not by use of language when the person was being challenged by the police, it must surely be the case that this is reference to the person responding with a series of dog barks!
Furthermore, it was Neville Bamber who informed the police that my daughter has got hold of one of my guns, and that she has gone berserk!
So it is somewhat misleading on your part, to try to suggest that it had been Jeremy who had planted these ideas into the Minds of the police - the contents of the 3.26am police Message log which is a recording of Neville bamber's call to the police, gives a clear indication that it was he who had informed the police that his daughter had got hold of one of his guns, thus alerting the police to the fact that there were several guns also belonging to him at the Farmhouse which is daughter (SheilaCaffell) could potentially get hold of or have access to!
It was Neville Bamber Who at 3.26am told the police that his daughter has gone berserk!
By the fact that Nevill Bamber had told the police on this occasion, 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and 'she has gone berserk', surely it was he who had planted any idea that of Sheila going berserk at the farmhouse with one of the many guns which the police themselves would have known were licensed to be kept there?
No need to blame Jeremy Bamber then..
The matter doesn't end there either, since throughout the incident or as the case may be the Siege, no-one reported seing any weapon shotgun or rifle at any window of the Farmhouse upstairs or downstairs, until around 7: 15 am, when wpc Julia jeapes reported what she thought was a rifle leaning against a first floor box room window! Of course, no one is suggesting that the dog 'Crispy' had placed that rifle there at such a convenient moment, a moment which Fell after the arrival of the two ambulances and paramedics (7.00am), who had been summoned to attend the scene to tend to the Wounded and dying. What Essex Police have not said, was who was responsible for requesting the attendance of the ambulances, and what was shouted to the occupants of the Farmhouse after the arrival of those ambulances requesting that the weapon is shown at a window before they would allow the paramedics to come into and enter the farmhouse..
The only information available is that although two ambulances arrived at the scene only one of them and it's crew was to go directly to the farmhouse! Yet that did not happen, because the police were worried that Sheila might either take them hostage or shoot them! At about 7: 15 am, the anschutz rifle suddenly appeared at the box room window, which coincided with a 6 man firearms squad commencing its approach to enter the Farmhouse by force and bring the Siege to an end...
There was someone still alive inside the Farmhouse at 7: 15 am in order for them or that person to place the anschutz rifle at the box room window!
What we then know happened was that after the firearms team had broken into the Farmhouse and upon entering the Kitchen, they reported the presence of two dead bodies, this was at 7: 35 am, and in a barrage of other messages which were passed, timed at 7: 37 am, 7.38 am, 7.42am and 7.45am, it was repeatedly confirmed that the two bodies in question, were in fact the bodies of 1 dead male and 1 dead female, and to be more precise so that there can be no doubt about the presence of two bodies in the kitchen on these occasions, one of these dead bodies was being described as a murder, Whilst the other body was being referred to as a suicide!
These reported facts, make a nonsense of the suggestion that there had been some sort of confusion, involving the presence of only one body in the kitchen, by a reliance on a report that a police officer had looked into the kitchen window from outside and reported seeing what he thought was the body of a female behind the kitchen door! Which turned out to be the body of Neville Bamber once the firearms team entered the Farmhouse and in particular the kitchen! However, even if this mistake was a genuine one, never the less, upon entering the kitchen and realising the mistake in connection with that body directly behind the kitchen door, which turned out to be the body of Neville Bamber, and not the body of a dead female, it is rather astonishing that after reporting the discovery of Neville bambers body once the firearms team had got into the kitchen, that they should also go on to say that there had also been the body of 1 dead female, in fact, two dead bodies, the body of one dead male, and the body of 1 dead female, which is a totally different scenario, to the one where a body has been mistakenly identified as a female from the vantage point of standing outside the kitchen window Looking In, prior to entry into the Farmhouse, and upon entry being gained into the Farmhouse the body in question being found to be the body of a dead male..
In the circumstances, I can accept that such a mistake could have been made in relation to the body behind the kitchen door, and that the body was that of Neville Bamber!
but upon entering the kitchen the police found a second body there, the body of a female, with no suggestion that there was any mistake about the presence of that second body, which in all the circumstances of the case could only have been an adult female, since there were three adult victims, consisting of 1 male and two females! The real give away evidence which confirms that it was Sheila Caffell's body downstairs in the kitchen, as reported in the variously timed police radio message logs, as opposed to the body of June Bamber, was that by 7.45am staff back in the control room were talking in terms of the female body being a suicide! Since in the Cold Light of Day and with the benefit of hindsight, June Bambers death could only be described as a murder in view of the fact that she had been shot a total of 7 times, and with no weapon photographed in her possession...
So..
With only one . 22 type rifle found upstairs (anshuzt rifle), and with that rifle being seen resting against the inside of a first floor box room window Prior to the police forcing entry into the premises, the only way that that rifle could end up in the possession of Sheila Caffells body in time for PC bird (2nd SOCo team) to photograph it there after 11.00am, must have involved someone, a living person, who must have collected the rifle from the box room window, in order for it to end up in possession of Sheila Caffells body much later on, on the bedroom floor! If the police had no involvement in the movement of that rifle from one upstairs room to the other, then of course the only other person who could have carried out this exercise, in all of the circumstances, was Sheila Cavell herself...
I do not believe that if Jeremy Bamber have been the Killer,that he would have staged his sister's death scene on the parents bedroom floor, and place the anschutz rifle at the window of a box room next door to that bedroom, and expect to fool the police into believing that his sister had taken her own life, after she had shot and killed the other four victims!
Lookout...
The problem Essex police and the CPS have, is that PC Bird was not the only photographer who took photographs at the scene on that first morning, because DC Oakey and DC Henderson also took crime scene photographs and a video of the crime scene before and during the police exercise which I keep alluding to as 'informatives'...
The true positions of the three adult bodies from 8.44am until 11.00am, were captured by Oakey and Henderson, and then along came PC Bird to capture the repositioned bodies in his photographs! This was what really did happen - if all the photographs which were taken by Oakey and Henderson between 9 and 11.00am, and the photographs that PC Bird took from 11.00am onwards were disclosed it would confirm that police staged Sheila Caffell's death scene on the main bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle from the box room window, and the other .22 rifle which was present in the kitchen would be identifiable!
I understand, but why hasn't anyone admitted that everything was staged ? EP certainly knew !
They have, they have admitted it was staged by Jeremy.
Funny ! Just as if they listened to him ::) Why do you think he's where he is ? Because they DIDN'T listen to him !! ::) But by the same token it seems that he's not the only one who lies ??
Funny ! Just as if they listened to him ::) Why do you think he's where he is ? Because they DIDN'T listen to him !! ::) But by the same token it seems that he's not the only one who lies ??
This may come as a surprise Lookout, so best sit down. He's where he is because he murdered five people in cold blood, including two six year old children. So you admit he does lie?
It's you who said he lies, I was being facetious when you mentioned EP. What a weak reply as usual with no substance. You're beginning to sound like a parrot.
JB couldn't have fought his way out of a paper bag let alone kill 5 people !
What a totally 'inane' reply - you intimated that he lies - Freudian slip I guess..
He could easily have fought his way out of a paper bag armed with a rifle.
I note that you never post anything you've discussed in your letters? Bit odd.
Anyone, even a woman can tackle a well-built male while she's brandishing a rifle !! With their finger ready to fire ??
What's " odd " about not discussing letters ? It's your remark that's odd.
Naturally police believed Sheila was running round like a whirling Dervish with a gun because Jeremy had cleverly led them down that particular path of belief just far enough for them to make two and two make five. There was NO conversation EVER with anyone alive in the house because there was no one alive in the house. If it wasn't Jeremy who 'misled' police, who was it? There was no one else there and the only message the police received was from Jeremy who relayed what his father had allegedly said to him, since when there has been a gross misleading of the public, beginning with whoever it was who suggested to Jeremy that a way out for him could begin by saying his father had phoned the police, and Jeremy released that information. Repeating the same information, in different guises, over and over again doesn't make true ANY of what you'd have us believe.