Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 20, 2011, 06:22:AM
-
The presence of two double magazine marked bullet cases found in the kitchen is capable of undermining a crucial part of the prosecutions case - Ralph Bamber, must have been / was shot six times in kitchen, or in other words, he was shot twice in the kitchen non fatally (linked to double marked bullet cases), and shot a further four times fatally, there...
-
At least four bullet cases, were moved or displaced, from kitchen to bedroom, to accommodate prosecutions case against Jeremy...
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,225.75.html
On page 6 of this thread, there are maps of locations of the shell casings in each of the rooms found.
Mike on the other thread 'Mike Teskowski claims that the police fired bullets into the dead bodies' DRH 39 is down as both single and double marked. How and why is that?
When you say the casings were moved or displaced to accommodate the prosecutions case against Jeremy. I imagine that the locations of shell casings would be mapped out as soon as possible after the event. Do you mean that the locations of the shell casings were altered on the drawings once the police began to suspect JB?
Lastly, It seems the world and his wife traped through WHF that morning, How seriously do we take the shell case locations? They could have been kicked, moved through being trodden on and so forth, no?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,225.75.html
On page 6 of this thread, there are maps of locations of the shell casings in each of the rooms found.
Mike on the other thread 'Mike Teskowski claims that the police fired bullets into the dead bodies' DRH 39 is down as both single and double marked. How and why is that?
When you say the casings were moved or displaced to accommodate the prosecutions case against Jeremy. I imagine that the locations of shell casings would be mapped out as soon as possible after the event. Do you mean that the locations of the shell casings were altered on the drawings once the police began to suspect JB?
Lastly, It seems the world and his wife traped through WHF that morning, How seriously do we take the shell case locations? They could have been kicked, moved through being trodden on and so forth, no?
... First of all, because police in this case covered up the true circumstances surrounding how Shiela Caffell came to die inside WHF, and they tampered with the crime scene ammumition, it should not be discounted so readily, that the police did, or could have fired shots during the incident - for example, there exists a police report entitled, 'Officers report re shooting incident in kitchen'. So, before the suggestion that police may have fired bullets is shelved completely, ask yourselves what such a report contains? When you realize that Essex police are refusing to disclose the content of that report, claiming it can be withheld under Pii rules, you will suddenly start to realize that Essex police have got something to hide relating to a shooting incident in the kitchen - it is up to each individual who reads this, to make up thier own minds as to whether the police fired shots or not? The next thing linked to this business, are the five 1/2 inch diameter bullet entry wounds, found on the bodies of Ralph and June, which in my view, could not have been made by .22 bullets, fired from the .22 Bamber rifle - police are known to have weapons which are capable of inflicting 1/2 inch entry wounds...
-
Mike i appreciate that and the fact that we could get a random 10 members on this forum who could have conducted a better investigation than EP. :P
Any thoughts on the questions that i asked though.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,225.75.html
On page 6 of this thread, there are maps of locations of the shell casings in each of the rooms found.
Mike on the other thread 'Mike Teskowski claims that the police fired bullets into the dead bodies' DRH 39 is down as both single and double marked. How and why is that?
When you say the casings were moved or displaced to accommodate the prosecutions case against Jeremy. I imagine that the locations of shell casings would be mapped out as soon as possible after the event. Do you mean that the locations of the shell casings were altered on the drawings once the police began to suspect JB?
Lastly, It seems the world and his wife traped through WHF that morning, How seriously do we take the shell case locations? They could have been kicked, moved through being trodden on and so forth, no?
--------
I will try to deal with your points one at a time:-
(1) DRH/39 was two bullet cases, one of which was double marked, the other single marked...
(2) The maps showing how the bullet cases and loose bullets were distributed around the scene and in various rooms at the farmhouse, was created after Jeremy fell into the frame, it was not made up on the morning of the shootings...
(3) PC David Bird (SOC) testified during the trial that he took photographs of all the crime scene ammunition in situ, but these photographs have never yet been disclosed and are being withheld under pii rules. Why have these pictures not been disclosed, and would the position and location of the bullet cases shown in those pictures match and correspond with the position of the bullets cases shown in the diagrams?
I think not...
(4) If Ralph Bamber was shot four times fatally in the kitchen, he could not have been killed by the two bullets attached to the two double marked bullet cases found in the kitchen, because those two double marked bullet cases would have been part of the first loaded ammunition magazine, and could not have been fired until at least five of the other bullets had been discharged from the gun, possibly more, if the shooter shot the child victims once each, and June Bamber in the bedroom doorway, beforehand? There should have been at least six bullet cases found in the kitchen linked or associated with the shootings of Ralph Downstairs, possibly two more, making it 8 bullet cases in total - four of these have been displaced to other locations inside the house, to give the impression that Ralph was shot four times non fatally in the bedroom, when I do not think this could be, or was true...
We know that PI "Bob" Miller, drafted up instruction for DC Hammersley to re-asign the original four exhibits, marked DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4 requesting him to give these different reference numbers, so that it created four vacant exhibit slots into which was then assigned four bullet cases, bearing the marks, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
Introduction of these four bullet cases into the bedroom scenario, helped to paint an inaccurate picture that Ralph Bamber was shot four times non fatally in the bedroom, when it becomes clear that he could not have been. For example, the presence of the two double marked bullet cases in the kitchen, mean that Ralph must have been shot at least twice in the Kitchen by two bullets from the first load of the ammunition magazine...
Hope this clarifies the position regarding your inquiries...
-
Nobody (other than me and Jeremy and his supporters) is suggesting that anyone other than Ralph Bamber was shot in the kitchen, so those two double marked bullet cases must relate to him having been shot in the kitchen, and that this in all probability occurred after June had already been shot in the bedroom, and the children had already been killed in their beds. I believe that the presence of those two double marked bullet cases found in the kitchen, support the contention that Ralph Bamber did make the call to Jeremy by use of the kitchen phone, and that he may have been shot immediately afterwards, or whilst in the process of making that call...
Although Ralph did not have time to convey to Jeremy, whether or not anyone had been shot by that stage, I think it is highly likely that Ralph knew that Sheila had shot June and the children, and this was why he was downstairs in the kitchen, using the only workable phone in the farmhouse that was plugged in due to a recent lightening strike. I can picture the scene now in my minds eye, Ralph hurrying downstairs into the kitchen to use the phone to alert Jeremy to the facts about what had taken place, and either just before, or just after he made the call to Jeremy, it is highly conceivable that Sheila shot him at least once, or twice with the last of the two bullets, and that this was why bloodied fingermarks were found on the edge of the kitchen worktop - the bloodied fingermarks of Ralph Bamber, who bled from at least one non fatal wound inflicted upon him by the discharge of the last two bullets before the gun was empty and needed to be reloaded...
At this point, there would have been an opportunity for some sort of a struggle to ensue between Ralph and Sheila, since there would need to have been some delay before the additional bullets could be loaded into the guns ammunition magazine...
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
-
Mike i appreciate that and the fact that we could get a random 10 members on this forum who could have conducted a better investigation than EP. :P
Any thoughts on the questions that i asked though.
+ 1 simong
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
As Mike and Jeremy's website have stated, Jerry, that wasn't the case.
You are looking at rolling logs remember, which were added to as events occurred. The following is part of Jeremy Bamber's website statement on this issue:
"The message that confuses people is “message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s”
By referring to Jeremy Bamber’s call message report timed at 03.36 there was no word of him mentioning which firearms were at White House Farm in that call. By referring to PC Myall’s 8th August 85 Statement he says that on arrival at the farm he asked Jeremy to tell him which guns were in the house. It was only at this point that headquarters were contacted by radio to say that the son had given a list of firearms and the circumstance of the phone call he received, which the officer in the radio car CA07 relayed to HQ. This was logged as above."
-
If Ralph called Jeremy once June and the boys had been shot, instead of calling the police (still no actual record of that) he would have effectively been inviting Jeremy to his own injury or death.
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
-
If Ralph called Jeremy once June and the boys had been shot, instead of calling the police (still no actual record of that) he would have effectively been inviting Jeremy to his own injury or death.
That's a big 'if' for me, Shona.
-
If Ralph called Jeremy once June and the boys had been shot, instead of calling the police (still no actual record of that) he would have effectively been inviting Jeremy to his own injury or death.
... It is very interesting to hear you say that no record exists that such a call from Ralph to the police happened? However, if the Pii restriction was not in force, Essex police would not ae able to deceive anyone, any further on this point...
-
If Ralph called Jeremy once June and the boys had been shot, instead of calling the police (still no actual record of that) he would have effectively been inviting Jeremy to his own injury or death.
... It is very interesting to hear you say that no record exists that such a call from Ralph to the police happened? However, if the Pii restriction was not in force, Essex police would not ae able to deceive anyone, any further on this point...
Mike I cannot understand how witholding this information is in the publics interest. To my way of thinking it is the opposite.
Do you know if this info has been requested for the latest review.
-
If Ralph called Jeremy once June and the boys had been shot, instead of calling the police (still no actual record of that) he would have effectively been inviting Jeremy to his own injury or death.
... It is very interesting to hear you say that no record exists that such a call from Ralph to the police happened? However, if the Pii restriction was not in force, Essex police would not ae able to deceive anyone, any further on this point...
Mike I cannot understand how witholding this information is in the publics interest. To my way of thinking it is the opposite.
Do you know if this info has been requested for the latest review.
... Requested, but as I understand it, not disclosed...
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
I fail to see what you are implying in this Mike as car CA07 was despatched at 3.35 and arrived on site at WHF at 3.48. The telephone call which Jeremy made to the police was timed at 3.26 which by my reckoning is 9 minutes before car CA07 was despatched.
Consequently there is no mystery as to the despatching of car CA07 and no evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police.
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
I fail to see what you are implying in this Mike as car CA07 was despatched at 3.35 and arrived on site at WHF at 3.48. The telephone call which Jeremy made to the police was timed at 3.26 which by my reckoning is 9 minutes before car CA07 was despatched.
Consequently there is no mystery as to the despatching of car CA07 and no evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police.
------------
It depends upon which clock you are relying on, and whose version of events as being accurate or not?
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
I fail to see what you are implying in this Mike as car CA07 was despatched at 3.35 and arrived on site at WHF at 3.48. The telephone call which Jeremy made to the police was timed at 3.26 which by my reckoning is 9 minutes before car CA07 was despatched.
Consequently there is no mystery as to the despatching of car CA07 and no evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police.
------------
It depends upon which clock you are relying on, and whose version of events as being accurate or not?
Lets keep to the one clock for consistency, the one the police control-room used when making the entries on the log. There is a complete dearth of any evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police and it is disingenuous to imply otherwise.
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
I fail to see what you are implying in this Mike as car CA07 was despatched at 3.35 and arrived on site at WHF at 3.48. The telephone call which Jeremy made to the police was timed at 3.26 which by my reckoning is 9 minutes before car CA07 was despatched.
Consequently there is no mystery as to the despatching of car CA07 and no evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police.
------------
It depends upon which clock you are relying on, and whose version of events as being accurate or not?
Lets keep to the one clock for consistency, the one the police control-room used when making the entries on the log. There is a complete dearth of any evidence that Nevill ever phoned the police and it is disingenuous to imply otherwise.
-----------------
With respect, Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the gun which is supposed to have been the only murder weapon was owned by Ralph Bamber, it should be obvious to anyone who is remotely interested that Sheila was Jeremy's sister and that Jeremy did not own any of the guns at the scene...
-
Depending upon which clock you choose to rely upon, the police arrived at the scene, at two different times, and everything they did whilst at the scene, had two different times associated with them, depending upon which clock was being referred to - in some instances, individual officers at the scene and elsewhere may have been relying upon their own clocks and timings that were unique and individual to them, and so that would be three different time zones or points of reference that we have to deal and contend with...
-
So, in your opinion Mike.
Do you think Neville called the police before or after he called Jeremy?
-
With respect, Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the gun which is supposed to have been the only murder weapon was owned by Ralph Bamber, it should be obvious to anyone who is remotely interested that Sheila was Jeremy's sister and that Jeremy did not own any of the guns at the scene...
Is this out of context Mike?? I fail to see your point??
-
Depending upon which clock you choose to rely upon, the police arrived at the scene, at two different times, and everything they did whilst at the scene, had two different times associated with them, depending upon which clock was being referred to - in some instances, individual officers at the scene and elsewhere may have been relying upon their own clocks and timings that were unique and individual to them, and so that would be three different time zones or points of reference that we have to deal and contend with...
Everything was logged at the control room. The police log below clearly shows what occurred and at what time. The phone call from jeremy was timed at 3.26 and the police cars were despatched at 3.35 and 3.36.
-
So, in your opinion Mike.
Do you think Neville called the police before or after he called Jeremy?
I'll reply to myself.
Scenario 1: Neville calls police, then calls Jeremy. Situation is out of hand, as the so called keep it in the family Neville has called the police. He's ignored the boxes of ammo lying around, left June in bedroom, and likely still in bed. But, still has time to call Jeremy, who decides to go through yellow pages........nope, i don't like this scenario.
Scenario 2: Neville calls Jeremy, ignoring ammo, and leaving June in bedroom. Phone goes dead, but some how Neville makes another phone call to Jeremy...nope don't like this one either.
Scenario 3: The police simply relayed information Jeremy had given them, and logged accordingly...yep, thats the one for me.
-
Depending upon which clock you choose to rely upon, the police arrived at the scene, at two different times, and everything they did whilst at the scene, had two different times associated with them, depending upon which clock was being referred to - in some instances, individual officers at the scene and elsewhere may have been relying upon their own clocks and timings that were unique and individual to them, and so that would be three different time zones or points of reference that we have to deal and contend with...
Everything was logged at the control room. The police log below clearly shows what occurred and at what time. The phone call from jeremy was timed at 3.26 and the police cars were despatched at 3.35 and 3.36.
-----------------------
Twisting the contents of the log do not make it that Jeremy was responsible for making this call, Jeremy's call was timed at 3:36am, not 3:26am...
Mr Bambers call was timed at 3:26am, and in that call he refers to his daughter, and that she has got hold of one of his guns...
Sheila was Jeremy's sister, not his daughter, and as I say Ralph owned the gun that was supposed to have been the murder weapon, Jeremy did not own any gun. If Jeremy's call was not made until 3:36am, how could the occupants of CA07 be dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy even called the police?
There was a 10 minute delay between Ralph's call to the police, and Jeremy's call to the police, you will see if you examine the contents of Jeremy's call to the police, timed at 3:36am, that he refers to his father calling him, and telling him that his sister had got the gun, Jeremy did not tell the police that his daughter had got one of his guns, why woudl he do that because Sheila was not his daughter, and Jeremy did not own any of the guns at whf...
-
Depending upon which clock you choose to rely upon, the police arrived at the scene, at two different times, and everything they did whilst at the scene, had two different times associated with them, depending upon which clock was being referred to - in some instances, individual officers at the scene and elsewhere may have been relying upon their own clocks and timings that were unique and individual to them, and so that would be three different time zones or points of reference that we have to deal and contend with...
Everything was logged at the control room. The police log below clearly shows what occurred and at what time. The phone call from jeremy was timed at 3.26 and the police cars were despatched at 3.35 and 3.36.
-----------------------
Twisting the contents of the log do not make it that Jeremy was responsible for making this call, Jeremy's call was timed at 3:36am, not 3:26am...
Mr Bambers call was timed at 3:26am, and in that call he refers to his daughter, and that she has got hold of one of his guns...
Sheila was Jeremy's sister, not his daughter, and as I say Ralph owned the gun that was supposed to have been the murder weapon, Jeremy did not own any gun. If Jeremy's call was not made until 3:36am, how could the occupants of CA07 be dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy even called the police?
There was a 10 minute delay between Ralph's call to the police, and Jeremy's call to the police, you will see if you examine the contents of Jeremy's call to the police, timed at 3:36am, that he refers to his father calling him, and telling him that his sister had got the gun, Jeremy did not tell the police that his daughter had got one of his guns, why woudl he do that because Sheila was not his daughter, and Jeremy did not own any of the guns at whf...
Study the log Mike, it is all there, no conspiracy, no cover up, just hard facts.
I believe the log of Jeremy's phone call to police clearly states.. "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber..." ie Jeremy contacted CD in the EP control room.
Nowhere is it recorded and no police officer has ever stated that Nevill Bamber ever telephoned Essex Police. It just didn't happen mate.
Jeremy uses the term 'daughter' and 'has got hold of one of my guns' as a figure of speech when relaying his fathers alleged message.
-
It's on the log, Mike, as clear as day. The information was relayed by JB.
-
It's on the log, Mike, as clear as day. The information was relayed by JB.
Thank you Shona. I don't blame Mike for trying to interpret it as Nevill's phone call but it obviously isn't.
-
I also wonder why Mike stated last night that the twins had only received one shot each, when we had previously discussed that they had multiple shots, seemingly in arcs, though June and Ralph were shot in a more haphazard manner. Mike did amend this, though.
-
So, in your opinion Mike.
Do you think Neville called the police before or after he called Jeremy?
I'll reply to myself.
Scenario 1: Neville calls police, then calls Jeremy. Situation is out of hand, as the so called keep it in the family Neville has called the police. He's ignored the boxes of ammo lying around, left June in bedroom, and likely still in bed. But, still has time to call Jeremy, who decides to go through yellow pages........nope, i don't like this scenario.
Scenario 2: Neville calls Jeremy, ignoring ammo, and leaving June in bedroom. Phone goes dead, but some how Neville makes another phone call to Jeremy...nope don't like this one either.
Scenario 3: The police simply relayed information Jeremy had given them, and logged accordingly...yep, thats the one for me.
There was no need for Nevill to make two phone calls and two calls were never recorded as having been made from WHF.
If your daughter was off her head with a rifle what would you do? Stand and make several phone calls? I think not.
-
I think that you would call for the police and ambulance services. You would not want your son to walk into danger. If anything, you would tell him to stay away from the house until the police were in attendance.
-
I believe that phone call from Nevill to Jeremy never happened.
-
Me too. But the assailant could have called JB.
-
I actually began to have serious doubts when abs enlarged the image of Sheila's hand, and I could see evidence of bruising and oil-staining. But Hartley explained about pixilation and discolouration, and I was back to square one, again. I don't think that the photographic evidence conclusively proves that Sheila was still bleeding, and it has been suggested, more than once, that a figure was seen running away from WHF. I haven't seen a police log to support this, and I'm not holding my breath, but it has been mentioned.
-
He could have dialled his home at Goldhanger before leaving WHF and leaving the phone handset lying off the cradle. It only took a few minutes to drive home and less if he left the car along one of the farm lanes to the south of WHF.
-
He could have had help Shona but whoever he was would have been well gone before the police arrived.
-
Well, that's still my theory. I don't believe that JB pulled the trigger.
-
I believe that phone call from Nevill to Jeremy never happened.
-----------------------
But it did, there was definitely a call from whf to Jeremy's cottage that night, police were sure that such a call did take place, so much so, that they even seized his answer phone and had it examined to see if there was any evidence recorded upon it.
-
He could have had help Shona but whoever he was would have been well gone before the police arrived.
-------------------------------
There was definitely someone still very much alive inside whf when the two police officers and Jeremy went into the grounds to check it out at around 4am - the two police officers who saw the figure have lied through their teeth about what they all saw, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to make out it was the moon casting reflections upon the glass of the bedroom window...
-
He could have dialled his home at Goldhanger before leaving WHF and leaving the phone handset lying off the cradle. It only took a few minutes to drive home and less if he left the car along one of the farm lanes to the south of WHF.
Ah, but the 'official' line is he made his getaway on a bicycle dressed in a wetsuit....
-
No bicycle, no wetsuit, but also no proof that Ralph made the call.................
-
No bicycle, no wetsuit, but also no proof that Ralph made the call.................
----------------------
Equally, there is no proof that Ralph did not make the call...
-
No bicycle, no wetsuit, but also no proof that Ralph made the call.................
----------------------
Equally, there is no proof that Ralph did not make the call...
There's no proof Ralph didn't dicover the secret of free energy and get shot by American oil magnates either Mike, but as someone has already said tonight - you can't prove a negative. If you want to claim Ralph made a phone call then you have to provide evidence for it - and that evidence can't be such that it is more easily explained as a police log referencing Jeremy's earlier call. Which it certainly appears to be, I'm afraid :(
-
No bicycle, no wetsuit, but also no proof that Ralph made the call.................
----------------------
Equally, there is no proof that Ralph did not make the call...
There's no proof Ralph didn't dicover the secret of free energy and get shot by American oil magnates either Mike, but as someone has already said tonight - you can't prove a negative. If you want to claim Ralph made a phone call then you have to provide evidence for it - and that evidence can't be such that it is more easily explained as a police log referencing Jeremy's earlier call. Which it certainly appears to be, I'm afraid :(
----------------
I think details refer to call made by Ralph Bamber (3:26am) and that these are totally different to the log contents of Jeremy's call timed at 3:36am, where Ralph refers in his call to his daughter and the fact that she has got one of his guns, whereas, in Jeremy's call, he mentions sister and that she has got possession of the gun...
As I say, Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and Jeremy did not own the gun that supposedly fired all the bullets that killed everyone - why would Jeremy be referring to Sheila as his daughter and the fact that she had got one of his guns?
-
Mike, it simply isn't on the log. It states that the information was relayed by JB.
-
Mike, it simply isn't on the log. It states that the information was relayed by JB.
This is how the defence has attempted to explain the phone call/s issue:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
-
Rochy, have I lost the plot yet again? The logs clearly state that any information was relayed by JB.
-
Rochy, have I lost the plot yet again? The logs clearly state that any information was relayed by JB.
This is how they attempt to explain your query pugsy...
The message that confuses people is:
“message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s”
By referring to Jeremy Bamber’s call message report timed at 03.36 there was no word of him mentioning which firearms were at White House Farm in that call. By referring to PC Myall’s 8th August 85 Statement he says that on arrival at the farm he asked Jeremy to tell him which guns were in the house. It was only at this point that headquarters were contacted by radio to say that the son had given a list of firearms and the circumstance of the phone call he received, which the officer in the radio car CA07 relayed to HQ. This was logged as above.
-
All information came from JB...............
-
Rochy, look. Nothing from Ralph.
-
Poor Ralph was in no position to say anything. He was attacked first.
-
Next, the twins...............
-
Shot in arcs, cleanly. Then the assailant moved on, towards June.
-
Rochy, have I lost the plot yet again? The logs clearly state that any information was relayed by JB.
No, they don't, Shona.
-
Rochy, have I lost the plot yet again? The logs clearly state that any information was relayed by JB.
No, they don't, Shona
-
Rochy, look. Nothing from Ralph.
Not if it's a rolling log and 'Mr. Bamber' of 'White House Farm' at the top of the log, is Nevill.
-
It isn't rocket science, to work out the sequence of events. Ralph went downstairs to check out why the outside dog was barking, June settled down and went back to sleep, the boys slept on, Sheila was in her bedroom, doing what she always did, and Ralph was taken unawares. He didn't get a chance to call anyone, he was beaten then shot to death. then the assailant moved upstairs.
-
It isn't rocket science, to work out the sequence of events. Ralph went downstairs to check out why the outside dog was barking, June settled down and went back to sleep, the boys slept on, Sheila was in her bedroom, doing what she always did, and Ralph was taken unawares. He didn't get a chance to call anyone, he was beaten then shot to death. then the assailant moved upstairs.
What about the shot on the stairs?
-
Even though it seems to me there isn't any evidence to suggest Nevill called either Jeremy or the Police, lets assume JB didn't call the Police until 3.36 as Mike is suggesting.
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold. At no time during this call was it ever claimed that he was told that the Police had already received a call and had already sent a car.
He then was supposed to have called Julie AFTER the call to Police, putting this call at 3.47 at the very earliest, which is 17 minutes AFTER the time JB claimed he called her and which is disputed by evidence of three people living in the house with Julie in London, all of which put the time at nearer 3.00am.
This would place the call to the Police at 26minutes AFTER Jeremy claimed his Father called him. That's a long time to react.
JB was asleep in bed when he got the call from his Father so wasn't dressed. The call to Police finishes at 3.47 Earliest, he then calls Julie, he dresses and is overtaken by Police at approx 3.58 driving at 30mph towards Whitehouse. Only 11 minutes after the end of the call to Police.
In my humble opinion, these timings are unrealistic and far less believable than one single call to the Police, as always claimed and never disputed before, at 2.26.
-
No bicycle, no wetsuit, but also no proof that Ralph made the call.................
----------------------
Equally, there is no proof that Ralph did not make the call...
There's no proof Ralph didn't dicover the secret of free energy and get shot by American oil magnates either Mike, but as someone has already said tonight - you can't prove a negative. If you want to claim Ralph made a phone call then you have to provide evidence for it - and that evidence can't be such that it is more easily explained as a police log referencing Jeremy's earlier call. Which it certainly appears to be, I'm afraid :(
----------------
I think details refer to call made by Ralph Bamber (3:26am) and that these are totally different to the log contents of Jeremy's call timed at 3:36am, where Ralph refers in his call to his daughter and the fact that she has got one of his guns, whereas, in Jeremy's call, he mentions sister and that she has got possession of the gun...
As I say, Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and Jeremy did not own the gun that supposedly fired all the bullets that killed everyone - why would Jeremy be referring to Sheila as his daughter and the fact that she had got one of his guns?
A record only exists of the call Jeremy made to police timed by CD in the Essex Police control room at 3.26. It doesn't matter what clock you use as the police log refers to the first police cars being despatched 9 minutes later at 3.35 and 3.36. Even if the control room clock was wrong, which I don't believe for a moment, all actions recorded are based on the same clock irrespective of whether it was 1 minute, 2 minutes or 10 minutes out of sync.
Jeremy relayed the message to police in terms of what Nevill had allegedly told him. The police officer known as CD who wrote down the details only repeated what Jeremy had told him in referring to Sheila as "the daughter" in the log and the report that "she had got one of my guns".
-
Rochy, look. Nothing from Ralph.
Not if it's a rolling log and 'Mr. Bamber' of 'White House Farm' at the top of the log, is Nevill.
Mr Bamber's name is on the log as it is his property where the incident is taking place. The log clearly indicates that the report was passed to police by "the son of Mr Bamber". ie Jeremy Bamber.
Choosing to misinterpret the police log is very childish Rochy.
-
Even though it seems to me there isn't any evidence to suggest Nevill called either Jeremy or the Police, lets assume JB didn't call the Police until 3.36 as Mike is suggesting.
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold. At no time during this call was it ever claimed that he was told that the Police had already received a call and had already sent a car.
He then was supposed to have called Julie AFTER the call to Police, putting this call at 3.47 at the very earliest, which is 17 minutes AFTER the time JB claimed he called her and which is disputed by evidence of three people living in the house with Julie in London, all of which put the time at nearer 3.00am.
This would place the call to the Police at 26minutes AFTER Jeremy claimed his Father called him. That's a long time to react.
JB was asleep in bed when he got the call from his Father so wasn't dressed. The call to Police finishes at 3.47 Earliest, he then calls Julie, he dresses and is overtaken by Police at approx 3.58 driving at 30mph towards Whitehouse. Only 11 minutes after the end of the call to Police.
In my humble opinion, these timings are unrealistic and far less believable than one single call to the Police, as always claimed and never disputed before, at 2.26.
If Nevill had managed to get through to the police before making a second call to Jeremy, a police car would have been on its way to WHF well before 3.26. Truth is no such car was ever despatched until after Jeremy's call to police at 3.26.
I suspect he phoned Julie Mugford before he telephoned the police at 3.26.
-
Also, Nevill looks like he called on the exchange line also..........so 2 lots of non 999 calls......
-
Even though it seems to me there isn't any evidence to suggest Nevill called either Jeremy or the Police, lets assume JB didn't call the Police until 3.36 as Mike is suggesting.
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold. At no time during this call was it ever claimed that he was told that the Police had already received a call and had already sent a car.
He then was supposed to have called Julie AFTER the call to Police, putting this call at 3.47 at the very earliest, which is 17 minutes AFTER the time JB claimed he called her and which is disputed by evidence of three people living in the house with Julie in London, all of which put the time at nearer 3.00am.
This would place the call to the Police at 26minutes AFTER Jeremy claimed his Father called him. That's a long time to react.
JB was asleep in bed when he got the call from his Father so wasn't dressed. The call to Police finishes at 3.47 Earliest, he then calls Julie, he dresses and is overtaken by Police at approx 3.58 driving at 30mph towards Whitehouse. Only 11 minutes after the end of the call to Police.
In my humble opinion, these timings are unrealistic and far less believable than one single call to the Police, as always claimed and never disputed before, at 2.26.
I suspect he phoned Julie Mugford before he telephoned the police at 3.26.
Exactly. Lots of evidence to suggest around 3am.
Also, looks like I made a mistake with JB being seen at 3.58. The first car arrived at the scene at 3.48, putting jeremy at the scene at approx 3.50..... 3 Minutes after his call would have ended to Essex Police.......Impossible......
-
I don't buy the whole scenario as portrayed by Mike. If my adult daughter was rampaging around my home with a fully loaded rifle I would not be stood in the kitchen making telephone calls.
-
Rochy, look. Nothing from Ralph.
Not if it's a rolling log and 'Mr. Bamber' of 'White House Farm' at the top of the log, is Nevill.
Mr Bamber's name is on the log as it is his property where the incident is taking place. The log clearly indicates that the report was passed to police by "the son of Mr Bamber". ie Jeremy Bamber.
Choosing to misinterpret the police log is very childish Rochy.
The log is open to interpretation and needs to be compared with MB's log. I dont think that in carrying out that comparison, the defence are being childish. click on the link I gave shona and check on the discrepancies between the two logs regarding descriptions.
Also, my point to Vic would be... why would someone carry out an insanely audacious five person murder, only to then leave a trail of stupidity for the police, re their timings? There is a possible argument that in calling a local station, they may have thought that police would be more aware of local rural geography and roads? Though, if i was nevill, it would be 999 I called, so fair point.
-
I believe it goes something like this..
03.15 Jeremy Bamber telephones Julie Mugford in London
03.26 Jeremy Bamber phones Essex Police and makes the report his father allegedly told him earlier.
03.35 First police car CA7 despatched to WHF
03.36 Second police car CA5 despatched to WHF
03.40 Jeremy Bamber sets out from his home in Goldhanger
03.48 CA7 arrives at WHF
03.51 Jeremy Bamber arrives at WHF
-
The log is open to interpretation and needs to be compared with MB's log. I dont think that in carrying out that comparison, the defence are being childish. click on the link I gave shona and check on the discrepancies between the two logs regarding descriptions.
Hi Rochford,
just think about the timings. There is simply not enough time, if JB's call was later than originally agreed, for JB to have made the calls he claims he made, get dressed, then get to the farm at about 3.50, being overtaken about 3.48. Unless he had a time machine.
-
I believe it goes something like this..
03.15 Jeremy Bamber telephones Julie Mugford in London
03.26 Jeremy Bamber phones Essex Police and makes the report his father allegedly told him earlier.
03.35 First police car CA7 despatched to WHF
03.36 Second police car CA5 despatched to WHF
03.40 Jeremy Bamber sets out from his home in Goldhanger
03.48 CA7 arrives at WHF
03.51 Jeremy Bamber arrives at WHF
That's pretty close, yes. Original call to Julie though was around 3am, according to three witnesses.
-
As far as I can see the log timed at 3.36 is simply a rewrite by Malcolm Bonnet of that already reported at 3.26 to the control room. They both relate to the same phone call made to police by Jeremy.
Both were received by CD 1990.
3.26 log (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWOThhOTUzMDQtNjIwMS00ZDNiLTkyNjgtOTNmMmU4Y2UyZmM5&hl=en&authkey=CKv5x4QE)
3.36 log (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWMzdlOWY0NTUtNmNiZS00NGJlLWI5YTYtNGM5ZGM3NGFkNmU3&hl=en&authkey=CIbx3JIB)
-
I believe it goes something like this..
03.15 Jeremy Bamber telephones Julie Mugford in London
03.26 Jeremy Bamber phones Essex Police and makes the report his father allegedly told him earlier.
03.35 First police car CA7 despatched to WHF
03.36 Second police car CA5 despatched to WHF
03.40 Jeremy Bamber sets out from his home in Goldhanger
03.48 CA7 arrives at WHF
03.51 Jeremy Bamber arrives at WHF
That's pretty close, yes. Original call to Julie though was around 3am, according to three witnesses.
That's right but we have no way of tying that down unless I am missing something?
-
When Jeremy phoned police,he was told that there was already a car in the area.Maybe it could have just been patrolling,or maybe it could have been responding to Nevills call (if indeed he made one).
Shona,I dont think it is certain that Nevill was killed first in the kitchen.If you look back at the close up pic of the main bedroom,he seems to have been in bed at some point and Im sure there were at least 2 bullets in the bedroom that could not be linked to June or Sheila.Also,you say that you are not convinced that the photos of Sheila show wet blood, but dont forget,one of the first officers on the scene (forgot his name) logged that Sheila had blood running from both sides of her mouth.I just cannot work out how all the victims had rigor mortis and yet Sheila clearly did not! She didn't even seem to be showing signs of livor mortis.Does the livor motis come first does anyone know?
-
When Jeremy phoned police,he was told that there was already a car in the area.Maybe it could have just been patrolling,or maybe it could have been responding to Nevills call (if indeed he made one).
Shona,I dont think it is certain that Nevill was killed first in the kitchen.If you look back at the close up pic of the main bedroom,he seems to have been in bed at some point and Im sure there were at least 2 bullets in the bedroom that could not be linked to June or Sheila.Also,you say that you are not convinced that the photos of Sheila show wet blood, but dont forget,one of the first officers on the scene (forgot his name) logged that Sheila had blood running from both sides of her mouth.I just cannot work out how all the victims had rigor mortis and yet Sheila clearly did not! She didn't even seem to be showing signs of livor mortis.Does the livor motis come first does anyone know?
Sheila died while the cops cowered outside waiting for daylight and the cavalry to arrive.
Lots of people have been shot in the head and didn't die immediately and even survived. Just look at that Congresswoman in the US who was shot in the head recently by a gunman wielding a 9mm pistol and survived to fight another day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774
-
Would the blood have run for that many hours though? Are you saying she may have been brain dead but that the heart may still have been pumping?
-
Would the blood have run for that many hours though? Are you saying she may have been brain dead but that the heart may still have been pumping?
It would appear that she was stunned by the shots and never managed to get upright again. What you post is probably quite correct Tyler. The heart is a wonderful organ and in such a young woman it could continue to pump blood for a period of time.
-
When Jeremy phoned police,he was told that there was already a car in the area
I don't recall that. Where did you see that? I thought it was near Witham. Surely they would have said "yes, we've already had a call and we're on our way" or words to that effect.....This would have calmed him down when he got agitated....
What about the timings though? Do you not think that a 3.36 call would make the timings impossible?
-
The car in the area was undoubtedly CA7 which arrived at the farm first at 03.48
It is interesting that car CA5 which was tasked one minute after CA7 did not arrive until 04.23
It should also be noted that CA6 took 1 minute to get there?
-
Vic,I cant remember what document I read it on now,read so many of the damn things! He was told a car was already in the area.If told that his father( or anyone else) had already phoned,then surely that would worry him?Especially when at that point he did not appreciate the seriousness of it.Just telling him that a car was already in the area was probably enough to comfort him,in the eyes of the police. Problem is,is that Jeremy seems to contradict himself here.On the one hand he was panicking during call to police,seeming anxious that his father sounded distressed,but on the other hand,wasted valuable time calling police station instead of 999 and then driving like a grandad over to the farm.Confused!
-
Jerry,did not one of the cars have to do a detour to pick up other officers.? I think that was the case.
-
As far as I'm aware the CA7 car was at witham Police station, not 'in the area' and was despatched from there, hence the shorter travel time than the following cars, which were despatched from Chelmsford. I don't believe that JB ever claimed he was told that a 'car was already in the area'.
I totally agree with you about JB and the 999 call. Have always thought it rubbish and still do, as did the Jury.
-
I can assure you that I definately read it somewhere!
-
I can assure you that I definately read it somewhere!
Sorry Tyler, came across right snotty there! Didn't mean it. I think what I'm saying is that I think the info you read, I believe, is wrong and that CA7 was despatched from Witham police station.
-
Morning Mike, I have had a look at the pathology reports into the sizes of the entry wounds. The 5 1/2 inch wounds are.......
Nevill
1. Parietal region of the skull (top of the skull)
2. Posterior to the above wound.
3. 4 inches above elbow.
June
1. Right upper chest in front of armpit.
2. Right knee.
Are you suggesting that another gun was used to cause these injuries? If Sheila did this it would seem odd to swap guns especially with Nevill. The shots in 1 and 2 above to Nevill would have killed him and yet the other head shots he received would also have killed him. Why swap guns to shoot an already dead man?
-
Morning Mike, I have had a look at the pathology reports into the sizes of the entry wounds. The 5 1/2 inch wounds are.......
Nevill
1. Parietal region of the skull (top of the skull)
2. Posterior to the above wound.
3. 4 inches above elbow.
June
1. Right upper chest in front of armpit.
2. Right knee.
Are you suggesting that another gun was used to cause these injuries? If Sheila did this it would seem odd to swap guns especially with Nevill. The shots in 1 and 2 above to Nevill would have killed him and yet the other head shots he received would also have killed him. Why swap guns to shoot an already dead man?
... Well, at least it has been established that 5 of the 25 bullet entry wounds are 1/2 inch diameter. The question that begs answering, is which weapon fired the bullet, that made those 1/2 inch diameter entry holes? Was it by use of the .22 Bamber rifle? Or, as the case may be, some other as yet unidentified gun? Some evidence exists, to suggest that there has been, was some interference, with the batch of crime scene ammunition, and that there were two separate test firings, of the Bamber rifle, and one of the silencers the police had in thier possession, on or after 11th September 1985. There were two test fires of the gun/silencer, using control ammunition, (a) the unofficial test fire, and (b) the official test fire, from 20th September 1985 - bullet and bullet cases which were fired via the Bamber rifle/silencer, were used to make comparison tests, with or against crime scene ammunition, and in some instances, some of the control ammunition was switched over with individual crime scene bullets (a typical example where this took place, involves bullet, PV/20...
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
It DOES say in the log (as a quote of what the caller said), "My daughter".
That is puzzling. How could such a "misunderstanding" ocurr with Jeremy as the caller?
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
It DOES say in the log (as a quote of what the caller said), "My daughter".
That is puzzling. How could such a "misunderstanding" ocurr with Jeremy as the caller?
--------------------------
Let us also not forget that as a result of the earlier call (3:26am) the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the scene, and that these were the officers who were also responsible for seeing a figure inside the farmhouse that they later claimed was nothing but a reflection of the moon on the glass of the bedroom window, and later still these were the very same officers who were responsible for relaying the messages from the scene about the discovery of two bodies inside the kitchen once police entered the building....
Odd that these very same officers are involved in all these contradictions and anomalies surrounding a figure that was seen at the bedroom window, and the fact that police found two bodies, one dead male and one dead female upon entry, and that they are also at the centre of a timing dispute involving two clocks, where one is said to have been 10 minutes faster than the other, or vice versa --- It stinks to high heaven, they are just telling lie after lie, they will lets their gobs say anything rather than have to admit the truth...
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
... Well, as you know - there is fresh information available which suggests that Ralph may have, or did make a separate call to the police. Yot only have to look at, why patrol car, CA07, was dispatched to the scene, before Jeremy contacted the police himself, to realize that the police were responding to a call for help, before police were even speaking to Jeremy. In addition to this, the person who called the police before Jeremy did, about this matter, identified the shooter, as 'his daughter', adding that 'daughter has got one of my gtns', and as you well know, Shiela was Ralphs daughter, and the weapon which is supposed to have fired all the bullets, was owned, amd it belonged to non other, than Ralph Bamber...
It DOES say in the log (as a quote of what the caller said), "My daughter".
That is puzzling. How could such a "misunderstanding" ocurr with Jeremy as the caller?
--------------------------
Let us also not forget that as a result of the earlier call (3:26am) the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the scene, and that these were the officers who were also responsible for seeing a figure inside the farmhouse that they later claimed was nothing but a reflection of the moon on the glass of the bedroom window, and later still these were the very same officers who were responsible for relaying the messages from the scene about the discovery of two bodies inside the kitchen once police entered the building....
Odd that these very same officers are involved in all these contradictions and anomalies surrounding a figure that was seen at the bedroom window, and the fact that police found two bodies, one dead male and one dead female upon entry, and that they are also at the centre of a timing dispute involving two clocks, where one is said to have been 10 minutes faster than the other, or vice versa --- It stinks to high heaven, they are just telling lie after lie, they will lets their gobs say anything rather than have to admit the truth...
It is a bit like being in the Twilight Zone, where nothing makes much sense.
I never liked the two (convenient?) clocks.
-
Jerry,did not one of the cars have to do a detour to pick up other officers.? I think that was the case.
My notes state:
CA7 dispatched 3.35 arrives 3.48
CA5 dispatched 3.36 arrives 4.23
CA6 arrives 4.23
CA6 leaves for rendezvous FSU
@ New Times, Tiptree @ 4.31
CA6 and FSU arrive WHF 4.58
CA7 must have been in the area?
-
Jerry,did not one of the cars have to do a detour to pick up other officers.? I think that was the case.
My notes state:
CA7 dispatched 3.35 arrives 3.48
CA5 dispatched 3.36 arrives 4.23
CA6 arrives 4.23
CA6 leaves for rendezvous FSU
@ New Times, Tiptree @ 4.31
CA6 and FSU arrive WHF 4.58
CA7 must have been in the area?
No, i've done the Witham police journey, and i reckon thats about right.
-
Jerry,did not one of the cars have to do a detour to pick up other officers.? I think that was the case.
My notes state:
CA7 dispatched 3.35 arrives 3.48
CA5 dispatched 3.36 arrives 4.23
CA6 arrives 4.23
CA6 leaves for rendezvous FSU
@ New Times, Tiptree @ 4.31
CA6 and FSU arrive WHF 4.58
CA7 must have been in the area?
No, i've done the Witham police journey, and i reckon thats about right.
AA Routemaps Newland Street, Witham to Pages Lane, Tolleshunt D'Arcy
0.00
Start out on Newlands Street
0.79 At mini-roundabout continue forward onto Colchester Road - B1389
A12 0.89 Continue forward, then merge onto the A12
B1024 2.67
Leave the A12 at junction 23, then merge onto London Road - B1024
Signposted Kelvedon
3.50 Bare left onto Saint Mary's Square - B1024
3.54 Bear right onto High Street - B1024
Signposted Colchester A12
B1023 4.65
Turn right onto the B1023
Signposted Tiptree, Maldon
7.04 At mini-roundabout branch right, then at mini-roundabout turn left onto Church Road - B1023 Signposted Tolleshunt Darcy
7.53 At mini-roundabout continue forward onto Church Road - B1023
8.34 At mini-roundabout bear right onto D'arcy Road - B1023
Signposted Tolleshunt D'Arcy
B1026
10.87 Turn right onto South Street - B1026
Signposted Maldon
B1023 11.01 Turn left onto Tollesbury Road - B1023
Signposted Tollesbury
11.94 Turn right onto Pages Lane
12.03 Arrive on Pages Lane
Section time 0:29, Total time 0:29
-
Or, AA route maps from Springfield HQ, Chelmsford to Pages Lane, Tolleshunt D'Arcy:
Distance: 22.2 miles (show in km)
Time: 0 hr 41 min
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
-
Are people allowed to drive or walk up pages lane? I know it's private so was just wondering.
-
Are people allowed to drive or walk up pages lane? I know it's private so was just wondering.
I don't think its a public footpath, so no. I think i remember Hartley saying that people do though.
Evening btw X
-
Evening x
I know it's a private rd. Google street view stops at the road running at the end of pages lane.
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
You must have hammered it to do it in 15 minutes on those roads. I don't accept it could be done in 10 minutes, even with a flashing light, you'd have to average c 60 mph which would mean driving dangerously on those roads.
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
You must have hammered it to do it in 15 minutes on those roads. I don't accept it could be done in 10 minutes, even with a flashing light, you'd have to average c 60 mph which would mean driving dangerously on those roads.
The police didn't have satnav then, or did they?
-
I wouldn't have thought so.
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
You must have hammered it to do it in 15 minutes on those roads. I don't accept it could be done in 10 minutes, even with a flashing light, you'd have to average c 60 mph which would mean driving dangerously on those roads.
Come with me if you want, i'm a better trained driver than most Police.
I didn't hammer the 30mph zones, probably 35ish. The country roads i never exceeded 65-70, though Braxted road/loamy and parts of Witham road i could certainly go faster. Braxted road-Maldon road is often hammered by locals, 60 is considered slow.
Btw, my cars a 2.0l passat, nothing special.
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
+1 for driving the route ;D
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
+1 for driving the route ;D
Cheers Keira, though i see i've also got a smite, looks like the night time smiters are online.
Hello smiters, anything constructive to add to the forum?
-
And remember Keira, these are police answering a distress call at 3.30 am, they can hammer these roads with little to worry about.
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
You must have hammered it to do it in 15 minutes on those roads. I don't accept it could be done in 10 minutes, even with a flashing light, you'd have to average c 60 mph which would mean driving dangerously on those roads.
Come with me if you want, i'm a better trained driver than most Police.
I didn't hammer the 30mph zones, probably 35ish. The country roads i never exceeded 65-70, though Braxted road/loamy and parts of Witham road i could certainly go faster. Braxted road-Maldon road is often hammered by locals, 60 is considered slow.
Btw, my cars a 2.0l passat, nothing special.
::)
-
Sod em Paul!!
-
The reason i'm on this forum, is my brother asked me to test the journey.
Its local police, so they'd know where to go, Chelmsford police would likely get lost. ;)
Newland street, onto A12. First exit off A12 Rivenhall end and past my house. Oak road, turn right onto Henry Dixon, follow onto Great braxted road, onto braxted park road. Turn right at T jct(maldon road), then left into Loamy hill road, turn left into plains road/witham road.Through Tolleshunt major, onto Tolleshunt Darcy road, then Beckingham road.Turn left at T jct, into Tolleshunt Darcy, then right into Tollesbury road.
Journey takes 15ish minutes, i reckon i could do it in 10 with flashing blue lights.
+1 for driving the route ;D
Cheers Keira, though i see i've also got a smite, looks like the night time smiters are online.
Hello smiters, anything constructive to add to the forum?
Yes, hello smiters, especially those who registered a few months ago, have never once posted here, yet manage to be extraordinarily active.
-
Sod em Paul!!
Yes it doesn't bother me Andrea.
But do you remember the good old days, where you only really got smites if you was acting a dickhead...and you never had any smites.
Whatever happened to debate??
-
Anyways, goodnight girls. x
-
Anyways, goodnight girls. x
Nite Paul xx
-
I'm off to bed, so they can smite me to their hearts' content, the poor, sad little things with nothing better to do than to sit up smiting all night.
G'night all!
-
Nite Keira, I'm off now too so smite away peeps..... Enjoy!
-
Surely, Mike, if June and the children had already been shot, Ralph would call for an ambulance and the police? What would be the point of calling Jeremy? How could he help once the shootings had begun?
... But you are forgeting that there are grounds for believing that Ralph did actually call the police, before he made the short call to Jeremy (discussed elsewhere)...
I find it hard to believe that Nevill would have had time to phone the police and Jeremy too if someone was running amok in his home with a rifle.
It is not recorded that Nevill ever phoned the police, only Jeremy's call to police is recorded reporting what his father allegedly said to him in a call some time earlier.
As Mike and Jeremy's website have stated, Jerry, that wasn't the case.
You are looking at rolling logs remember, which were added to as events occurred. The following is part of Jeremy Bamber's website statement on this issue:
"The message that confuses people is “message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s”
By referring to Jeremy Bamber’s call message report timed at 03.36 there was no word of him mentioning which firearms were at White House Farm in that call. By referring to PC Myall’s 8th August 85 Statement he says that on arrival at the farm he asked Jeremy to tell him which guns were in the house. It was only at this point that headquarters were contacted by radio to say that the son had given a list of firearms and the circumstance of the phone call he received, which the officer in the radio car CA07 relayed to HQ. This was logged as above."
Defence explanation is confusing. How does it account for this part of the log? ::)
-
Jeremy's website is wrong about the call logs just as it is about many other facts and circumstances.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
-
The 3.36 log entry contains nothing new that wasn't provided in the original log at 3.26
Note the Sender as Mr Bamber 9 Head St Goldhanger.
-
Jeremy's website is wrong about the call logs just as it is about many other facts and circumstances.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
Can you explain why two different people made the entries on this log JERRY..?
-
The one and only call was made from Goldhanger 88645 as can be seen from the two logs above. The second log timed at 3.36 relates what the incident is and who had then been tasked including the despatch of CA5 to scene at that very same moment 3.36
The first log states that CD (officer who took the call from Jeremy) contacting CD by land line.
The second log 10 minutes later confirms CD been contacted.
Where is the mystery people?
-
Now that was easy peasy. Anyone else got a theory before I go to work?
-
why did you evade my question jerry...?
cant answer it properly...hmmm
see there you go !!! post up unfounded claims and then make your lame excuses...
2 different people made entries on the log...they cant both have done it at the same time...
explain why this has happened jerry ...
-
Why-ever not? The entries were obviously made as the situation developed concluding with the 5 persons killed comment.
-
note the boxes at the top of the logs for "time received/despatched" on one log and on the other
"time recieved/sent"
on both logs the "time recieved" is circled to indicate when the call was recieved....
here we have a discrepancy in that on one it says 3.26 and on the other it says 3.36.
now it cannot be referring to the same call as such a call can only be receieved once and not twice...
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
-
Jeremy's website is wrong about the call logs just as it is about many other facts and circumstances.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
Can you explain why two different people made the entries on this log JERRY..?
Which two different people?
Are you referring to the different handwriting in the RESULT section?
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
both logs have time received circled...clearly identifying that
quite the opposite of dispatched which you claim JERRY.
SO YOUR EXPLANATION IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speach to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistent with information in it being received from same person, since, Sheila was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there would almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presence of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speech to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
Hi ngb - I agree and referred to this point previously.
Post dated 16 June Re: Wet Blood & the Two Professors
However it would have been intertesting to see how some of this undisclosed information would have been viewed by the jury in 1986. The subsequent COLP investigation and appeal judges see things from a more rational perspective, where a more emotively based jury will see things differently.
JB's defence team has a harder job now dealing with professional minds only, than his defence would have had (with all the information to hand) back in 1986 playing to a jury.
The point with these two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, is that I believe one log was copied onto the back of another log and therefore was available to the defence at trial and cannot be deemed new evidence. The prosecution may have deliberately provided these logs on two sides of one piece of paper in order to hide it ::) or the defence simply did not notice it and that is effectively a failing of the defence.
-
The defense was crap.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speach to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
... Yes, especially considering that the prosecution were alleging that Jeremy made up the detail about receiving a phone call - defense counsel, Mr Rivlin, QC, would have presumeably had a field day, and wasting very little time, in drawing to the attention of the court, the very matters being spoken about on this thread. No doubt, he would have milked it for all it was worth, and as you rightly say, the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, would almost certainly have weighed in, with his penneth as part of his summing up. It is not clear which way the jury would have favoured these conflicting interpretations from both sides, but what does appear to be somewhat significant is that there was no disclosure of the second phone log, timed at 3.26am, and therefore, no opporttnity for Jeremy or his legal team to rely upon it, as part of his defence...
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speach to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
... Yes, especially considering that the prosecution were alleging that Jeremy made up the detail about receiving a phone call - defense counsel, Mr Rivlin, QC, would have presumeably had a field day, and wasting very little time, in drawing to the attention of the court, the very matters being spoken about on this thread. No doubt, he would have milked it for all it was worth, and as you rightly say, the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, would almost certainly have weighed in, with his penneth as part of his summing up. It is not clear which way the jury would have favoured these conflicting interpretations from both sides, but what does appear to be somewhat significant is that there was no disclosure of the second phone log, timed at 3.26am, and therefore, no opporttnity for Jeremy or his legal team to rely upon it, as part of his defence...
Mike T - but wasn't one log copied on the back of another log and that both logs were available to the defence at trial, but the defence did not notice the second log copied onto the back of the other log?
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistent with information in it being received from same person, since, Sheila was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there would almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presence of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speech to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
Hi ngb - I agree and referred to this point previously.
Post dated 16 June Re: Wet Blood & the Two Professors
However it would have been intertesting to see how some of this undisclosed information would have been viewed by the jury in 1986. The subsequent COLP investigation and appeal judges see things from a more rational perspective, where a more emotively based jury will see things differently.
JB's defence team has a harder job now dealing with professional minds only, than his defence would have had (with all the information to hand) back in 1986 playing to a jury.The point with these two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, is that I believe one log was copied onto the back of another log and therefore was available to the defence at trial and cannot be deemed new evidence. The prosecution may have deliberately provided these logs on two sides of one piece of paper in order to hide it ::) or the defence simply did not notice it and that is effectively a failing of the defence.
... I am not convinced that the 2nd phone log, (3.26am) was copied onto the reverse of the other, during the trial - I cannot for the life of me imagine anyone tampering with these two different phone logs during the trial, because there would always be a risk, that the defense might stumble upon what they had done, and thus set them off on one ,about Ralphs call to jeremy? For these reasons, I think it points to the detail of the other phone log, being copied onto the reverse of the other, which alerts me to the possibilty, that this mistake is linked to a process where the two ducuments were effectively, into one...
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistent with information in it being received from same person, since, Sheila was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there would almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presence of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speech to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
Hi ngb - I agree and referred to this point previously.
Post dated 16 June Re: Wet Blood & the Two Professors
However it would have been intertesting to see how some of this undisclosed information would have been viewed by the jury in 1986. The subsequent COLP investigation and appeal judges see things from a more rational perspective, where a more emotively based jury will see things differently.
JB's defence team has a harder job now dealing with professional minds only, than his defence would have had (with all the information to hand) back in 1986 playing to a jury.
The point with these two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, is that I believe one log was copied onto the back of another log and therefore was available to the defence at trial and cannot be deemed new evidence. The prosecution may have deliberately provided these logs on two sides of one piece of paper in order to hide it ::) or the defence simply did not notice it and that is effectively a failing of the defence.
Nick - the points you make are fair ones and I accept that it is possible that the Jeremy Bamber's solicitor, junior counsel and leading counsel all missed this important piece of evidence. However I do believe that this is highly unlikely in the circumstances. If the material was provided by the prosecution but but in a misleading way, as you suggest may have happened, that would still be equivalent to withholding key evidence and the point would therefore still be one which could be used as a ground of appeal. On any view Jeremy Bamber was entitled to have this evidence properly canvassed before the jury and he was denied that opportunity. I accept what you say about the difference between a jury considering evidence and Court Of Appeal judges considering the same evidence. However, the approach which should be taken by the Court of Appeal in evaluating new evidence is not to decide which of two plausible alternatives they prefer, it is to assess whether it is evidence which might have influenced the trial jury in arriving at their verdicts.
There has been quite a lot of comment on the quality of Jeremy Bambers legal team at trial. I do not know what view Jeremy Bamber himself holds on this. Certainly both of his counsel were very experienced and well regarded, but that of course does not necessarily mean they did a good job. In an earlier post I have expressed surprise that the relatives were not challenged more firmly on the silencer evidence, but I do believe we have to bear in mind the extent to which the defence were hampered by the non disclosure of important evidence. Had the material which Jeremy Bamber's team have obtained since the trial (and we should remember that there is a lot of material still withheld under PII) been available at the trial I am sure that his counsel would have been able to mount a much more powerful defence.
-
NGB... is it common for police to set up a completely new inquiry (with new refs etc) when the focus changes, as it did here from a murder-suicide investigation to a multiple murder? I get the impression that a lot of the information which the defence consider is being witheld would have come from the documentation of the initial investigation, and maybe the defence didn't get this because it wasn't part of the second part of the official investigation?
-
NGB... is it common for police to set up a completely new inquiry (with new refs etc) when the focus changes, as it did here from a murder-suicide investigation to a multiple murder? I get the impression that a lot of the information which the defence consider is being witheld would have come from the documentation of the initial investigation, and maybe the defence didn't get this because it wasn't part of the second part of the official investigation?
Bob - I am not sure about the standard police practice in a situation such as this. Mike Tesko has posted about the creation of a new file by Essex Police when it was decided to treat Jeremy Bamber as a murder suspect. The creation of a new case file in itself is not in itself sinister in my view. However, it appears that the second file did not contain all of the material which was in the first file, and in addition a number of witness statements contained in the first file were edited or altered before becoming part of the second file. Jeremy Bamber's team have been trying to obtain the full unedited contents of the original file, but for some reason this has been strenuously resisted by Essex Police. I can see no legitimate reason for this. What have they got to hide? Evidence is evidence whichever file number is attributed to it and the first statements made by witnesses are likely to be far more helpful to an impartial jury than later edited or amended ones.
-
NGB... is it common for police to set up a completely new inquiry (with new refs etc) when the focus changes, as it did here from a murder-suicide investigation to a multiple murder? I get the impression that a lot of the information which the defence consider is being witheld would have come from the documentation of the initial investigation, and maybe the defence didn't get this because it wasn't part of the second part of the official investigation?
Bob - I am not sure about the standard police practice in a situation such as this. Mike Tesko has posted about the creation of a new file by Essex Police when it was decided to treat Jeremy Bamber as a murder suspect. The creation of a new case file in itself is not in itself sinister in my view. However, it appears that the second file did not contain all of the material which was in the first file, and in addition a number of witness statements contained in the first file were edited or altered before becoming part of the second file. Jeremy Bamber's team have been trying to obtain the full unedited contents of the original file, but for some reason this has been strenuously resisted by Essex Police. I can see no legitimate reason for this. What have they got to hide? Evidence is evidence whichever file number is attributed to it and the first statements made by witnesses are likely to be far more helpful to an impartial jury than later edited or amended ones.
::) This view makes a lot of sense to me +1
-
NGB... is it common for police to set up a completely new inquiry (with new refs etc) when the focus changes, as it did here from a murder-suicide investigation to a multiple murder? I get the impression that a lot of the information which the defence consider is being witheld would have come from the documentation of the initial investigation, and maybe the defence didn't get this because it wasn't part of the second part of the official investigation?
Bob - I am not sure about the standard police practice in a situation such as this. Mike Tesko has posted about the creation of a new file by Essex Police when it was decided to treat Jeremy Bamber as a murder suspect. The creation of a new case file in itself is not in itself sinister in my view. However, it appears that the second file did not contain all of the material which was in the first file, and in addition a number of witness statements contained in the first file were edited or altered before becoming part of the second file. Jeremy Bamber's team have been trying to obtain the full unedited contents of the original file, but for some reason this has been strenuously resisted by Essex Police. I can see no legitimate reason for this. What have they got to hide? Evidence is evidence whichever file number is attributed to it and the first statements made by witnesses are likely to be far more helpful to an impartial jury than later edited or amended ones.
::) This view makes a lot of sense to me +1
I agree - thanks for the insight NGB
-
NGB... is it common for police to set up a completely new inquiry (with new refs etc) when the focus changes, as it did here from a murder-suicide investigation to a multiple murder? I get the impression that a lot of the information which the defence consider is being witheld would have come from the documentation of the initial investigation, and maybe the defence didn't get this because it wasn't part of the second part of the official investigation?
Bob - I am not sure about the standard police practice in a situation such as this. Mike Tesko has posted about the creation of a new file by Essex Police when it was decided to treat Jeremy Bamber as a murder suspect. The creation of a new case file in itself is not in itself sinister in my view. However, it appears that the second file did not contain all of the material which was in the first file, and in addition a number of witness statements contained in the first file were edited or altered before becoming part of the second file. Jeremy Bamber's team have been trying to obtain the full unedited contents of the original file, but for some reason this has been strenuously resisted by Essex Police. I can see no legitimate reason for this. What have they got to hide? Evidence is evidence whichever file number is attributed to it and the first statements made by witnesses are likely to be far more helpful to an impartial jury than later edited or amended ones.
... The evidence about (a) two bodies downstairs, and three bodies upstairs, (b) the figure at the bedroom window, (c) the fact that Shiela was shot once downstairs, (d) once upstairs, (e) that more than one weapon was used in the shootings, and (f) Bamber rifle was already leaning against the bedroom window at the time Shiela was found downstairs in the kitchen, and that she only took possession of it, once she got upstairs, at which stage she killed herself by use of it - were all features and part of the information and evidence gathered under the original file (SC/688/85) which was irrellevent whilst ever the case continued to be investigated as 'four murders and a suicide', but as soon as the emphasis changed, and jeremy became a suspect, all of these features had to be suppressed, because any one of these points, individually, or collectively, had the potential to expose Jeremy Bambers convictions and sentences, as nothing short of a scandal...
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
-
Mike, ignore the Sheila shot downstairs, we're both not going to budge here.
4 likely fatal shots to Nevills head, only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen, i'd like your thoughts on this.
I've got to go and watch a DVD with the kids, i look forward to reading your reply later.
-
When the relatives forced the nature of the investigation to change, Essex police found themselves at a cross roads - they could either have admitted what really did happen, and how they attempted to cover up for inefficiencies in the investigation (SC/688/85) or go along with the relatives and build a false case against Jeremy, by making him the number 1 suspect...
They chose the latter option...
-
Mike, ignore the Sheila shot downstairs, we're both not going to budge here.
4 likely fatal shots to Nevills head, only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen, i'd like your thoughts on this.
I've got to go and watch a DVD with the kids, i look forward to reading your reply later.
-------------
Sorry, I cannot ignore that Sheila was shot downstairs, because she was...
Anyone who chooses to believe that Sheila was shot twice upstairs should think again, and ask yourselves this question:-
If Sheila was shot twice upstairs in the bedroom (as Essex police would have us all believe) how did the triangular blood stain on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, have blood upon it that ran in a vertical fashion, despite the fact that she was laid on the bedroom floor horizontally?
The angle of the blood that can be seen to run from the corners of Sheila's mouth, and both entry wounds on her throat, cannot be reconciled with the area of triangular blood on the nightdress, by adopting the scenario which Essex police want everyone to accept. It could not (did not) happen like they said, they lie, and there has to be a good reason for them to lie, they lie about this because they have got something to hide, the police at the scene who carried out this operation are responsible for Sheila Caffell having died upstairs in the bedroom, because this could have been prevented had they kept a close eye on the situation downstairs in the region of the kitchen when they first discovered Sheila's body there...
Police are responsible for Sheila dying in the bedroom, irrespective of whether or not, she shot herself, there at least once...
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
Mike, a shaving cut seems to bleed forever. If there was a 'shooting incident in the kitchen' ... I can't see how the neck wound would have sealed with coagulated blood, in time for the move upstairs and the second shot etc.
-
If you add to this, the fact that I saw a crime scene photograph of Sheila laid out on the bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham in 2003 - at a time when there was no blood running from the corners of her mouth, it means that police moved Sheila's body from the bed, onto the floor and that they then made a false claim of having found her body on the floor with the gun on top of it, when all along her body was originally found on the bed, and the rifle that was later attributed as being on top of her body, was leaning up against the bedroom window at the time the raid team forced their way into the farmhouse at just after 7:30am...
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
Mike, a shaving cut seems to bleed forever. If there was a 'shooting incident in the kitchen' ... I can't see how the neck wound would have sealed with coagulated blood, in time for the move upstairs and the second shot etc.
---------------------
It would depend upon how badly the original wound bled after it was inflicted downstairs, and before she regained consciousness, and fled upstairs. One thing that we do know is that there was a large blood loss from the initial shot which ran down her nightdress in a vertical fashion, or at a time when She may have been stood upright and moving around. What I would suggest as to the correct interpretation of how that distinctive bloodstain got there on the front upper part of her nightdress, was by way of Sheila using the fingers of her right hand to press onto the bullet entry wound on the right side of her neck, and that as she was upright and walking around with her hand to her neck, blood ran down and into the folds of her arm and pooled there...
-
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold.
Jeremy didn't specify 10-11 minutes in his statement, and the police logs don't show how long his call lasted.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
No, it's clear that MB (Malcolm Bonnett) at police headquarters logged a call received at 3:26 from an officer identified as CD(1990). That officer was Pc West, based at Chelmsford police station (a separate location that apparently had code CD), who logged receiving a call from Jeremy at 3:36. If there was only one call to the police, Pc West logged the time incorrectly, and was not reissuing a report already made.
MB's log refers to "Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs" whereas Pc West's log refers to Sheila's age as being 27. If there was only one call to the police, this discrepancy was a second mistake. MB's log also states "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's." The message referred to needn't be the same message as that already logged on the form as received at 3:26.
If Nevill called the police at 3:26 and Jeremy separately called them at 3:36, some information about those calls has been suppressed, but the available logs are consistent.
-
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold.
Jeremy didn't specify 10-11 minutes in his statement, and the police logs don't show how long his call lasted.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
No, it's clear that MB (Malcolm Bonnett) at police headquarters logged a call received at 3:26 from an officer identified as CD(1990). That officer was Pc West, based at Chelmsford police station (a separate location that apparently had code CD), who logged receiving a call from Jeremy at 3:36. If there was only one call to the police, Pc West logged the time incorrectly, and was not reissuing a report already made.
MB's log refers to "Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs" whereas Pc West's log refers to Sheila's age as being 27. If there was only one call to the police, this discrepancy was a second mistake. MB's log also states "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's." The message referred to needn't be the same message as that already logged on the form as received at 3:26.
If Nevill called the police at 3:26 and Jeremy separately called them at 3:36, some information about those calls has been suppressed, but the available logs are consistent.
Reader, you really should post on this forum more often. You seem to strive for a clinical examination of the available documents.
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
Mike, a shaving cut seems to bleed forever. If there was a 'shooting incident in the kitchen' ... I can't see how the neck wound would have sealed with coagulated blood, in time for the move upstairs and the second shot etc.
---------------------
It would depend upon how badly the original wound bled after it was inflicted downstairs, and before she regained consciousness, and fled upstairs. One thing that we do know is that there was a large blood loss from the initial shot which ran down her nightdress in a vertical fashion, or at a time when She may have been stood upright and moving around. What I would suggest as to the correct interpretation of how that distinctive bloodstain got there on the front upper part of her nightdress, was by way of Sheila using the fingers of her right hand to pre/ss onto the bullet entry wound on the right aside of her neck, and that as she was upright and walking around with her hand to her neck, blood ran down and into the folds of her arm and pooled there...
No person wanting to die is going to plug a bleeding lacerated jugular, wound.
There doesn't seem to be enough blood staining on the bed, to help prove your theory of shooting herself there...who knows, the police may well have moved her from floor to bed.
4 fatal shots to Nevills head, only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
Was he killed upstairs? Was the bludgeoning he received staged? Was it all done to explain the phone call to JB from hitman..giving JB an alibi..with the thinking that BT had this technology for itemised local calls.. i think i'm onto something here....the delay in alerting the police..gave hit man time to make his escape.
BT check WHF phone calls, WHF phone call to JB's house, 3.10am, duration 15 seconds. JB turns up at WHF with police, proving there was no way he could have done the killings having received that phone call...but, there's no technology in place for local calls at this exchange...alibi is gone, oh dear.
JB loads gun for hit man earlier in evening, and goes outside to pretend to shoot rabbits, and could easily have handed weapon to killer then. Shows hit man window to come in and go out of.Hit man enters when last person goes to bed, and dispatches adults pretty easily, then goes about making the scene look like the work of someone mentally unstable.
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
Mike, a shaving cut seems to bleed forever. If there was a 'shooting incident in the kitchen' ... I can't see how the neck wound would have sealed with coagulated blood, in time for the move upstairs and the second shot etc.
---------------------
It would depend upon how badly the original wound bled after it was inflicted downstairs, and before she regained consciousness, and fled upstairs. One thing that we do know is that there was a large blood loss from the initial shot which ran down her nightdress in a vertical fashion, or at a time when She may have been stood upright and moving around. What I would suggest as to the correct interpretation of how that distinctive bloodstain got there on the front upper part of her nightdress, was by way of Sheila using the fingers of her right hand to pre/ss onto the bullet entry wound on the right aside of her neck, and that as she was upright and walking around with her hand to her neck, blood ran down and into the folds of her arm and pooled there...
No person wanting to die is going to plug a bleeding lacerated jugular, wound.
There doesn't seem to be enough blood staining on the bed, to help prove your theory of shooting herself there...who knows, the police may well have moved her from floor to bed.
4 fatal shots to Nevills head, only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
Was he killed upstairs? Was the bludgeoning he received staged? Was it all done to explain the phone call to JB from hitman..giving JB an alibi..with the thinking that BT had this technology for itemised local calls.. i think i'm onto something here....the delay in alerting the police..gave hit man time to make his escape.
BT check WHF phone calls, WHF phone call to JB's house, 3.10am, duration 15 seconds. JB turns up at WHF with police, proving there was no way he could have done the killings having received that phone call...but, there's no technology in place for local calls at this exchange...alibi is gone, oh dear.
JB loads gun for hit man earlier in evening, and goes outside to pretend to shoot rabbits, and could easily have handed weapon to killer then. Shows hit man window to come in and go out of.Hit man enters when last person goes to bed, and dispatches adults pretty easily, then goes about making the scene look like the work of someone mentally unstable.
How many murder cases in Britain have involved a Hitman, killing children? Where do you find a Hitman?
-
Mike, i really think the Sheila shot downstairs is a non starter, but continue with it if you want.
Me and Si sat up late last night discussing this case, and think the bullet case maping is really strange. Yes we both know they could have been kicked about, trodden on etc...but, only 3 cases are found in the kitchen. Nevill in our opinion received 4 likely fatal shots to the head, why is there only 3 cases in the kitchen? Was one case(2 cases if Sheila is shot in kitchen) walked upstairs? How did Nevill get to the kitchen if a shot to the brain was received upstairs? Was the beating of Nevill staged, along with the phone call, so the hit man could ring Jeremy?
Has Jeremys defence raised this point about the bullet cases in the kitchen?
.....................................
Shooting of Sheila downstairs did happen, that's where they first found her, and she was shot by use of a different gun (probably the .22 air rifle). Linked to this shooting, is the undisclosed officers report, and the fact that PS Woodcocks witness statement has missed pages, and one page in particular, which describes how the armed police first entered the kitchen, has been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter to the main body of the statement. Sheila was shot downstairs, and it was at this stage that most of the blood on the front upper right hand side of her nightdress, stained it there - additionally, there was ample time between the occasion she was initially shot whilst downstairs in the kitchen, and when she ended upstairs in the bedroom in time for the second shot to be inflicted by use of the other gun, for the blood from the neck wound to have dried and coagulated, so that once she became upright and mobile, blood did not start to run out of the wound because it had started to seal and coagulate...
It is also no coincidence that police swapped over the bullet (PV/20) that is linked to the non fatal shot that she received downstairs, since if they had not tampered with it, you would have ended up with two different bullets that could not have been fired by use of the same gun...
If the nature of the investigation had not changed, from SC/688/85 (four murders and a suicide) to SC/786/85 (five murders) it would not have been felt necessary to cover any of these happenings and occurraences up, but because the nature of the case did change, features like these had to be taken out of the equation - which is what they did...
Mike, a shaving cut seems to bleed forever. If there was a 'shooting incident in the kitchen' ... I can't see how the neck wound would have sealed with coagulated blood, in time for the move upstairs and the second shot etc.
---------------------
It would depend upon how badly the original wound bled after it was inflicted downstairs, and before she regained consciousness, and fled upstairs. One thing that we do know is that there was a large blood loss from the initial shot which ran down her nightdress in a vertical fashion, or at a time when She may have been stood upright and moving around. What I would suggest as to the correct interpretation of how that distinctive bloodstain got there on the front upper part of her nightdress, was by way of Sheila using the fingers of her right hand to pre/ss onto the bullet entry wound on the right aside of her neck, and that as she was upright and walking around with her hand to her neck, blood ran down and into the folds of her arm and pooled there...
No person wanting to die is going to plug a bleeding lacerated jugular, wound.
There doesn't seem to be enough blood staining on the bed, to help prove your theory of shooting herself there...who knows, the police may well have moved her from floor to bed.
4 fatal shots to Nevills head, only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
Was he killed upstairs? Was the bludgeoning he received staged? Was it all done to explain the phone call to JB from hitman..giving JB an alibi..with the thinking that BT had this technology for itemised local calls.. i think i'm onto something here....the delay in alerting the police..gave hit man time to make his escape.
BT check WHF phone calls, WHF phone call to JB's house, 3.10am, duration 15 seconds. JB turns up at WHF with police, proving there was no way he could have done the killings having received that phone call...but, there's no technology in place for local calls at this exchange...alibi is gone, oh dear.
JB loads gun for hit man earlier in evening, and goes outside to pretend to shoot rabbits, and could easily have handed weapon to killer then. Shows hit man window to come in and go out of.Hit man enters when last person goes to bed, and dispatches adults pretty easily, then goes about making the scene look like the work of someone mentally unstable.
How many murder cases in Britain have involved a Hitman, killing children? Where do you find a Hitman?
History is there to be made, historical events become memorable when they are singular...but that bloke in America shot his family up.
The children need to be killed to inherit the lot, the whole lot. A hit man doesn't have to be a regular mafia pro, just someone prepared to get there hands dirty for a good pay off. 2k i don't think is the figure, i'd say far more would eventually have come the hit mans way.
I know, and knew, many people capable of murder. The kids are not a stumbling block, just an unfortunate barrier to the good life...imo.
-
I think even a Hit man, or at least some of them, might draw the line at shooting 6 year olds.
But then, what do I know?
-
I think even a Hit man, or at least some of them, might draw the line at shooting 6 year olds.
But then, what do I know?
Tbh Summer, its best to ignore me.
The killing of the children is upsetting, very upsetting for us parents, which makes it difficult for us to make unemotional judgements on crimes related to kids.
-
Is jerry still on the forum?
-
Yes, you may well be right.
But what a terrifying scenario that it is!
The Hit man would really have to be a Psycho/Sociopath, wouldn't they?
-
Hi Andrea, 'Just sayng "Hello" and "Goodnight"
from me! :)
-
Is jerry still on the forum?
Hi Andrea, no idea.
Has he been naughty?
-
Is jerry still on the forum?
Hi Andrea, no idea.
Has he been naughty?
Nite summer xx
I don't know Paul, see ya inbox
-
Yes, you may well be right.
But what a terrifying scenario that it is!
The Hit man would really have to be a Psycho/Sociopath, wouldn't they?
Very cold and calculating, and IMO again, he's one bullet too few in the kitchen from doing a very very good job.
Death doesn't bother some people, someone with combat experience may well have been hardened to this.
-
Rochy, look. Nothing from Ralph.
Not if it's a rolling log and 'Mr. Bamber' of 'White House Farm' at the top of the log, is Nevill.
Mr Bamber's name is on the log as it is his property where the incident is taking place. The log clearly indicates that the report was passed to police by "the son of Mr Bamber". ie Jeremy Bamber.
Choosing to misinterpret the police log is very childish Rochy.
Why is the format of the log's second section so different to the first?
-
The log has three sections, other than the numbers and times of mobiles sent section.
The first section, messy, large writing, crammed onto right side of page,
this was written under pressure: Mr Bamber
White House Farm
Tolleshunt D'Arcy
-daughter Sheila Bamber aged
26 years has got hold
of one of my guns.
Second section, small writing, much better spaced, sentence format.
This was written later, at a less pressured pace.
Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber
after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has
a collection of shotguns and .410s
Third section, large writing, highly spaced after one line gap, tidier than first section, but the hand writing is the same size as that in the first section:
Action taken/ further information .....
CD contacting CW by landline
356 - GPO have checked phone line to farmhouse
and confirm phone left off the hook
CM 860209
Why is it formatted like this ???
Because the second section was written later, when the writer had more time ??
-
Has this log copy been checked by a graphologist?
-
If you add to this, the fact that I saw a crime scene photograph of Sheila laid out on the bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham in 2003 - at a time when there was no blood running from the corners of her mouth, it means that police moved Sheila's body from the bed, onto the floor and that they then made a false claim of having found her body on the floor with the gun on top of it, when all along her body was originally found on the bed, and the rifle that was later attributed as being on top of her body, was leaning up against the bedroom window at the time the raid team forced their way into the farmhouse at just after 7:30am...
Certainly the police moved Sheila's body but they never shot her, such speculation is shear fantasy as is the theory that she was shot downstairs and somehow clambered up a flight of stairs after having been shot in the neck.
-
By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold.
Jeremy didn't specify 10-11 minutes in his statement, and the police logs don't show how long his call lasted.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
No, it's clear that MB (Malcolm Bonnett) at police headquarters logged a call received at 3:26 from an officer identified as CD(1990). That officer was Pc West, based at Chelmsford police station (a separate location that apparently had code CD), who logged receiving a call from Jeremy at 3:36. If there was only one call to the police, Pc West logged the time incorrectly, and was not reissuing a report already made.
MB's log refers to "Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs" whereas Pc West's log refers to Sheila's age as being 27. If there was only one call to the police, this discrepancy was a second mistake. MB's log also states "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's." The message referred to needn't be the same message as that already logged on the form as received at 3:26.
If Nevill called the police at 3:26 and Jeremy separately called them at 3:36, some information about those calls has been suppressed, but the available logs are consistent.
The 3.26 log entry clearly states that the sender was non other than CD 1990 based at Chelmsford Police Station. There is no log entry detailing any call from Mr Nevill Bamber.
The 3.26 log is a record by the control room of a developing incident. Events and times would have been added throughout the morning, no great mystery there.
-
Jeremy's website is wrong about the call logs just as it is about many other facts and circumstances.
The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36
The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's
--------------------
Jeremy's websites are not wrong about the calls - the first phone log timed at 3:26am, is recorded in three main sections, and it is not clear to which section the reference of "Exchange Line" is referring?, whereas, in the second log, timed at 3:36am, all the message is continuos, except for the last bit where it says that 5 persons killed, CID Dealing...
Furthermore...
There is something odd when you look at both phone logs side by side?
When you look at the phone log containing the details about Ralph Bambers call to the police timed at 3:26am, you can see evidence that something has been copied onto the reverse, but when you look at and examine the other phone log containing Jeremy's details, no such reverse duplication exists - this suggests that something was copied onto the reverse of the log timed at 3:26am, or that its contents were copied onto the back of the other log (3;36am), in which case, the contents shown in 3:36am, came into existence before the contents of 3:26am, thus proving or establishing that the 3:26am klog details were merged with the 3:36am log details, despite the fact that each log supposedly came into existence at different parts of the police station, and by two different persons...
It appears that someone has copied the log details of one (3:26am) onto the reverse of the other (3:36am) to try and make them appear to refer to the same matter, as explained by both logs, but a close study of its contents reveals that this may have been part of a deception to cover up for the possibility or fact that Ralph Bamber did call the police from whf, before Jeremy had done...
Details in log 3:26am, has three main sections, and is obviously a fragmented record of different stages of the unfolding drama at whf and elsewhere, whereas, the log in 3:36am, appears in the main to be detail of Jeremy's call reporting what his father had told him over the phone...
-
Note the fragmentary nature of the three messages recorded in log 3:26am, under the heading "TEXT OF MESSAGES"
-
Whilst on the other hand, the main theme of log timed at 3:36am, under heading of "MESSAGE / REPORT", appears to only have one general theme:-
-
Someone has photocopied the contents of one log, onto the reverse of the other, in an attempt to make both logs a reference top the same call - and this was done at a later date, not necessarily at or by the time of Jeremy Bambers trial...
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
Welcome back Hartley.
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
Welcome back Hartley.
Seconded ::)
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
------------
Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
------------
Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?
My point is that the logs clearly state that the sender and receiver of one call log was Jeremy and West, and the second call log very clearly indicates it was between West and Bonnett.
I'm open to the idea of the defences scenario in which Nevill called the police, however unless you can explain the sender and receiver noted on the logs, these logs do not refer to that alleged call.
-
It's a good job I'm not cynical because if I was I might have thought that the sender and receiver had been cropped off in an attempt to mislead.
-
I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.
------------
Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?
My point is that the logs clearly state that the sender and receiver of one call log was Jeremy and West, and the second call log very clearly indicates it was between West and Bonnett.
I'm open to the idea of the defences scenario in which Nevill called the police, however unless you can explain the sender and receiver noted on the logs, these logs do not refer to that alleged call.
------------------
Er, if you look at phone log, timed at 3:26am, the body of the messages appears to come from three separate sources, or more, yet the sender receiver details only provide one source, for one of those events. There must have been different senders for each part of the messages, or is it your suggestion that the same sender passed all the messages, no matter which format or at what time these were received?
You see, the problem is that each part of the collective messages recorded on that log, are not, is not identified, so we are left to guess who said what to whom, and when? Obviously, all the different parts of the message as shown in log 3:26am, did not get passed or recorded at 3:26am, but must have been passed at a later time or occasion?
Do you understand the point I am trying to make?
-
Yes I do, however there is no indication that Ralph called the police whatsoever, the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more, in addition to this, do you have Wests and Bonnetts witness statements or court transcriptions of their evidence and cross examinations. Surely that would clear this up?
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police any more than they indicate that Kermit the frog called them.
-
Yes I do, however there is no indication that Ralph called the police whatsoever, the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more, in addition to this, do you have Wests and Bonnetts witness statements or court transcriptions of their evidence and cross examinations. Surely that would clear this up?
There the problems lie Harters. By the time it ended up in court the police were confident that JB was guilty, so any logs would/could have been altered then.
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police any more than they indicate that Kermit the frog called them.
Re age of Daughter / Sister. Hartley... I think the only choice you leave us for the source of this discrepancy is a police error, possibly due to the early hour / tiredness?
It seems the police on duty are 'all at sixes & sevens'
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police any more than they indicate that Kermit the frog called them.
....
Actually, there is no evidence that the details about the sender and receiver of these messages, related to any particular incident or event in it, since, if there were three or more events logged in the message form, timed at 3:26am, and two references in the other, now why couldn't all these different parts be documented in such a way as to leave little or no doubt at all, about who spoke to who, when and why, at different stages during that particular morning?
-
Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?
-
Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?
-------------
Yes I have them somewhere amongst the thousands of documents I have got possession of...
-
Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?
-------------
Yes I have them somewhere amongst the thousands of documents I have got possession of...
If this theory is to be progressed then they seem somewhat relevant, that's all.
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police
The theory is based on the contents of the two logs. It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that the theory is based solely on the words 'father' and 'daughter' in the logs. The two-call theory is not proved by the logs, but is a simple explanation of all the discrepancies.
-
... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,
That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.
Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police
The theory is based on the contents of the two logs. It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that the theory is based solely on the words 'father' and 'daughter' in the logs. The two-call theory is not proved by the logs, but is a simple explanation of all the discrepancies.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Not proven yet suggested.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
"Daughter has got hold of one of MY guns." I can´t see how it could have been written like that if only Jeremy called the police.
-
The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
"Daughter has got hold of one of MY guns." I can´t see how it could have been written like that if only Jeremy called the police.
If the message has been passed over from Jeremy, as opposed to a direct call from Nevill as alleged by the defence... then I dont think this relayed message has been written down verbatim by the recipient...
Because Nevill would not describe Sheila as his 'daughter' to Jeremy. (Nevill would only describe Sheila as his 'daughter' to a stranger)
Does this make sense or can someone pick holes in it?