Did Bamber's AM give him the confidence to commit the massacre?

[lookout]

Getting in through a window is getting in through a window. I find it very odd that he didn't contact anyone to say what he intended re documents. It was almost as if he wanted to be seen to have done it. I think it was said that the repaint hadn't been done at the time you're giving. HAD it been so recently done, it's likely that others would have discovered it for themselves when the windows were checked, ie there was no mention of windows sticking.

Maybe if he'd known at the time that everyone was gunning for him he wouldn't have used that method of entry ? He certainly didn't seem bothered by it, but why would he have been at the time ? No reason.

[Armchair Detective]

Maybe if he'd known at the time that everyone was gunning for him he wouldn't have used that method of entry ? He certainly didn't seem bothered by it, but why would he have been at the time ? No reason.

Lookout, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that he had been arrested and questioned for murder and was asked specific questions about whether he knew how to get in which he answered in the affirmative. 

When he is released on bail and knowing he is under surveillance, he goes to WHF and enters through a window, leaving a note for BW.

As the appeal judges observed, this was either incredibly stupid or incredibly clever because he has proven his point and any entry marks (whenever they were found) can simply be explained away by him saying, "Well, I was always forgetting my key"

[Adam]

For me, all those reasons are thin to begin with.

Suspiscious but possible.

Proof there was no answered phone call from WHF is worse for him.

[Jane]

Lookout, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that he had been arrested and questioned for murder and was asked specific questions about whether he knew how to get in which he answered in the affirmative. 

When he is released on bail and knowing he is under surveillance, he goes to WHF and enters through a window, leaving a note for BW.

As the appeal judges observed, this was either incredibly stupid or incredibly clever because he has proven his point and any entry marks (whenever they were found) can simply be explained away by him saying, "Well, I was always forgetting my key"

Mmm. It's interesting that it looks as if he had an explanation planned for every point which might get raised -just in case?- and odd that, instead of phoning BW to tell her of his plans/asking her to bring the documents to him/meet him there he actually CHOSE to enter via the window. Curious.

[killingeve]

The two possibilities pre massacre regarding what Bamber knew on the technology BT/the police had to track phone calls are -

He was (correctly) 100% certain BT/the police could not obtain information on whether a call was made/answered from WHF/Coldhanger. 

He did not know what information BT/the police could obtain.

----------

If it was the second situation, his AM gave him the confidence to commit the massacre.

He could -

Phone from WHF.

Have his call answered by his AM.

Terminate the call at WHF.

---------

Finally the penny has dropped! 

So what you're saying is that Bamber could have created an audit trail of a tel call from WHF to GH by phoning an AM at GH from WHF.   

1.  On the assumption that he genuinely believed BT/police could trace a tel call retrospectively how could he be sure that having a call go into an AM would leave an audit trail in the same way as lifting and replacing the receiver did?

2. If he did the above it would mean he would need to account for the time delay between making the call at WHF and then phoning the police.

3.  There's no evidence he had an AM pre murders but if he did it would have been in his interests to destroy it because not having it switched on would seem somewhat convenient and I am sure the prosecution would have argued he made the call to an AM to create the audit trail at the exhange evidenced by the timestamp of the call in the exchange and his call to police ie time spent getting from WHF to GH.

[Adam]

Finally the penny has dropped! 

So what you're saying is that Bamber could have created an audit trail of a tel call from WHF to GH by phoning an AM at GH from WHF.   

1.  On the assumption that he genuinely believed BT/police could trace a tel call retrospectively how could he be sure that having a call go into an AM would leave an audit trail in the same way as lifting and replacing the receiver did?

2. If he did the above it would mean he would need to account for the time delay between making the call at WHF and then phoning the police.

3.  There's no evidence he had an AM pre murders but if he did it would have been in his interests to destroy it because not having it switched on would seem somewhat convenient and I am sure the prosecution would have argued he made the call to an AM to create the audit trail at the exhange evidenced by the timestamp of the call in the exchange and his call to police ie time spent getting from WHF to GH.

Either sure or he didn't know.

[Armchair Detective]

Mmm. It's interesting that it looks as if he had an explanation planned for every point which might get raised -just in case?- and odd that, instead of phoning BW to tell her of his plans/asking her to bring the documents to him/meet him there he actually CHOSE to enter via the window. Curious.

Precisely. He is saying look, you don't need to prove how I could have got in, I admit that but you can't prove I got in that night because those marks could have been there from before - and you can't prove how I got out because I don't admit that. 

I also had the thought that the line of questioning might have tipped him off that no entry marks had been found yet so he was deliberately covering his tracks. I don't recall that it was put to him that marks had been found in the interview?  ( I'm a bit unsure of the timings and dates and can't be bothered to check )

[Adam]

Finally the penny has dropped! 

So what you're saying is that Bamber could have created an audit trail of a tel call from WHF to GH by phoning an AM at GH from WHF.   

1.  On the assumption that he genuinely believed BT/police could trace a tel call retrospectively how could he be sure that having a call go into an AM would leave an audit trail in the same way as lifting and replacing the receiver did?

2. If he did the above it would mean he would need to account for the time delay between making the call at WHF and then phoning the police.

3.  There's no evidence he had an AM pre murders but if he did it would have been in his interests to destroy it because not having it switched on would seem somewhat convenient and I am sure the prosecution would have argued he made the call to an AM to create the audit trail at the exhange evidenced by the timestamp of the call in the exchange and his call to police ie time spent getting from WHF to GH.

Correct. He can make up a lot of things to cover 15 minutes.

His reason given was he was looking for the number of Chelmsford police.

[killingeve]

Either sure or he didn't know.

Yes agreed, but how could he know whether the mechanical/technological process was the same as someone actually lifting and replacing the receiver? 

[Adam]

Finally the penny has dropped! 

So what you're saying is that Bamber could have created an audit trail of a tel call from WHF to GH by phoning an AM at GH from WHF.   

1.  On the assumption that he genuinely believed BT/police could trace a tel call retrospectively how could he be sure that having a call go into an AM would leave an audit trail in the same way as lifting and replacing the receiver did?

2. If he did the above it would mean he would need to account for the time delay between making the call at WHF and then phoning the police.

3.  There's no evidence he had an AM pre murders but if he did it would have been in his interests to destroy it because not having it switched on would seem somewhat convenient and I am sure the prosecution would have argued he made the call to an AM to create the audit trail at the exhange evidenced by the timestamp of the call in the exchange and his call to police ie time spent getting from WHF to GH.

There are a lot of sources. Some new ones posted yesterday.

An AM also gives him the confidence to commit thr massacre in the first place. As the thread title suggests.

[David1819]

What is it tonight Cambridge? Another "Four pack of Stella from the Co-op"?

Guzzle Guzzle Guzzle!

[Adam]

Finally the penny has dropped! 

So what you're saying is that Bamber could have created an audit trail of a tel call from WHF to GH by phoning an AM at GH from WHF.   

1.  On the assumption that he genuinely believed BT/police could trace a tel call retrospectively how could he be sure that having a call go into an AM would leave an audit trail in the same way as lifting and replacing the receiver did?

2. If he did the above it would mean he would need to account for the time delay between making the call at WHF and then phoning the police.

3.  There's no evidence he had an AM pre murders but if he did it would have been in his interests to destroy it because not having it switched on would seem somewhat convenient and I am sure the prosecution would have argued he made the call to an AM to create the audit trail at the exhange evidenced by the timestamp of the call in the exchange and his call to police ie time spent getting from WHF to GH.

Well he didn't destroy it as he had it days afterwards.

He can throw away the tape if he wants.

[killingeve]

What is it tonight Cambridge? Another "Four pack of Stella from the Co-op"?

Guzzle Guzzle Guzzle!

You just keep taking your ADHD meds.

[killingeve]

There are a lot of sources. Some new ones posted yesterday.

An AM also gives him the confidence to commit thr massacre in the first place. As the thread title suggests.

No one connected to the prosecution case has ever mentioned an AM. 

Even if he believed/was unsure whether calls could be traced he can't be certain than an AM would replicate the receiver being lifted and replaced.  Telephony in the mid 80's wasn't what it is today. 

Can you, or anyone here, be 100% sure that when calls could be traced that the old fashioned AM's with tapes would create the same audit trail in the exchange as physically lifting and replacing the receiver does?

[Adam]

Anyway, Bamber commited the massacre.

If he was not sure what information BT/the police could obtain, his only option was to dial his AM.