Exposing what took place by reference to use of broom handle in reconstruction

[lookout]

And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..

Steve,,,as regards Jeremys' " financial standing " had he committed the murders,,,he'd have known that if he was caught that he'd have to forfeit every penny. I don't think he could have lived with the prospect of losing everything that was his. Ironically,this is how it turned out,,,but it certainly wasn't of his doing.
Jeremy wouldn't have kept himself in the spotlight all these years if he'd murdered anyone,,,he wouldn't have got the response he's getting for starters. Only those who have murdered get forgotten about ( thank goodness ) but those facing a miscarriage of justice continue with their pleas.

[Jane]

And don't you think Jeremy sensed this? An unhappy sister who would not be reconciled with Colin,twins who were preventing his ex brother-in-law from obtaining regular employment,a mother who may well have exercised a hold on Sheila through biblical references and who had sought psychiatric help in the past,and a father who was disappointed by him because he hadn't taken to the farming lifestyle. All this mulling around the head of a person who yearned to be free of it all,who had made plans for a year on how the crime would be carried out,quizzing Colin about when the twins would be present at the farm,trying to get Sheila to load the rifle,knowing an entrance to the farm bypassing the main thoroughfares,the ladies' bicycle which he had himself ridden in front of Ann Eaton,the telephone calls to Julie,the delay in calling the Police,the charade of his behaviour at the funerals and his haste to call Basil Cock the executor..to my mind it's all beyond reasonable doubt sorry..

I'm not entirely sure he would have. Whilst we may never know what another feels unless they choose to tell us, t.here's nothing about him which leads me to believe he's an empath!!! I'm more inclined to think he distanced himself from the farm, only going there out of necessity. He had his own life and if his parents didn't approve of it, he probably tried not to get into conversation about it with them. He didn't live there, unlike Sheila, whose visits necessitated her being there overnight. As for quizzing Colin about when the boys would be there, it could well have been to make sure HE wasn't, maybe he didn't want to play nursemaid.

Much of what you attribute to him are incidences taken out of context, which under other circumstances would be innocent enough to be disregarded. I feel more inclined to question the motives of JM, who, had she not turned police evidence could have found herself in court with a criminal record, her reputation in shreds and unlikely to find employment as a teacher. I also question the motives of relatives whoses lifestyles may have seen serious changes had Jeremy inherited.

[Bridget]

As far we're concerned, firearms team statements only came to light in the wake of the case becoming a prosecution against Bamber.  No such prosecution is going to include in their attack, statements relating to a conversation with a live person in the farmhouse are they? 

No, they're not going to use it in their attack, but the statements still have to be disclosed. So we're back to the suggestion that either the statements were edited, or those giving them were told to leave the conversation with a person in the house out of them. Why? All of those people would know that Sheila was alive and that Jeremy was outside with them at the time. It can't even be said that they didn't know their statements had been edited because that much would have been clear to them from the results.

The firearms team did not enter the farmhouse under the impression that everyone was dead.

No, they didn't actually know anyone was dead at all until they looked through the window, but if there was a conversation they would have known that at least one person was alive and probably had a gun.

At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard. 

Other team members? The dog?

It also might be worth noting at this point, how many statements are actually signed and how many firearms officers testified at trial?

There will be a list of witnesses somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

[Jane]

   At one point, an officer calls for Sheila Bamber to make her self known, due to noises heard. 

This would be the same officer, would it, who later said, that when he called out, somebody replied by barking like a dog!!!!

[maggie]

April, I have read that Jeremy went into the farmhouse around 9.30 - 10 pm.  The boys wre in bed and the family were sitting eating supper and talking about the boys. Jeremy says he stood by the sink in the utility room eating something and did the gun and then went out to finish up as they had one more load of rape before finishing for the n ight.  So the conversation took place around 9.30 apparently

[Roch]

No, they're not going to use it in their attack, but the statements still have to be disclosed. So we're back to the suggestion that either the statements were edited, or those giving them were told to leave the conversation with a person in the house out of them. Why? All of those people would know that Sheila was alive and that Jeremy was outside with them at the time. It can't even be said that they didn't know their statements had been edited because that much would have been clear to them from the results.

Well where are the original signed statements... and if the defence are correct in their assertions of the raid experiencing serious complications, then how much content in those original statements would have been an exact and accurate portrayal of events anyway?  Who were they disclosed to?  Jeremy Bamber was not outside the farm during the time frame allocated to the 'conversation' entry.  Neither would Jeremy Bamber have been given a running commentary of what was unfolding.  I don't get your point re the TFG knowing about whether their statements had been edited.

No, they didn't actually know anyone was dead at all until they looked through the window, but if there was a conversation they would have known that at least one person was alive and probably had a gun.

My point was that the raid team conducted proceedings in accordance with there being the possibility that person or persons were alive and / or possibly armed.  This is not proof that any 'conversation' took place but is certainly not averse to such a conversation having preceded the raid.

Other team members? The dog?

Possibly.  However, see above.

There will be a list of witnesses somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

Sounds like a job for someone.

[Bridget]

Well where are the original signed statements... and if the defence are correct in their assertions of the raid experiencing serious complications, then how much content in those original statements would have been an exact and accurate portrayal of events anyway?  Who were they disclosed to?  Jeremy Bamber was not outside the farm during the time frame allocated to the 'conversation' entry.  Neither would Jeremy Bamber have been given a running commentary of what was unfolding.  I don't get your point re the TFG knowing about whether their statements had been edited.

There is no evidence for there having been serious complications. The statements, edited or otherwise, would have been disclosed to the defence. I know Jeremy claims that he only obtained these recently, but it seems inconceivable that there wouldn't have been such statements (or the defence wouldn't have demanded to see such statements) prior to the trial. The witness list may well sort that issue out. What we have here are unsigned statements, but that doesn't mean that signed ones don't exist. If there was a conversation the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.

My point was that the raid team conducted proceedings in accordance with there being the possibility that person or persons were alive and / or possibly armed.  This is not proof that any 'conversation' took place but is certainly not averse to such a conversation having preceded the raid.

You don't think they would have been told that a person was definately alive, and that they had been in conversation with the police?

[Jane]

April, I have read that Jeremy went into the farmhouse around 9.30 - 10 pm.  The boys wre in bed and the family were sitting eating supper and talking about the boys. Jeremy says he stood by the sink in the utility room eating something and did the gun and then went out to finish up as they had one more load of rape before finishing for the n ight.  So the conversation took place around 9.30 apparently

Maggie, hi and thanks for the info., although it doesn't add up with Neville not getting in until 10.30, unless, like Jeremy, he went out again before finishing for the night. We can speculate till the cows come home, but I suspect we'll never know the truth. How VERY frustrating........................unless!!!! Does anybody know a reliable medium?!!!!!!!!!!

[Roch]

There is no evidence for there having been serious complications. The statements, edited or otherwise, would have been disclosed to the defence. I know Jeremy claims that he only obtained these recently, but it seems inconceivable that there wouldn't have been such statements (or the defence wouldn't have demanded to see such statements) prior to the trial. The witness list may well sort that issue out. What we have here are unsigned statements, but that doesn't mean that signed ones don't exist. If there was a conversation the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.

I suggest that two sets of crime scene photos, one set withheld for 19 years and which show oxygenated blood and thin pools of blood similar to finger-marks, while the other set (used at trial) show semi-congealed blood, logs withheld for 19 years that detail not just a female body found downstairs but the correctly corresponding number of bodies found upstairs and a host of actions stemming form these finds, are indeed evidence of something going wrong with the raid.  Now, it is possible for the authorities to deem something as not being evidence.  You can deem anything you want as being something else other than what it appears to be.  A coal mine can be a 'super pit' one day and then not financially viable the next. 

The defence must be telling lies about the statements being disclosed.  That's the only explanation I can come up with, that fits the approach taken by you and one or two other posters on the statements issue.

You don't think they would have been told that a person was definately alive, and that they had been in conversation with the police?

Sorry but can you clarify what you mean here by 'they'?

[Roch]

the TFG would know that someone was alive, and that Jeremy could not therefore have killed that person. So, either they would know that their statements as disclosed to the defence were not as they were written, or they falsified their statements.

This seems to be Mike Tesko's argument.  He alleges that they refused to sign their statements and refused to testify at trial.  Woodcock did I believe sign his statement and he may have testified?  Woodcock's statement has been alleged as having been doctored, though I do not know what evidence there is to back that claim.

[Bridget]

I suggest that two sets of crime scene photos, one set withheld for 19 years and which show oxygenated blood and thin pools of blood similar to finger-marks, while the other set (used at trial) show semi-congealed blood, logs withheld for 19 years that detail not just a female body found downstairs but the correctly corresponding number of bodies found upstairs and a host of actions stemming form these finds, are indeed evidence of something going wrong with the raid.  Now, it is possible for the authorities to deem something as not being evidence.  You can deem anything you want as being something else other than what it appears to be.  A coal mine can be a 'super pit' one day and then not financially viable the next. 

I refer you to Hartley's explanation for the body count upstairs/ downstairs issue. As to the photos, it doesn't take an expert to see that the colourisation (is that a word?) is different on what you are calling the congealed blood ones, and the oxygenated blood one. Certainly the oxygenated blood one that we have here appears to have been manipulated in some way, even the colours in the skin tone appear to be too red. The original unmanipulated photos were presumably used in whatever submissions were made, and the argument was rejected I believe.

The defence must be telling lies about the statements being disclosed.  That's the only explanation I can come up with, that fits the approach taken by you and one or two other posters on the statements issue.

Do you really believe that in a case where a house was raided by the TFG, there would not be statements from the team members? I know the defence has been described as lacking but really..

Sorry but can you clarify what you mean here by 'they'?

The raid team and the firearms officers outside.

This seems to be Mike Tesko's argument.  He alleges that they refused to sign their statements and refused to testify at trial.  Woodcock did I believe sign his statement and he may have testified?  Woodcock's statement has been alleged as having been doctored, though I do not know what evidence there is to back that claim.

This was a very public trial. If that were the case do you not think the defence would have made a song and dance about it, and in turn the press would have had a field day?

[Roch]

I refer you to Hartley's explanation for the body count upstairs/ downstairs issue. As to the photos, it doesn't take an expert to see that the colourisation (is that a word?) is different on what you are calling the congealed blood ones, and the oxygenated blood one. Certainly the oxygenated blood one that we have here appears to have been manipulated in some way, even the colours in the skin tone appear to be too red. The original unmanipulated photos were presumably used in whatever submissions were made, and the argument was rejected I believe.

Do you really believe that in a case where a house was raided by the TFG, there would not be statements from the team members? I know the defence has been described as lacking but really..

The raid team and the firearms officers outside.

This was a very public trial. If that were the case do you not think the defence would have made a song and dance about it, and in turn the press would have had a field day?

I am prepared to read Hartley's explanation again, if somebody can point out to me.  I remember being unimpressed by the notion that a female body is recorded in the logs as being found downstairs, merely due to a recce through the window.  The female body referred to is clearly logged as having been found upon entry and after the entries relating to the TFG attacking the door.  The female body is not listed first, it is listed second, after the male body, upon entry.  The police had open Mics and there was 38 minutes to clarify and confirm, as each room was secured, exactly which sexed body was located where. 

I'm just not understanding your point about the raid team statements.  Could you have picked me up wrong? 

Why would the press make a song and dance about something they didn't know about?

You can mock the idea that defence has been impeded all you like... but in this case, it doesn't even matter if a government minister is questioned at length in the house of commons or a disclosure order is issued by a court of law.  There ways around things.  How much more so then, when so much less was known than is known now?

[Bridget]

I'm just not understanding your point about the raid team statements.  Could you have picked me up wrong? 

I don't know, my point is simple enough. If there was a conversation the raid team would have been briefed on it. None of their statements contain any reference to that, even though they describe what they were told in their briefing. If they were briefed on a conversation then they would know that JB could not have killed the person in the farm who was involved in the conversation. If they knew about the conversation then they would have  included that information in their statements. So, if there was nothing in their statements about the conversation either:

a) their statements were edited without their knowledge but they would have known this because they knew what the police case was and it didn't fit their original statements or

b) they falsified their statements - if so why? Or

c) it didn't happen.

[Roch]

I don't know, my point is simple enough. If there was a conversation the raid team would have been briefed on it. None of their statements contain any reference to that, even though they describe what they were told in their briefing. If they were briefed on a conversation then they would know that JB could not have killed the person in the farm who was involved in the conversation. If they knew about the conversation then they would have  included that information in their statements. So, if there was nothing in their statements about the conversation either:

a) their statements were edited without their knowledge but they would have known this because they knew what the police case was and it didn't fit their original statements or

b) they falsified their statements - if so why? Or

c) it didn't happen.

Mike Tesko has alleged a...

d) Their statements were edited with their knowledge; they refused to sign their edited statements; they refused to testify at trial.

[-Harters-]

Mike Tesko has alleged a...

d) Their statements were edited with their knowledge; they refused to sign their edited statements; they refused to testify at trial.

Mike Tesko has made many allegations and accusations, I'm struggling to recall one which he is able to comprehensively prove to be justified.