The found hacksaw:

[lookout]

 Sash window catches have to be screwed shut as they're not self-locking.

[Patti]

This is the bathroom window, you can see the black pipe coming out of the wall at the bottom of the photo. This is the window that Jeremy is supposed to have got through. 

[Patti]

I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal. 

The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.


On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

[lookout]

 Ooooh,doesn't the brickwork look rickety at the side of the window ? I bet that was a damp corner.
What am I like ?  They should have been engineering bricks on that property. I love old properties though,full of character and interesting.

[Jan]

I thought the familly said he had used the kitched window - because they observed things had mysteriously ( not the police then when they were cleaning up ) had moved by the sink.

[lookout]

 Yes,it was said that Jeremy had moved things on the sill to get in and out.

[Mr. Gee]

I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal. 

The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.


On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

So apparently he is amalgamating to windows here? The bathroom window from which he claims to have taken the catch and the kitchen window where Jean Boutwell says that the washing up liquid is usually kept on the right and that the plastic drainer was always in the down position? So which window is Bamber supposed to have entered and exited by?

[Patti]

I thought the familly said he had used the kitched window - because they observed things had mysteriously ( not the police then when they were cleaning up ) had moved by the sink.

I think they said that he used the bathroom window to gain entry and used the kitchen window to get out. I will post a photo of the kitchen window for it is very small....Let me know what you think?

[Patti]

So apparently he is amalgamating to windows here? The bathroom window from which he claims to have taken the catch and the kitchen window where Jean Boutwell says that the washing up liquid is usually kept on the right and that the plastic drainer was always in the down position? So which window is Bamber supposed to have entered and exited by?

Hi Mr G. He is supposed to have gained access via the bathroom window and left from the tiny kitchen window. This is what the jury was made to believe. I think! 

[lookout]

Anyone who's about 9 stone or less can get through that window---------in thin clothing. Above that,they'd struggle a bit.

[lookout]

With a birdbath to give you a bit of oomph.

[Patti]

Anyone who's about 9 stone or less can get through that window---------in thin clothing. Above that,they'd struggle a bit.

This is what I have always said Lookout. I know I am a pain with the windows, doors and lights lol

But the jury were not taken to WHF and I think that it was crucial for them to understand not only the layout of the property, but to be shown the windows he was supposed to have used, plus the experiment on how to lock that kitchen window from the outside.

It is OK for to say that Jeremy admitted he could get in. Millions of people can get into their own property, its not that unusual if one becomes locked out.  I as a teenager used to get into my home when my parents went out for the evening. I was made to stay with my grandparents even at the age of 13. I'd bang on the small window at the back of the house and this loosened the long side catch which had 3 holes at the bottom which was secured onto a wooden prong sticking out of the side of the window. I would get in through that window open the door which had a drop latch on it and invite my friends in for an omelette. I would then secure the window and left through the door and dropped the latch so it would lock. My mum bless her always knew I had been in because she could smell cooking, plus 6 eggs were missing...lol This small window was similar to the one Bamber is supposed to get through. It must have been a struggle for him to have used this window without leaving any fibers or finger prints or any other sort of evidence. None were found.  One of the raid team opened that window and moved the fairy liquid...

I forgot what I wanted to say now...lol Will be back later....

[lookout]

 I remember the small window I used to get in through too,much the same as the one shown. This is why I mentioned the 9 stone and under because as a teen,even less than 9 stone,I struggled getting through,caught on the catch and the odd graze,and yes,fibres galore unless I'd stripped off.

Couldn't quite see Jeremy having to strip off to squeeze his way through such a small opening.

[scipio_usmc]

I know I keep on about the windows and this proves that the forensic team did not take a window catch from the downstairs bathroom window on the 1st of October. They lied at the 2002 court of appeal. 

The windows were examined in August and again extensively in between the 8th and 10th of September and nothing was found.


On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.

269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.

270. It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.

271. It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.

All that proves is those writing the  Court of Appeal decision were sloppy in their rendition.

Elliott tested the catch in the lab and either also tested other things taken or actually went to the scene to look at the window trim.  The Court was simply sloppy in how is described such.

You have no evidence that the Court was told Elliott went to the scene to test the catch.  Nor does this site have any statement for Elliott regarding the testing of anything related to the windows posted.  The court used mainly the statements and court testimony in summarizing the facts of the case.

 

[lookout]

What they should have done by way of testing was to have picked out a guy the same size as Jeremy to try it out.