Was there a siege situation at WHF ?

[Adam]

Furthermore...

If Bews did not know what to expect and did not know whether there was a hoax - how does he ascertain the seriousness of the situation, without undertaking any attempt to make contact with whoever was in the farmhouse? He had two fellow officers to assist him in doing this.  Allegedly, what he does instead is to approach the farmhouse cautiously on foot, with just one of the officers and Jeremy Bamber; and carry out a visual of the property from a distance.  He and Myall then experience some initial apprehension whether a backlit figure was seen.  However, after holding their nerve and experimenting by moving themselves physically back & forth, they become satisfied that the 'figure' was no more than a visual illusion, caused by some reflection upon the window.  Then inextricably, everyone runs back to CA7?

What hoax would there be ?

Someone pretending to be Neville ringing Bamber at 3.10am.  Or could Bamber  have beem committing the hoax ? In which case he would be prosecuted for wasting police time. Either way it would have been a sick hoax.

As it happened it was not a hoax.
 

[Stephanie]

So all those who are working in the background for Trudi and her team are all being conned ?

Yep - they are all being conned.

After listening to this https://raconteursnews.com/trudi-benjamin-jeremy-bamber-campaign-rn/ last night I'm more convinced than ever.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the amount of people who had been involved with SH over the years but they were also all conned. All used and exploited to serve SH's purpose.

Btw - if anyone does listen to the above and are thinking of sending money to Jeremy Bamber for Christmas or any other time I would advise them to not send him money; other than a SAE if they hope to hear from him. Though stamps are also currency in prison.

JB doesn't need money for anything. He gets paid a weekly allowance and is provided with regular meals.

[lookout]

There's nothing like being made welcome on the forum. 

[guest7363]

Yep - they are all being conned.

After listening to this https://raconteursnews.com/trudi-benjamin-jeremy-bamber-campaign-rn/ last night I'm more convinced than ever.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the amount of people who had been involved with SH over the years but they were also all conned. All used and exploited to serve SH's purpose.

Btw - if anyone does listen to the above and are thinking of sending money to Jeremy Bamber for Christmas or any other time I would advise them to not send him money; other than a SAE if they hope to hear from him. Though stamps are also currency in prison.

JB doesn't need money for anything. He gets paid a weekly allowance and is provided with regular meals.

Thats what they are good at, we have just seen the back of one and he called it Bipolar.  Very manipulating and good at getting people on his side

[Stephanie]

Yep - they are all being conned.

After listening to this https://raconteursnews.com/trudi-benjamin-jeremy-bamber-campaign-rn/ last night I'm more convinced than ever.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the amount of people who had been involved with SH over the years but they were also all conned. All used and exploited to serve SH's purpose.

Btw - if anyone does listen to the above and are thinking of sending money to Jeremy Bamber for Christmas or any other time I would advise them to not send him money; other than a SAE if they hope to hear from him. Though stamps are also currency in prison.

JB doesn't need money for anything. He gets paid a weekly allowance and is provided with regular meals.

Furthermore, Jeremy Bamber has been in prison long enough to know how to make extra currency. I'm in no doubt if he does make cakes as he alleges he will be selling them on to other prisoners (Though as I have stated before the prison will not be providing him with flour, eggs, sugar and icing in order for him to have free range of the prison kitchen to bake till his hearts content  ).

And even before prison Jeremy Bamber showed he knew how to make a buck or two. What was the story over the watches and weed?

[Roch]

And you don't say anything about brave heart Bamber, who stood back from his own fathers plight.  Did he try and make contact, was he in such a rush to sort things, you say you have been swayed back to innocent, personally I don't see what could have changed your mind on here, I think you have seen the numbers drop in favour of Bamber and you are here again to swell the ranks.

I don't think I have ever favoured guilt over innocence in this case. However, I have left room in my stance for doubts and I occasionally post accordingly. If you check back over my recent posts, this should be evident.

The point I am making is that something caused CA5 to dawdle to the scene. Therefore, West, Cracknell and Norcup were not 'conned' by Jeremy Bamber's phone call (if it was indeed only Jeremy who called the police). Neither was Bews 'conned', prior to arriving at the scene (as he has expressed he didn't know what to expect, for all he knew it could be a hoax). This implies he did not make assumptions. Worth noting though, is that upon arrival, he parked at approx 200 yards and out of view. In other words, did Bews already have information regarding the inherent danger?  This is all in the context of trying to fathom why two or three Force Support Units were stood down from operations in Colchester, to begin a 45 miles round-trip, to bring weapons to WHF.

As for Bamber, the police will tell you, he was very keen for the police to do something. Very insistent in his querying. I think Bews attempted to placate him by agreeing to a cautious approach on foot towards the farmhouse. I think this was effectively a fob- off.  According to Bamber, when the figure was seen, Bews was off like a rocket.

[Stephanie]

Police and civilian personnel are trained not to make assumptions, when receiving information. The police officers who overheard PC West receive a telephone call some time after 3.20am (and then subsequently discussed that call with him), ambled to the scene, taking 50 minutes to arrive. This should have been a 20 minutes journey.  Therefore, there was no urgency on the part of CA5 containing PC Cracknell and PC Norcup to get to the farmhouse.  The other car, CA7 is the one that contained PS Bews, PC Saxby and PC Myall.  That is the car which travelled the shorter journey  - but which upon arrival, set up at a perimeter of approximately 200 yards. Bews has expressed that he didn't know what to expect and that for all he knew it could be a hoax. When PC West had telephoned civilian Malcolm Bonnet at HQIR, Bonnet did not assist West to contact the CA7 officers at Whitham - he merely informed West that he knew that CA7 was at Whitham, leaving it to West to attempt to make contact. HQIR would have been receiving messages for the entire county of Essex. 

Once Bews is at the scene, he is required to provide a situation report. Although he does so, after having approached the farmhouse (then literally running back to CA7 for no apparent reason), a decision has already been made behind the scenes, to stand down several Force Support Unit vehicles on operations in Colchester and instruct them to drive over 24 miles to Chelmsford in preparation to draw arms. Why are the police wrongly stating that an armed response was deployed to the scene, due to PS Bews request and as a result of his situation report (which in any case, was simply that some lights were on in the farmhouse, the dogs were barking and Sheila Caffell apparently has 'mental health issues'?).

Furthermore...

If Bews did not know what to expect and did not know whether there was a hoax - how does he ascertain the seriousness of the situation, without undertaking any attempt to make contact with whoever was in the farmhouse? He had two fellow officers to assist him in doing this.  Allegedly, what he does instead is to approach the farmhouse cautiously on foot, with just one of the officers and Jeremy Bamber; and carry out a visual of the property from a distance.  He and Myall then experience some initial apprehension whether a backlit figure was seen.  However, after holding their nerve and experimenting by moving themselves physically back & forth, they become satisfied that the 'figure' was no more than a visual illusion, caused by some reflection upon the window.  Then inextricably, everyone runs back to CA7?

Reminds me of unreliable eyewitness evidence Roch http://thejusticegap.com/2016/11/almost-100-people-year-convicted-result-unreliable-eyewitness-evidence-new-study-claims/

[guest7363]

I don't think I have ever favoured guilt over innocence in this case. However, I have left room in my stance for doubts and I occasionally post accordingly. If you check back over my recent posts, this should be evident.

The point I am making is that something caused CA5 to dawdle to the scene. Therefore, West, Cracknell and Norcup were not 'conned' by Jeremy Bamber's phone call (if it was indeed only Jeremy who called the police). Neither was Bews 'conned', prior to arriving at the scene (as he has expressed he didn't know what to expect, for all he knew it could be a hoax). This implies he did not make assumptions. Worth noting though, is that upon arrival, he parked at approx 200 yards and out of view. In other words, did Bews already have information regarding the inherent danger?  This is all in the context of trying to fathom why two or three Force Support Units were stood down from operations in Colchester, to begin a 45 miles round-trip, to bring weapons to WHF.

As for Bamber, the police will tell you, he was very keen for the police to do something. Very insistent in his querying. I think Bews attempted to placate him by agreeing to a cautious approach on foot towards the farmhouse. I think this was effectively a fob- off.  According to Bamber, when the figure was seen, Bews was off like a rocket.

I think you should read your PM's Roch, I merely pointed out how all of a sudden you could swing massively in favour of innocence in such a short time with what's been said or available on here?  The thing that strikes me, Bamber was with them, he makes the point it was unusual the dog was barking and his father wasn't investigating.  I don't care what anyone says, given the situation that a dog is barking none stop in the dead of night in someone's house out of the ordinary and no one has been to shut it up, says a number of things to me, they are either deaf, dead or not at home?

[Roch]

Reminds me of unreliable eyewitness evidence Roch http://thejusticegap.com/2016/11/almost-100-people-year-convicted-result-unreliable-eyewitness-evidence-new-study-claims/

Think I have seen this before Steph. Read it somewhere. Thanks for posting it up.

[Stephanie]

Think I have seen this before Steph. Read it somewhere. Thanks for posting it up.

No probs Roch. When I re-read it, it made me think of JB as one of the actors.

[Stephanie]

I think you should read your PM's Roch, I merely pointed out how all of a sudden you could swing massively in favour of innocence in such a short time with what's been said or available on here?  The thing that strikes me, Bamber was with them, he makes the point it was unusual the dog was barking and his father wasn't investigating.  I don't care what anyone says, given the situation that a dog is barking none stop in the dead of night in someone's house out of the ordinary and no one has been to shut it up, says a number of things to me, they are either deaf, dead or not at home?

Good point Justice.

[guest7363]

Good point Justice.

The point is Steph, were not talking of minutes, were talking hours and hours.

[Roch]

I think you should read your PM's Roch, I merely pointed out how all of a sudden you could swing massively in favour of innocence in such a short time with what's been said or available on here?  The thing that strikes me, Bamber was with them, he makes the point it was unusual the dog was barking and his father wasn't investigating.  I don't care what anyone says, given the situation that a dog is barking none stop in the dead of night in someone's house out of the ordinary and no one has been to shut it up, says a number of things to me, they are either deaf, dead or not at home?

My stance has sometimes wavered but has nearly always favoured innocence. I expressed that during the period leading up to me posting again, my feeling was 60/40, sometimes 50/50 and even venturing in to guilty - but I think it would be wrong to read too much in to that. I think the amount that I actually consider guilt is reflected in my posts. In the foyer area I posted up posts stemming from info in the archive section. I was also very interested in the campaign arguments about windows and doors BEING secure from the inside as opposed to APPEARING to be secure. I've also had more time to think about that note..

I take your point about the dog barking. But the firearms team had already began its deployment prior to any report from the scene from Bews or Saxby.

[Stephanie]

My stance has sometimes wavered but has nearly always favoured innocence. I expressed that during the period leading up to me posting again, my feeling was 60/40, sometimes 50/50 and even venturing in to guilty - but I think it would be wrong to read too much in to that. I think the amount that I actually consider guilt is reflected in my posts. In the foyer area I posted up posts stemming from info in the archive section. I was also very interested in the campaign arguments about windows and doors BEING secure from the inside as opposed to APPEARING to be secure. I've also had more time to think about that note..

I take your point about the dog barking. But the firearms team had already began its deployment prior to any report from the scene from Bews or Saxby.

I guess so long as you have looked at both guilt and innocence with an open mind..

Though if you are swaying from one to the other Roch you could be suffering from a case of 'cognitive dissonance' or 'Doublethink...' Just a thought..

[guest7363]

Furthermore...

If Bews did not know what to expect and did not know whether there was a hoax - how does he ascertain the seriousness of the situation, without undertaking any attempt to make contact with whoever was in the farmhouse? He had two fellow officers to assist him in doing this.  Allegedly, what he does instead is to approach the farmhouse cautiously on foot, with just one of the officers and Jeremy Bamber; and carry out a visual of the property from a distance.  He and Myall then experience some initial apprehension whether a backlit figure was seen.  However, after holding their nerve and experimenting by moving themselves physically back & forth, they become satisfied that the 'figure' was no more than a visual illusion, caused by some reflection upon the window.  Then inextricably, everyone runs back to CA7?

When Bamber talks to Ann Eaton, she asks him why he never dialled 999, his reply was he wasn't sure at that time of a urgent situation?  He is then asked why after his father called he didn't go straight to WHF, his reply was he was frightened it was a trick to lure him to the farm so Sheila could shoot him?  Conflicting or what?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31217