Yes it's a pity at point 273 in the CoA doc that DC Barlow confirms he was unable to lock securely the sash windows from outside but doesn't comment on the other windows:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Although the CoA doc does go on to say that he should have reported his negative findings prior to trial:
276. It is never easy for officers engaged in major enquiries to know to what extent they should include negative findings, which may be very numerous in their statements. In the case of DC Barlow we conclude that he should have included the fact that he examined all the windows on the 22 August. We find no evidence to indicate that he deliberately omitted this negative finding. Again this information should have been disclosed prior to trial.
So DC Barlow examined all windows on 22nd August and the finding was negative?
The "negative finding" was in reference to the bathroom window not the kitchen. Apparently you don't even understand what the defense was arguing to the COA. The defense argued that the police never told them that Barlow also looked at the bathroom window and didn't notice anything significant:
273. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window" There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window.
274. In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed" He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window.
276. It is never easy for officers engaged in major enquiries to know to what extent they should include negative findings, which may be very numerous in their statements. In the case of DC Barlow we conclude that he should have included the fact that he examined all the windows on the 22 August. We find no evidence to indicate that he deliberately omitted this negative finding. Again this information should have been disclosed prior to trial. Apparently you totally missed the reason why the defense was complaining about not being told that the bathroom window was examined and not finding anything in relation to it- the negative finding. The answer is obvious- damage was found to the bathroom window:
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 .The prosecution argued to the jury that this damage was made by Jeremy when he entered to kill the victims:
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. The defense argued Jeremy caused the damage himself in late September:
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.The defense thus argued to the Appeals Court that had they been informed of Barlow's negative finding they would have notified the jury of such and used that argument to try to bolster their claim to the jury that the damage was made by Jeremy after Barlow conducted such inspection.
The Appeal Court held that such issue had no ability to establish reasonable doubt. Only if they could prove Jeremy had no viable means of entry and egress could they establish reasonable doubt on the basis of the issue entry/egress. The court held that Jeremy himself admitted he could get in and out through the windows and effectively demolished any ability to establish reasonable doubt on such basis the damage to the window is not determinative.
While there is justification for laymen not comprehending legalese there was not much legalese in the provisions at hand. It is pretty clear. You should be able to comprehend it.
The defenses argument didn't pertain to the kitchen window it was the failure to disclose the examination of other windows. No where does the decision say there was a negative finding with respect to the kitchen window. It doesn't discuss what Barlow observed about the kitchen window because it was not relevant to the defense argument. What was relevant is that Barlow noted he went there to examine the kitchen window and the defense assumed he only examined that window because that was all he mentioned examining.
Barlow noted in his pocket book that he found the kitchen window was able to be locked from the outside just like the family said. There clearly was a positive finding not a negative one with respect to the kitchen window.
