UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: adam on November 30, 2014, 07:31:50 PM
-
Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.
There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.
The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.
Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?
61
-
Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.
There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.
The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.
Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?
Easy Adam, they cannot see the wood for the trees. We all know Jerry was a devious, ungrateful sad excuse for a son but some still think the sun shines out of his...
-
Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.
There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.
The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.
Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?
As far as EP were concerned Adam all windows and doors were checked and found secured from within. It was the relatives that suggested JB used a window and I think ? 'found' a hacksaw blade outside? Are you able to confirm for me please who found the hacksaw blade?
To be quite honest, like the phones until recently, I've hardly paid any attention to the windows so perhaps I should &%+((£
There are very few things in life we can be 100% certain about and I'm sure the phones and windows fall into this category.
-
I don't know what policemen found it.
The hacksaw blade matched the marks on the bathroom window. Which had been made after the windows had been painted. Jeremy may have used it a day or two before the massacre to ensure a quiet entry.
Entry access into WHF via the bathroom window has never been disputed. Jeremy saying he knew lots of ways to get inside.
To be fair Jeremy has never disputed that the kitchen window could be locked from outside. Probably because he knew it could. But his supporters for some reason dispute this.
-
I don't know what policemen found it.
The hacksaw blade matched the marks on the bathroom window. Which had been made after the windows had been painted. Jeremy may have used it a day or two before the massacre to ensure a quiet entry.
Entry access into WHF via the bathroom window has never been disputed. Jeremy saying he knew lots of ways to get inside.
To be fair Jeremy has never disputed that the kitchen window could be locked from outside. Probably because he knew it could. But his supporters for some reason dispute this.
So a policeman found it? I thought it was a relative?
I thought JB said he could effect entry but not exit and secure the window. I will have to read up on it. Its pretty damn boring though 8)><( Patti on Blue has done a lot of research on the windows.
-
So a policeman found it? I thought it was a relative?
I thought JB said he could effect entry but not exit and secure the window. I will have to read up on it. Its pretty damn boring though 8)><( Patti on Blue has done a lot of research on the windows.
Yes it was policemen. The relatives just found the silencer.
Banging a window locked from outside is no big deal. It was a big house. Not sure why supporters waste time disputing it.
-
I don't know what policemen found it.
The hacksaw blade matched the marks on the bathroom window. Which had been made after the windows had been painted. Jeremy may have used it a day or two before the massacre to ensure a quiet entry.
Entry access into WHF via the bathroom window has never been disputed. Jeremy saying he knew lots of ways to get inside.
To be fair Jeremy has never disputed that the kitchen window could be locked from outside. Probably because he knew it could. But his supporters for some reason dispute this.
Not true - read his statement . He said they could be closed not locked.
-
I managed to find some sources on this issue. Bamber was a sneaky one, closing the window before cycling back -
Prosecution opening statement - Wilkes's book.
Julie Mugford. WS.
"Killers without conscience' thread.
Barlow WS.
Ann Eaton WS.
2002 appeal.
Wikipedia.
Crimes & Criminals - Youtube.
Inheritance Killers - Youtube.
Murder UK - Jeremy Bamber.
'St Tropez and more suspicions' thread.
Bamber's interview transcripts. Mentioned by the police.
Judges summing up.
-
Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.
There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.
The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.
Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?
Why is it only Jeremy supporters who know that the type of window of which you speak CAN'T be locked from the outside. I have yet to see ANY source but yours which says otherwise.
-
The correct word I should have said is closed. The catch falling into place so the window is closed.
Some people will class the kitchen window as closed/locked. Other people class locked as a bolt or key being used to secure the window. Which would be impossible for Bamber to do.
One thing is correct, all the ground floor windows were closed.
-
The correct word I should have said is closed. The catch falling into place so the window is closed.
Some people will class the kitchen window as closed/locked. Other people class locked as a bolt or key being used to secure the window. Which would be impossible for Bamber to do.
One thing is correct, all the ground floor windows were closed.
But if the arm(s) weren't in place inside -and it CAN'T be guaranteed from outside- it would have been OBVIOUS from the outset, that someone had used the window as a means of entry and exit. It would have been simplicity itself for Jeremy to have released the catch/moved the arm whilst he was there earlier. Getting in would have been no problem. Making it believable that he HADN'T would have been an entirely different question.
-
Well locking the bathroom window was easy. As he was inside.
The kitchen window could be banged so the catch falls into place/closed. The police did not check the windows in detail on the night. Most not going within 50 feet of WHF. Don't blame them, there was a crazy woman with a gun in the house.
-
Well locking the bathroom window was easy. As he was inside.
The kitchen window could be banged so the catch falls into place/closed. The police did not check the windows in detail on the night. Most not going within 50 feet of WHF. Don't blame them, there was a crazy woman with a gun in the house.
The key word here is COULD which equally means could NOT, which from the outside is FAR more probable. If the police didn't check them "on the night"!!!!! how the hell was it possible for them to use evidence about them in court?
-
The key word here is COULD which equally means could NOT, which from the outside is FAR more probable. If the police didn't check them "on the night"!!!!! how the hell was it possible for them to use evidence about them in court?
Because they checked afterwards.
After Julie and Ann Eaton mentioned the kitchen window. The same kitchen window Bamber said he could enter/exit from when interviewed by the police.
PC Barlow also said he later checked. Saying it could be 'closed' from outside.
-
Because they checked afterwards.
After Julie and Ann Eaton mentioned the kitchen window. The same kitchen window Bamber said he could enter/exit from when interviewed by the police.
PC Barlow also said he later checked. Saying it could be 'closed' from outside.
How would "afterwards" help when anyone else could have opened/closed/.touched it.
How would PC Barlow's "checking it later" achieve a satisfactory outcome? It's obviously possible, from the outside, to push it to, PROVIDING the arm inside wasn't in the locked position . As no one thought to check till "afterwards" how would they know WHAT position the arm had been in?
-
Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.
There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.
The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.
Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?
Jeremy's supporters operate from a position of bias. Instead of following the evidence wher eit leads his supporters decided he is innocent and they actively search for anythign they can spin to support what they want to believe and argue.
The claim the window could not be locked from the outside is one of the things they cling to in order to pretend he can't have done it. They hide on the edges because they have nothing to hit the main evidence.
With the exception of Mike (who makes up lie after lie in order to try to refute the main evidence) supporters try to ignore the main evidence not to discuss it in detail. The reason why is simple they have no detailed way to refute the main evidence. For instance who has evidence that the blood was planted in the moderator? Who has a detailed account of the blood being planted? No one except Mike. WHat evidence is there it was planted? None. So why do they insist it was planted? Because they want Jeremy to be innocent and the only way for him to be innocent is if it was planted.
Defenders take offense because they don't liek to hear the truth and want to pretend they are following evidenc ebut the reality is they are guided by bias and trying to make the facts and evidence support what they want to believe.
It is not unlike those who ignore modern evidence that 100MG of Haloperidol is as effective as 200MG and insist that because she only received 100MG this means she didn't have enough to control her condition. They ar enot following evidence but rather ignoring it because they want to believe she had an episode and committed the murders during it.
Since they have decided what they want to believe in spite of the evidence as opposed to following evidence, pointing out the evidence they chose to ignore is not going to get them to change their minds. So your efforts to change their minds amounts to trying to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
-
Jeremy's supporters operate from a position of bias. Instead of following the evidence wher eit leads his supporters decided he is innocent and they actively search for anythign they can spin to support what they want to believe and argue.
The claim the window could not be locked from the outside is one of the things they cling to in order to pretend he can't have done it. They hide on the edges because they have nothing to hit the main evidence.
With the exception of Mike (who makes up lie after lie in order to try to refute the main evidence) supporters try to ignore the main evidence not to discuss it in detail. The reason why is simple they have no detailed way to refute the main evidence. For instance who has evidence that the blood was planted in the moderator? Who has a detailed account of the blood being planted? No one except Mike. WHat evidence is there it was planted? None. So why do they insist it was planted? Because they want Jeremy to be innocent and the only way for him to be innocent is if it was planted.
Defenders take offense because they don't liek to hear the truth and want to pretend they are following evidenc ebut the reality is they are guided by bias and trying to make the facts and evidence support what they want to believe.
It is not unlike those who ignore modern evidence that 100MG of Haloperidol is as effective as 200MG and insist that because she only received 100MG this means she didn't have enough to control her condition. They ar enot following evidence but rather ignoring it because they want to believe she had an episode and committed the murders during it.
Since they have decided what they want to believe in spite of the evidence as opposed to following evidence, pointing out the evidence they chose to ignore is not going to get them to change their minds. So your efforts to change their minds amounts to trying to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I know, I know.
Well I took an interest in the case last year. Read up about it. So like discussing it.
Some people have actually gone from innocent to guilty on another forum. Another then announced she was undecided, although posts as a supporter and denies ever being a supporter.
There are still three regular posters/supporters on another forum who still support Bamber no matter what. These three posters are clever people, so I have no idea why they want Jeremy to be innocent and refuse to accept the evidence, as you said.
This was highlighted again on this topic. Refusing to accept the window could be locked from outside despite 13 sources. A curve ball of them not being 'Primary' sources was thrown out. Although some actually are 'Primary' sources.
-
I know, I know.
Well I took an interest in the case last year. Read up about it. So like discussing it.
Some people have gone from innocent to guilty on another forum. Another has gone from innocent to undecided, although posts as a supporter and denies ever being innocent.
There are still three regular posters/supporters on another forum who still support Bamber no matter what. These three posters are clever people, so I have no idea why they want Jeremy to be innocent and refuse to accept the evidence, as you said.
This was highlighted again on this topic. Refusing to accept the window could be locked from outside despite 13 sources. A curve ball of them not being 'Primary' sources was thrown out. Although some actually are 'Primary' sources.
A WINDOW OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION -A HORIZONTAL ARM AT THE BASE LOCKING ONTO TWO STUDS- CANNOT BE LOCKED FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT NECESSITATES SOMEONE BEING INSIDE TO PLACE THE ARM INTO THE LOCKING POSITION OVER THE STUDS. It stands to reason that he got in and out SOMEHOW but as nobody bothered to check until "afterwards" I guess it will never be known exactly how.
-
If you mean a fastener similar to this one, April...
(http://i.imgur.com/bhHFN2c.jpg)
.... then it can be done but there's a knack. I've done it myself in the past, not to climb in or out, but while painting some wooden windows outside, and "experimenting", long before I ever became interested in this case. Rest the lever underside on one of the lugs, gently force the window to, and the lever jumps up and comes to rest on both lugs even though it might need several attempts and few more bangs on the frame with a fist to succeed.
The problem is that Ann Eaton refers to the specific window being to the left of the kitchen sink, which from the inside is the larger opening casement (right in photo) and which should also have another type of fastener half-way up on the side. More difficult, if not impossible to lock from the outside.
I always thought the actual exit window mentioned in interviews and at trial was the small open fanlight (left in photo) which is more suited to Jack Sprat than Jeremy Bamber getting through it...
(http://i.imgur.com/Xsg4Aj9.jpg)
Maybe he found an easier way out, fastening a door behind him. All the doors were reportedly locked with keys in place and some barred at night, but we don't know how thoroughly these were checked by police. For example, did the Dairy door have a key permanently in the lock?
-
A WINDOW OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION -A HORIZONTAL ARM AT THE BASE LOCKING ONTO TWO STUDS- CANNOT BE LOCKED FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT NECESSITATES SOMEONE BEING INSIDE TO PLACE THE ARM INTO THE LOCKING POSITION OVER THE STUDS. It stands to reason that he got in and out SOMEHOW but as nobody bothered to check until "afterwards" I guess it will never be known exactly how.
Wrong, all it takes is gravity to lock such an arm so long as the arm has the ability to move easily. Vibration from banging or shaking can cause such a lock to fall into place. We had a gate lock that operated in that manner and to get it to fall into place while on the other side of the fence you would sahe the fence to make it fall.
The window in question had an opening where someone could set the arm close enough to the catch and then lock it by vibrating the window so it would fall into place the rest of the way.
A latch that locks by being moved side to side instead of moving down is one that would require being inside to accomplish.
-
If you mean a fastener similar to this one, April...
(http://i.imgur.com/bhHFN2c.jpg)
.... then it can be done but there's a knack. I've done it myself in the past, not to climb in or out, but while painting some wooden windows outside, and "experimenting", long before I ever became interested in this case. Rest the lever underside on one of the lugs, gently force the window to, and the lever jumps up and comes to rest on both lugs even though it might need several attempts and few more bangs on the frame with a fist to succeed.
The problem is that Ann Eaton refers to the specific window being to the left of the kitchen sink, which from the inside is the larger opening casement (right in photo) and which should also have another type of fastener half-way up on the side. More difficult, if not impossible to lock from the outside.
I always thought the actual exit window mentioned in interviews and at trial was the small open fanlight (left in photo) which is more suited to Jack Sprat than Jeremy Bamber getting through it...
(http://i.imgur.com/Xsg4Aj9.jpg)
Maybe he found an easier way out, fastening a door behind him. All the doors were reportedly locked with keys in place and some barred at night, but we don't know how thoroughly these were checked by police. For example, did the Dairy door have a key permanently in the lock?
The windown containing the fanlight is referred to as the fanlight window but it means the entire window not just the little fanlight. Reaching through the fanlight allows someone to lock the case window. The fanlight had its own latch which could be locked by tapping on it.
The police found the bathroom window unlocked though no one opened the window. It is possible that Jeremy went both in and out that window. How thoroughly DI Jones actually checked all the windows he claimed to have checked is unknown. At any rate, to clibm out of the window containing the fanlight required going over the sink. All items normally in the sink were placed on the floor and the sink was empty. If the sink had been emptied to make room for something else then that something else should have been in there. This suggests he probably used that window to escape.
-
OK I get it now... doh! First he opened the small fanlight, then the larger casement and climbed through that, banging it to and thus fastening it once he got outside. Then he climbed onto the stone sill, reached through the small fanlight to fasten the side latch of the casement. Then banged the fanlight to. Job done.
-
OK I get it now... doh! First he opened the small fanlight, then the larger casement and climbed through that, banging it to and thus fastening it once he got outside. Then he climbed onto the stone sill, reached through the small fanlight to fasten the side latch of the casement. Then banged the fanlight to. Job done.
Exactly and since he had done that in the past he knew how to do it.
I personally believe that is the method he used because;
1) he told Julie that is what he was going to do
2) the items that had been removed from the sink/in front of the window for no apparent reason suggest he did what he told Julie he was going to do
3) He presumed police would competently check the windows to see they were locked. He didn't want to leave through the bathroom window and risk police finding such window unlocked so he made sure he went through that window and locke dit behind him.
Since police didn't open the bathroom window and had no reason to unclock it this means it might not have been locked but I personally think a cop opened it for some reason, closed it right away, failed to lock it and failed to note he had done so.
I am assuming Jeremy didn't screw up and took care to make sure he locked the bathroom window since it figured so prominently in his plan. To be sure people do mess up and forget to do important things and change plans so it is possible he didn't lock it or even possible he went out through it but I doubt it.
-
Looking at that window it does seem quite easy to get outside and then ensure it is all closed.
The housekeeper/cleaner said several items she left by the window the previous day had been moved.
-
I'm just looking at the photograph and thinking of the time I tried to squeeze through a window like that: it was a disaster, it's almost physically impossible, you have to be a contortionist! It's not wide enough to get a leg over simultaneously to an arm, it's not possible to go feet-first because it's up near the ceiling, the only way out is arms and head first. Because there is no width to the window this means getting your whole body out - in a downwards direction - to about your knees before you can liberate a leg or bend. What actually happens is your pelvis is the tipping point and there is a strong risk of not being able to get a purchase on anything with your feet to push you, nor anything solid with your hands to pull you so you flounder around in a state of panic like you're doing the breast stroke - and your whole body weight on your tummy across the window frame is really painful! (In the end I gallantly shoved my kid through the window instead - yes, thats right, I managed to lock us inside the house!). There is an unfortunate handstand/cartwheel/collapse in a heap manoeuvre to finish with - would probably be a trip to casualty looking at the stone bird bath and shrubs JB would have landed in!
C'mon: all he had to do was borrow the spare key for an hour and get another key cut. Or go in and out of a sash window - much easier!
And there's the rub: if all the doors and windows were locked on the inside, it has to be Sheila.
But if there was a window that wasn't secure it could have been anyone - and the burden of proof is with the Prosecution that it was specifically Bamber.
-
All the downstairs windows were supposedly checked by Taff Jones (it's said) and were found to be secure, including the shower-room window, which JB could easily fasten again by means of a rotating catch on top of the lower sliding-sash once he'd climbed inside.
The kitchen window through which he is thought to have exited is the opening casement to the right of the top left fanlight, as discussed in the later posts above. You can just make out one lower hinge on the extreme right and also the darker line of the window itself. JB first opened the top fanlight, cleared some items on the sink, then opened the larger casement window and climbed out of that. Banged it to once outside, then reached through the fanlight to secure the central fastener, if there was one. Then he banged the small fanlight to, to fasten its stay. Don't forget that JB was fit and agile – climbing on and off tractors daily, and doing other manual farming tasks.
Even Paul Harrison believes JB exited through the kitchen window (but also claims that because Sheila unfastened the back door for him, she was involved in a conspiracy).
When interviewed Bamber admitted that he'd previously got in WHF by the Shower room window and others in the past. After the murders too because he had no key, to collect travel documents before going on a freebie Continental jaunt.
Why would a burglar get in through the window, murder everyone including two sleeping children, then steal nothing? JB rang the police saying that it was specifically Sheila going crazy with a gun, not just anyone.
-
As far as I'm aware all doors were bolted internally so it would not have been possible for JB to get a key cut or borrow one and leave doors bolted upon exiting.
JB has stated that it was possible to effect entry via various windows but not possible to securely close windows upon exiting. He has said it was only possible to get a catch as far as the 8 position.
-
Yes, doesn't really help himself by announcing that incite, does he?!
Thank you both for the explanation of the window. I grew up with sash windows with rotating locks: it's interesting to see how easily they can be opened with a knife, but I would have though impossible to close again from the outside. I still wouldn't have thought it was easy to shut the casement window: although it might be theoretically possible on a new catch, the building looks like so many period buildings I've experienced where in reality it's had so many layers of paint it would be quite stiff, and it would also require a latch half way up the window to be pulled down: isn't this the window the police looked through, with the lights on whilst they were in darkness outside? If so, it would have been possible to see the second latch not in place even in outline from a slight distance.
Nonetheless, it seems to me one of JB's problems in this case is the burden of proof has been reversed and he is being obliged to prove he is innocent after some very incomplete and dodgy evidence was submitted to make him look guilty. I think if he'd had a better legal team they would have made mincemeat out of Julie Mugford's trail of criminality and the inconsistencies of her behaviour, and similarly followed the trail of potential cross-contamination of the moderator, and then the burden of proof would still have been the other way round. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.
As I posted elsewhere, is it possible SC was lying in wait for JC to arrive, knowing his preferred entrance through a downstairs window? The'd both been to boarding school - this kind of thing happens quite a lot, and I can't imagine JC was the only teenager from that house who maybe went off to the pub without his parents knowing. Even a murderer being arrogant would spot the stupidity of announcing he went in and out of the house through the windows if they've set the scene to be a murder-suicide by someone inside.
-
As far as I'm aware all doors were bolted internally so it would not have been possible for JB to get a key cut or borrow one and leave doors bolted upon exiting.
JB has stated that it was possible to effect entry via various windows but not possible to securely close windows upon exiting. He has said it was only possible to get a catch as far as the 8 position.
This is the reason a third party intruder has always been discounted from this case. Only Jeremy Bamber knew how to get in and out of a supposedly secure farmhouse and he was well practiced in the art. Curiously, Sheila was also known to climb out her bedroom window and shim down a strategically placed ladder so she could escape for a night out.
After the murders Jeremy had to gain access to the farmhouse before going abroad. Secretary Barbara Wilson kept the keys but Jerry didn't want to alert her in case she told the police so again entered the farmhouse via his favourite unsecured downstairs window. Some people might ask why admit to this? The simple answer is another question, why admit the robbery at Osea?
Answer: Because he knew Julie Mugford had already told the police.
-
I find it hard to believe he would include Julie Mugford so much in his plans without actually getting her there as his alibi if he trusted her so much.
I regret to say that in that same situation I reckon at least 2 of my relatives would have given the same answers if they had been true. An arrogant murdering liar would just have discredited his girlfriend and immediately got the men on side with tales about what a neurotic nightmare she's been since they'd split up.
-
I find it hard to believe he would include Julie Mugford so much in his plans without actually getting her there as his alibi if he trusted her so much.
I regret to say that in that same situation I reckon at least 2 of my relatives would have given the same answers if they had been true. An arrogant murdering liar would just have discredited his girlfriend and immediately got the men on side with tales about what a neurotic nightmare she's been since they'd split up.
He had been telling her for months how much he hated his family and it became second nature to him. I take it you are familiar with the sleeping tablets incident and what followed? Jeremy took the opportunity that Sheila would be at the farmhouse with her sons to bump them all off. If Julie had been at Goldhanger I doubt very much he would have done it. I think Julie just played along with his rantings for a quiet life.
-
Yes, doesn't really help himself by announcing that incite, does he?!
Thank you both for the explanation of the window. I grew up with sash windows with rotating locks: it's interesting to see how easily they can be opened with a knife, but I would have though impossible to close again from the outside. I still wouldn't have thought it was easy to shut the casement window: although it might be theoretically possible on a new catch, the building looks like so many period buildings I've experienced where in reality it's had so many layers of paint it would be quite stiff, and it would also require a latch half way up the window to be pulled down: isn't this the window the police looked through, with the lights on whilst they were in darkness outside? If so, it would have been possible to see the second latch not in place even in outline from a slight distance.
As I posted elsewhere, is it possible SC was lying in wait for JC to arrive, knowing his preferred entrance through a downstairs window? The'd both been to boarding school - this kind of thing happens quite a lot, and I can't imagine JC was the only teenager from that house who maybe went off to the pub without his parents knowing. Even a murderer being arrogant would spot the stupidity of announcing he went in and out of the house through the windows if they've set the scene to be a murder-suicide by someone inside.
One new thing I've just learned from Lee's book (p.190) is that although all the downstair's windows were checked to be secure by DCI Taff Jones at around 9:15am, they had also been examined earlier by two police officers who found the shower room and kitchen fanlight to be unfastened. One of them, Sgt Stephen Golding stated in his w/s that he secured both so that they couldn't be moved but failed to inform his superiors.
So JB could have parked his bike when he arrived near the Shower room window on the opposite side of the house to where the labrador was kept in a barn, so as not to disturb it. Then exited by the same window a lot more easily than the one in the kitchen, again without causing the dog to bark, jumped straight onto the bike, headed back home, and took a chance that the police wouldn't discover that the window was left unfastened.
There was no need for Sheila to wait with a rifle in Nevill's back while he phoned his son, or near the Shower room window had she killed mum, dad and her sons in advance. It makes no sense for her to beckon her brother over from 3 miles away in the middle of the night simply to kill him, because if she was determined to commit suicide, inherited money would be no use to her.
-
This is the reason a third party intruder has always been discounted from this case. Only Jeremy Bamber knew how to get in and out of a supposedly secure farmhouse and he was well practiced in the art. Curiously, Sheila was also known to climb out her bedroom window and shim down a strategically placed ladder so she could escape for a night out.
After the murders Jeremy had to gain access to the farmhouse before going abroad. Secretary Barbara Wilson kept the keys but Jerry didn't want to alert her in case she told the police so again entered the farmhouse via his favourite unsecured downstairs window. Some people might ask why admit to this? The simple answer is another question, why admit the robbery at Osea?
Answer: Because he knew Julie Mugford had already told the police.
A UK based jury would not return a verdict of guilty based on the fact JB was able to enter covertly and MIGHT have been able to exit covertly leaving a latch fully closed. Especially when initially EP signed off the windows and doors as locked securely from inside.
Pre modern windows it was not unusual for people to gain entry via windows when losing keys or locking themselves out or no one was around to let them in.
If JB is guilty why authorise EP to handover the keys to his relatives. Surely he would be eager to get in, seize control, and breathe a sigh of relief.
-
I posted the ide that she might have made NB call JB over because over the large number of familcides which have been studied since in other countries, it is a common feature to lie and wait for family members who are expected to visit in order to kill them as well. I cited an incident in May when a man even went and collected his unsuspecting niece so he could kill her too. A 'family annihilator' or someone who commits Familicide is not doing it for the money.
From Wikipedia:
"The internal logic for family annihilation can stem from a number of sources.
David Wilson of Birmingham City University has divided these cases into four groups: anomic, disappointed, self-righteous and paranoid.
In this typology, the anomic killer sees his family purely as a status symbol; when his economic status collapses, he sees them as surplus to requirements. The disappointed killer seeks to punish the family for not living up to his ideals of family life. The self-righteous killer destroys the family to exact revenge upon the mother, in an act that he blames on her. Finally, the paranoid killer kills their family in what they imagine to be an attempt to protect them from something even worse."
I would suggest SC fell into the fourth category.
-
If JB is guilty why authorise EP to handover the keys to his relatives. Surely he would be eager to get in, seize control, and breathe a sigh of relief.
Because he didn't want to go into WHF, frightened of seeing the remnants of his handiwork. He had to be coaxed by Ann Eaton to enter the bedrooms, more so the one where the twins slept!
-
But didn't she and Julie testify he also stared with terror at SC's bedroom, but she wasn't found dead in there - and as he hadn't asked where the bodies were found he wouldn't have known that.
Pretty damn casual if you're the murderer to let the world and his wife clean up the house: AE sounds like she was there like a Woolly Bear! (I have to say, the thing I find sickest of any of it - even sicker than the murders I'm afraid - it's AE getting her 8 year old daughter to help put new sheets on the Twins's beds a few days after they were murdered in them. AND THEN LIVING THERE??! I mean sheez: imagine cooking dinner every night standing right next to where your relative was murdered, or getting out of bed and putting your slippers on right on the spot a dead body lay &%+((£ )
If he was cold-blooded enough to plan and execute 5 murders and slug several shots into a sleeping child sucking his thumb, I can't believe he'd have any problem reviewing his handiwork: Mugford claimed it was an act - if so, it was pretty risky letting everyone else clean up and hit for evidence.
-
But that was all an act, just like his Oscar-losing performance at the funeral, so maybe you don't have much belief in what Bamber said to Julie at the cottage - "I should have been an actor!"
-
Sorry, should have said 'hunt' not 'hit'
I have a problem with the credibility of Julie as a witness, especially has her mates were other witnesses and a lot if them seem to revise their statements later so they corroborated. She did get the mercenary plumber spectacularly wrong and so would have been quite content to send that innocent man down if he hadn't been fortunate enough to have an alibi.
-
But didn't she and Julie testify he also stared with terror at SC's bedroom, but she wasn't found dead in there - and as he hadn't asked where the bodies were found he wouldn't have known that.
Pretty damn casual if you're the murderer to let the world and his wife clean up the house: AE sounds like she was there like a Woolly Bear! (I have to say, the thing I find sickest of any of it - even sicker than the murders I'm afraid - it's AE getting her 8 year old daughter to help put new sheets on the Twins's beds a few days after they were murdered in them. AND THEN LIVING THERE??! I mean sheez: imagine cooking dinner every night standing right next to where your relative was murdered, or getting out of bed and putting your slippers on right on the spot a dead body lay &%+((£ )
If he was cold-blooded enough to plan and execute 5 murders and slug several shots into a sleeping child sucking his thumb, I can't believe he'd have any problem reviewing his handiwork: Mugford claimed it was an act - if so, it was pretty risky letting everyone else clean up and hit for evidence.
I honestly do not think I could have brought myself to step inside WHF again whether I was JB or a member of the extended family.
P388 of CAL's book:
"In July [2001], a team of Metropolitan Police officers began a four-month investigation into the case, which included visiting White House Farm, then home to Ann Easton and her family, to take samples from areas of bloodstaining in the master bedroom for further DNA tests. Two areas of staining, one on the underlay by the door to the landing and another on the floorboards near the box room, tested positive for blood. They also took possession of a beside lamp which the officer in charge recognised from the original crime scene photographs, the rings June has been wearing on the night of her murder, and Sheila's jewellery box, containing a piece of her fingernail."
-
I posted the ide that she might have made NB call JB over because over the large number of familcides which have been studied since in other countries, it is a common feature to lie and wait for family members who are expected to visit in order to kill them as well. I cited an incident in May when a man even went and collected his unsuspecting niece so he could kill her too. A 'family annihilator' or someone who commits Familicide is not doing it for the money.
From Wikipedia:
"The internal logic for family annihilation can stem from a number of sources.
David Wilson of Birmingham City University has divided these cases into four groups: anomic, disappointed, self-righteous and paranoid.
In this typology, the anomic killer sees his family purely as a status symbol; when his economic status collapses, he sees them as surplus to requirements. The disappointed killer seeks to punish the family for not living up to his ideals of family life. The self-righteous killer destroys the family to exact revenge upon the mother, in an act that he blames on her. Finally, the paranoid killer kills their family in what they imagine to be an attempt to protect them from something even worse."
I would suggest SC fell into the fourth category.
I think in the end it will transpire that the root cause of the murders/suicide was an adoption that went wrong from the beginning (June's mental illness as a result of her decision to adopt SC) with the catalyst being SC's reunion with her birth mother:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/understanding-adoptees-who-kill.php
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/catathymic-violence.php
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0195082737
Referred to in CAL's book P22:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primal-Wound-Understanding-adopted-child/dp/1905664761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438376711&sr=8-1&keywords=nancy+verrier
-
I think your fingers slipped and typed suicide by mistake. 8((()*/
-
I honestly do not think I could have brought myself to step inside WHF again whether I was JB or a member of the extended family.
P388 of CAL's book:
"In July [2001], a team of Metropolitan Police officers began a four-month investigation into the case, which included visiting White House Farm, then home to Ann Easton and her family, to take samples from areas of bloodstaining in the master bedroom for further DNA tests. Two areas of staining, one on the underlay by the door to the landing and another on the floorboards near the box room, tested positive for blood. They also took possession of a beside lamp which the officer in charge recognised from the original crime scene photographs, the rings June has been wearing on the night of her murder, and Sheila's jewellery box, containing a piece of her fingernail."
Quite. One wonders whether Bamber was the only person with a motive, an opportunity and the correct disposition . . .
-
One new thing I've just learned from Lee's book (p.190) is that although all the downstair's windows were checked to be secure by DCI Taff Jones at around 9:15am, they had also been examined earlier by two police officers who found the shower room and kitchen fanlight to be unfastened. One of them, Sgt Stephen Golding stated in his w/s that he secured both so that they couldn't be moved but failed to inform his superiors.
So JB could have parked his bike when he arrived near the Shower room window on the opposite side of the house to where the labrador was kept in a barn, so as not to disturb it. Then exited by the same window a lot more easily than the one in the kitchen, again without causing the dog to bark, jumped straight onto the bike, headed back home, and took a chance that the police wouldn't discover that the window was left unfastened.
There was no need for Sheila to wait with a rifle in Nevill's back while he phoned his son, or near the Shower room window had she killed mum, dad and her sons in advance. It makes no sense for her to beckon her brother over from 3 miles away in the middle of the night simply to kill him, because if she was determined to commit suicide, inherited money would be no use to her.
Excellent work Myster. 8((()*/ The only avenue left to Jerry and his believers is to attempt to discredit Sheila but it won't work.
-
A UK based jury would not return a verdict of guilty based on the fact JB was able to enter covertly and MIGHT have been able to exit covertly leaving a latch fully closed. Especially when initially EP signed off the windows and doors as locked securely from inside.
Pre modern windows it was not unusual for people to gain entry via windows when losing keys or locking themselves out or no one was around to let them in.
If JB is guilty why authorise EP to handover the keys to his relatives. Surely he would be eager to get in, seize control, and breathe a sigh of relief.
A jury would look at the evidence and come to the one and only conclusion available to them. Only one person was capable of getting into and out of the locked and secure farmhouse and that was Jerry.
He planned to implicate Sheila from the outset otherwise he would have faked a break and entry. The script he used when he initially phoned Essex Police and thereafter when first confronted by them at the farmhouse all point to this.
-
A jury would look at the evidence and come to the one and only conclusion available to them. Only one person was capable of getting into and out of the locked and secure farmhouse and that was Jerry.
He planned to implicate Sheila from the outset otherwise he would have faked a break and entry. The script he used when he initially phoned Essex Police and thereafter when first confronted by them at the farmhouse all point to this.
Not necessarily: NB could have called JB under duress at gunpoint or it could even be the case someone pretended to be NB and called JB, hoping to lure him up there as well. Apparently I've stunned both my aunt and cousin several times when I've phoned them - we have very little phone contact generally - because for a few moments they thought it was my mother (whom they spoke to regularly) - who is dead: apparently we sound quite alike.
If one person entered the house by the window, anyone could.
-
Then the caller must have been a good impressionist to convince Jeremy he was his dad!
First audio/video at 00:25... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
-
Then the caller must have been a good impressionist to convince Jeremy he was his dad!
First audio/video at 00:25... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
I don't think we can take the suggestion that Nevill was forced to phone Jeremy too seriously since what was June doing whilst her husband was being threatened at gunpoint?
The evidence is clear on this point, June was shot several times while she lay in bed and only ever managed a few steps towards the bedroom door before she collapsed.
-
Excellent work Myster. 8((()*/ The only avenue left to Jerry and his believers is to attempt to discredit Sheila but it won't work.
Agree and disagree. Discrediting Sheila will not work but discrediting the silencer will.
-
One new thing I've just learned from Lee's book (p.190) is that although all the downstair's windows were checked to be secure by DCI Taff Jones at around 9:15am, they had also been examined earlier by two police officers who found the shower room and kitchen fanlight to be unfastened. One of them, Sgt Stephen Golding stated in his w/s that he secured both so that they couldn't be moved but failed to inform his superiors.
So JBcould have parked his bike when he arrived near the Shower room window on the opposite side of the house to where the labrador was kept in a barn, so as not to disturb it. Then exited by the same window a lot more easily than the one in the kitchen, again without causing the dog to bark, jumped straight onto the bike, headed back home, and took a chance that the police wouldn't discover that the window was left unfastened.
There was no need for Sheila to wait with a rifle in Nevill's back while he phoned his son, or near the Shower room window had she killed mum, dad and her sons in advance. It makes no sense for her to beckon her brother over from 3 miles away in the middle of the night simply to kill him, because if she was determined to commit suicide, inherited money would be no use to her.
Could being the operative word 8((()*/
P249 of CAL's book tells that on 21st Aug DB Barlow visited WHF to examine the windows. He claimed that the kitchen window could be closed from outside and the catch dropped in the locked position.
In the COA doc the above is contradicted with:
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. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window.
-
An intruder (stranger) had no need to effect a covert entry and exit to the property. All they had to do was knock on the door. The murders were without any shadow of a doubt an INSIDE JOB!
Additionally, if someone had a grudge against the family and were intent upon mass murder they would not have entered the property and taken the risk of using unfamiliar weapons which they could not have necessarily known about in the first place. An outsider would have used a pistol which he knew and was familiar with.
This all taken together brings us back to Sheila and Jeremy and since the forensics rules out Sheila the rest is academic me Lord.
-
An intruder (stranger) had no need to effect a covert entry and exit to the property. All they had to do was knock on the door. The murders were without any shadow of a doubt an INSIDE JOB!
Additionally, if someone had a grudge against the family and were intent upon mass murder they would not have entered the property and taken the risk of using unfamiliar weapons which they could not have necessarily known about in the first place. An outsider would have used a pistol which he knew and was familiar with.
This all taken together brings us back to Sheila and Jeremy and since the forensics rules out Sheila the rest is academic me Lord.
You are too logical Angelo, surely he couldn't have been so naive as to think Essex Police would fall for it? Oh I forgot...some of them did didn't they?
-
I don't think we can take the suggestion that Nevill was forced to phone Jeremy too seriously since what was June doing whilst her husband was being threatened at gunpoint?
The evidence is clear on this point, June was shot several times while she lay in bed and only ever managed a few steps towards the bedroom door before she collapsed.
I would imagine June was trying to crawl off the bed towards the door/landing. Until SC returned to do the shot between the eyes: deeply personal that. Bear in mind that her illness caused her to think her nearest and dearest were actually being taken over by the devil.
-
73. 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. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
Pity DC Barlow only commented on the sash windows. Which window is JB supposed to have exited by and was it sash?
-
73. 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. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
Pity DC Barlow only commented on the sash windows. Which window is JB supposed to have exited by and was it sash?
Not sure what point you're trying to make here?
Is this the side-hung opening casement window in the kitchen? ... which is the one he is thought to have exited, or the shower room sash window where he got in? Or a different window altogether?
-
Not sure what point you're trying to make here?
Is this the side-hung opening casement window in the kitchen? ... which is the one he is thought to have exited, or the shower room sash window where he got in? Or a different window altogether?
The point I was endeavouring to make was to reassess the windows based on DC Barlow's post trial revelations ie was the window JB supposedly exited sash or not?
The windows in the red brick part of the house don't give the appearance of sash?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=88.msg752#msg752
Anyway I can see the window he supposedly exited was a casing window:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg25947#msg25947
-
That's right... on the kitchen side in the red brick part, all six windows are "mock-Georgian" hinged casements, but in the grey brick part to the right of the photo are two of the older sliding-sash type...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg19595#msg19595 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg19595#msg19595)
In one of the recent books, probably CAL's, JB refers to the kitchen window latch only dropping down to an 8 o'clock position when it was banged shut from outside. This is the larger window to the right in the photo attached. At first when his escape route was discussed I thought he had exited by that small open fanlight to the left, which would have been a struggle, if not impossible. Scipio suggested that it was the former larger window he first exited, banged that to, and then fastened its latch securely by reaching through the small fanlight. He then banged the fanlight to so that its bottom stay fell into place. But the simpler way would have been to just get out through the larger one, bang that to and hope the centre latch would drop down far enough to make it appear to police investigators that it was secure.
Any noise he made to disturb Bruce in the nearby barn wouldn't have mattered because all his family were dead. The nearest locals in Pages Lane were at a safe distance and not in earshot as well, so unlikely to have been woken up by any barking or window banging.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That's right... on the kitchen side in the red brick part, all six windows are "mock-Georgian" hinged casements, but in the grey brick part to the right of the photo are two of the older sliding-sash type...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg19595#msg19595 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg19595#msg19595)
In one of the recent books, probably CAL's, JB refers to the kitchen window latch only dropping down to an 8 o'clock position when it was banged shut from outside. This is the larger window to the right in the photo attached. At first when his escape route was discussed I thought he had exited by that small open fanlight to the left, which would have been a struggle, if not impossible. Scipio suggested that it was the former larger window he first exited, banged that to, and then fastened its latch securely by reaching through the small fanlight. He then banged the fanlight to so that its bottom stay fell into place. But the simpler way would have been to just get out through the larger one, bang that to and hope the centre latch would drop down far enough to make it appear to police investigators that it was secure.
Any noise he made to disturb Bruce in the nearby barn wouldn't have mattered because all his family were dead. The nearest locals in Pages Lane were at a safe distance and not in earshot as well, so unlikely to have been woken up by any barking or window banging.
I think I can see the rusty hacksaw blade resting on the bird bath/table &%+((£
I need to find my source re the window with cobwebs and wire mesh and I'll be back.
-
I think I can see the rusty hacksaw blade resting on the bird bath/table &%+((£
I need to find my source re the window with cobwebs and wire mesh and I'll be back.
Pffft!.. and I can see Brett Collins in a dress through the kitchen window. The hacksaw blade was found on the opposite side of the house, on the ground below the shower room window.
I think CAL mentioned the Dairy room window had mesh over it and was slightly open.*
* EDIT: page 159
-
Could being the operative word 8((()*/
P249 of CAL's book tells that on 21st Aug DB Barlow visited WHF to examine the windows. He claimed that the kitchen window could be closed from outside and the catch dropped in the locked position.
In the COA doc the above is contradicted with:
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. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window.
Your reading comprehension skills are quite lacking. No where does the COA language you posted or any other language from that decision state that Barlow failed to find the window could not be locked from the outside. It simply states he went there to check the window because the family told him it could be locked from the outside. It doesn't anywhere suggest he failed to find out it could be locked as they claimed. In fact he found that it could be locked as they claimed.
The Dickinson report expressly references his pocketbook:
-
73. 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. 275. It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
Pity DC Barlow only commented on the sash windows. Which window is JB supposed to have exited by and was it sash?
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?
-
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.
-
From the Campaign Team site:
How we’ve spent your money so far… 17.02.17
Because of the appeals process, we cannot publicly disclose forensic reports. There is of course a need for a certain amount of transparency but this has to be countered with keeping valuable forensic information confidential. Without legal advice it would not be in Jeremy’s best interests to publicise the very material which will lead to Jeremy’s conviction being overturned. Many forensic scientists do not want to engage with media and feel that the appeal court might perceive their contribution to campaign publicity as partisan. All of the reports funded by public donations are generously carried out at ‘cost’ by forensic scientists.
1. Public donations have paid for forensic work on the ‘Suicide note of Sheila Caffell,’ which has been completed and has opened up new lines of enquiry, warranting full disclosure of other samples of Sheila’s handwriting from Essex police, including personal letters; diaries and the disturbingly altered Marianne Faithful lyrics.
2. The window catch issue, which proves that the jury were misled over Jeremy’s possible entry to the house on the night of the tragedies. Work on this report but has not yet been undertaken and should be carried out during the spring/summer the funding for this comes from donations.
3. Two other ‘at cost’ reports have been commissioned and funded by public contributions, however neither of these reports, nor the issues they pertain to can be made public.
4. Other forensic work has been arranged pro-bono and could take a year or more to be completed.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public
No 2. It seems the question of Jeremy being able to access what appeared to have been a locked and secured farmhouse appears to be a big problem for the campaign team. Not surprising really given that Bamber has already admitted he could enter and leave the farmhouse at will and in fact did so weeks after the murders in order to retrieve his passport or at least that is what he claimed.
-
From the Campaign Team site:
How we’ve spent your money so far… 17.02.17
Because of the appeals process, we cannot publicly disclose forensic reports. There is of course a need for a certain amount of transparency but this has to be countered with keeping valuable forensic information confidential. Without legal advice it would not be in Jeremy’s best interests to publicise the very material which will lead to Jeremy’s conviction being overturned. Many forensic scientists do not want to engage with media and feel that the appeal court might perceive their contribution to campaign publicity as partisan. All of the reports funded by public donations are generously carried out at ‘cost’ by forensic scientists.
1. Public donations have paid for forensic work on the ‘Suicide note of Sheila Caffell,’ which has been completed and has opened up new lines of enquiry, warranting full disclosure of other samples of Sheila’s handwriting from Essex police, including personal letters; diaries and the disturbingly altered Marianne Faithful lyrics.
2. The window catch issue, which proves that the jury were misled over Jeremy’s possible entry to the house on the night of the tragedies. Work on this report but has not yet been undertaken and should be carried out during the spring/summer the funding for this comes from donations.
3. Two other ‘at cost’ reports have been commissioned and funded by public contributions, however neither of these reports, nor the issues they pertain to can be made public.
4. Other forensic work has been arranged pro-bono and could take a year or more to be completed.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public
No 2. It seems the question of Jeremy being able to access what appeared to have been a locked and secured farmhouse appears to be a big problem for the campaign team. Not surprising really given that Bamber has already admitted he could enter and leave the farmhouse at will and in fact did so weeks after the murders in order to retrieve his passport or at least that is what he claimed.
How we've spent your pension so far....
A conservatory.
A gastric band.
15 ploughman's lunches for a fat bloke.
2 tins of touch-up roots spray.
Some Spanx.