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 January 24, 2015, 09:41:59 AM
-
Policemen testified he told them on the massacre night, he phoned Witham police station. But got no answer. However when testifying Bamber he said he did not phone Witham police station.
The judge rightly poured scorn on this in his summing up.
One thing is for sure, Witham police station said they received no phone call from Bamber. However Chelmsford police station got through to Witham police station straight away.
Either the police are lying, or Bamber did tell them he had phoned Witham police station. Probably to justify why he was phoning Chelmsford police station, which was 30 odd miles away.
It is likely that Bamber volunteered this information to the police. The police are hardly likely to say 'why are you calling us ?'
I know he was in panic after Neville's call, but he must know who he had phoned a few minutes earlier. Which makes him denying it under oath strange.
Perhaps Bamber got inside knowledge that the Witham police station phone was manned all that night. So saying he called would just be proved to be wrong. Either way he was in a tangle.
There is nothing on the Official Site on this. Be good to know Bamber's stance now.
71
-
Why woudl he have told police he called Witham first unless he did and how coudl he know they had been out of the station and no one to answer unless he did try to call?
He either forgot he called Witham first or he intentionally decided to leave it out because it makes things look worse for him. He was pressed as to why he didn't call 999. He shoudl have dialed 999 not looke dup police stations because that loses precious time. But if you do look up a police station and find it empty you will fear they are all going to be empty at night and surely at that point should dial 999. So it sounds better to leave it out than to say he looked up the number of multiple police stations.
-
Why woudl he have told police he called Witham first unless he did and how coudl he know they had been out of the station and no one to answer unless he did try to call?
He either forgot he called Witham first or he intentionally decided to leave it out because it makes things look worse for him. He was pressed as to why he didn't call 999. He shoudl have dialed 999 not looke dup police stations because that loses precious time. But if you do look up a police station and find it empty you will fear they are all going to be empty at night and surely at that point should dial 999. So it sounds better to leave it out than to say he looked up the number of multiple police stations.
The reason he volunteered this information to the police on the night, was to justify why he had called Chelmsford. Which was nearly 30 miles away. There were three police stations which were nearer. Bamber was trying to delay things as long as possible.
He assumed it would not become an issue. However at trial he made a complete U turn and said he did not call Witham. Probably because officers at Witham could confirm the phone was manned all night, highlighted by Chelmsford getting through to them straight away.
-
The reason he volunteered this information to the police on the night, was to justify why he had called Chelmsford. Which was nearly 30 miles away. There were three police stations which were nearer. Bamber was trying to delay things as long as possible.
He assumed it would not become an issue. However at trial he made a complete U turn and said he did call Witham. Probably because officers at Witham could confirm the phone was manned all night, highlighted by Chelmsford getting through to them straight away.
Chelmsford got through because they returned ot the staiton by the time Chelmsford called. They were not availabel to answer the phone prior when Jeremy claimed he called. How would he have known they were not their to answer was he a msystic? If so he could have made up alot better things and avoided staging too many bullets.
His delay was a delay in calling police. There isn't evidence he intentioanlly chose to call a station far away so they would take longer to respond.
-
Chelmsford got through because they returned ot the staiton by the time Chelmsford called. They were not availabel to answer the phone prior when Jeremy claimed he called. How would he have known they were not their to answer was he a msystic? If so he could have made up alot better things and avoided staging too many bullets.
His delay was a delay in calling police. There isn't evidence he intentioanlly chose to call a station far away so they would take longer to respond.
Have you got a source from an officer from Witham saying they were out of the station 2 - 5 minutes prior to Chelmsford phoning them and getting through ?
Seems like one of the judges curious coincidences that Bamber got no answer but Chelmsford did.
Why would Bamber say to police on the night he phoned Witham, and then testify at court that he didn't ?
-
Have you got a source from an officer from Witham saying they were out of the station 2 - 5 minutes prior to Chelmsford phoning them and getting through ?
Seems like one of the judges curious coincidences that Bamber got no answer but Chelmsford did.
Why would Bamber say to police on the night he phoned Witham, and then testify at court that he didn't ?
They were quoted as saying they recently got back to the station from patrolling when the call came in from Chelmsford.
-
I believe he did phone Witham and got no reply. Chelmsford got through to them easily using the police radio.
-
They were quoted as saying they recently got back to the station from patrolling when the call came in from Chelmsford.
As my previous post says, have you got a source ?
And why would Bamber make a 360 degree turn and testify he did not phone Witham ?
-
I believe he did phone Witham and got no reply. Chelmsford got through to them easily using the police radio.
Was Witham police station open ? Thought police stations were open 24/7.
There were certainly police cars despatched to WHF from Witham. Assumed the phone would be constantly manned, it was certainly answered after Chelmsford called. Which was very soon after Bamber's alleged unanswered call.
-
Was Witham police station open ? Thought police stations were open 24/7.
There were certainly police cars despatched to WHF from Witham. Assumed the phone would be constantly manned, it was certainly answered after Chelmsford called. Which was very soon after Bamber's alleged unanswered call.
The police statements are the source. They stated they got back to Witham from patrolling and a very short time after getting back is when one of them personally fielded the call from Chelmsford. They then apparently left the station empty again upon leaving. A dispatcher didn't answer they did. I can't imagine why they would have answered the phone if there was a 24/7 dispatcher on duty.
-
You would think that any calls to an unmanned police station would be automatically diverted to police headquarters, possibly not a feature of the old BT system in 1985.
-
You would think that any calls to an unmanned police station would be automatically diverted to police headquarters, possibly not a feature of the old BT system in 1985.
Even now that is not the case in the US. If a dispatcher is too busy to answer you get an automated message saying if it is an emergency then dial 911 or press button to be transferred to 911. More or less you call a station when you have a non-emergency and 911 if you have an emergency situation.
-
Jeremy probably knew that Witham was normally manned at night. Unfortunately, the officers were out when he called.
-
Jeremy probably knew that Witham was normally manned at night. Unfortunately, the officers were out when he called.
He probably just assumed the phone would be manned 24/7 at all police stations. It seems that a lot of people assume that.
-
Time/Miles as per AA route planner to Tolleshunt D'Arcy:
Minutes: Miles:
Chelmsford 0.39 21.1
Maldon 0.20 7.2
Tiptree 0.10 3.8
Witham 0.27 11.1
The other options - 999
Call relatives.
Call the Foakes's.
Go 'quickly' to WHF. As asked.
Call directory enquiries.
A combination of these.
It does seem strange that he ended up speaking to Chelmsford if he assumed all police stations would be manned.
The main explanation being that he was trying to delay things as much as possible. Or that he knew Chelmsford went near his cottage and could pick him up. Enhancing his alibi attempt.
It is even stranger he told police he phoned Witham then said he did not phone them under oath a year later.
-
I'm troubled by him asking the police to pick him up: this does sound horribly like trying to establish an alibi.
But back in 1985 I lived in a village which still had a police house and a policeman and his family living in it: it occurs to me that we had that phone number down on the list of emergency numbers by the phone and I'd have been more inclined to phone him than 999 to a national level call centre if I wanted help quickly: rural roads were far crappier back then to navigate. It's easy to forget the difference it made having closer access to police officers. A local would be more likely to find the remote farm as well.
Would he perhaps have phoned Witham because his father was a Magistrate there?
I suppose he was vindicated for dialling these police stations rather than 999 as ultimately these are indeed where cars were dispatched from. I've checked on Mappy.com
http://en.mappy.com/#/2/M2/TItinerary/IFRChelmsford%20CM1%201%20-%20SS5%206|TOTolleshunt%20D'Arcy%20CM9%208|GP1.355/N0,0,-0.09691,51.51666/Z7/ (http://en.mappy.com/#/2/M2/TItinerary/IFRChelmsford%20CM1%201%20-%20SS5%206|TOTolleshunt%20D'Arcy%20CM9%208|GP1.355/N0,0,-0.09691,51.51666/Z7/)
And the journey from Chelmsford is via Witham and is 20 miles to Tollshunt d'Arcy, via the A12 taking 35 mins at normal speeds.
The journey from Witham is 10 miles and would take 23 mins. Chris Bew was dispatched from Witham but reckons he got there 20mins before Bamber, which is rather odd given he overtook him on the way there and the whole journey from Goldhanger to Tollshunt d'Arcy is only 6 mins at normal speeds
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI)
I'm not quite sure how they came to be overtaking Bamber, given the most direct route from Witham is through country lanes via Tolleshunt Major and the quickest is up the A12 and down via Tiptree - and neither seems to afford much opportunity to overlap Bamber's route except the very end, which would mean he would arrive only a minute or two after them, not 20 mins later.
This Bew character seems rather shifty to me.
-
I'm troubled by him asking the police to pick him up: this does sound horribly like trying to establish an alibi.
But back in 1985 I lived in a village which still had a police house and a policeman and his family living in it: it occurs to me that we had that phone number down on the list of emergency numbers by the phone and I'd have been more inclined to phone him than 999 to a national level call centre if I wanted help quickly: rural roads were far crappier back then to navigate. It's easy to forget the difference it made having closer access to police officers. A local would be more likely to find the remote farm as well.
Would he perhaps have phoned Witham because his father was a Magistrate there?
I suppose he was vindicated for dialling these police stations rather than 999 as ultimately these are indeed where cars were dispatched from. I've checked on Mappy.com
http://en.mappy.com/#/2/M2/TItinerary/IFRChelmsford%20CM1%201%20-%20SS5%206|TOTolleshunt%20D'Arcy%20CM9%208|GP1.355/N0,0,-0.09691,51.51666/Z7/ (http://en.mappy.com/#/2/M2/TItinerary/IFRChelmsford%20CM1%201%20-%20SS5%206|TOTolleshunt%20D'Arcy%20CM9%208|GP1.355/N0,0,-0.09691,51.51666/Z7/)
And the journey from Chelmsford is via Witham and is 20 miles to Tollshunt d'Arcy, via the A12 taking 35 mins at normal speeds.
The journey from Witham is 10 miles and would take 23 mins. Chris Bew was dispatched from Witham but reckons he got there 20mins before Bamber, which is rather odd given he overtook him on the way there and the whole journey from Goldhanger to Tollshunt d'Arcy is only 6 mins at normal speeds
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI)
I'm not quite sure how they came to be overtaking Bamber, given the most direct route from Witham is through country lanes via Tolleshunt Major and the quickest is up the A12 and down via Tiptree - and neither seems to afford much opportunity to overlap Bamber's route except the very end, which would mean he would arrive only a minute or two after them, not 20 mins later.
This Bew character seems rather shifty to me.
P-b, Hi. Jeremy's local cop shops would have been Tollesbury, which certainly, like other rural stations, wouldn't have been manned 24 hrs, Tiptree or Maldon. Whilst Witham and Chelmsford both had cars on site, there would have been no guarantee that there were cars available. I imagine the route they would have taken, from either Witham or Chelmsford, was to Maldon, dropping down to Heybridge which would take them past the top of Head Street. Taking the A12 through Kelvedon to Tiptree, unless they'd been dispatched from Colchester, would have taken them a long way past D'Arcy and they'd have needed to double back. I have always called 999 if I'd calculated there was something happening which was beyond my capabilities to fix, but my responsibility to do something about. Being told someone had gone mad and had got hold of a gun would definitely have come under my heading of IMMEDIATE emergency.
-
As I have also done on a few occasions, and I think most rational and sensible people would do, not faff about for ten minutes thumbing through a phone directory for a local number (as Bamber admitted doing when interviewed), knowing that his dad's life was in danger.
Extract from 'In Search Of The Rainbow's End' by Colin Caffell...
(http://i.imgur.com/7WOS8Oq.jpg?2)
Extract from recent correspondence with Paul Harrison...
"Dad certainly was not injured when he spoke to me. I think that having phoned me and the police that Dad went upstairs to calm Sheila down and it was at that point that Dad got wounded."
I know which version I'd go for as being a true recollection.
-
Thank you both: hmm, not so good really. Though his second version is the scenario I thought most likely if true, Myster and the evidence of CC's book is second-hand and certainly not impartial.
-
As I have also done on a few occasions, and I think most rational and sensible people would do, not faff about for ten minutes thumbing through a phone directory for a local number (as Bamber admitted doing when interviewed), knowing that his dad's life was in danger.
Extract from 'In Search Of The Rainbow's End' by Colin Caffell...
(http://i.imgur.com/7WOS8Oq.jpg?2)
Extract from recent correspondence with Paul Harrison...
"Dad certainly was not injured when he spoke to me. I think that having phoned me and the police that Dad went upstairs to calm Sheila down and it was at that point that Dad got wounded."
I know which version I'd go for as being a true recollection.
AE's and JB's WS's make no ref to NB sounding injured:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2189
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566
I have every sympathy for CC but it is far easier for him to see his former brother-in-law as murdering his twin sons than his former wife and mother to the twins.
Sadly this is a theme of this case eg when Dr F heard the trial verdict on the news and said he was glad it wasn't SC after all. Well of course he would be glad as if JB had been found not guilty Dr F's professional judgement would have fallen under the spotlight.
-
AE's and JB's WS's make no ref to NB sounding injured:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2189
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566
I have every sympathy for CC but it is far easier for him to see his former brother-in-law as murdering his twin sons than his former wife and mother to the twins.
Sadly this is a theme of this case eg when Dr F heard the trial verdict on the news and said he was glad it wasn't SC after all. Well of course he would be glad as if JB had been found not guilty Dr F's professional judgement would have fallen under the spotlight.
None of the police logs make ref to NB sounding injured. If they did I think firearms would have been called out straight away and/or PS Bews would have called for firearms sooner than he did.
-
Funnily enough Holly, from what I've been reading about family annihilators, if it was SC it would quite likely been the regrettable situation between her and CC that would have triggered it rather than something at the farm.
Page 46:
https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/bitstream/10155/263/1/Fleming_Katie.pdf (https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/bitstream/10155/263/1/Fleming_Katie.pdf)
Financial hardship and separation leading to an uncertain place in the family hierarchy seemingly important factors.
Not sure how noble it was of her family and ex-husband to leave her applying for cleaning jobs whilst suffering schizophrenia and looking after children only just old enough for school. (Possibly they were giving her enough money but she needed more for a drug habit?)
Myster I'm not sure why it was in JB's interests to claim he was sure his father had been shot prior to the phonecall if it was a bluff: if anything he was trying to prove his father was alive. Unless it was a genuinely held belief I don't see why he would bother saying it? Is there any primary evidence for him saying it?
-
None of the police logs make ref to NB sounding injured. If they did I think firearms would have been called out straight away and/or PS Bews would have called for firearms sooner than he did.
And mentioning a firearm and injury in the same breath would surely trigger an ambulance.
-
I still maintain the quickest route from Witham was up the A12 and then down the B road instead of all those little twisting lanes. And I still don't see how Bews could have got there 20 mins earlier than JB after passing him on the road doing a 6min journey: he must be exaggerating at best. Does anyone know where a 999 call would have been handled, at national level or a regional exchange?
-
I still maintain the quickest route from Witham was up the A12 and then down the B road instead of all those little twisting lanes. And I still don't see how Bews could have got there 20 mins earlier than JB after passing him on the road doing a 6min journey: he must be exaggerating at best. Does anyone know where a 999 call would have been handled, at national level or a regional exchange?
Still not sure about the calls, but there is a video, on the videos thread showing logs.
-
I still maintain the quickest route from Witham was up the A12 and then down the B road instead of all those little twisting lanes. And I still don't see how Bews could have got there 20 mins earlier than JB after passing him on the road doing a 6min journey: he must be exaggerating at best. Does anyone know where a 999 call would have been handled, at national level or a regional exchange?
999 would have been a regional/local dedicated line, in these days. The message would then go to the nearest station.
-
I cant remember where I saw it, but didn't NB use 999 to call?
The book is Jeremy's side of the story. Bias of course, as it is one side of the story, as taken from the website and published yesterday which was 30 year anniversary.
ETA: Sorry I got dates wrong for anniversary, but is coming up.
-
I still maintain the quickest route from Witham was up the A12 and then down the B road instead of all those little twisting lanes. And I still don't see how Bews could have got there 20 mins earlier than JB after passing him on the road doing a 6min journey: he must be exaggerating at best. Does anyone know where a 999 call would have been handled, at national level or a regional exchange?
Who said PS Bews arrived 20 mins before JB?
I think this explains how calls are routed and dealt with:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.msg1779#msg1779
Try this too:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.msg1786#msg1786
-
Who said PS Bews arrived 20 mins before JB?
I think this explains how calls are routed and dealt with:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.msg1779#msg1779
Try this too:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.msg1786#msg1786
Chris Bews said he arrived 20 mins before Bamber in an article in the East Anglia Daily News, as in my link higher up - herewith again.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI)
-
It is even stranger he told police he phoned Witham then said he did not phone them under oath a year later.
When people lie they tend to get their story mixed up after a while. He did the same thing with the phone call to Julie story in that he said one thing to police initially and then tripped himself up when it came to the interrogation.
-
On the new ebook " Jeremy Bamber Campaign" it shows logs that supposedly proves that Neville did phone the police before Jeremy, did.
-
When people lie they tend to get their story mixed up after a while. He did the same thing with the phone call to Julie story in that he said one thing to police initially and then tripped himself up when it came to the interrogation.
IF JB is innocent it would not be unusual to get mixed up when taking a call at circa 3am in the morning, having just woken up after a long day working on the farm, which turned into a living nightmare. Many, many people involved in this case have changed their stories over the years. Are they all lying? No people misunderstand, mishear, misinterpret and of course lie too 8(0(*
AE compiled a 3 page WS containing nothing other than misunderstandings etc. Why is it if a prosecution witness changes his/her position that's acceptable but if JB changes his position its seen as evidence of guilt? &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3169.msg118117#msg118117
-
When people lie they tend to get their story mixed up after a while. He did the same thing with the phone call to Julie story in that he said one thing to police initially and then tripped himself up when it came to the interrogation.
In that case Bew is lying?
-
Chris Bews said he arrived 20 mins before Bamber in an article in the East Anglia Daily News, as in my link higher up - herewith again.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/uk.legal/HeHfdy_asxI)
In that case Bew is lying?
No... just a poor memory after 20-30 years. Bamber pulled up behind Bews And Myall two minutes after they overtook him according to Wilkes (1995). In recent documentaries Bews said it was about 5 minutes, but then he was mistaken about the type of car too - a Vauxhall Astra became a Nova.
-
Well then if we allow one person a dodgy memory we should allow that to others. You'd think he would have recounted it so many times the neural pathway would be developed and he'd picture it in his brain. He's implying JB took about 40mins to do a 6min journey, which is quite a blot against JB, after all.
-
IF JB is innocent it would not be unusual to get mixed up when taking a call at circa 3am in the morning, having just woken up after a long day working on the farm, which turned into a living nightmare. Many, many people involved in this case have changed their stories over the years. Are they all lying? No people misunderstand, mishear, misinterpret and of course lie too 8(0(*
AE compiled a 3 page WS containing nothing other than misunderstandings etc. Why is it if a prosecution witness changes his/her position that's acceptable but if JB changes his position its seen as evidence of guilt? &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3169.msg118117#msg118117
Mistakes will always be made by onlookers and the innocent but it is more likely that inconsistencies will arise with the guilty. Always remembering and I accept this, not everyone who alters their recollection of events is lying.
It has to be remembered that Jeremy of all people should know every detail of what happened that night and all things being equal, he was best placed to recall memorable events. Getting basic facts wrong so soon after the event is an indicator of guilt imo.
-
Mistakes will always be made by onlookers and the innocent but it is more likely that inconsistencies will arise with the guilty. Always remembering and I accept this, not everyone who alters their recollection of events is lying.
It has to be remembered that Jeremy of all people should know every detail of what happened that night and all things being equal, he was best placed to recall memorable events. Getting basic facts wrong so soon after the event is an indicator of guilt imo.
On the contrary, when I did jury service I thought it quite amazing how completely differently all the witnesses remembered the same event, even if they were just passers-by with no agenda.
I think getting it perfect every time is more likely to show it was rehearsed. Haven't you ever re countered an annecdote and immediately have someone else who was there correct you on a detail?
-
No one seems to have noticed that Ann Eaton said Bamber told the police on the morning of the 7th that he had called Witham. It's on about p.26 of her 08 Sep 85 statement I think.
-
No one seems to have noticed that Ann Eaton said Bamber told the police on the morning of the 7th that he had called Witham. It's on about p.26 of her 08 Sep 85 statement I think.
I did! It's here with her WS. Also PC West makes the same claim. I find AE's a bit ambiguous, is she saying he called Witham or he said he didn't call Witham as he knew it was unmanned? Whether he called Witham or not I don't see what it proves or disproves?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5559.msg275200#msg275200
And I don't understand the argument he was playing for time.
-
I did! It's here with her WS. Also PC West makes the same claim. I find AE's a bit ambiguous, is she saying he called Witham or he said he didn't call Witham as he knew it was unmanned? Whether he called Witham or not I don't see what it proves or disproves?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5559.msg275200#msg275200
And I don't understand the argument he was playing for time.
The argument, or problem, is this: if Nevill called at 3.00 a.m. (Bamber's time) how come it took him 26 minutes to call PC West at Chelmsford? By wasting time calling unmanned Witham and then more time looking up the number and calling Chelmsford, he could account for some of it. Calling Julie accounted for more (did he call her before or after he called the police? - he couldn't make his mind up which)as did returning Nevill's call.
But, there is a problem with the problem, which only just came to my notice. A guilty Bamber would know that when calling from WHF there would be no one to pick up at Bourtree Cottage. So he wouldn't actually call, just take the receiver off the hook. That means he was not tied to any particular time for Nevill's call and could just as easily have said he called at 3.20 or something. I haven't solved this problem yet but one idea is that he wanted the sound of the phone ringing to be heard in the other semi adjoining his. He could swing that by getting Julie to call him, letting the phone ring for a few minutes and then hanging up. He could then call her right back. That ties up well with the evidence of at least three people about the time of the fake call from Nevill to Bamber - 3.00 a.m. Bamber 3.02 a.m. batters by and perhaps 2.59 with of Julie's roommates.
-
The argument, or problem, is this: if Nevill called at 3.00 a.m. (Bamber's time) how come it took him 26 minutes to call PC West at Chelmsford? By wasting time calling unmanned Witham and then more time looking up the number and calling Chelmsford, he could account for some of it. Calling Julie accounted for more (did he call her before or after he called the police? - he couldn't make his mind up which)as did returning Nevill's call.
But, there is a problem with the problem, which only just came to my notice. A guilty Bamber would know that when calling from WHF there would be no one to pick up at Bourtree Cottage. So he wouldn't actually call, just take the receiver off the hook. That means he was not tied to any particular time for Nevill's call and could just as easily have said he called at 3.20 or something. I haven't solved this problem yet but one idea is that he wanted the sound of the phone ringing to be heard in the other semi adjoining his. He could swing that by getting Julie to call him, letting the phone ring for a few minutes and then hanging up. He could then call her right back. That ties up well with the evidence of at least three people about the time of the fake call from Nevill to Bamber - 3.00 a.m. Bamber 3.02 a.m. batters by and perhaps 2.59 with of Julie's roommates.
It's all too subjective. Was the neighbouring property even occupied? Perhaps they were on hol or working a night shift. Maybe deep sleepers and/or wore ear plugs. Perhaps the party wall was thick.
The times are hopelessly unreliable with most of the witnesses changing their times. When I have time I will go through the WS's and plot the witnesses with their times on a timeline coz I'm sad like that 8)><(
-
It's all too subjective. Was the neighbouring property even occupied? Perhaps they were on hol or working a night shift. Maybe deep sleepers and/or wore ear plugs. Perhaps the party wall was thick.
We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.
Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem. The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely. Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
The times are hopelessly unreliable with most of the witnesses changing their times. When I have time I will go through the WS's and plot the witnesses with their times on a timeline coz I'm sad like that 8)><(
It's a good thing to be sad about. Let me help. Bamber said Nevill called at three. He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton). He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.
In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:
Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)
Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime. The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call. It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.
-
p.14 of Ann Eaton's 1991 statement to the Stokenchurch enquiry - she says Bamber claimed he called or he knew they were on duty (meaning what?) 'Witham or Wickham Bishops' and that he then looked up the Chelmsford number.
When she asked him why he didn't call 999 he said he didn't think it was that important. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.
Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem. The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely. Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
It's a good thing to be sad about. Let me help. Bamber said Nevill called at three. He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton). He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.
In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:
Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)
Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime. The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call. It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.
There's no way to objectively analyse the time of the calls. As I said I will go through all the docs and put together a timeline when I have time but its not top of my priority list as nothing can ever be advanced here. The whole thing is a nonsense imo. Allow me to give you an example to illustrate the point: when JB and JM took SC home from CC's party on the 3rd Aug JB's WS gives the time as midnight. JM gives the time as 11.45pm. Nothing whatsoever sinister here just a typical recollection of time when asked retrospectively and not realising at the time it would have any significance.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4562
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1010
JB's WS of 7th Aug states NB called at 3.10am. SB WS of 10th Sep states JB called at 3.15am. Sometimes she kept her clock 10 mins fast but there's no clarification whether or not it was 10 mins fast that day. This sort of rubbish would never see the inside of a court today. Surely you can see how hopelessly unreliable it is?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659
-
p.14 of Ann Eaton's 1991 statement to the Stokenchurch enquiry - she says Bamber claimed he called or he knew they were on duty (meaning what?) 'Witham or Wickham Bishops' and that he then looked up the Chelmsford number.
When she asked him why he didn't call 999 he said he didn't think it was that important. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
As you said here hindsight is a wonderful thing 8((()*/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6629.msg273216#msg273216
If JB is innocent no one at the time had any idea SC had the the potential to become violent. It makes perfect sense to me why JB would not have dialled 999 but as I said its subjective.
-
We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.
Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem. The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely. Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
It's a good thing to be sad about. Let me help. Bamber said Nevill called at three. He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton). He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.
In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:
Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)
Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime. The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call. It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.
The timing of Jeremy's call to Julie must have been at or shortly after 3am. If you allow time for the long conversation which both of them testified took place then the 3.26am call to police makes sense. Both also agreed that Jeremy did not phone the police prior to his call to Julie so he had to have placed that call afterwards. Bearing in mind also that Julie told Jeremy to go back to bed she had to have thought he already was in bed when we now know he wasn't. That alone suggests to me that Julie thought he was mucking around and was making up the entire thing.
-
The timing of Jeremy's call to Julie must have been at or shortly after 3am. If you allow time for the long conversation which both of them testified took place then the 3.26am call to police makes sense. Both also agree that Jeremy did not phone the police prior to his call to Julie so he had to have placed that call afterwards. Bearing in mind also that Julie told Jeremy to go back to bed she had to have thought he already was in bed when we now know he wasn't.
Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess. To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie. After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.
-
Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess. To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie. After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.
That certainly doesn't make sense because it didn't happen, Jeremy concocted that story for Julie's benefit in order to back up his 'Sheila done it' fabrication which later morphed into the hitman story.
-
That certainly doesn't make sense because it didn't happen, Jeremy concocted that story for Julie's benefit in order to back up his 'Sheila done it' fabrication which later morphed into the hitman story.
I am not sure about your morphing there, Angelo. As I understand it, before the crime he has told her about the hit man but as the date drew nearer and the event happened (she is not terribly clear about when the shift occurred) she came to realise he was the killer. She never says he told her it really was Sheila.
You do raise an interesting question, though. Why did Bamber tell her the hit man story at all?
-
Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess. To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie. After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.
Jeremy said he phoned Julie "to hear a friendly voice" Hmmmmm! Don't know how friendly my voice would be if I'd been woken up and got out of bed circa 3.15 am to a phone call which said WHAT, exactly? It seems Jeremy didn't give her space to tell whether or not her voice was friendly. HE appeared to do most of the talking.
-
Jeremy said he phoned Julie "to hear a friendly voice" Hmmmmm! Don't know how friendly my voice would be if I'd been woken up and got out of bed circa 3.15 am to a phone call which said WHAT, exactly? It seems Jeremy didn't give her space to tell whether or not her voice was friendly. HE appeared to do most of the talking.
Where do you get that from April? Is that in one of Julie's statements?
Incidentally, while it's on my mind, is there a transcript out there of Bamber's trial evidence? It would be awesome to read that.
-
Where do you get that from April? Is that in one of Julie's statements?
Incidentally, while it's on my mind, is there a transcript out there of Bamber's trial evidence? It would be awesome to read that.
No, I THINK it's in Jeremy's. Ha ha! It would indeed be "awesome" to read. Can I suggest we put it on our wish list? You never know what Santa might have in his sack 8(0(*
-
Where do you get that from April? Is that in one of Julie's statements?
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=4080)
-
Thanks for that Myster. For someone who was facing five murder charges, his responses were appalling and most certainly not the actions of an innocent man. Arrogance personified imo.
ps he certainly messed up on his recollection of events.
-
A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event. No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.
And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 8(8-))
-
A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event. No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.
And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 8(8-))
Ta for that Myster. OK, I said "friendly voice", Jeremy said "friendly ear". One would have thought that the friendliest, indeed, the ONLY ear necessary, would have been the one which listened to his request for help when he made a 999 call.........................Oh, but he didn't make a 999 call, did he?
-
Ta for that Myster. OK, I said "friendly voice", Jeremy said "friendly ear". One would have thought that the friendliest, indeed, the ONLY ear necessary, would have been the one which listened to his request for help when he made a 999 call.........................Oh, but he didn't make a 999 call, did he?
You were also right though, because she told him to - "Go back to bed... Bye Honey!"
Why would Julie say that, if he'd rung the police beforehand (as confirmed under questioning) and they told him to drive over to WHF straight away?
Julie Mugford - w/s 8th. August 1985...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1012;image)
Julie Mugford - w/s 8/9th. September 1985...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1106;image)
-
A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event. No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.
And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 8(8-))
I'm not deeply troubled at all. Please see my posts on relevant thread or John will be placing me on the naughty steps for some severe punishment 8)><(
-
We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.
Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem. The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely. Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
It's a good thing to be sad about. Let me help. Bamber said Nevill called at three. He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton). He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.
In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:
Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)
Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime. The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call. It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.
Re Joanna Wood above (think it might be Woad) SB claims in her 10th Sept WS the occupants in the house on the night of 6th Aug were as follows:
Herself
JM
Helen Eaton
Douglas Dale
No mention of Joanne Woad:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659
And yet in the CoA doc:
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
-
Re Joanna Wood above (think it might be Woad) SB claims in her 10th Sept WS the occupants in the house on the night of 6th Aug were as follows:
Herself
JM
Helen Eaton
Douglas Dale
No mention of Joanne Woad:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659
And yet in the CoA doc:
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
Why no reference to Dale in the CA judgment?
-
Why no reference to Dale in the CA judgment?
There is a ref to DD in the CoA doc. You've surely just read it here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6654.msg275893#msg275893
-
SB's WS as follows states she did not speak with JM after the circa 3.15am call:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659
JM's WS as follows states she had a conversation with SB after the circa 3.15am call:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1106
Remind me who it was that said JM's WS's had "the ring of truth to them"? I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this BS. And who was Joanne or Joanna Wood or Woad?
-
There is a ref to DD in the CoA doc. You've surely just read it here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6654.msg275893#msg275893
Oh stop confusing me! You said he answered the call but it's not clear that's true. How many people besides Julie were there in the house? Three or four?
-
Oh stop confusing me! You said he answered the call but it's not clear that's true. How many people besides Julie were there in the house? Three or four?
Exactly...who was in the house? I know students come and go and have friends stay over but its all getting very confusing. SB's WS gives her address as 42 Caterham Road. She states it was a 3 bed semi with one of the downstairs rooms a bedroom. So effectively 4 bedrooms. She moved in during Sep 84. At this time other occupants included: JM, Jim Richards and Charles Thackway. On 6th Aug she claims the property was occupied by herself, JM, Doug Dale and Helen Eaton. On 10th Sept she claims the property was occupied by herself, JM, John Dyer and Charles Thackway.
Charles Thackway seemed to be a permanent resident and yet he was not around on 6th Aug? What was the connection with Helen Eaton? Who was Joanna or Joanne Woad or Wood?
-
Oh stop confusing me! You said he answered the call but it's not clear that's true. How many people besides Julie were there in the house? Three or four?
I said DD answered the circa 3.15am call based on JM's WS but I also highlighted the CoA doc which refers to DD's WS and based on the excerpt he makes no ref to answering the call. If we had his full WS we might be able to resolve.
I'm prepared to accept witnesses get muddled about the time, that's understandable, but they surely must recall which one of the 4 or 5 occupants took a tel call from JB at circa 3.15am on a weekday? Especially when the full horror of it all became apparent the following day.
-
SB's WS as follows states she did not speak with JM after the circa 3.15am call:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659
JM's WS as follows states she had a conversation with SB after the circa 3.15am call:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1106
Remind me who it was that said JM's WS's had "the ring of truth to them"? I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this BS. And who was Joanne or Joanna Wood or Woad?
I've just noted something odd, throughout JM's WS's, or certainly those linked to the one above, she refers to JB as Jeremy and yet when she refers to the section I've highlighted above on pages 10 and 11 she refers to him as Jerry and then reverts back to Jeremy. &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.msg4962#msg4962
I wonder if these are the WS's that JB's defence read?
-
OMG I cant believe I'm still ploughing through these WS's it must be connected to my OCD 8)><(
In the following WS JM states she was mistaken about Douglas Dale taking the circa 3.15am call she answered it herself. It was DD who answered the circa 5.40am call.
I guess those who believe JB guilty and JM told the truth the whole truth and nothing but thats ok if she was mistaken? Yet if JB is mistaken with whether he called JM or EP first that is somehow indicative of guilt? Lol
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=286.0;attach=1152
She seems to refer to JB as Jeremy in all her WS's other than those I've pointed out above and the following where she refers to JB as Jerry and Jeremy. This does strike me as a little odd. I wonder if DS Jones referred to JB as Jerry? &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=285.msg4963#msg4963
-
OMG I cant believe I'm still ploughing through these WS's it must be connected to my OCD 8)><(
In the following WS JM states she was mistaken about Douglas Dale taking the circa 3.15am call she answered it herself. It was DD who answered the circa 5.40am call.
I guess those who believe JB guilty and JM told the truth the whole truth and nothing but thats ok if she was mistaken? Yet if JB is mistaken with whether he called JM or EP first that is somehow indicative of guilt? Lol
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=286.0;attach=1152
She seems to refer to JB as Jeremy in all her WS's other than those I've pointed out above and the following where she refers to JB as Jerry and Jeremy. This does strike me as a little odd. I wonder if DS Jones referred to JB as Jerry? &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=285.msg4963#msg4963
Ah, OK so Dale answered the 5.40 call not the one at 3.02 or whenever it was. Then my theory is still intact. Thanks HG. You have your uses after all. You will soon be getting the idea about how this went down. Just remember - that call to Julie's place was a key part of the plan.
This is going well: I have a theory that correctly predicted Jereny owned an answerphone and that the 3:02 call was answered by Julie.
-
Ah, OK so Dale answered the 5.40 call not the one at 3.02 or whenever it was. Then my theory is still intact. Thanks HG. You have your uses after all. You will soon be getting the idea about how this went down. Just remember - that call to Julie's place was a key part of the plan.
This is going well: I have a theory that correctly predicted Jereny owned an answerphone and that the 3:02 call was answered by Julie.
Oh do stop being cryptic al. If you have a theory pray tell or keep quiet until you are in a position to 'enligten' us with your insights 8((()*/
-
Oh do stop being cryptic al. If you have a theory pray tell or keep quiet until you are in a position to 'enligten' us with your insights 8((()*/
I thought I explained my theory already. Maybe that was on another board. Well, here it is again. Still a work in progress but:
1 he murdered everybody
2 he called his own number from WHF at 3.00 a.m. a pre-agreed time with Julie
3 he hung up once the answer phone kicked in, thus ensuring, as he thought, BT would have a record of the call
4 he called Julie's number a minute or two later, again by prior arrangement
5 he interrupted the call before it was answered so BT would not have a trace of it
6 he went home
7 Julie (this is part of their plan) went into SB's room to discuss the call she had not, in fact, answered
8 SB noted the time on her clock as being 3.12, adjusted to 3.02, which fits perfectly with point 4 above. I bet Julie said something seemingly innocent about the time to cause SB to notice it
9 JB cycles home like crazy, takes a quick shower, discarding his clothes and towels somewhere with a view to permanent disposal later
10 JB calls Witham/Wickham Bishop and then Chelmsford having some time beforehand, when preparing the crime, circled the number(s) in the phone book (this is a prediction based on a combination of (i) faint recollection of reading that he did that and (ii) an appreciation of his scheme)
11 he has a private meeting with Julie when she showed up in the morning in order to agree some aspect of their stories (e.g. whether he called her before the police or after)
It all fits. Case closed.
-
Thanks to David, it has not been confirmed Chelmsford was actually the 5th furthest away police station.
Scipio says on page 1 Bamber must have phoned Witham at the same time no one was manning the phones. While Chelmsford phoned them a few minutes later when there was someone there.
However that still doesn't explain why Bamber changed his story.
-
Thanks to David, it has not been confirmed Chelmsford was actually the 5th furthest away police station.
Scipio says on page 1 Bamber must have phoned Witham at the same time no one was manning the phones. While Chelmsford phoned them a few minutes later when there was someone there.
However that still doesn't explain why Bamber changed his story.
Just to clarify for readers:
From my own recollection of the various police statements, Witham Police Station was unmanned at the time (about 3.15am) Jeremy claimed to have called them. I think he stated that he simply got no reply so got the phone book to look up Chelmsford instead.
Jeremy certainly telephoned Chelmsford and spoke with PC West who kept him waiting on the line while he (PC West) contacted police civilian operator Malcolm Bonnett in the Chelmsford Control Room. Bonnet for his part did make contact with an officer from Witham on his personal radio link. They (Witham officers) were then tasked to the alleged disturbance at WHF.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that Jeremy did call Witham since he was not to know whether any personnel were on duty there.
-
Just to clarify for readers:
From my own recollection of the various police statements, Witham Police Station was unmanned at the time (about 3.15am) Jeremy claimed to have called them. I think he stated that he simply got no reply so got the phone book to look up Chelmsford instead.
Jeremy certainly telephoned Chelmsford and spoke with PC West who kept him waiting on the line while he (PC West) contacted police civilian operator Malcolm Bonnett in the Chelmsford Control Room. Bonnet for his part did make contact with an officer from Witham on his personal radio link. They (Witham officers) were then tasked to the alleged disturbance at WHF.
Why did Bamber testify he didn't phone Witham -
" On oath at the trial, he denied trying to telephone the police at Witham before calling Chelmsford. Two officers to whom he spoke to on the night swore that Bamber told them he had tried to phone Witham".
-
The judges summing up was over two days. There is no way the whole transcript will be online.
-
The judges summing up was over two days. There is no way the whole transcript will be online.
We appear to have pages 1 and 95 - 108. The rest of it seems to have been withheld by supporters.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.msg4561#msg4561