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: Caroline on April 03, 2018, 07:12:48 PM
-
If guilty (for Holly's benefit), Jeremy must have left through one of the windows. I don't think for one moment it was the kitchen window (although he may still have told Julie that he did), I think the bathroom sash window is the most likely exit. It's a simple process to secure these old windows from the outside - all you need is a piece of string! See below (string drawn in black). The string is wrapped around the catch, and the two ends pushed through the gap between the top and bottom pane. Keeping hold of both ends of the string as you close the window - once shut, just pull. Drop one end and pull the string free.
-
If guilty (for Holly's benefit), Jeremy must have left through one of the windows. I don't think for one moment it was the kitchen window (although he may still have told Julie that he did), I think the bathroom sash window is the most likely exit. It's a simple process to secure these old windows from the outside - all you need is a piece of string! See below (string drawn in black). The string is wrapped around the catch, and the two ends pushed through the gap between the top and bottom pane. Keeping hold of both ends of the string as you close the window - once shut, just pull. Drop one end and pull the string free.
Off-topic, I know, so I won't expand on your thread, but I want to start a thread about this Mugford woman. I want to establish once and for all what, if anything, is the relevance of her evidence.
-
Off-topic, I know, so I won't expand on your thread, but I want to start a thread about this Mugford woman. I want to establish once and for all what, if anything, is the relevance of her evidence.
If you start the thread, I can answer you there.
-
The police's stance is Bamber excited the kitchen window.
Julie correctly told the police the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Bamber had told her he had found out about this window prior to the massacre. So not sure why he would start playing around with bits of string.
The housekeeper testified items around the kitchen window had been moved. These were fixed items that were rarely moved.
-
The police's stance is Bamber excited the kitchen window.
Julie correctly told the police the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. Bamber had told her he had found out about this window prior to the massacre. So not sure why he would start playing around with bits of string.
The housekeeper testified items around the kitchen window had been moved. These were fixed items that were rarely moved.
I don't understand why jurors were not taken to WHF to see for themselves whether or not it was possible for JB to bang shut any of the downstairs windows from outside.
Why was the jury taken to Fingringhoe shooting range to hear the rifle discharged with and without silencer, where the sound obviously isn't comparable with the rifle discharged within WHF, and yet the above was by-passed?
Free-standing washing up tidies and such like are not fixed. It's these items the housekeeper said looked out of place Taps, sinks etc are fixed. The tragedy happened during the height of summer and any of the occupants may have moved the items whilst opening/closing the window or for any other reason.
DCI Jones confirmed he checked all windows at 9.15am and found them shut and secure on their latches except the window to the dairy. However after this check but before soc images were taken of kitchen window and sink area including tidy someone opened the kitchen transom window due to flies and odours. This person may well have interfered with the normal arrangement found around the sink which the housekeeper referred to.
264. In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case.
265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
-
If guilty (for Holly's benefit), Jeremy must have left through one of the windows. I don't think for one moment it was the kitchen window (although he may still have told Julie that he did), I think the bathroom sash window is the most likely exit. It's a simple process to secure these old windows from the outside - all you need is a piece of string! See below (string drawn in black). The string is wrapped around the catch, and the two ends pushed through the gap between the top and bottom pane. Keeping hold of both ends of the string as you close the window - once shut, just pull. Drop one end and pull the string free.
I'm assuming you were successfully able to do the above?
It's a pity the prosecution didn't elaborate, just bang shut!
-
I'm assuming you were successfully able to do the above?
It's a pity the prosecution didn't elaborate, just bang shut!
Not yet.
-
Not yet.
Might be able to carry such a test out in the next couple of weeks though. Many houses have sash windows here - sadly, I don't many people as I haven't lived here very long. HOWEVER, I have a friend that's involved in many community projects so have asked them to ask around for someone who would let me mess ith their panes! ?{)(**
-
Luminous ........ 100% correct Re: your post on blue. The fact that Jeremy admitted he could enter the house was enough, they didn't have to prove it. Of course using the sting as above, would leave no marks on exit. Entry really isn't the issue given that he could have left an entry point open (like the bathroom window). It's the exit point that is more relevant as the house was left secured.
-
Luminous ........ 100% correct Re: your post on blue. The fact that Jeremy admitted he could enter the house was enough, they didn't have to prove which window. Of course using the string as above, would leave no marks on exit. Entry really isn't the issue given that he could have left an entry point open (like the bathroom window). It's the exit point that is more relevant as the house was left secured.
-
As usual LuminousWanderer wrote a huge 7 paragraph post on this.
Basically saying Bamber said himself he could enter/exit WHF through windows & a window could be banged shut. Which I have just said in a line & a bit. But everyone is different.
I skim read his posts, usually just looking at sub headings. Not sure why he says there is no direct evidence linking Bamber to the crime. The mountain of evidence showing it was not Sheila, directly links Bamber to the crime.
-
I've always thought that he most likely exited through the kitchen window. Although I don't feel too firmly or strongly about this and could see it being another window, what matters and is known is that he was able to and it was possible.
-
I've always thought that he most likely exited through the kitchen window. Although I don't feel too firmly or strongly about this and could see it being another window, what matters and is known is that he was able to and it was possible.
The Sash windows couldn't be shut from outside. Hence the kitchen window was chosen. See Barlows notes
(https://s9.postimg.org/rt57gc8rj/20120908_211323.jpg)
Plus all the Sash windows except for the dairy room and the main bedroom were found secured.
(https://s9.postimg.org/dnzee3zlr/DE135.jpg)
-
The Sash windows couldn't be shut from outside. Hence the kitchen window was chosen. See Barlows notes
(https://s9.postimg.org/rt57gc8rj/20120908_211323.jpg)
Plus all the Sash windows except for the dairy room and the main bedroom were found secured.
(https://s9.postimg.org/dnzee3zlr/DE135.jpg)
Are you suggesting you believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty after all?
-
Are you suggesting you believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty after all?
Of course they can be closed from the outside - I shall prove it 8((()*/
-
Are you suggesting you believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty after all?
@)(++(*
-
The Sash windows couldn't be shut from outside. Hence the kitchen window was chosen. See Barlows notes
(https://s9.postimg.org/rt57gc8rj/20120908_211323.jpg)
Plus all the Sash windows except for the dairy room and the main bedroom were found secured.
(https://s9.postimg.org/dnzee3zlr/DE135.jpg)
David can you ask NGB please why jurors were not taken to WHF to look at possible entry and exit points? Why was the Fingringhoe shooting range deemed relevant and worthwhile, despite the fact it couldn't replicate sound within WHF, but checking out the windows was by-passed? The coach could easily have swung by WHF.
-
@)(++(*
I know we shouldn't laugh Holly but this is a classic example of when common sense is seen to go out the window. It shows distortions in the cognitive thinking process, which David has showed numerous times before since he joined both forums.
-
David can you ask NGB please why jurors were not taken to WHF to look at possible entry and exit points? Why was the Fingringhoe shooting range deemed relevant and worthwhile, despite the fact it couldn't replicate sound within WHF, but checking out the windows was by-passed? The coach could easily have swung by WHF.
You keep on asking this question and it’s getting rather tedious TBH
http://rslegalstrategy.co.uk/rs-legal-strategy-delighted-announce-honour-geoffrey-rivlin-qc-agreed-join-us-consultant/ (http://rslegalstrategy.co.uk/rs-legal-strategy-delighted-announce-honour-geoffrey-rivlin-qc-agreed-join-us-consultant/)
Use the contact details on that page and ask for the contact details to the only person that can adequately answer this question for you.
-
I know we shouldn't laugh Holly but this is a classic example of when common sense is seen to go out the window. It shows distortions in the cognitive thinking process, which David has showed numerous times before since he joined both forums.
I'd like to know where it states that they tried using the the string test - I don't see it? They couldn't find a way to lock the latch, so what, that doesn't mean there isn't one!
-
You keep on asking this question and it’s getting rather tedious TBH
http://rslegalstrategy.co.uk/rs-legal-strategy-delighted-announce-honour-geoffrey-rivlin-qc-agreed-join-us-consultant/ (http://rslegalstrategy.co.uk/rs-legal-strategy-delighted-announce-honour-geoffrey-rivlin-qc-agreed-join-us-consultant/)
Use the contact details on that page and ask for the contact details to the only person that can adequately answer this question for you.
Well I keep asking because I get no response!
Talking of no response are you going to respond here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg448211#msg448211
-
I'd like to know where it states that they tried using the the string test - I don't see it? They couldn't find a way to lock the latch, so what, that doesn't mean there isn't one!
No it doesn't mean there isn't one but jurors can only base their decisions on what they're told during trial. At trial jurors were told JB could bang shut a window from outside and in doing so secure the catch inside. Why were jurors not taken to WHF to see how this worked in practice?
-
No it doesn't mean there isn't one but jurors can only base their decisions on what they're told during trial. At trial jurors were told JB could bang shut a window from outside and in doing so secure the catch inside. Why were jurors not taken to WHF to see how this worked in practice?
There wasn't any need. The farm secretary knew that JB could get in and out easily like when he did so to get his passport so he and Collins could disappear off to the French Riviera.
-
No it doesn't mean there isn't one but jurors can only base their decisions on what they're told during trial. At trial jurors were told JB could bang shut a window from outside and in doing so secure the catch inside. Why were jurors not taken to WHF to see how this worked in practice?
They didn't request to do so and excepted what they were told.
-
There wasn't any need. The farm secretary knew that JB could get in and out easily like when he did so to get his passport so he and Collins could disappear off to the French Riviera.
I that instance, he used the bathroom window.
-
There wasn't any need. The farm secretary knew that JB could get in and out easily like when he did so to get his passport so he and Collins could disappear off to the French Riviera.
Yes but did BW find the window he entered, downstairs bathroom, secure from within?
DCI Jones checked all doors and windows at 9.15am. The only windows found insecure were the dairy window which had an undisturbed metal mesh over it and the main bedroom window. So how did JB enter and exit leaving all windows secure from within?
-
The following is an example as to why IMO JM's testimony lacks evidential value:
"He also told Matthew how to leave the house so it appeared locked and the way route back to Goldhanger".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
Any old Tom, Dick or Harry could claim the above. Like most things the devil is in the detail:
- how in practice was it possible to exit WHF leaving the property secure from within?
- which route?
-
They didn't request to do so and excepted what they were told.
I think jurors are passive recipients rather than truth seekers.
-
JB confirms during his interview he didn't know a way of leaving WHF with doors/windows secure from within:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1228
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1230
JB was a farmer not Houdini.
-
- how in practice was it possible to exit WHF leaving the property secure from within?
- which route?
Leaves via the front door after instructing/coercing Sheila into shooting herself and asking her to remember to lock the front door before she does so.
8)-)))
-
Well I keep asking because I get no response!
That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.
Talking of no response are you going to respond here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg448211#msg448211
LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.
The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.
Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind.
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?
-
That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.
LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.
The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.
Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind.
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?
I doubt it very much. The evidence is there for all to see. Jeremy Bamber was very much involved in the murders, the only unknown is still whether he pulled the trigger or paid some low life to do it for him. Either way he is still guilty and should rot in prison.
-
JB confirms during his interview he didn't know a way of leaving WHF with doors/windows secure from within:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1228
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1230
JB was a farmer not Houdini.
I think for the sake of argument, that JB's word isn't much use.
-
I think for the sake of argument, that JB's word isn't much use.
I agree but some claim JB stated during his police interviews he told officers he was able to exit windows leaving them secure from within, he doesn't.
-
I doubt it very much. The evidence is there for all to see. Jeremy Bamber was very much involved in the murders, the only unknown is still whether he pulled the trigger or paid some low life to do it for him. Either way he is still guilty and should rot in prison.
If the evidence is there for all to see the CCRC wouldn't have referred JB's case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood/silencer evidence. It's only the blood/silencer keeping JB @ HMP.
-
I agree but some claim JB stated during his police interviews he told officers he was able to exit windows leaving them secure from within, he doesn't.
No, he has never admitted to knowing how to secure a window from the outside but he does mention the sash window rather than the kitchen window. I very much doubt he would admit to knowing how to close from the outside because he would know it would be ammunition against him.
-
Tonight's Panorama is about two possible MOJ and their attempts to get the CCRC to refer their cases (note: neither of these cases are JB - perhaps part of the problem for real MOJ are the thousands of cases that 'claim' to be and justice is hampered by such chancers?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zg7l1
-
That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.
Someone experienced in handling serious criminal defence cases might have some ideas such as NGB. DCI Jones confirmed WHF was secured from within apart from the dairy window covered by an undisturbed wire mesh and the upstairs main bedroom open about 3" at the top. JB told police he could easily enter by opening up closed windows but didn't know of way to exit and leave windows in a closed position. JM's testimony states JB told her he told MM how to leave the house so it appeared locked. If the prosecution want to run with this at trial I say spell it out. Take a trip to WHF and show jurors how this is possible. Call in security experts, locksmiths and such like. Was the defence trying to cut corners and save money?
LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.
The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.
Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind.
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?
You're not on Blue now you know. We stick to threads here. I will respond in the appropriate thread here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg451222#msg451222
-
Tonight's Panorama is about two possible MOJ and their attempts to get the CCRC to refer their cases (note: neither of these cases are JB - perhaps part of the problem for real MOJ are the thousands of cases that 'claim' to be and justice is hampered by such chancers?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zg7l1
I agree with you Caroline!
I've just seen from a post on blue that one of these cases is Kevin Lane
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33050737
He was fitted up!
Kevin's case was highlighted on the Guardian's justice on trial page here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/series/justice-on-trial+kevin-lane
-
As usual LuminousWanderer wrote a huge 7 paragraph post on this.
Basically saying Bamber said himself he could enter/exit WHF through windows & a window could be banged shut. Which I have just said in a line & a bit. But everyone is different.
I skim read his posts, usually just looking at sub headings. Not sure why he says there is no direct evidence linking Bamber to the crime. The mountain of evidence showing it was not Sheila, directly links Bamber to the crime.
I have said that there is no direct forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, which there isn't. If you don't have time to read my posts, then don't comment on them.
-
I agree with you Caroline!
I've just seen from a post on blue that one of these cases is Kevin Lane
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33050737
He was fitted up!
Kevin's case was highlighted on the Guardian's justice on trial page here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/series/justice-on-trial+kevin-lane
Thanks Steph - seems he's gone from the frying pan into the fire - is this the same guy who was/is seeing Kerry Katona?
-
Thanks Steph - seems he's gone from the frying pan into the fire - is this the same guy who was/is seeing Kerry Katona?
In one of his interviews, Kevin talks about those pictures and he says there was nothing in it "nonsense" I didn't know about that story until last night when I read the guardian article. I didn't actually realise he'd been released.
"Kevin Lane is wearing a blue Italian suit. His white shirt is ironed, his shoes polished and his handshake firm. At this smart London restaurant, he seems out of place among the businessmen and women – but only because he has the physique of a bodybuilder, and a deep voice that draws attention when he raises it.
Which he does, very occasionally, when he’s animated – as he is now, talking about his new businesses and how he has just bought a new Mercedes. He’s doing OK. But there’s something nagging at him, and when he is upset, his voice drops. Days earlier, Lane was pictured in a newspaper outside a nightclub with the former Atomic Kitten singer Kerry Katona. A source quoted by the Daily Mail said the pair were “all over each other”, and there was talk of them dating. The story, he says, is nonsense.
He had been introduced to Katona, and they had gone for a night out with friends: “The rest of it is just not true.” But it is the headline that troubles him most. “Kerry Katona pictured kissing convicted murderer.”https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/30/kevin-lane-robert-magill-charlie-wilson-interview-nick-hopkins
There's a short video with Duncan Campbell highlighting the case here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Nq7tHs6Sk
I posted this link recently - worth a read https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted
I get a sense from the material I've read, there's a real chance he could overturn his conviction in the near future and expose the truth
-
Haven't been able to test the string theory on an actual sash window yet but I bought a vintage style sash window catch and it works like a dream. I am convinced that Bamber both entered and left WHF through the bathroom window!
-
Haven't been able to test the string theory on an actual sash window yet but I bought a vintage style sash window catch and it works like a dream. I am convinced that Bamber both entered and left WHF through the bathroom window!
Only on a flying visit...
... but your string is wrapped around the wrong knob (i.e.the pivot) to work properly! It should be around the snail-shaped knob in your photo or around the arrowed beehive-shaped knob in mine, so that, viewing the window from outside, the operator would pull both ends of the string simultaneously and towards his or her right to close the pre-opened catch, then release one strand of the string and pull it free with the other.
Correct me if wrong and I'll comment when I'm next online
-
Only on a flying visit...
... but your string is wrapped around the wrong knob (i.e.the pivot) to work properly! It should be around the snail-shaped knob in your photo or around the arrowed beehive-shaped knob in mine, so that, viewing the window from outside, the operator would pull both ends of the string simultaneously and towards his or her right to close the pre-opened catch, then release one strand of the string and pull it free with the other.
Correct me if wrong and I'll comment when I'm next online
You are correct, I posted the picture before I bought the catch. My knob isn't snail shaped (oo err mrs) but it's the same otherwise. However, you don't have to pull to the right if the string goes over the top of the moveable pane - you just need to make sure the string is long enough in order to leave enough room to climb out of the window. Just pull the string straight once the window is closed and the frame acts as a lever.
Point is ...... it works! 8((()*/
-
You are correct, I posted the picture before I bought the catch. My knob isn't snail shaped (oo err mrs) but it's the same otherwise. However, you don't have to pull to the right if the string goes over the top of the moveable pane - you just need to make sure the string is long enough in order to leave enough room to climb out of the window. Just pull the string straight once the window is closed and the frame acts as a lever.
Point is ...... it works! 8((()*/
I trust your judgement Caroline!
-
I trust your judgement Caroline!
Thanks Steph. I'll take some pictures to demonstrate how it works.
-
Thanks Steph. I'll take some pictures to demonstrate how it works.
où sont les images? 8(0(*
-
... and where is the window catch/lock in this CS photo?
-
I thought it was visible from outside, but I think this is just a visual abberation, i.e. the design on the shower curtain inside the room...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
où sont les images? 8(0(*
I haven't forgotten, need to make a mock window sill first! I shall get around to it soon 8((()*/
-
I haven't forgotten, need to make a mock window sill first! I shall get around to it soon 8((()*/
Dying to see your Indian rope WHF string trick video, Caro?
-
Hope it's better than this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi8C4CJ5zk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi8C4CJ5zk)
-
Hope it's better than this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi8C4CJ5zk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi8C4CJ5zk)
Well, I didn't use rope for starters and I am struggling with the notion that string couldn't be pulled through a closed window - I did it with my own last night.
-
A short reminder to all posters to remain on topic and to respect other members point of view which might not necessarily coincide with your own. Please keep comments relevant and amicable. TY
-
I'm not disputing Caro's experiment/test could potentially have worked at WHF on old single pane sash windows. But I do think jurors should have been taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was claiming.
This is what the trial judge said about the windows:
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
However jurors were also told:
"DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case".
I guess the judge was in effect saying other aspects of the case must take precedence over the windows ie the silencer and JM's testimony taken at face value were strong prosecution points. The windows were a strong defence point but not strong enough to override silencer/JM. *%87
-
Thinking further about the judge's comments above re the windows do they not amount to bias?
Should there be a 'claim' in there ie the prosecution claim...otherwise it seems to me the judge is telling jurors JB arrived at WHF and entered/exited by some means!?
-
Well, I didn't use rope for starters and I am struggling with the notion that string couldn't be pulled through a closed window - I did it with my own last night.
I don't think you're struggling with it, just with convincing others who don't agree.
I accept that your method is possible, having once lived in an old house of similar age to WHF, and fitted with sliding-ash windows which rattled and were draughty during windy weather, until they were replaced with new casements. Over many years the wooden frame shrinks leaving gaps around the sliding portion, making them easier to open and shut. Security is easily overcome by sliding a thin object such as a hacksaw/thin knife blade between to open, or in your case a string to close the catch. Being in a toilet/shower room too would mean more use for ventilation than those in other rooms, hence more wear.
He might have had more of a problem replacing all those toiletries on the sill, then arranging/straightening the net curtain, than repositioning the plastic drying rack, liquid soap bottle, etc. in front of the opening casement kitchen window. Which is why I think the latter was the easier escape route of the two.
Either way he got out, leaving WHF secure and police flummoxed.
-
It is good to read new theories.
David had his diagrams with his side ejecting bouncing bullets, Nugs believes RB may have shot himself with the silencer attached & Mike has different theories every week.
Not sure why Caroline has suddenly decided Bamber used a piece of string in the dark on a shut window. But good to see another option.
Most shut windows I see it would not be possible. The WS's of Julie & PB support exit out of the kitchen window, which could be banged shut from outside. This is the exit the police believe Bamber took.
-
I don't think you're struggling with it, just with convincing others who don't agree.
I accept that your method is possible, having once lived in an old house of similar age to WHF, and fitted with sliding-ash windows which rattled and were draughty during windy weather, until they were replaced with new casements. Over many years the wooden frame shrinks leaving gaps around the sliding portion, making them easier to open and shut. Security is easily overcome by sliding a thin object such as a hacksaw/thin knife blade between to open, or in your case a string to close the catch. Being in a toilet/shower room too would mean more use for ventilation than those in other rooms, hence more wear.
He might have had more of a problem replacing all those toiletries on the sill, then arranging/straightening the net curtain, than repositioning the plastic drying rack, liquid soap bottle, etc. in front of the opening casement kitchen window. Which is why I think the latter was the easier escape route of the two.
Either way he got out, leaving WHF secure and police flummoxed.
I'm not really bothered about convincing people, I shared the idea simply to spark a discussion. I expected the childish foot stamping from the likes of David but it just makes me laugh when he goes to such trouble to try and discredit me.
The reason I believe it was the this particular window is because he used it after the murders making a point of asking BW to close it for him. This was after he was questioned by police who mentioned the window. The message to BW was almost like a message to EP saying that 'well yes, I can enter, but I can't leave and secure the window'. Well, you can.
-
Well he exited the bathroom window & left it open with a note for BW. Not sure how that shows he exited that window on the massacre night with some string.
At the time he was being accused of exiting the kitchen window on the massacre night. Exiting out of the kitchen window weeks later & leaving it open, would just highlighted he knew how to exit out of this window & support the prosecution theory.
The prosecution then just needs to convince a jury he also knew how to bang it shut.
Better for him deflect attention away from the kitchen window.
-
Well he exited the bathroom window & left it open with a note for BW. Not sure how that shows he exited that window on the massacre night with some string.
At the time he was being accused of exiting the kitchen window on the massacre night. Exiting out of the kitchen window weeks later & leaving it open, would just highlighted he knew how to exit out of this window & support the prosecution theory.
The prosecution then just needs to convince a jury he also knew how to bang it shut.
Better for him deflect attention away from the kitchen window.
Those windows are extremely easy to close from the outside without leave any trace but not so easy to open from the outside but then anyone intent upon mischief would leave them partially open in advance.
-
Those windows are extremely easy to close from the outside without leave any trace but not so easy to open from the outside but then anyone intent upon mischief would leave them partially open in advance.
They are easy to close, the old ones tend to be a bit wobbly with gaps between the two pains and they don't have seals. They certainly aren't the Vacuum that some people are portraying. Bamber used this window to gain entry - that we know.
-
I'm not really bothered about convincing people, I shared the idea simply to spark a discussion. I expected the childish foot stamping from the likes of David but it just makes me laugh when he goes to such trouble to try and discredit me.
The reason I believe it was the this particular window is because he used it after the murders making a point of asking BW to close it for him. This was after he was questioned by police who mentioned the window. The message to BW was almost like a message to EP saying that 'well yes, I can enter, but I can't leave and secure the window'. Well, you can.
No one who understands the case reasonably well, pro guilt or innocence, takes David seriously. Clive Wismayer soon got the measure of him writing him off as a moron and placing him on ignore.
I've noticed David can be quite abusive towards females. I recall his post to you on Blue "f**k you". He then makes false claims eg yourself and April/JaneJ in a lesbian relationship and I supposedly have Alzheimer's brought on by alcohol abuse. Then there was a case in the news about an overweight woman who had made up false rape claims. David went ott about how anyone having sex with her would need to slap her thigh to ride in. However he doesn't seem to carry on like this with males. On the contrary he goes out of his way to seek approval from the likes of Clive, Charlie, NGB, Andrew Hunter and Michael Turner. The latter 3 being kind, elderly gentleman who take pity on him.
Anyway back to the windows I bet fishing line would work a treat; it's very thin and very strong too! Would it be possible to rig something up through a letterbox pulling bolts?
-
Yes David did seek approval of his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to give it some gravitas. As no one was taking any notice of it. There was only one poster he could ask.
This also helped give him a free reign on posting his images, banners, diagrams, 'gish gash' & abuse. I did create a thread suggesting this should not be allowed. By anyone. This was ignored & eventually rejected, probably because David was the only poster who did it.
-
Yes David did seek approval of his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to give it some gravitas. As no one was taking any notice of it. There was only one poster he could ask.
This also helped give him a free reign on posting his images, banners, diagrams, 'gish gash' & abuse. I did create a thread suggesting this should not be allowed. By anyone. This was ignored & eventually rejected, probably because David was the only poster who did it.
Didn't he then say it was NGB who had coined it a "Forensic Evidence Breakthrough" and not him?
-
Didn't he then say it was NGB who had coined it a "Forensic Evidence Breakthrough" and not him?
He 'tried' to.
-
I'm not disputing Caro's experiment/test could potentially have worked at WHF on old single pane sash windows. But I do think jurors should have been taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was claiming.
This is what the trial judge said about the windows:
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
However jurors were also told:
"DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case".
I guess the judge was in effect saying other aspects of the case must take precedence over the windows ie the silencer and JM's testimony taken at face value were strong prosecution points. The windows were a strong defence point but not strong enough to override silencer/JM. *%87
I am guessing that as a direction to the jury it was an indication that they have to find the def guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they don;t have to find enough evidence to show how he entered and left the farm house, they just need to find the evidence he did it.
i am sure that if this was evidence of bias it would have been in the appeal
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JBamberFacebook/status/787928363591667714