Order of killings

[Brietta]

So what order did the killings have to occur for the inheritance to come to Jeremy?

With everyone dead who had been mentioned in the wills which Bamber had read, that left him as the sole heir so it really didn't matter in which order they were murdered.
I think he took the opportunity to murder them when everyone who stood between him and his inheritance was under the same roof.

[Robittybob1]

With everyone dead who had been mentioned in the wills which Bamber had read, that left him as the sole heir so it really didn't matter in which order they were murdered.
I think he took the opportunity to murder them when everyone who stood between him and his inheritance was under the same roof.

In a documentary, I saw it was explained to Jeremy by his lawyer, I presume, the order of the deaths was important,  so I wondering if anyone really figured it out, as to what order the victims were killed.

[Brietta]

In a documentary, I saw it was explained to Jeremy by his lawyer, I presume, the order of the deaths was important,  so I wondering if anyone really figured it out, as to what order the victims were killed.

I think only the killer knows that.

[Robittybob1]

Yes it was. Which is why he was found guilty. The lie about the phone call and the silencer were the main points of the prosecution. If he received a call then line would have been open by nature of him leaving phone off the hook. Line was open and dog barking so he wouldn’t have been able to immediately dial out. Plus the 999 fiasco and changing statements about who he called first and what time. Thankfully jury believed the facts rather than his lie.

Are you saying Jeremy rings his home number from WHF to keep the line open?   That would only work if there was someone back in the Goldhanger cottage to answer the call.  So who answered the call if he rang himself from White House Farms?

[Robittybob1]

I'm female and the only regular poster here who believes SC was responsible but as I said I don't believe this forum is representative of all views.

JB is supported by former Tory MP Andrew Hunter along with many other males eg his former QC Michael Turner:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

For my list of abbreviations who is SC please?

[APRIL]

Are you saying Jeremy rings his home number from WHF to keep the line open?   That would only work if there was someone back in the Goldhanger cottage to answer the call.  So who answered the call if he rang himself from White House Farms?

Have you never heard of an answer machine?

[Robittybob1]

Have you never heard of an answer machine?

Well was there an answering machine there?

[APRIL]

Well was there an answering machine there?

I believe I've already answered that

[Robittybob1]

I believe I've already answered that

You are quite a machine.

[Caroline]

Are you saying Jeremy rings his home number from WHF to keep the line open?   That would only work if there was someone back in the Goldhanger cottage to answer the call.  So who answered the call if he rang himself from White House Farms?

What do you mean 'keep the line open'? The line wasn't 'open' until the operator connected to it much later.

[Robittybob1]

What do you mean 'keep the line open'? The line wasn't 'open' until the operator connected to it much later.

All I can go off is the note in Court of Appeal Judgement   

"68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available
these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call
having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the
caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.


The words remain open are in there.  "If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone."

So that fits perfectly with what Jeremy said, in that he rang back and got an engaged signal, not a fault signal.
https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/20011745.pdf page 11.

[Robittybob1]

Having read through the trial transcript of DS Stanley Jones, he testified that Jeremy had questioned him about the order of the deaths, for Jeremy's accountant had told Jeremy the execution of the wills depend on the order of the killings. 

I did see separately elsewhere, where it was explained how the properties could go to the Eaton side of the family in some scenarios.  (forgotten the link ATM sorry).  I do remember it stated that the order of the deaths will be assumed to be that the people die in order of age.  Which is crazy of course for that would mean the kids died last but there was no one around to actually kill them.

Now what must be obvious to those who think Jeremy was the killer, is that he then is the only one who really knows the order of the killings, and he would be seeding various ideas around trying to promote a killing order that was favourable to him getting the inheritance, but so far I've seen absolutely no evidence of that.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1056.msg30126#msg30126

It looks from that evidence alone Jeremy is innocent.

[Robittybob1]

IMO the two boys were killed first for they remained asleep.  The only person who would want the children overkilled would be the mother.  One hollow nosed .22 bullet directly to the head is all that would be required to kill each of them.  Obviously the child with the 5 bullets was first, only later would the bullets be rationed, so 3 for the next which left at least 1 for herself.  There was no proof that the magazine had 10 bullets in it, Jeremy says 9 or 10 he didn't count.

Who reloads the magazine and who attaches the sound moderator is harder to work out.

The other aspect was that there ended up with more than 50 bullets in the house, and Jeremy states the magazine and the gun was empty, and the packet of bullets had already been opened so the original count should have been less than 50  not the 55 of the final count.   

Someone else had brought another 5 or more bullets with them to the scene.

[Caroline]

All I can go off is the note in Court of Appeal Judgement   

"68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available
these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call
having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the
caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.


The words remain open are in there.  "If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone."

So that fits perfectly with what Jeremy said, in that he rang back and got an engaged signal, not a fault signal.
https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/20011745.pdf page 11.

The phone handset was just taken off the hook, no call was made to Goldhanger. It wasn't connected to any call.

[Robittybob1]

The phone handset was just taken off the hook, no call was made to Goldhanger. It wasn't connected to any call.

In the photos of the crime scene "the phone handset was just taken off the hook".   We can't tell the reason it was off the hook.  From the type of phone, there was it possible to determine the last number dialed?  I know my old phone had a redial button.  Did the phone have a redial button?
After hours of being off the hook all line connections were lost. 

If someone had rung Jeremy from the WHF using that phone and then hung up, that person could have used that phone to ring other people after that.  So even knowing the last number called from that phone would be interesting it wouldn't mean Jeremy was lying.