The lockable from outside kitchen window. Why is this disputed ?

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy's supporters are always claiming the kitchen window could not be locked from outside. But if this was the case, how could there  be an arrest ? It was impossible for Jeremy to have committed the murders.

There are lots of sources which show that the window could be locked from outside. Which I won't repeat as I am sure you all have them. Even this week I found two new sources in Wilkes's book. Surely people like Julie and Ann Eaton would not make claims the police could easily check.

The defence at trial never disputed the lockable from outside window. Jeremy has never brought it up since conviction and it is not on his OS.

Why do people believe Jeremy's supporters refuse to accept this fact ?

Jeremy's supporters operate from a position of bias. Instead of following the evidence wher eit leads his supporters decided he is innocent and they actively search for anythign they can spin to support what they want to believe and argue.

The claim the window could not be locked from the outside is one of the things they cling to in order to pretend he can't have done it.  They hide on the edges because they have nothing to hit the main evidence.

With the exception of Mike (who makes up lie after lie in order to try to refute the main evidence) supporters try to ignore the main evidence not to discuss it in detail.  The reason why is simple they have no detailed way to refute the main evidence.  For instance who has evidence that the blood was planted in the moderator?  Who has a detailed account of the blood being planted?  No one except Mike.  WHat evidence is there it was planted?  None.  So why do they insist it was planted?  Because they want Jeremy to be innocent and the only way for him to be innocent is if it was planted. 

Defenders take offense because they don't liek to hear the truth and want to pretend they are following evidenc ebut the reality is they are guided by bias and trying to make the facts and evidence support what they want to believe.

It is not unlike those who ignore modern evidence that 100MG of Haloperidol is as effective as 200MG and insist that because she only received 100MG this means she didn't have enough to control her condition.  They ar enot following evidence but rather ignoring it because they want to believe she had an episode and committed the murders during it. 

Since they have decided what they want to believe in spite of the evidence as opposed to following evidence, pointing out the evidence they chose to ignore is not going to get them to change their minds.  So your efforts to change their minds amounts to trying to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[adam]

Jeremy's supporters operate from a position of bias. Instead of following the evidence wher eit leads his supporters decided he is innocent and they actively search for anythign they can spin to support what they want to believe and argue.

The claim the window could not be locked from the outside is one of the things they cling to in order to pretend he can't have done it.  They hide on the edges because they have nothing to hit the main evidence.

With the exception of Mike (who makes up lie after lie in order to try to refute the main evidence) supporters try to ignore the main evidence not to discuss it in detail.  The reason why is simple they have no detailed way to refute the main evidence.  For instance who has evidence that the blood was planted in the moderator?  Who has a detailed account of the blood being planted?  No one except Mike.  WHat evidence is there it was planted?  None.  So why do they insist it was planted?  Because they want Jeremy to be innocent and the only way for him to be innocent is if it was planted. 

Defenders take offense because they don't liek to hear the truth and want to pretend they are following evidenc ebut the reality is they are guided by bias and trying to make the facts and evidence support what they want to believe.

It is not unlike those who ignore modern evidence that 100MG of Haloperidol is as effective as 200MG and insist that because she only received 100MG this means she didn't have enough to control her condition.  They ar enot following evidence but rather ignoring it because they want to believe she had an episode and committed the murders during it. 

Since they have decided what they want to believe in spite of the evidence as opposed to following evidence, pointing out the evidence they chose to ignore is not going to get them to change their minds.  So your efforts to change their minds amounts to trying to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I know, I know.

Well I took an interest in the case last year. Read up about it. So like discussing it.

Some people have actually gone from innocent to guilty on another forum. Another then announced she was undecided, although posts as a supporter and denies ever being a supporter.

There are still three regular posters/supporters on another forum who still support Bamber no matter what. These three posters are clever people, so I have no idea why they want Jeremy to be innocent and refuse to accept the evidence, as you said.

This was highlighted again on this topic. Refusing to accept the window could be locked from outside despite 13 sources. A curve ball of them not being 'Primary' sources was thrown out. Although some actually are 'Primary' sources.

[APRIL]

I know, I know.

Well I took an interest in the case last year. Read up about it. So like discussing it.

Some people have gone from innocent to guilty on another forum. Another has gone from innocent to undecided, although posts as a supporter and denies ever being innocent.

There are still three regular posters/supporters on another forum who still support Bamber no matter what. These three posters are clever people, so I have no idea why they want Jeremy to be innocent and refuse to accept the evidence, as you said.

This was highlighted again on this topic. Refusing to accept the window could be locked from outside despite 13 sources. A curve ball of them not being 'Primary' sources was thrown out. Although some actually are 'Primary' sources.

A WINDOW OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION -A HORIZONTAL ARM AT THE BASE LOCKING ONTO TWO STUDS- CANNOT BE LOCKED FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT NECESSITATES SOMEONE BEING INSIDE TO PLACE THE ARM INTO THE LOCKING POSITION OVER THE STUDS. It stands to reason that he got in and out SOMEHOW but as nobody bothered to check until "afterwards" I guess it will never be known exactly how.

[Myster]

If you mean a fastener similar to this one, April...



.... then it can be done but there's a knack.  I've done it myself in the past, not to climb in or out, but while painting some wooden windows outside, and "experimenting", long before I ever became interested in this case. Rest the lever underside on one of the lugs, gently force the window to, and the lever jumps up and comes to rest on both lugs even though it might need several attempts and few more bangs on the frame with a fist to succeed.

The problem is that Ann Eaton refers to the specific window being to the left of the kitchen sink, which from the inside is the larger opening casement (right in photo) and which should also have another type of fastener half-way up on the side. More difficult, if not impossible to lock from the outside.

I always thought the actual exit window mentioned in interviews and at trial was the small open fanlight (left in photo) which is more suited to Jack Sprat than Jeremy Bamber getting through it...



Maybe he found an easier way out, fastening a door behind him. All the doors were reportedly locked with keys in place and some barred at night, but we don't know how thoroughly these were checked by police. For example, did the Dairy door have a key permanently in the lock?

[scipio_usmc]

A WINDOW OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION -A HORIZONTAL ARM AT THE BASE LOCKING ONTO TWO STUDS- CANNOT BE LOCKED FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT NECESSITATES SOMEONE BEING INSIDE TO PLACE THE ARM INTO THE LOCKING POSITION OVER THE STUDS. It stands to reason that he got in and out SOMEHOW but as nobody bothered to check until "afterwards" I guess it will never be known exactly how.

Wrong, all it takes is gravity to lock such an arm so long as the arm has the ability to move easily. Vibration from banging or shaking can cause such a lock to fall into place.  We had a gate lock that operated in that manner and to get it to fall into place while on the other side of the fence you would sahe the fence to make it fall.

The window in question had an opening where someone could set the arm close enough to the catch and then lock it by vibrating the window so it would fall into place the rest of the way.

A latch that locks by being moved side to side instead of moving down is one that would require being inside to accomplish. 

[scipio_usmc]

If you mean a fastener similar to this one, April...



.... then it can be done but there's a knack.  I've done it myself in the past, not to climb in or out, but while painting some wooden windows outside, and "experimenting", long before I ever became interested in this case. Rest the lever underside on one of the lugs, gently force the window to, and the lever jumps up and comes to rest on both lugs even though it might need several attempts and few more bangs on the frame with a fist to succeed.

The problem is that Ann Eaton refers to the specific window being to the left of the kitchen sink, which from the inside is the larger opening casement (right in photo) and which should also have another type of fastener half-way up on the side. More difficult, if not impossible to lock from the outside.

I always thought the actual exit window mentioned in interviews and at trial was the small open fanlight (left in photo) which is more suited to Jack Sprat than Jeremy Bamber getting through it...



Maybe he found an easier way out, fastening a door behind him. All the doors were reportedly locked with keys in place and some barred at night, but we don't know how thoroughly these were checked by police. For example, did the Dairy door have a key permanently in the lock?

The windown containing the fanlight is referred to as the fanlight window but it means the entire window not just the little fanlight.  Reaching through the fanlight allows someone to lock the case window. The fanlight had its own latch which could be locked by tapping on it.

The police found the bathroom window unlocked though no one opened the window.  It is possible that Jeremy went both in and out that window.  How thoroughly DI Jones actually checked all the windows he claimed to have checked is unknown. At any rate, to clibm out of the window containing the fanlight required going over the sink. All items normally in the sink were placed on the floor and the sink was empty.  If the sink had been emptied to make room for something else then that something else should have been in there.  This suggests he probably used that window to escape.

[Myster]

OK I get it now... doh!  First he opened the small fanlight, then the larger casement and climbed through that, banging it to and thus fastening it once he got outside. Then he climbed onto the stone sill, reached through the small fanlight to fasten the side latch of the casement. Then banged the fanlight to.  Job done.

[scipio_usmc]

OK I get it now... doh!  First he opened the small fanlight, then the larger casement and climbed through that, banging it to and thus fastening it once he got outside. Then he climbed onto the stone sill, reached through the small fanlight to fasten the side latch of the casement. Then banged the fanlight to.  Job done.

Exactly and since he had done that in the past he knew how to do it.

I personally believe that is the method he used because;

1) he told Julie that is what he was going to do
2) the items that had been removed from the sink/in front of the window for no apparent reason suggest he did what he told Julie he was going to do
3) He presumed police would competently check the windows to see they were locked. He didn't want to leave through the bathroom window and risk police finding such window unlocked so he made sure he went through that window and locke dit behind him.

Since police didn't open the bathroom window and had no reason to unclock it this means it might not have been locked but I personally think a cop opened it for some reason, closed it right away, failed to lock it and failed to note he had done so.

I am assuming Jeremy didn't screw up and took care to make sure he locked the bathroom window since it figured so prominently in his plan.  To be sure people do mess up and forget to do important things and change plans so it is possible he didn't lock it or even possible he went out through it but I doubt it.

[adam]

Looking at that window it does seem quite easy to get outside and then ensure it is all closed.

The housekeeper/cleaner said several items she left by the window the previous day had been moved.

[Passer-by]

I'm just looking at the photograph and thinking of the time I tried to squeeze through a window like that:  it was a disaster, it's almost physically impossible, you have to be a contortionist! It's not wide  enough to get a leg over simultaneously to an arm, it's not possible to go feet-first because it's up near the ceiling, the only way out is arms and head first.  Because there is no width to the window this means getting your whole body out - in a downwards direction - to about your knees before you can liberate a leg or bend.  What actually happens is your pelvis is the tipping point and there is a strong risk of not being able to get a purchase on anything with your feet to push you, nor anything solid with your hands to pull you so you flounder around in a state of panic like you're doing the breast stroke - and your whole body weight on your tummy across the window frame is really painful!  (In the end I gallantly shoved my kid through the window instead - yes, thats right, I managed to lock us inside the house!).  There is an unfortunate handstand/cartwheel/collapse in a heap manoeuvre to finish with - would probably be a trip to casualty looking at the stone bird bath and shrubs JB would have landed in!

C'mon:  all he had to do was borrow the spare key for an hour and get another key cut.  Or go in and out of a sash window - much easier! 

And there's the rub:  if all the doors and windows were locked on the inside, it has to be Sheila.

But if there was a window that wasn't secure it could have been anyone - and the burden of proof is with the Prosecution that it was specifically Bamber.

[Myster]

All the downstairs windows were supposedly checked by Taff Jones (it's said) and were found to be secure, including the shower-room window, which JB could easily fasten again by means of a rotating catch on top of the lower sliding-sash once he'd climbed inside.

The kitchen window through which he is thought to have exited is the opening casement to the right of the top left fanlight, as discussed in the later posts above. You can just make out one lower hinge on the extreme right and also the darker line of the window itself. JB first opened the top fanlight, cleared some items on the sink, then opened the larger casement window and climbed out of that. Banged it to once outside, then reached through the fanlight to secure the central fastener, if there was one. Then he banged the small fanlight to, to fasten its stay. Don't forget that JB was fit and agile – climbing on and off tractors daily, and doing other manual farming tasks.

Even Paul Harrison believes JB exited through the kitchen window (but also claims that because Sheila unfastened the back door for him, she was involved in a conspiracy).

When interviewed Bamber admitted that he'd previously got in WHF by the Shower room window and others in the past.  After the murders too because he had no key, to collect travel documents before going on a freebie Continental jaunt.

Why would a burglar get in through the window, murder everyone including two sleeping children, then steal nothing?  JB rang the police saying that it was specifically Sheila going crazy with a gun, not just anyone.

[Holly Goodhead]

As far as I'm aware all doors were bolted internally so it would not have been possible for JB to get a key cut or borrow one and leave doors bolted upon exiting.

JB has stated that it was possible to effect entry via various windows but not possible to securely close windows upon exiting.  He has said it was only possible to get a catch as far as the 8 position.

[Passer-by]

Yes, doesn't really help himself by announcing that incite, does he?!

Thank you both for the explanation of the window.  I grew up with sash windows with rotating locks:  it's interesting to see how easily they can be opened with a knife, but I would have though impossible to close again from the outside.  I still wouldn't have thought it was easy to shut the casement window:  although it might be theoretically possible on a new catch, the building looks like so many period buildings I've experienced where in reality it's had so many layers of paint it would be quite stiff, and it would also require a latch half way up the window to be pulled down:  isn't this the window the police looked through, with the lights on whilst they were in darkness outside?  If so, it would have been possible to see the second latch not in place even in outline from a slight distance.

Nonetheless, it seems to me one of JB's problems in this case is the burden of proof has been reversed and he is being obliged to prove he is innocent after some very incomplete and dodgy evidence was submitted to make him look guilty.  I think if he'd had a better legal team they would have made mincemeat out of Julie Mugford's trail of criminality and the inconsistencies of her behaviour, and similarly followed the trail of potential cross-contamination of the moderator, and then the burden of proof would still have been the other way round.  It's almost impossible to prove a negative. 

As I posted elsewhere, is it possible SC was lying in wait for JC to arrive, knowing his preferred entrance through a downstairs window?  The'd both been to boarding school - this kind of thing happens quite a lot, and I can't imagine JC was the only teenager from that house who maybe went off to the pub without his parents knowing.  Even a murderer being arrogant would spot the stupidity of announcing he went in and out of the house through the windows if they've set the scene to be a murder-suicide by someone inside.

[John]

As far as I'm aware all doors were bolted internally so it would not have been possible for JB to get a key cut or borrow one and leave doors bolted upon exiting.

JB has stated that it was possible to effect entry via various windows but not possible to securely close windows upon exiting.  He has said it was only possible to get a catch as far as the 8 position.

This is the reason a third party intruder has always been discounted from this case.  Only Jeremy Bamber knew how to get in and out of a supposedly secure farmhouse and he was well practiced in the art.  Curiously, Sheila was also known to climb out her bedroom window and shim down a strategically placed ladder so she could escape for a night out.

After the murders Jeremy had to gain access to the farmhouse before going abroad.  Secretary Barbara Wilson kept the keys but Jerry didn't want to alert her in case she told the police so again entered the farmhouse via his favourite unsecured downstairs window.  Some people might ask why admit to this?  The simple answer is another question, why admit the robbery at Osea?

Answer:  Because he knew Julie Mugford had already told the police.

[Passer-by]

I find it hard to believe he would include Julie Mugford so much in his plans without actually getting her there as his alibi if he trusted her so much.

I regret to say that in that same situation I reckon at least 2 of my relatives would have given the same answers if they had been true.  An arrogant murdering liar would just have discredited his girlfriend and immediately got the men on side with tales about what a neurotic nightmare she's been since they'd split up.