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: Holly Goodhead on January 31, 2016, 11:29:52 AM
-
Scipio posted part of PC Collins' WS yesterday (unavailable in the forum's library) and I noticed this part is identical to that of PC Delgado's. Why? Were they attempting to cover something up and colluding? Or is it a case of 'copying homework'?
"...Entering further into the bedroom I saw the body of a female aged about twenty five years. The body was laying on its back. I saw what appeared to be .22 rifle laying on top of the body with the end of the barrel near to the chin. I saw that her right hand was near to the trigger of the rifle. I saw injuries to the neck and chin and what appeared to be blood had run down each side of her mouth. I formed the opinion that she was dead. This person was dressed in a nightdress. Near to her body I saw one spent cartridge case which appeared to be the calibre of a .22 and next to her body I saw an open bible. We continued the search of the upstairs and on entering the childrens bedroom...."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=154.0;attach=74
-
Two photos exist of the main bedroom: one with the door to the box room half open the other closed. Myster suggested the reason for this might have been to enable PC Bird to take a photo of SC from a different angle? I assume Myster means by closing the door?
Was the door open or closed when the raid team entered the main bedroom?
-
I've read through the raid team stats AGAIN from this forums library and the only mention of the box room between the main bedroom and twins room appear to be the following:
PC Woodcock
"Having searched this room [main room] and a small lobby attached to it we moved across the landing into another bedroom which appeared to be Sheila BAMBER'S room".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
PC Hall
"I also saw a connecting door in the right hand corner of the room"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=98
Pity they don't make it clear whether or not the door was open or closed when they entered the main bedroom.
I wonder why PC Collins and PC Delgado don't make any reference to the box room or connecting door? I'm getting the feeling there's something not right here but I will need to read the raid team WS's AGAIN 8)><( They all had the benefit of JB's layout of WHF which surely they would ensure they could remember and visualise or at least those leading would? Having identified SC with the rifle across her body it appears they then searched the adjoining box room. Surely they would then open the door leading to the twins room but it appears from the WS's they left the main bedroom and searched SC's bedroom and then entered the twins room via the landing. If this is accurate it makes no sense to me. When they left the main bedroom they had no idea of the twins fate. Surely the priority would be to prevent them potentially witnessing a horrific scene?
Did members of the raid team move SC's body to gain access to the box room? Or did members enter the main bedroom via the twins room and box room and when opening the door inadvertently moved SC's body?
-
I've read through the raid team stats AGAIN from this forums library and the only mention of the box room between the main bedroom and twins room appear to be the following:
PC Woodcock
"Having searched this room [main room] and a small lobby attached to it we moved across the landing into another bedroom which appeared to be Sheila BAMBER'S room".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
PC Hall
"I also saw a connecting door in the right hand corner of the room"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=98
Pity they don't make it clear whether or not the door was open or closed when they entered the main bedroom.
I wonder why PC Collins and PC Delgado don't make any reference to the box room or connecting door? I'm getting the feeling there's something not right here but I will need to read the raid team WS's AGAIN 8)><( They all had the benefit of JB's layout of WHF which surely they would ensure they could remember and visualise or at least those leading would? Having identified SC with the rifle across her body it appears they then searched the adjoining box room. Surely they would then open the door leading to the twins room but it appears from the WS's they left the main bedroom and searched SC's bedroom and then entered the twins room via the landing. If this is accurate it makes no sense to me. When they left the main bedroom they had no idea of the twins fate. Surely the priority would be to prevent them potentially witnessing a horrific scene?
Did members of the raid team move SC's body to gain access to the box room? Or did members enter the main bedroom via the twins room and box room and when opening the door inadvertently moved SC's body?
I think this is unlikely as it would surely have caused some bruising or other mark to the body and the pathologist didn't identify any.
-
Scipio posted part of PC Collins' WS yesterday (unavailable in the forum's library) and I noticed this part is identical to that of PC Delgado's. Why? Were they attempting to cover something up and colluding? Or is it a case of 'copying homework'?
"...Entering further into the bedroom I saw the body of a female aged about twenty five years. The body was laying on its back. I saw what appeared to be .22 rifle laying on top of the body with the end of the barrel near to the chin. I saw that her right hand was near to the trigger of the rifle. I saw injuries to the neck and chin and what appeared to be blood had run down each side of her mouth. I formed the opinion that she was dead. This person was dressed in a nightdress. Near to her body I saw one spent cartridge case which appeared to be the calibre of a .22 and next to her body I saw an open bible. We continued the search of the upstairs and on entering the childrens bedroom...."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=154.0;attach=74 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=154.0;attach=74)
They probably wrote their witness statements together, seeing as they moved through WHF with each other as part of the TFU. Is there a law against it?
-
I think this is unlikely as it would surely have caused some bruising or other mark to the body and the pathologist didn't identify any.
Impossible, as there would be blood marks on the carpet from where she was pushed, and she was a dead weight, remember. They entered the main bedroom first and saw both bodies there without going through the box room from the twins' room. The box room might have been full of boxes anyway, i.e. junk, hindering their path.
-
They probably wrote their witness statements together, seeing as they moved through WHF with each other as part of the TFU. Is there a law against it?
I've no idea what the training manual states about WS's eg 'own words' or what.
PC Collins, Delgado and Manners all refer in general terms as to what happened after leaving the main bedroom eg continued searching upstairs, entered childrens room, search complete.
PC Woodcock is the most detailed he refers to searching the small lobby, then SC's room, finding JB's room locked and then entering the twins room.
Acting PS Manners refers to the search progressing and bodies of twins found.
-
Impossible, as there would be blood marks on the carpet from where she was pushed, and she was a dead weight, remember. They entered the main bedroom first and saw both bodies there without going through the box room from the twins' room. The box room might have been full of boxes anyway, i.e. junk, hindering their path.
PC Woodcok makes reference to searching it but no reference to what was in it or the door the other side. I guess a crime scene photo exists. Surely someone would have stood guard on this door until the search was complete?
-
I think this is unlikely as it would surely have caused some bruising or other mark to the body and the pathologist didn't identify any.
Plus they would not want to disturb the body so if the body blocked the door they would not have gone in through that door in the first place.
If they had to move the body to get in they would have mentioned it.
The police spoke to each other when they were writing their statements. But some of them went in the rooms different times than others and some never went in all the rooms or only went in part of the way so you will find not all of them saw the same things.
Statements are not all encompassing. Police are supposed to mention things of significance that the investigators would need to know they are not supposed to be detailed records noting every tidbit. That is thy there was a need for future clarification and further statements. Obviously the rooms they found bodies in were the most significant.
-
Plus they would not want to disturb the body so if the body blocked the door they would not have gone in through that door in the first place.
If they had to move the body to get in they would have mentioned it.
The police spoke to each other when they were writing their statements. But some of them went in the rooms different times than others and some never went in all the rooms or only went in part of the way so you will find not all of them saw the same things.
Statements are not all encompassing. Police are supposed to mention things of significance that the investigators would need to know they are not supposed to be detailed records noting every tidbit. That is thy there was a need for future clarification and further statements. Obviously the rooms they found bodies in were the most significant.
I was actually meaning that SC may have been preventing access to the main bedroom from the box room. Meaning if officers approached the main bedroom via the box room they may have inadvertently moved SC's body but on reflection this seems very unlikely.
I appreciate in theory officers would not move the body other than for essential reasons that they have noted eg lift hand to take photo of blood underneath. But what happened in practice might have been different. Eg as far as I can see none of the raid team have made reference to the blue socks. Why? Was SC's body covering them at some stage? The blue socks were deemed important enough to seize as an exhibit and test for blood. The raid team make reference to the casing(s) and bible but no refeference to the socks?
-
I was actually meaning that SC may have been preventing access to the main bedroom from the box room. Meaning if officers approached the main bedroom via the box room they may have inadvertently moved SC's body but on reflection this seems very unlikely.
I appreciate in theory officers would not move the body other than for essential reasons that they have noted eg lift hand to take photo of blood underneath. But what happened in practice might have been different. Eg as far as I can see none of the raid team have made reference to the blue socks. Why? Was SC's body covering them at some stage? The blue socks were deemed important enough to seize as an exhibit and test for blood. The raid team make reference to the casing(s) and bible but no refeference to the socks?
They tested the socks to test their theory that June walked around the bed. They tested 2 swatches of carpet and the socks to trace her movement. The socks were insignificant for any other purpose and meaningless to the raid team. Guns, bodies bullets were the main thing the raid team cared about and were supposed to tell what they did.
Since they went int he master bedroom first and the boys later that obviously means they didn't pass through the boxroom to get to the master bedroom. Her body is too far for the door to move anyway the table is in the way at most they could smack her head some.
-
Scipio posted part of PC Collins' WS yesterday (unavailable in the forum's library) and I noticed this part is identical to that of PC Delgado's. Why? Were they attempting to cover something up and colluding? Or is it a case of 'copying homework'?
"...Entering further into the bedroom I saw the body of a female aged about twenty five years. The body was laying on its back. I saw what appeared to be .22 rifle laying on top of the body with the end of the barrel near to the chin. I saw that her right hand was near to the trigger of the rifle. I saw injuries to the neck and chin and what appeared to be blood had run down each side of her mouth. I formed the opinion that she was dead. This person was dressed in a nightdress. Near to her body I saw one spent cartridge case which appeared to be the calibre of a .22 and next to her body I saw an open bible. We continued the search of the upstairs and on entering the childrens bedroom...."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=154.0;attach=74
Police officers routinely compare notes to ensure completeness. Conspiracists would call it something else but that is their prerogative. When I was going through the police statements I did note the indistinguishable remarks.
-
They tested the socks to test their theory that June walked around the bed. They tested 2 swatches of carpet and the socks to trace her movement. The socks were insignificant for any other purpose and meaningless to the raid team. Guns, bodies bullets were the main thing the raid team cared about and were supposed to tell what they did.
Since they went int he master bedroom first and the boys later that obviously means they didn't pass through the boxroom to get to the master bedroom. Her body is too far for the door to move anyway the table is in the way at most they could smack her head some.
It would be a good idea to try and access a 1985 police training manual to see what is deemed relevant for a WS. As a lay person I find it odd none of the raid team, as far as I can see, included the socks given their proximity to SC and the fact they had visible blood on. I understand the reason they were seized and tested but this might not have been apparent to the raid team at the time when they were pre-occupied with making the house safe. PC Woodcock makes reference to cosmetics and a box of tampons on SC's bed. What relevance do these items have to anything?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251;image
-
Police officers routinely compare notes to ensure completeness. Conspiracists would call it something else but that is their prerogative. When I was going through the police statements I did note the indistinguishable remarks.
Yes I agree you would expect them all to be similar since they are relaying the same event but at least part of PC Collins and Delgado's WS's are identical word-for-word. I don't know what the process was for writing up the WS's eg straight back to the station, get them written up and then in for typing? Of course it could be an admin error.
-
It would be a good idea to try and access a 1985 police training manual to see what is deemed relevant for a WS. As a lay person I find it odd none of the raid team, as far as I can see, included the socks given their proximity to SC and the fact they had visible blood on. I understand the reason they were seized and tested but this might not have been apparent to the raid team at the time when they were pre-occupied with making the house safe. PC Woodcock makes reference to cosmetics and a box of tampons on SC's bed. What relevance do these items have to anything?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251;image
You won't find it in any manual. What is relevant and to include depends on the circumstances. The people requesting the statement give the general requirements of what they want. They were told to recount what they did and their interactions with Jeremy. In later statements they were asked to address certain specific things. A statement is for the benefit of the investigators so that they know who to consult for what.
The first statement they took from Ann all they wanted was her to tell them about Sheila for instance.
-
You won't find it in any manual. What is relevant and to include depends on the circumstances. The people requesting the statement give the general requirements of what they want. They were told to recount what they did and their interactions with Jeremy. In later statements they were asked to address certain specific things. A statement is for the benefit of the investigators so that they know who to consult for what.
The first statement they took from Ann all they wanted was her to tell them about Sheila for instance.
I would be most surprised if I discovered the police in 1985 received little or no training on how to prepare WS's. It seems obvious to me firearms would receive additional training given the nature of their operations. I'm sure training manuals exist with model specimens. I find it difficult to believe that a pair of blood stained socks found by a body (if visible) would be deemed irrelevant and not worthy of inclusion in a WS but I might be wrong. Maybe they just thought they were NB's discarded socks from when he got into bed and someone dripped blood on them and it wasn't relevant.
-
I would be most surprised if I discovered the police in 1985 received little or no training on how to prepare WS's. It seems obvious to me firearms would receive additional training given the nature of their operations. I'm sure training manuals exist with model specimens. I find it difficult to believe that a pair of blood stained socks found by a body (if visible) would be deemed irrelevant and not worthy of inclusion in a WS but I might be wrong. Maybe they just thought they were NB's discarded socks from when he got into bed and someone dripped blood on them and it wasn't relevant.
Sorry but there is no instructions for writing statements. Police only need to write up statements when requested to do so. Their pocket books were for their own records. A statement is only written when requested and the person requesting it sets the parameters. Someone can be vague and say write down what you did or can be more specific and say tell me what you moved and touched. As a result of allegations the police caused damage in the kitchen and opened windows and left them unlocked the police were asked to detail just that. Most of the time someone will speak to them and get answers from them and then say write that down I want a statement to that effect. It's not as common to not speak with them and just make them write something.
Instead of a situation where Jones would have to tell his superiors that someone told him XYZ you have statements with such written up so that the superiors can just look and see for themselves or you can attach the statements and say here this is what the person said about such issue. There are 2 reasons for this:
1) When there are many people working on a case you want key things available to all as opposed to everyone having to go to each other and ask did you speak to so and so and if so what did he say.
2) It avoids the situation of the person saying they don't remember telling you such you must be mistaken or worse saying you are lying and made it up.
DCI Jones among others didn't want to talk to every raid team member and interview them to ask what each one did. He asked a few key raid team guys to give statements of what they did. In September everyone was asked to write down what they did and about their Jeremy interactions because at that point Jeremy was a suspect. They also were shown the photos and asked if the photos reflected how they recall the scene. This was because of concerns that maybe they moved things. When there were concerns then at that point they would be asked about them. The purpose of these statements is to help the investigators as well as the people handling the prosecution including lawyers. When the people handling such have questions they feel need to be answered and should be documented then a statement is obtained sometimes from a cop often from civilians.
I have never seen police allow someone to ramble on like they did with Ann except for suspects. They give suspects room to hang themselves. The freedom they gave Ann is astonishing. It makes reading her statements a nightmare but there are a few things in there that otherwise we would not know about- most of them things that are totally worthless but still some that people take interest in.
The babble about the dirty children's clothes and crotch stained panties that were soaking is quite worthless but some took interest in it and it caused plenty of posts over the years. The only part i even find at all interesting is her father telling her to throw them away because they would not need them anymore when he was asked what she should do with them. I can almost see his snarkiness as he remarked to her and probably thought inside what the hell is wrong with her that she even needed to ask no one will want these stained used clothes donated to them. While others try making a mountain out of this I just find it humorous.
I have found plenty of funny things in statements totally irrelevant to the issue at hand including someone writing about failed stings carried out in a company lunchroom to find out who was eating other people's lunches from the break room fridge. In one they planted an ink pack in a brown bag. No one fell for the trap other lunches were eaten while it was left untouched.
-
I would be most surprised if I discovered the police in 1985 received little or no training on how to prepare WS's. It seems obvious to me firearms would receive additional training given the nature of their operations. I'm sure training manuals exist with model specimens. I find it difficult to believe that a pair of blood stained socks found by a body (if visible) would be deemed irrelevant and not worthy of inclusion in a WS but I might be wrong. Maybe they just thought they were NB's discarded socks from when he got into bed and someone dripped blood on them and it wasn't relevant.
No manuals, it's hands on training throughout. You can either shoot or you cannot shoot.
-
No manuals, it's hands on training throughout. You can either shoot or you cannot shoot.
I imagined, wrongly it seems, that police operations would be very procedural.
John if you found yourself at soc with a pair of blood stained socks near to a body do you think you would include or exclude when writing up your WS?
-
I imagined, wrongly it seems, that police operations would be very procedural.
John if you found yourself at soc with a pair of blood stained socks near to a body do you think you would include or exclude when writing up your WS?
That would depend on what kind of cop. As a raid team member I would not but as a crime scene officer I would.