What if anything can we learn from the Bamber videos?

[mrswah]

Okay, it worked like this. You have this bod at HQ taking down what's radio'd in. Police person A, having peered through a window and seen hair cascading forward, reports the body of a woman. Police person B, on entry, not knowing that police person A has reported seeing the body of a woman, radio's in that they've found the body of a man. Bod at HQ precis's by putting them together.

So, was it made clear at trial that there was only one body downstairs, and four upstairs?

[APRIL]

So, was it made clear at trial that there was only one body downstairs, and four upstairs?

Good question, Mrswah!............and one I don't know the answer to. I think, though, it's a given that no police person claims to have seen 2 bodies together. It was more a question of one believing the body was that of female and the other -OR possibly the same one rectifying their mistake?- seeing it to be male.

[barrier]

Good question, Mrswah!............and one I don't know the answer to. I think, though, it's a given that no police person claims to have seen 2 bodies together. It was more a question of one believing the body was that of female and the other -OR possibly the same one rectifying their mistake?- seeing it to be male.

Are we to assume it was through the window that it was first noticed a body? was this  just before 7:30 entry? so were the curtains closed and were the police looking through a gap or were they open where  it was good daylight where a mistake was unlikely to happen?

[APRIL]

Are we to assume it was through the window that it was first noticed a body? was this  just before 7:30 entry? so were the curtains closed and were the police looking through a gap or were they open where  it was good daylight where a mistake was unlikely to happen?

Barrier, we have to remember that looking through a window, with the added possibility that there's someone the other side of it waiting to shoot, offers a limited field of vision.

[barrier]

Barrier, we have to remember that looking through a window, with the added possibility that there's someone the other side of it waiting to shoot, offers a limited field of vision.

I realise that, was just trying to get an handle on when a peek/look was taken,easy to make a mistake if your're just sneaking a glimpse.If Robs trying to tell us there were two bodies,someone has to be certain.Even Bamber never claims this,sheesh.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

An engaged phone is off the hook.  You pick up the handpiece and hear a dial tone.  Anyone trying to ring that number would say it was engaged.  The impression I got was they were saying even though it was off the hook initially at some stage the signal changed to an engaged signal, which had to mean someone replaced the receiver and then picked it up again and used the phone.  In fact, they try to say that a 999 call was made then.  Maybe it was rung but not answered.  It is all a bit weird.  Was some technician doing all this off-site?  That might be it.

Is this the solution?  Someone is listening in to the line, but a technician at a central site is playing around making the tones on the line change.  All the time the handpiece is lying on the counter top untouched.

You’re talking 35 years ago; BT didn’t have the technology they do now — and why would a BT engineer in the dead of night play games with their line?

Instead of conjuring up implausible scenarios, Rob, go by the facts that are known — including the lies Bamber told.

He said Nevill rang him and then the phone cut off “like someone had pressed the buttons down”. He was obviously trying to infer that Sheila had walked over to Nevill as he was speaking on the phone and placed her fingers on the cut-off buttons.

We all know that’s pathetic and utter rubbish.

Whatever, JB said the phone cut off, so he would have got the dialling tone immediately.

He claimed he rang back (not immediately, I seem to recall...), and got the engaged tone. But that engaged tone happened when he himself took the receiver off its cradle.

His lies are all tosh.

Finally, there were NO calls made to the police, 999, or any other number from WHF after Jeremy Bamber took the receiver off. None. Not one.

It’s time wasting discussing it

[ISpyWithMyEye]

But if it was as simple as that there would still be 4 bodies found upstairs rather than just 3.

There were.

Sheila, June and the two little boys Jeremy shot dead.

Didn’t you know that?😳

[Robittybob1]

You’re talking 35 years ago; BT didn’t have the technology they do now — and why would a BT engineer in the dead of night play games with their line?

Instead of conjuring up implausible scenarios, Rob, go by the facts that are known — including the lies Bamber told.

He said Nevill rang him and then the phone cut off “like someone had pressed the buttons down”. He was obviously trying to infer that Sheila had walked over to Nevill as he was speaking on the phone and placed her fingers on the cut-off buttons.

We all know that’s pathetic and utter rubbish.

Whatever, JB said the phone cut off, so he would have got the dialling tone immediately.

He claimed he rang back (not immediately, I seem to recall...), and got the engaged tone. But that engaged tone happened when he himself took the receiver off its cradle.

His lies are all tosh.

Finally, there were NO calls made to the police, 999, or any other number from WHF after Jeremy Bamber took the receiver off. None. Not one.

It’s time wasting discussing it

I appreciate that you've made an attempt to explain it but some of what you say seems incorrect.
So maybe we are wasting time discussing it.  It should have been sorted then when the phone lines could be checked.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

How did Sheila get the bruises to her arms?  I had seen them myself, but someone suggested they were blood smears.

Sheila had NO bruises on her arms or anywhere else. Read the autopsy report.

She had blue mottling (livor mortis) on her left arm which you can see in the photos

If you keep watching these insane videos churned out by the CT, which are all littered with gross exaggerations, outright lies and twisted distorted rubbish, you’ll end up even more confused than you are now, Rob.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I appreciate that you've made an attempt to explain it but some of what you say seems incorrect.
So maybe we are wasting time discussing it.  It should have been sorted then when the phone lines could be checked.

What’s incorrect?

I’m lucid, Rob

I’m also logical

I don’t dream up weird scenarios — I go by FACTS and what I’ve read from the OFFICIAL reports. I read what police, lawyers, pathologists, ballistic experts, scientists, forensics, witnesses etc have all STATED as FACT.

I’m guided by the FACT that all this was gone over 35 years ago: not by crackpots, conspiracy theorists, or hapless members of JB’s CT who make ludicrous, laughable suggestions.

So, in the post of mine you’re referring to, there is NOTHING that’s incorrect.

[Robittybob1]

Sheila had NO bruises on her arms or anywhere else. Read the autopsy report.

She had blue mottling (livor mortis) on her left arm which you can see in the photos

If you keep watching these insane videos churned out by the CT, which are all littered with gross exaggerations, outright lies and twisted distorted rubbish, you’ll end up even more confused than you are now, Rob.

These look like scratches that had occurred before Sheila shot herself or was shot the first time.  We can see the blood that had dropped onto her arm.  So when did she wipe the blood off this side of her arm?

[Robittybob1]

What’s incorrect?

I’m lucid, Rob

I’m also logical

I don’t dream up weird scenarios — I go by FACTS and what I’ve read from the OFFICIAL reports. I read what police, lawyers, pathologists, ballistic experts, scientists, forensics, witnesses etc have all STATED as FACT.

I’m guided by the FACT that all this was gone over 35 years ago: not by crackpots, conspiracy theorists, or hapless members of JB’s CT who make ludicrous, laughable suggestions.

So, in the post of mine you’re referring to, there is NOTHING that’s incorrect.

I will put my replies as Bold:

Well I thought there was some mistakes, and I just didn't have the energy to argue the point.


You said "You’re talking 35 years ago; BT didn’t have the technology they do now — and why would a BT engineer in the dead of night play games with their line?"

OK there is some discussion of how to get a clear line into the house.  I'll find it later and we'll discuss it then.

You said "Instead of conjuring up implausible scenarios, Rob, go by the facts that are known — including the lies Bamber told.

He said Nevill rang him and then the phone cut off “like someone had pressed the buttons down”. He was obviously trying to infer that Sheila had walked over to Nevill as he was speaking on the phone and placed her fingers on the cut-off buttons.

We all know that’s pathetic and utter rubbish."

Well that is how you see it. 

You said "Whatever, JB said the phone cut off, so he would have got the dialling tone immediately."

He would need to put his phone down first and then pick it up again to get a new dial tone.

He claimed he rang back (not immediately, I seem to recall...), and got the engaged tone. But that engaged tone happened when he himself took the receiver off its cradle.

You said "His lies are all tosh.

Finally, there were NO calls made to the police, 999, or any other number from WHF after Jeremy Bamber took the receiver off. None. Not one.

It’s time wasting discussing it"

That is right if you just want  to rave on about your views there is no point discussing it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

These look like scratches that had occurred before Sheila shot herself or was shot the first time.  We can see the blood that had dropped onto her arm.  So when did she wipe the blood off this side of her arm?

Read the autopsy report, Rob.

Sheila had NO scratches.

You’re reading BS.

[Robittybob1]

They are scratches IMO.

[Holly Goodhead]

They are scratches IMO.

Any idea why two pathologists overlooked?