Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

QuoteAdam:
I first mentioned the answering machine years ago. And today in reply 9!

Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

QuoteMunksa:
Did he even have an answering machine pre murder though? Unless it can be established then it's waste of my time imo to discuss.

I have head of this answering machine but he got it pro murders.

Munksa,

If Jeremy is guilty, he must have at least one answering machine pre-murders, maybe two if he wants a 'clean' one for the murders that he then hides or destroys while he pretends his usual one was not switched-on that evening.

QuoteMunksa:
No clue QC

Sorry, it would have to be the one answering machine.  The reason I am getting confused is because I have been looping together all the logical deductions and it gets convoluted and confusing.

I now realise that he can't have planned the phone calls.  It follows that he had just the one answering machine and if he is guilty, that must have been switched on.  He has then opportunistically come up with the idea of the call on the hoof, then it goes as Adam says - he rings his own number, presses the hook switch down, leaves the handset off the hook, then takes the ladies push bike back.  He then unravels things at the other end by disposing of the answerphone tape or deleting the record on the phone digitally (hoping that there is no way for it to be recovered by forensic examination).  He rings Julie, then the police, etc., etc.

I accept all this is possible, but in order for it to be plausible I need a solution to the problem of timings.  Remember, he is making three calls:

- one to himself;
- one to Julie;
- one to the police.

How does he manage to keep the timings consistent, bearing in mind he is staging this on the assumption that there could be a traceable record at the telephone exchange of what he is doing?

Specifically, this is what I asked Adam:

QuoteQuote from: QCChevalier on January 08, 2022, 06:09:PM
Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

Or do we say that he doesn't care about the timings of calls, he even invents the call from Nevill?  If so, what does he need the bike for?

QuoteJane:
Surely all he needed was a spare tape? I seem to think the early answer machines were like mini tape recorders.

It depends on the model and type of machine used.  Do we know?

QuoteMunksa:
Agreed! This is why I don't want to think of a scenario unless I am sure he definitely had one pre murders

I think you misunderstand.  I'm not arguing against scenarios, I merely say that it is confusing because we have to think in reverse about how he might have planned it.

My questions still stand.  At what times did he make the relevant calls?  Or do you say he simply invented the call from Nevill?

QuoteAdam:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10965.0.html

I have done a recent time scale of the massacre.

At what time does he ring himself from the farm?

Your time for ringing Julie is different to that given by the prosecution.  Susan Battersby seems very sure that Julie came into her room at 3.12 a.m. immediately after her call from Jeremy.

QuoteRob:
If he simply invents the call from Nevil QC then there is no need to delay? He either phones the Police direct, or even better 999 and just says my farther just called etc.

The delay suggests to me he faked a call from WHF?

Yes, could be.  If you accept Susan Battersby's evidence, then you have a 10-minute or so delay which I assume is needed by the guilt camp so that Jeremy can hurriedly cycle back.  But I think they forget that he is cycling back in the dark and being careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage.

I'm still doubtful that this adds up.  It does look like he winged it and invented the call from Nevill, if he is a guilty.

QuoteAdam:
Well there are lots of different times as to when he phoned Julie. Bamber wasn't even sure if he phoned her before or after the police.

He phoned himself around 3am.

So Susan Battersby's evidence is wrong now?  How convenient for you, to leave the times open like that; but we do have a definite book-end, because PC West must have taken Jeremy's call no later than 3.25 a.m., probably 3.24 a.m.

Let's see:

He phones himself at 3 a.m.

We're now disregarding Susan Battersby's evidence.  She must have been lying.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he cycled back to the cottage in reasonably quick order.  DI Wilson managed it in 16 minutes during daylight.  How about 25 minutes?

He then composes himself, but wait, he needs to ring the police.

It's now 3.27 a.m.  He should have been speaking with PC West three minutes ago, and he first has to ring two other police numbers and he also needs to ring Julie.

Oh dear.

OK.  Let's say he cycles there in 20 minutes.  Then it becomes just about possible, but it means he only has minutes to make multiple phone calls and compose and collect himself, etc., etc.

To me, this doesn't add up.  Or rather, it only adds up if you shave more time off his cycle journey between the crime scene and the cottage.  Shall we say 17 minutes?  But it took DI Wilkinson 16 minutes in daylight.

It remains doubtful he could have done this.  Sorry.

QuoteAdam:
Why are you focusing on SB? There are about 6 people who give varying times on when Bamber called Julie.

The reason should be obvious, if you know the case.

It is Susan Battersby who was encouraged by the police to give a precise time [*date], and she obliged them.  Interestingly, this was not the time of Jeremy's call, rather it was the time that Julie came into Susan Battersby room after Jeremy's call - though Jeremy's call was brief, hence the significance of the time given.  I wonder why Julie did that?  Perhaps we should pass over that question in silence, as a famous philosopher once said.

As you rightly say, the flatmates were all over the place with times, even suggesting it could have been any time between 2.00 and 3.30 a.m.!  But that doesn't help the prosecution case, does it.  It means Jeremy could be as right as the flatmates about when he rang Julie, and in that regard, you have not a leg to stand on.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, if you are saying Jeremy has staged the call, then it doesn't add up.

If you want to change your story and say that Jeremy just made up the call from Nevill out of thin air, fine.  In that case, you don't need June's bike, Jeremy can just go back on foot.

Quoteilovebooze:
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?

If Jeremy is guilty, I don't believe he could have planned the call from Nevill or staged one, which leaves only the option of inventing a call from Nevill.

QuoteActually he probably phoned his cottage around 2.50am. Then phoned Julie around 3.15am.

In all the excitement he lost track of time. Or thought a shorter gap between receiving Nevill's call & phoning the police was better.

So now we're saying Jeremy phoned himself at 2.50 a.m.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he has nothing else to do in the farmhouse at this point and can leave quickly.  So he makes off from the farm reasonably smartly at 2.55 a.m.

Adam says he rings Julie from the cottage at 3.15 a.m.  You'll see immediately that the timings are still tight.  He has to be very careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage especially.

For this to work, he needs to be at the cottage by 3.10 a.m. and then ring Julie quickly and only be on the phone with her briefly.

He speaks with PC West at 3.24 a.m., so he has a 10-minute window after his call to Julie to shower, change and compose himself.

All the time he is doing this, it will be on his mind that the police may ask him why it took him almost 35 minutes to get through to the police.  This must be why he lied in his statement and said 3.10 a.m. for Nevill's call.  He then suggests to the police in an interview that they should check on the call times with British Telecom.

Of course, all of this is possible, but the issue here is plausibility: it doesn't sound convincing to me.

QuoteMunksa:
If he had planned this murders for months, I am sure he would have done his homework if calls could be traced or not.

One could say he was adamant because he knew it couldn't.

He even said a pathetic thing in desperation , that a witness could have seen him through the window taking the call! Ya right, what are the chances of someone seeing him taking a call at 3am in a quiet rural  " sleepy" village?

Who told him?  Where did he find this information?  How?

QuoteAdam:
Just need a BT log to show a 10 second phone call took place at 3.10am from WHF on the night.

Good luck finding that.

Oh & Bamber is saying he phoned the police at 3.36am. So there is time.

So to be clear, now you're saying that Jeremy was telling the truth all along and he rang Julie at 3.30 a.m.?

QuoteAdam:
That is what I just said. Assuming he did phone WHF at all.

And assuming he did phone Julie at 3.15am.

Bamber told the police he received Nevill's call around 3.10am.

What is the problem.

The problem is that you're all over the place.  You're the one who boasts that you know it all about this case and that Jeremy is definitely guilty beyond all doubt, so make up your mind please about what occurred.

You're being evasive and changing the times and explanations when cornered because the prosecution case does not add up.

If Jeremy did this, he must have invented the call from Nevill, but he then tells the police to check with BT.  It's now suggested he was just being cocky.  I note that whenever a stumbling block arises in this case, it's always put down to Jeremy being arrogant or cocky.  That's the go-to explanation.

Ok, let's say he was being cocky, we're still left with doubt about the safety of the conviction because we have a story that doesn't add up.

Someone else says Jeremy must have established the position with BT as part of his planning.  So he rang up BT and asked them?  I can only assume he must have done so under a false name.  Who did he speak to?  I doubt an ordinary BT operator would know this information.  The police looked into this and needed a witness statement from an engineer and even his evidence is inconclusive.

QuoteAdam:
This is a straight forward scenario.

QC will try to go around in circles on specific times.

If Bamber did phone his cottage from WHF, it would be around 2.45am - 3.00am.

He then cycles back & phones Julie/the police.

That is if he did phone WHF.

You are now putting the time back potentially by another five minutes, but conceding that you think it could have been as late as 3.00 a.m., when I have already shown you that this is next-to-impossible, and certainly rather implausible.

You don't have a clue.

QuoteMunksa:
I wish I had an answer to that.

Where there a will there is a way. He could have started it as casual conversation, he knew lots of people around London Clubs and I am sure sone of them will be unsavoury character. He could have got an idea.

Mind you I said COULD.

I don't believe it, sorry.  You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needed to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  It's the sort of thing the person asked would remember.

I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever.

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.

QuoteAdam:
Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks.

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

QuoteAdam:
As said, Bamber would -

Ring his answering machine from WHF. Leave a 10 second message. Hang up.

That ends the call. On both ends.

I thought of this as well.  It's in my Jeremy scenario, albeit I agree that if he is going to stage the call in a way that is sensitive to timings (which is the only reason he would do it), then he must terminate the call at the farm end, leave the handset off the hook, and he absolutely must return to Bourtree Cottage by push bike (whatever the practicalities of this method of conveyance, another issue).

I had understood that an answerphone at Bourtree Cottage was examined by the police, but I don't recall where that is confirmed.  Assuming that is the case, then it must be that Jeremy had a second answerphone, which he rigged up on the night and then hid.

Another issue here is, if Jeremy did have an answerphone at the cottage that was seized by the police, how did Jeremy take the call from Nevill in the first place?  Surely if Nevill had first started speaking into the answerphone, that evidence would have been retained by police?  Is Jeremy saying that he just didn't connect the answerphone that evening (they did have an on-off switch in those days, I seem to recall)?

QuoteRob:
If the answer phone was off QC the phone would ring but no call would be registered? I did read somewhere that the police removed a answerphone but don't quote me.

I've just realised that the answerphone theory doesn't stand up.  Before I explain why, I will address your comment.  You're overlooking that if Jeremy is guilty, he has obtained a second answerphone and rigged that up and switched it on prior to leaving for White House Farm.  On the other hand, if Jeremy is innocent, the answer function on the phone has simply been switched off, meaning that the phone would ring on in the normal manner without the interruption of an automated message.

Now I will explain why the answerphone theory doesn't hold together.  The reason is that in order for it to work, Jeremy would need to obtain a second phone that would be used that night then hid from the police, but as I have already explained, Jeremy could not have planned to stage a call as he had no way of knowing that Nevill would be in the kitchen and there was no phone in the bedroom, so he had no means to explain how Nevill could reach a phone.

A pro-guilt person could reply to this by saying that Jeremy could have planned to stage a pre-incident call from Nevill as part of an alibi, but if you think about this within the parameters of a prosecution scenario, that can't work and this would be intuitive and obvious to Jeremy, if he were guilty.  The bottom line is, he has to kill Nevill in bed or wherever Nevill is sleeping.  Anything else represents the plan going awry.

I am swinging back and forth on this case, but I am very doubtful that Jeremy could have carried out this plan.  If he did, then I'm still struggling to see how he did it.

If he planned it, he planned it.  Tracing of phone calls is a very obvious point.  If what Rob said on the other thread is true and the line could only be closed at the caller end, then Jeremy can't stage the call from Nevill.  It's impossible.  Furthermore, we know that Jeremy did later on make calls from Bourtree Cottage.
Thus, what the guilt camp are telling us is that Jeremy has decided to wing it and invent a call from Nevill and hope either that the police don't check with BT or there is no practicable way of establishing the position.  I find that rather unlikely.  The pro-guilt camp agree with me, which is why they explain it as Jeremy's arrogance.  Notice what Jane is saying.  Think about it.  Jane is tacitly conceding the point, but saying: 'Oh, but Jeremy is arrogant and would have chanced it'.  Jeremy's supposed 'arrogance' has become the deus ex machina of the pro-guilt camp as they confront the practical and logical difficulties of the prosecution scenario.

My own belief is that, if Jeremy did this, the phone calls were an unplanned aspect and thought up on the hoof due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen.  This is based on the simple logical observation that Jeremy could not - and would not - plan for Nevill to be in the kitchen.  Even if Jeremy knew that Nevill would be sleeping downstairs, he would kill Nevill where he found him, for two reasons: (i). he needs to make it look like Sheila has run amok; and (ii). he needs to kill Nevill anyway.  If Nevill's body is found in such a way that suggests he was struggling with Sheila in the kitchen, Jeremy may have decided he needed to give himself what he considered to be the extra insurance of an 'alibi', otherwise investigators might well ask how it came to be that Nevill is running through the house away from a slight, weak woman (of course, there are rational explanations for this anyway - for one thing, she has a loaded rifle - but we need not go into that now, and the point is that Jeremy will not have thought about it that way).

In that scenario, Jeremy may well have decided to wing it, but the guilt camp also want us to believe that Jeremy would tell the police to make inquiries with BT.  Why would Jeremy do that?

My goodness, this Jeremy was a helpful, public-spirited chap wasn't he!  He commits mass murder and helps the police catch him.  I suppose it was only fair, as Taff did give him a sporting chance at the start.

Welcome to the Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum!

We are an unofficial site entirely unconnected to either Jeremy Bamber or anyone else involved in this tragic case.

This Forum is for serious people and is tightly moderated.  Our purpose is high-quality discussion of the case.  There is no 'house stance' on the case – we don't care if you think Jeremy is guilty or innocent or you're unsure, we only ask that you post in good faith.

Whatever view or stance you take, you will be treated respectfully.  Everyone starts with a blank slate, but if you are coming on here with an agenda or to cause trouble, you will be quickly banned.  Please bear this in mind before proceeding further.

Some basic information

Our web location is: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php

The Owner and Moderator is Erik A. Narramore.  Feel free to send him a Personal Message (PM) or e-mail him at eriknarramore77@gmail.com.

All contact with the Moderator, other than normal discussion on the Forum itself, shall be by PM or to the above e-mail address.

About these Rules

These Rules are a work in progress and will be edited as the Forum grows.  They are not the same as the Registration Agreement you have already agreed.  That is a standard document, whereas what follows is specific to this Forum.  Please ensure you read these Rules carefully, and ask the Moderator if there is anything you do not understand, because you will be required to confirm that you have read, understood and agree to these Rules before you can join.

The Rules

1. Anyone requesting to join the Forum will be sent an e-mail by the Moderator in substantially the form contained in Annex A below.

2. Whether any particular membership request is approved or declined shall be entirely at the discretion of the Moderator, whose decisions shall be final.  If an application is rejected due to no response, the Moderator will send the applicant an e-mail in substantially the form contained in Annex B below.

3. All new members must post a new topic about themselves on the New Members board (in the Foyer) before posting elsewhere on the Forum.  Please see the 'Read Me' topic on that board for further guidance.

4. Unless the context requires, posts shall be in the English language, using an acceptable standard of English.

5. In order to maintain a degree of maturity and seriousness on the Forum, members must post here under a recognisable name.  An alias is acceptable as a screen name, but it must contain a forename and surname, and you must give your real name as your username on registration.

6. No multiple accounts.  Only one account per user.  Banned or deleted users who wish to return must in the first instance request re-activation of their existing account, and a new account will only be opened if re-activation is not possible and the banned/deleted user's request to re-join is otherwise approved.

7. This is a forum for considered discussion of the case.  Please do not engage in insults, personal attacks, goading, trolling, foul language or disruption of the Forum.

8. Posts should be relevant to the topic of the thread.  Do not insult or make personal attacks on other forum users. Stick to attacking, criticising or critiquing the views and opinions expressed, rather than the user.

9.1 This Forum provides access to various case documents and materials.  The breadth and depth of our archive is unrivalled and some of it may be of a sensitive nature.  With this in mind, access to our archive is permitted on the express condition that:
9.1.1. anything you choose to download from here must be used only for the purpose of your own private study of the case and stored only on the local hard drive of your own device;
9.1.2. you will otherwise not, for any reason or under any circumstances whatsoever, copy, reproduce, re-publish, upload elsewhere or share with any one else any documents or materials found here without the express prior consent of the Moderator (to be exercised in the Moderator's sole and absolute discretion).
9.2. For the avoidance of doubt, the restrictions and conditions in Rule 9.1, above will not apply to documents and materials that have been created for publication or broadcast to the public at large (such as press and media articles and audio-visual recordings embedded or uploaded from a third party platform such as YouTube).

10. Do not post in breach of anyone's copyright or other intellectual property rights.  When quoting or reproducing work from third parties, you must only do so to the extent that is permitted by fair dealing (as defined in UK copyright law), you are required to provide attribution of the author or creator or other rights-holder, and where the source is a webpage, you must provide a link in the relevant post. If quoting from a written work, you must provide the page number(s).  If there are not page numbers in the source, then you must, where practicable, provide some equivalent reference point, such as a sub-heading.

11. Do not post in a way that is, or could potentially be, defamatory or that advocates, glorifies, promotes or encourages violence or other criminal offences.

12. Do not use the Forum or information obtained from the Forum to harass, mock, insult and intimidate others, whether other members of the Forum or individuals outside the Forum.

13. It is acceptable to discuss and even criticise the adult victims, family members and Colin Caffell, but any such discussions must be conducted with respect, dignity and decorum, using non-inflammatory language and in a way that is not defamatory. Discussions about family members and victims in other true crime cases shall be conducted in a similar manner.

14. The Forum will establish membership categories as necessary, and some member categories may have additional forum privileges.

15. Please observe the sub judice rule and do not post on outstanding legal proceedings.  Specifically, for the purpose of sub judice in English law, 'legal proceedings' commence when a suspect is arrested.  If you are in any doubt, please do not hesitate to PM or e-mail the Moderator for further advice.

16. While the primary purpose of this Forum is discussion of the Bamber shootings and Jeremy Bamber, the Moderator does allow discussion of other alleged miscarriages of justice and unsolved criminal cases that have 'cold case' status.  Please exercise caution when discussing unsolved criminal cases that do not have 'cold case' status, especially those that concern very recent incidents that are in the news.  Even when a case is not strictly sub judice, there is a risk of causing distress to families of victims and/or libelling individuals.

17. As a gesture of respect towards the victims of the White House Farm shootings, the Moderator kindly requests that no posts are submitted to the Forum for a period of 18 hours between 6 p.m. on the 6th. August and 12 p.m. on 7th. August each year.  The times given are BST (i.e. GMT + 1).  The Moderator reserves the right to generally suspend posting privileges for that period (and if so, the exact times may vary depending on the commitments of the Moderator).

18. The Moderator reserves the right to take action against any member found in breach of these Rules.  This may include some or all of the following:

- advice on the open thread;
- advice, sent by PM;
- an informal warning, sent by PM;
- a formal warning sent by PM;
- suspension of one or more forum privileges;
- a temporary ban (which may take whatever form the Moderator decides in his discretion);
- an indefinite ban (which will be an IP ban);
- indefinite removal of posting privileges (Restricted Member status);
- account deletion (in effect, a permanent ban from the Forum).

19. Banned members may appeal and will be advised of the review and appeals procedure by the Moderator as and when necessary.  The Moderator's decision in an appeal shall be final and binding.

20. Indefinite bans will be reviewed after a period of 12 months and the ban will either be determined or confirmed.  If confirmed, the banned account will ultimately be deleted after a period of six (6) years from the date the ban commenced.

21. Bans shall be announced on the open Forum.  Announcements of temporary bans shall be removed once the ban has been served.  Announcements of indefinite bans shall be removed if and when a ban is determined, failing which the announcement will be removed on deletion of the account.

22. Accounts deemed to be Non-Active may be deleted at the absolute discretion of the Moderator. 'Non-Active' shall mean that the user (i). has not posted from the account for a period of twenty-four (24) months and (ii). has been sent a PM and e-mail by the Moderator containing a request that the user replies to confirm the account is still required or it will be deleted, to which the Moderator has received either no reply or consent for deletion.

23. All user data, including (among other things) IP addresses, shall be retained electronically until deletion of an account.  If a request to join the Forum is declined, then the declined user's information will be retained by the Moderator for a period of six (6) months and then deleted – except that we will retain the IP address and the reply to question 3 in the template letter in Annex A for a period of up to six years, starting from the date we decline the application.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Moderator is availed of the 'domestic purposes' exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018.

24. The application and interpretation of these Rules are at the absolute discretion of the Moderator, whose decisions shall be final and binding.

25. References in these Rules to 'Moderator', 'we', and similar, shall include anyone appointed by the Moderator to assist with the running of the Forum or other matters.

26. These Rules are in addition to the Registration Agreement, which you agreed to (or will agree to) during the initial registration process.  In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between these Rules and the Registration Agreement, these Rules shall prevail.

27. The Moderator reserves the right to make changes and modifications to these Rules from time-to-time.  Save for corrections and other very minor changes, whenever the Forum Rules are changed or modified in any substantial way, a new version will be posted to the relevant board in the Foyer and a Notice of Changes will be posted to the General Discussion board and e-mailed to all Forum members.  Members will be deemed to have accepted any such changes by their continued use of the Forum.

28. The Moderator is resident in Britain.  The governing law is English law.  The exclusive jurisdiction is England & Wales, save that the Moderator reserves the right to bring proceedings in the local jurisdiction of a forum user for the purpose of injunctive relief (or the local equivalent) or for the purpose of enforcing a judgment of the courts of England & Wales.


ANNEX A

Template Letter to Individuals Who Ask To Join

Dear [insert name],

Your request to join the Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

Thank you for your request to join the Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum.

Before we approve your request, please reply to the following by hitting the 'Reply' button in your e-mail application and typing under each question:

1. Please read our Forum Rules at https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php [click on 'Forum Rules' under 'Foyer' near the top of the page]. Then type 'YES' below to confirm you have read, understood and agree to the Forum Rules. 

2. Please provide your real name by typing it below.  This helps to maintain seriousness and maturity in discussions on the Forum, though you will be permitted to use an alias as your screen name, if you wish.

3. If you are, or ever have been, a member of the Blue Forum or Red Forum, please type below your existing screen handle(s) in those places.  If you have never been a registered user of either forum and/or you do not know what we mean by the 'Blue Forum' and 'Red Forum', then type 'Not Applicable' below.

If anything is unclear or you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask, again by replying to this e-mail.

If we do not hear from you within 14 days of this e-mail, we will assume you do not wish to proceed and we will delete your request.

Best Wishes,

[insert name]
Forum Moderator


ANNEX B

Template Rejection Letter [Non-Response] to Individuals Who Have Asked To Join

Dear [insert name],

Your request to join the Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

I note that 14 days have elapsed since our previous e-mail and we have not received a response from you.  Accordingly, your application to join the Forum has been rejected.

In accordance with Rule 23 of the Forum:

(i). your details will be retained for a period of six months and will be deleted on or around [insert date];
(ii). your IP address and any usernames you provided to us will be retained for a period of six years, to be deleted on or around [insert date].

Sincerely,

[insert name]
Forum Moderator

Quote from: Bill Robertson on November 30, 2023, 05:43:32 AMI will search my records and see if his statement is there. My recollection is that he heard a single gunshot from a shotgun but I need to check. He could not possibly have heard the rifle, which is the only weapon that inflicted wounds on the victims. I have to say that I regard his evidence as irrelevant. I hear gunshots every day, living in the country it is commonplace. It could even have been a bird scarer rather than a gunshot.

I had a look at my files but can't find anything related to Smith's report. I would be wary of anything reported in books as authors have been known to make things up, especially CAL.
You have reminded me that some of the first newspaper stories had June going crazy with a shotgun. Maybe Smith came forward after reading that. There were confused reports in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Thanks very much Bill.In Lomax's book it is described as gunshot sounds.There is a reference to the shot/s in a document posted by Mike Tesko in 2013,it has something to do with one of the appeals.
I just thought it would be interesting to read Smith's original statement.

I will search my records and see if his statement is there. My recollection is that he heard a single gunshot from a shotgun but I need to check. He could not possibly have heard the rifle, which is the only weapon that inflicted wounds on the victims. I have to say that I regard his evidence as irrelevant. I hear gunshots every day, living in the country it is commonplace. It could even have been a bird scarer rather than a gunshot.

I had a look at my files but can't find anything related to Smith's report. I would be wary of anything reported in books as authors have been known to make things up, especially CAL.
You have reminded me that some of the first newspaper stories had June going crazy with a shotgun. Maybe Smith came forward after reading that. There were confused reports in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Quote from: Bill Robertson on November 10, 2023, 01:28:16 PMWell I think the marks are probably caused by the Aga, but proving it is nigh on impossible and I'm not sure what difference it makes. It is Jeremy who insisted on every individual aspect of the  evidence being examined and reported to the CCRC so I guess that he is relaxed about spending years locked up unnecessarily. I think that he could have been out 5 years ago if they had just concentrated on a couple of issues.

Have you ever seen any documentation regarding the evidence of gun shots heard by Steven Brian Smith Bill? One source says he heard shots from the direction of WHF just before midnight.This could tie in with June being shot while Nevill was lying against the Aga.Would you hear shots outside at a distance from the open bedroom window?
I would like to know exactly what Stephen Smith told the police.

Well I think the marks are probably caused by the Aga, but proving it is nigh on impossible and I'm not sure what difference it makes. It is Jeremy who insisted on every individual aspect of the  evidence being examined and reported to the CCRC so I guess that he is relaxed about spending years locked up unnecessarily. I think that he could have been out 5 years ago if they had just concentrated on a couple of issues.

Quote from: Bill Robertson on November 10, 2023, 04:32:01 AM

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on November 09, 2023, 10:09:23 PMBoyce claimed the marks to Nevills back could have been made by the end of the rifle barrel Bill,but not with the silencer attached.But in the same programme Mark Williams Thomas made it clear that they were not sure if the rifle made the marks at all.

In the case of the Aga causing the Burns,this was an accidental occurrance as it were.The killer did not inflict the wounds for a reason,but indirectly caused them by injuring Nevill who then fell against the cooker by himself.If the Aga did indeed make the burns it is very unlikely that the killer was even aware of them.

So I dont think its really a case of proving who inflicted the burns to Nevills back Bill,as they were not caused by a direct act by anyone,and if it can be proven that the Aga did cause them and that they took several minutes to form then this has to point to Sheila as the killer surely.
Only if you believe that the police moved Nevill upon entry,then it could point to a guilty JB.It means that JB could have killed Nevill and left him lying against the Aga when he left the farm house,therefore giving the marks time to form before the TFG entered five hours later.

But as you believe that the police did not move Nevill,then the marks had to be made BEFORE Bamber exited the house.If guilty of course.And this is hard to fit into a guilty JB scenario as far as I can see.

So I cant help it Bill,for me the Aga burns do seem to point to an innocent Bamber, if proven, and therefore do seem to be important.




I have to agree with Yvonne Hartley that the sources of heat available at the WHF was limited,and if we rule out anyone actually branding Nevill with a heated item then the Aga was probably the only device in the kitchen capable of causing any burns by lying against it.

The problem is that there is no agreement that the marks are burns. Didn't JB's own defense pathologist say this? If there is no 100% agreement that the marks are burns it's hard to see the CCRC accepting it 40 years later. The CCRC is particularly keen to use statements from the defence experts to shoot down JB. As for Boyce, in the British legal system you don't get two bites at the cherry. If Boyce said previously the marks were caused by a heated rifle barrel he doesn't get to come back years later and say he has changed his mind. The CoA would laugh at him. The CCRC has no scientific expertise, they are mainly just lawyers looking at evidence from a legal perspective and they are very averse to taking risks. The are not going to put their necks on the chopping block and rule that the marks are burns when others have said that they are not sure.

Unfortunately Yvonne Hartley has wasted everyone's time with this issue and delayed a CCRC decision. Her obsession with demonstrating every flaw in the prosecution case and outlining every aspect of incorrect evidence does JB no favours when it comes to getting him freed, it just makes it more difficult and ties up a great deal of CCRC time. This is the problem when so much of the police evidence is incorrect. You can take the Yvonne Hartley approach and write it all down and dump a massive submission on the CCRC and accept that they will take years to wade through it. Or, you pick just one or two important issues and get the CCRC to look at those. Unfortunately, she is obsessed with highlighting every item of evidence that is in any way incorrect and the 'burns' issues falls into this category. Even if they are burns from the Aga, it won't make any difference to the CCRC. They won't get drawn into the kind of speculation that you have outlined and certainly won't see it as grounds for an appeal.

As for the alleged burns, there are too many 'ifs' and 'maybe's'. Are they burns? How were they caused? How long did they take to form? MInutes? Hours? How was Nevill still for the whole time? Too many questions that can't be resolved and therefore too risky for the CCRC to put before the CoA. As you say yourself, "if it can be proven that the Aga did cause them and that they took several minutes to form then this has to point to Sheila as the killer surely". But it can't be proven in the particular case of Nevill. Even if you took a cadaver and placed it up against a heated Aga it would not provide proof because you can never know the circumstances of the particular Aga in the kitchen at WHF. What temperature was the Aga in WHF on the night of 7 August? Nobody knows and nobody could ever know now.

It may be frustrating that the alleged burns evidence seems to point to JB's innocence but in my view it is never going to prove it to the satisfaction of the CoA. All that Yvonne has achieved is to cause some doubts in the minds of some people about what was not even a crucial point at the trial. Drake did not tell the Jury that they could convict JB on the 'burns' evidence and therefore the CCRC/CoA will regard it as a minor issue, not something that swayed the Jury.

Thanks very much for the detailed reply Bill,you have made the burns issue very clear.
Lets just hope some of the other points sent to the CCRC will have an impact.

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on November 09, 2023, 10:09:23 PMBoyce claimed the marks to Nevills back could have been made by the end of the rifle barrel Bill,but not with the silencer attached.But in the same programme Mark Williams Thomas made it clear that they were not sure if the rifle made the marks at all.

In the case of the Aga causing the Burns,this was an accidental occurrance as it were.The killer did not inflict the wounds for a reason,but indirectly caused them by injuring Nevill who then fell against the cooker by himself.If the Aga did indeed make the burns it is very unlikely that the killer was even aware of them.

So I dont think its really a case of proving who inflicted the burns to Nevills back Bill,as they were not caused by a direct act by anyone,and if it can be proven that the Aga did cause them and that they took several minutes to form then this has to point to Sheila as the killer surely.
Only if you believe that the police moved Nevill upon entry,then it could point to a guilty JB.It means that JB could have killed Nevill and left him lying against the Aga when he left the farm house,therefore giving the marks time to form before the TFG entered five hours later.

But as you believe that the police did not move Nevill,then the marks had to be made BEFORE Bamber exited the house.If guilty of course.And this is hard to fit into a guilty JB scenario as far as I can see.

So I cant help it Bill,for me the Aga burns do seem to point to an innocent Bamber, if proven, and therefore do seem to be important.




I have to agree with Yvonne Hartley that the sources of heat available at the WHF was limited,and if we rule out anyone actually branding Nevill with a heated item then the Aga was probably the only device in the kitchen capable of causing any burns by lying against it.

The problem is that there is no agreement that the marks are burns. Didn't JB's own defense pathologist say this? If there is no 100% agreement that the marks are burns it's hard to see the CCRC accepting it 40 years later. The CCRC is particularly keen to use statements from the defence experts to shoot down JB. As for Boyce, in the British legal system you don't get two bites at the cherry. If Boyce said previously the marks were caused by a heated rifle barrel he doesn't get to come back years later and say he has changed his mind. The CoA would laugh at him. The CCRC has no scientific expertise, they are mainly just lawyers looking at evidence from a legal perspective and they are very averse to taking risks. The are not going to put their necks on the chopping block and rule that the marks are burns when others have said that they are not sure.

Unfortunately Yvonne Hartley has wasted everyone's time with this issue and delayed a CCRC decision. Her obsession with demonstrating every flaw in the prosecution case and outlining every aspect of incorrect evidence does JB no favours when it comes to getting him freed, it just makes it more difficult and ties up a great deal of CCRC time. This is the problem when so much of the police evidence is incorrect. You can take the Yvonne Hartley approach and write it all down and dump a massive submission on the CCRC and accept that they will take years to wade through it. Or, you pick just one or two important issues and get the CCRC to look at those. Unfortunately, she is obsessed with highlighting every item of evidence that is in any way incorrect and the 'burns' issues falls into this category. Even if they are burns from the Aga, it won't make any difference to the CCRC. They won't get drawn into the kind of speculation that you have outlined and certainly won't see it as grounds for an appeal.

As for the alleged burns, there are too many 'ifs' and 'maybe's'. Are they burns? How were they caused? How long did they take to form? MInutes? Hours? How was Nevill still for the whole time? Too many questions that can't be resolved and therefore too risky for the CCRC to put before the CoA. As you say yourself, "if it can be proven that the Aga did cause them and that they took several minutes to form then this has to point to Sheila as the killer surely". But it can't be proven in the particular case of Nevill. Even if you took a cadaver and placed it up against a heated Aga it would not provide proof because you can never know the circumstances of the particular Aga in the kitchen at WHF. What temperature was the Aga in WHF on the night of 7 August? Nobody knows and nobody could ever know now.

It may be frustrating that the alleged burns evidence seems to point to JB's innocence but in my view it is never going to prove it to the satisfaction of the CoA. All that Yvonne has achieved is to cause some doubts in the minds of some people about what was not even a crucial point at the trial. Drake did not tell the Jury that they could convict JB on the 'burns' evidence and therefore the CCRC/CoA will regard it as a minor issue, not something that swayed the Jury.