Movement In The Window

[Erik Narramore]

Armed officers were called to the scene because, having verified that Jeremy's report was not a hoax, the response officers had a reasonable basis to believe that an armed individual may still be in the house.

I think both camps are misunderstanding Mr Bews.  It's not that he lied, as such.  His problem is a lack of candour.  He just doesn't know what he saw, if he saw anything at all, and rather than be upfront about it and admit this, he has to pretend that he knows that he saw nothing when he doesn't know that he saw anything or nothing or something.

[Erik Narramore]

I have just looked at the interview transcript again.  I can't see any mention of movement in the window by the police, which is the important point as it is the police who ask the questions.  A suspect would not volunteer additional information outside the scope of police questions.  Was he asked about it in the police interview?  If not, I could turn your point around and ask why the police never brought it up.

Jeremy does not mention it in his own statements given on the 7th. and 8th. August 1985, but there again, the statements cover what happened prior to his arrival at the farmhouse.  I agree that Jeremy should have mentioned it in one of his early statements, but we must remember that at this stage it was assumed by almost-everybody that Sheila was the killer, so it would not have been seen as vital to mention.

In my view, the bottom line is that he brought it up with the response officers there and then, at the farmhouse, when (he says) they or one of them thought they saw movement.  It is understandable that Jeremy, Myall and Bews may be confused about what they saw and who saw it.

At trial, the movement at the window was brought up in the cross-examination of Bews.  We don't know if it was brought up in Jeremy's examination-in-chief or cross-examination, as we don't have the transcript.  Maybe Rivlin decided not to emphasise the point due to the uncertainty, thinking that it might look like the defence are clutching at straws?  Or, as others imply, it could be that Jeremy was not thought to be the one who had seen movement, so there was nothing Rivlin or Arlidge could ask him about it as it had already been covered in the examination of Bews.

If Jeremy subsequently thinks he saw movement at the window, then it could be that his memory of what occurred has changed.

[Erik Narramore]

My understanding is that nobody has claimed that anybody saw a figure at the bedroom window.  The claim is that there was movement at the bedroom window.

[Erik Narramore]

Astronomy data for early hours of 7th. August at 4 a.m.:

I get 47 degrees as the Moon's elevation - admittedly, a back-of-the-envelope calculation.  The angle to the Sun may be the more important calculation.  On 7th. August 1985, the Moon was between a Full Moon and Third Quarter, so at a guess it would be something like 60% to 70% illuminated.

It's summer in August, in southern England.  4 a.m. that day would have fallen into the phase known as 'nautical twilight' - which, loosely-speaking, is the second stage of dawn after night and the penultimate stage before day.  Imagine it as halfway between night and day, with the horizon visible, and rapidly heading towards day; the Sun is still just below the horizon, but its rays are lighting the sky, so it is getting lighter.

The Sun is south-easterly.  The house faces easterly towards the estuary, with the gable ends running roughly north-south.  One could refer to an Ordnance Survey Map, possibly also building plans, if obtainable, to establish the angle of the front window relative to the Moon, but the reality is that moonlight can reflect off surfaces.

If we want to be really technical about this, there is no such thing as 'moonlight'.  The Moon is not light-emitting.  Moonlight is a loose phrase for any light from the Sun (sunlight) or the Earth (earthlight) that bounces (reflects) off the Moon.

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy did not claim to have seen a silhouette.  His claim was that PC Myall saw movement and PC Bews reacted to it.  Jeremy may have claimed differently later in the post-trial legal saga, but that's for Jeremy to explain.  It could be that Jeremy is innocent and, in desperation, he has started elaborating on the incident.  Or it could be that Jeremy is guilty but can't find the courage to confess, and in desperation, he is elaborating on the incident. Take your pick.

The reality is that PC Myall did see something, because Christopher Bews confirms this in interviews, it's just that Bews tries to suggest that when he himself looked, he concluded it was just light reflecting off the window.  The point is that Bews was not and is not in a position to confirm what Myall saw.  Nor is Jeremy, for that matter.

As for what occurred at trial, first of all we don't know what Rivlin was trying to do when he mentioned a 'trick of the light'.  Was his tone and manner towards Bews sarcastic when he said this, as if to emphasise to the jury that this was not a point that the defence could absolutely prove, but that they should be sceptical of Bews and the other police officers due to their inattention?  I say inattention because if Bews and Myall thought that something was seen, then regardless of who saw what or what they thought they saw, it was absolutely vital this was noted and communicated to the right people, and it wasn't.  As a result, the inaccurate impression has been allowed to develop that this is Jeremy 'trying it on', when in fact we know something was seen and it wasn't even Jeremy who claimed to have seen it in the first place.

In this respect, the pro-guilt camp want it both ways.  They fatuously ask: Why didn't Jeremy raise this before?  But he did!  That's why we're discussing it.  He raised it at trial and Rivlin at least asked Bews about it, and I am sure he must also have asked Myall, who also gave evidence at the trial.

[Erik Narramore]

The Unidentified Male claim is unrelated to the Movement in the Window controversy.

On looking at the trial documents again today, I see that Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C. did not question PC Myall about the movement in the window, even though it was Myall who actually saw it, not Bews.  I just find that astonishing.  What was the point of asking Bews if he had seen a 'trick of the light'?  Bews saw nothing anyway.