egafd.com

"The window???

The Meatus version: "They all approached the house together were they all saw a figure at the window with a gun"

The police version: ?At one point we thought we saw someone moving in the house but, when we checked, it was the moon?s reflection in the window.? "

Which police version? Which officers said that? And when? Was there original statements? or Revised statements? Was it made at the trial? Who said that which you quote?

"Quicker or not?

Meatus version: "Bamber also explained to the officers outside that he had dialled the local police station and not 999 as he thought it would affect the time the officers arrived, ie he thought they would come quicker from the local police."

Polive version: "When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive."

So Meatus says that Bamber "thought they would come quicker from the local police" but the police say he told them the opposite, that "he did not think it would make any difference". "

Well he certainly didn't think that they would come any slower?

Meatus the book reviewer:

"Meatus review: "For anyone with more than a passing interest in the case i would highly recommend the book Jeremy Bamber by Scott Lomax a totally impartial account of the case."

Impartial?

A non-Meatus review: "Although being described as an in depth description of this infamous case in reality it is one mans version of Jeremy Bamber's supposed innocence. It is a completely biased account of the case, page after page after page is devoted to explaining how, where and why Sheila Caffell (Bamber's step sister and the the other chief suspect) could indeed have murdered the family before committing suicide. As previous reviewers have stated it becomes extremely hard going, I could have quite easily given up reading about a third of the way through as the more the book goes on the more you feel you are being led in one direction only and it frankly becomes quite a boring read. In short, if you want to read a thorough account of this investigation with all the evidence explored in full with no bias involved either way then I would look elsewhere, if you're happy to read an author's account of Bamber's innocence then by all means give it a whirl." "

Who is giving your book review? And how many other reviews did you read? Did they all say the same? And how or why did they come to that conclusion? What makes the reviewer who you quoted any better at passing judgement on a book than i am? You are more likely to believe that person than me? And if so why? Because perhaps he thinks Bamber is Guilty like you? Whereas i am not saying Bamber is innocent, merely that i think that he has not been proved Guilty beyond Reasonable Doubt and his conviction is dubious at best.

And anyway isn't that the point of books? Is it not for a person to read it and then decide? Does everyone have to come away from a book and agree the same thing about it? Can there be no differing opinions? And have you actually read the book? That's why i recommended it, perhaps if you read it you would change your mind? Or perhaps not, that's not for me to make up. But along with that its not for your un-named reviewer to say that it is not valid either.

Also as i put forward recommendations for further reading i also said it would be worthy reading "Murder At White House Farm" by Claire Powell. No review on that? Why not? I was trying to give all the sources for what i had quoted and posted and a good starting point for those not familiar with the case. I am hardly going to name a good book to read about the case i have not read. And perhaps both the books are a good balance for the reader to make up his or her's own mind? Like i said i have also read a third book on the case, though that was many years ago and i borrowed it from the library so my apologies as i cannot remember the name.

Again i must also point out,

in no way am i saying that Jeremy Bamber is Not Guilty. I'm merely pointing out obvious flaws in his conviction. And i think most people would agree there are many. If i had to weigh up all the facts of the case then i won't sit here and lie to anyone that i would probably come to the conclusion that Bamber was Not Guilty. But in no way would i say i was 100% certain. But again i couldn't say that anywhere near that percentage did i think he was Guilty. Which seems to me to suggest that the facts of this case have not proved one way or another beyond "Reasonable Doubt" that Jeremy Bamber is Guilty of the murder of his family at White House Farm on that night.

I must also apologise to JamesW for my previous post in which i mentioned his name. From what i know of the case some of the things he had posted showed errors. But he was not the only one and i didn't mean to mention anyone by name, i only did as my apologies James your was the last post i had read. Forgive me for saying but i've been reading these posts since the subject was posted by number 6 and had wanted to post on it myself, but not mentioning anyone specifically or alluding to anyone, it seems to me that on this forum any sort of hot topic like this there are people on here who just argue for arguments sake.

Now i am all for discussion and debate and even heated arguments on genuine disagreements and JamesW you do appear to know your stuff. From what you say you do make some very valid points. So i don't mind discussing this with someone who seems to have researched the subject and knows what they are on about. My only query seems to be that all your arguments seem to be based on Court of Appeal arguments? Is this all you have read on the case? And if so, in what context? Was it the full transcript? Was it a summary? Did you read parts of it in a Newspaper? Or from a book? And if so, which one? And which books have you read on the case?

I think number 6 got it wrong by saying there are more holes in the case than a tramps shoe and then reverting people to Jeremy Bamber's official site. That was an act of folly as many people were going to quite rightly bring up that "he's not going to say he's guilty, is he?". But i think any reasonable minded person would have to admit that looking at the evidence of this case it's definitely not open and shut. I think even the majority of people who think Bamber is guilty would admit that. I also think being knowledgable about the case JamesW that even you would agree there are some glaring holes in the case? A point i would refer you to is that yes you came up with some very good counter arguments on my original post, but not for everything that i had posted. And i hate to hark on about it, but i think most people would agree that Jeremy Bamber's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to the jury that he was guilty. That is the Law!

While i believe this to be so, i don't think it would change anything. As the police are not usually positive about admitting they were wrong. And though in this case you couldn't say that they were 100% wrong. You have to say that a lot of mistakes were made. Crucial mistakes as it turns out. The investigation was appalling from start to finish and the destroying of evidence just takes the biscuit. Even if it was destroyed as the police say "at the request of Jeremy Bamber". It surely has to be one of the only times in British Criminal History that Major evidence was destroyed from a case at the request of the suspect! That's one of the reasons i feel Bamber is being blocked, as i feel that on most cases if it was found by the court of appeal that a sentance was unfound that the police would more than likely in most cases try for a re-conviction. In this case there simply isn't any evidence left that the police can use to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the horrific crime. In the end it would again come down to the testimony of Julie Mugford against that of Jeremy Bamber.

Another point for you JamesW is that although a lot of your posts which are refuting my points in my original post, seem to show that you believe that and the evidence shows that Sheila Caffell was not guilty, none of your points show ANY evidence that Jeremy Bamber is Guilty! I am guessing by order of elimination most people determine, "well if it wasn't Sheila, then it had to be Jeremy!" But i wonder how many other people have looked at evidence to the contrary and why the police so quickly believed that it was either Jeremy Bamber that commited the atrocity or it was Sheila Caffell? Another interesting point and one which you may correct me on JamesW is that in all accounts i have read the police believe that Jeremy Bamber walked and crossed through a field to commit the killing and then broke into the house quietly to commit the act. So if they think it was possible that Jeremy broke into the house, isn't it entirely possible that someone else could have?

Is he posting here?!!!

Meatus: "In court transcripts i have read and from details i've read in books on the cases its always been stated that Bamber arrived at the farmhouse before the officers, though no haste was made to get there."

No, not according to Jeremy Bamber, who reports on his website that he arrived AFTER the police, but claims that this was because he was driving carefully to comply with the speed limit.

In Bamber's own words: ?PS Bews stated that when the Police car overtook me in the village of Tolleshunt D?arcy ?if I he had been travelling any slower I would have been stationary.' Referring to the 9 witness statements written by PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby, when they sped past me they estimated my speed as being 30ph. After I was arrested PS Myall did some experiments with times and speeds and concluded that I was actually travelling through the village at 27.5 mph. So what Bews should have mentioned was that if I had been driving any faster I?d have been breaking the speed limit."

Meatus: ""According to Meatus there are "reports of officers retreating from the door of the house as shots were fired".

According to the published judgement of the Court of Appeal, after arriving at the farmhouse the police heard no sound whatsoever "save for the barking of a dog". "

From all the transcripts i have read and the books i have read, the officers reported hearing shots. That's were i got my information. If its false, then perhaps i am wrong? It wouldn't be the first time.

Perhaps you can enlighten us were you got your information? Did you actually read the full published Court of Appeal judgement? Or a you quoting a version of it from a book you have read? If so what book? And does it say whether Bamber's defence just accepted this as fact or if they challenged it?
--------------------------

Yes I have read the full published Court of Appeal judgement. I did not read it in a book.

The judgement says that the defence accepted that after arriving at the farmhouse the police heard no sound whatsoever "save for the barking of a dog".

Meatus: "What about Jeremy Bamber's hands? Were there test's carried out on those? And if so? What were the results? Did anyone ever ask if Sheila Caffell had been washed when moved or washed before any swab's were taken?"

No tests were carried out on Jeremy Bamber hands.

The defence alleged that Sheila could have killed everyone else in the house and then carefully washed herself clean of the evidence before shooting herself, but this argument has not found much support.

The defence did not allege that the police washed Sheila's body before the swabs wee taken.

Meatus: "Everything i have ever read states that the bible that was found with Sheila was never examined. Though if i'm wrong, then again i apologise. Though what you say is that the Bible was June's and kept on her cupboard by her bed, yet it was found on Sheila, with her fingerprints on it and NOT Jeremy Bamber's?"

No, that is incorrect. Many fingerprints on the bible belonged to June Bamber, whose bible it was. The rest were too smudged to be identified.

Meatus: "That was not the only call logged on the night. As police records show a call was made by Nevill Bamber, which i have seen in books it is headlined "Essex Police - Communications" Obviously i can't show it here, but if you have any books you can look for it or try online. I'm sure it will be on Bamber's website, though since many people won't believe that, then its worthwhile trying somewhere else."

No, not true. The police have always said very clearly that this claim is not true. There were 2 police logs that night, but both referred to the same call. The police have always rubbished Bamber's claims that because there were 2 logs there must have been 2 calls. As the police have stated throughout, there was one call and one call only.