Author Topic: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice  (Read 1192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« on: July 12, 2020, 04:55:PM »
You can tell a lot about somebody from the way they sound.

What did Nevill's voice sound like?  Does anybody here know?

Was it anything like Jeremy's?  Jeremy voice, from audio recordings, sounds to me like a generic Anglian accent with 'educated' modulations and a slight but definite Essex lilt.  Nevill had sought to give Jeremy a good education of at least equivalent to what he received, and this lingers in Jeremy's voice, which has an educated aspect to it.  I also pick up a 'wishy-washy', plaintive aspect to Jeremy through his voice, which I think comes out of spending most of his adult life in high security prisons under submission to the authorities. 
 
I imagine that Nevill sounded quite different to Jeremy.  They were genetically unrelated for one thing.
There was an obvious age gap, from which we can imply a lot.  Maybe Nevill had a Home Counties accent, though it may have been genericised by his War service and other cosmopolitan experiences, and it must also have reflected an advantaged background that saw him attend public school.  Did Nevill ever live in or visit India?  Maybe Nevill picked up an Essex country twang along the way.  He seems to have impressed the Speakmans immensely and rubbed along reasonably enough with the younger Robert Boutflour, which suggests that despite his advantaged upbringing, he was able to fit in and not overbear people. 

How does this quality compare and contrast with Jeremy?  It is difficult to imagine Jeremy enjoying the same success as a respected hard-working Grey Man whose jib fitted.  Jeremy was an individualist, somebody who stood out.  Nevill seduced June as her tennis partner.  Jeremy met Julie as a barman at Sloppy Joe's.  Nevill was a worker.  Jeremy was a performer.  Nevill slotted into the farming-business matrix of the Speakmans and Boutflours.  Jeremy was still young and unformed, but seemed more self-interested and short-termist in his horizons and attitudes: the Epicurean to Nevill's Zeno. 

Nevill devoted himself to the life of a working farmer and to his local community as a parochial church warden and respected magistrate and youth justice chairman.  Yet he was not of a parochial sensibility.  Like Jeremy, he was able to follow his adventurous instincts when young.  In Nevill's case, this was through War service.  Then he settled down.  In business, he was an important northern Essex farmer, owning a large and successful farm business formed as a limited company, yet he did not put on airs and graces.  He directly-supervised all aspects of the farm operations and, isolated incidents aside, was generally respected in the farming community.  He was also a company director and shareholder in a successful food production co-operative.  He would have been self-confident and comfortable around people at all levels and one can imagine that perhaps his voice was strong, authoritative and assertive.

Jeremy picked up this self-confidence and authoritative air from his adoptive father but it may have been precociously misdirected into youthful arrogance and insecure defensive petulance.  "That is for you to prove" is what Jeremy told the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, at the 1986 trial.  Barbara Wilson seemed unimpressed with him, perhaps because Jeremy's self-assuredness was out-of-place at that stage as he had not proven himself as a capable farm operator in his own right. 

One reason we like to assume this terrible act on the 6th. and 7th. August 1985 was planned is that it makes it easier to discuss and rationalise.  A spontaneous murder - a 'crime of passion', as the Continentals would call it - is harder to understand, often impenetrable to ordinary human comprehension.  It is easier to apply post hoc ergo propter hoc observations to evidence and template on to Jeremy's mind a fully-formed criminal intent.  June's bike must be part of the plan, whereas it may just have been as Jeremy says: Julie borrowed the bike.  Jeremy specifically enquired after Colin about whether Sheila and the twins would be there that week, whereas Colin invited Jeremy to that social gathering and Jeremy may have just been making conversation.  Jeremy showed Sheila how to load the rifle, but Sheila had expressed an interest in guns before and may have just been curious.  Jeremy left the gun out, but guns were left out all over the house.  The bedroom phone was missing, but the kitchen phone was being repaired. 

I suspect Jeremy's actions were unplanned and the outcrop of a psychosis catalysed by family tensions, and he instantiated the fake phone call after a genuine call from Nevill that evening.  But let us say I am wrong and it was all planned.  We must then ask: How did Jeremy arrive at the conclusion that Nevill would call him rather than the emergency services?  Surely such a plan would entail considerable risk, due to the inevitable suspicion it throws on Jeremy?  Surely better for Jeremy not to fake (or make) a call at all, to anybody.  So why did Jeremy go down this avenue?  As part of his criminal planning, Jeremy must have given some careful thought to Nevill, and among other things, Nevill's voice.  Jeremy must assume that Nevill would go for the phones, and Jeremy would know that the police would assume this too and would ask why Nevill had not reached the phones and why Nevill's voice had not been heard on the phone by a police officer or a civilian operator like Malcolm Bonnett.  This is especially important if Sheila is to be deemed the suspected killer because she would probably focus on June rather than Nevill.  Who does Nevill call? The emergency services, 999.  Unless there is a reason for Nevill to call somebody else, like Jeremy.  For what reason would that arise?  Nevill might want to keep the incident from the authorities and prefer to manage things within the close family.  However, in reality, Nevill must try to ring 999 because he must know that the perpetrator is Jeremy. Even if Jeremy wears a mask, surely Nevill would still recognise him? 

This is where we come to another problem for the Crown.  How can they explain the lack of a 999 call from White House Farm, even if it was an abortive call?  The fact that Nevill was shot in the face does not prevent him dialling 999.  For one thing, he may not have been cognisant of his injuries at that point and surely would have tried to dial 999 anyway.  Why didn't he?  Why did he run for the kitchen?  Or did Jeremy take him there at gun point?  If that is what happened, why didn't Nevill fight more for June, Sheila and the twins, and why would Jeremy take him downstairs at gunpoint leaving June still alive and conscious, albeit seriously injured?  And why at this crime scene do we find the kitchen phone free of blood marks?

And what about phone records?  Jeremy would know that phone bills then were not itemised, as he must have received bills at Goldhanger.  (Or did he?)  Would Jeremy know whether calls were itemised at the exchange end?  Would Jeremy have understood that 999 emergency calls were recorded, as were ordinary calls to the police?  This was back in the 1980s.  Was that common knowledge then?  For instance, were there popular TV series with 999 recordings that would have made him aware of this?

A still more pertinent question: If Jeremy did not know any of these things but had thought of them as part of his criminal planning, then how does he go about finding out the position without leaving an evidence trail?  This was before the internet and worldwide web.  He can't just carry out a Tor search.  He would have to make enquiries of BT, the police, maybe a public library, and so on, or ask people he thinks are 'in the know'.  How does he do this without the risk that the people he contacts become witnesses for the prosecution later down the line?

Thinking all this through, maybe for the sake of completeness we should explore the notion of an actual 999 call from Nevill.  The scenario would be that Jeremy comes to the conclusion that he could fake Nevill's voice, or have a Fake Nevill make a abortive 999 call with some vague noise to the operator to indicate he is in trouble.  But could Jeremy credibly throw Nevill's voice?

If that is too far-fetched, then consider what the Crown allege Jeremy did as it is: he entered a property and wiped out his own family, including two small boys, then left, and did all this without leaving any direct forensic evidence of the act.  He did it for money, they say.  In a way, that's far-fetched too.  Really, whether something is far-fetched or not often depends on one's point-of-view and how one interprets the evidence available.

There is evidence for a 999 call from Nevill.  The question is whether it is good evidence or we should just fall back on the default explanation that the civilian operator, Malcolm Bonnett, took one call, from PC West, who in turn spoke to Jeremy.  I have to say, the default explanation seems the more reasonable, but we are reliant on the evidence in front of us and the two phone logs could be interpreted in Jeremy's favour.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 05:28:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21714
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2020, 05:30:PM »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2020, 05:41:PM »
https://youtu.be/35FF7e1-zCg

It's gone over your head. 

I don't believe there was a 999 call from Nevill, and I don't consider it a central issue anyway, but it is a matter of weighing the evidence.  It's not enough just to dismiss it as 'far-fetched'.  What's 'far-fetched' is often subjective and down to a point-of-view.

Furthermore, there is a hole in the Crown's case here because if Nevill didn't make a 999 call, we have to explain why.  In doing so, we have to accept and acknowledge that 'making a 999 call' does not necessarily entail speaking into the phone.  If Nevill is so critically-injured that he can't physically speak, it doesn't follow that he can't dial 999 and make the call, it only means that he can't speak to the operator.  Emergency calls in which there is no conversation with the operator are not uncommon.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 05:43:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2020, 06:25:PM »

There is evidence for a 999 call from Nevill.

No there isn't

Malcolm Bonnett, took one call, from PC West, who in turn spoke to Jeremy.

This is what happened.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2020, 06:37:PM »
No there isn't


Actually, there is.  But I only say there is evidence.  I don't necessarily say it's good evidence.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2020, 06:54:PM »
Actually, there is.  But I only say there is evidence.  I don't necessarily say it's good evidence.

There is no log showing a call from WHF
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 06:55:PM by David1819 »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2020, 07:09:PM »
There is no log showing a call from WHF

Not as such, and to be clear, I entirely comprehend the counter-argument: Chinese whispers, natural re-interpretation of what Bamber says to West, etc.  I'm not putting on a tin foil hat here.

But....there is a log record that could be inferred to be a call from White House Farm.  That is fact.  Deny it until you're blue in the face, but the log exists.  It's then a matter of interpretation and who offers the best evidence.  You could take the view (and I probably would take this view) that Bonnett's evidence at trial should supersede the log.

But wait....Did the defence have the opportunity to cross-examine Bonnett about this at trial?  He gave evidence at trial, but was the counterpart log disclosed?  If the evidence was not adduced, then how can we say it has been tested?

There is also a log record that has at least one raid group officer apparently reporting one male and one female in the kitchen.  Again, probably a simple mistake.  Common sense would suggest so, due to the difficulty of Sheila moving around the house after one shoot and the lack of a forensic footprint for this.  But do we know it was a mistake?  How do we know that Sheila had shot herself at this point?  We have no times of death confirmed.  Again, I'm not saying this is my view, but why should it be seen as far-fetched?  It could be that there was a female downstairs in addition to Nevill.  (Or, much less likely, it could even be that there was a male in addition to Nevill).  Probably not, but we don't know.

I'm not suggesting that I would include this sort of thing in any appeal, but the point is that it's not about what anybody believes.  It's about evidence. 

One side has a piece of evidence.  The other side says, 'No, you've got the wrong end of the stick there.  It was all a mistake.'  The judges should weigh it up, shouldn't they?

The logs are evidence and need to be considered in the context of the failure to previously disclose this material and, if I understand correctly, a reluctance to disclose and a failure to correct the record.  In a fair trial, the defence must have the right to test the evidence.  It's then up to the appeal judges to decide if they think the defence has produced good evidence that shakes the convictions.

Specifically going back to the phone calls, the better point for the defence in my view is to highlight the difficulty for the Crown in explaining Nevill's movements from a time-and-motion point-of-view in light of the ballistic evidence and also why he didn't dial 999.  Surely, if Jeremy did this and he is lying about the call from Nevill, then Nevill must have at least tried to dial 999, even if he was injured in the jaw/face?  Why is there no evidence for that? 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 07:11:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2020, 07:33:PM »
But....there is a log record that could be inferred to be a call from White House Farm.  That is fact.  Deny it until you're blue in the face, but the log exists. 

How can a log that states the caller is CD1990 (PC West) and the receiver of this call said the caller on the other end was PC West from Chelmsford police station, possibly be inferred to be a call from Nevill at White house farm?

Its those who have insisted the contrary who have been blue in face.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 07:34:PM by David1819 »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2020, 07:41:PM »
How can a log that states the caller is CD1990 (PC West) and the receiver of this call said the caller on the other end was PC West from Chelmsford police station, possibly be inferred to be a call from Nevill at White house farm?

Its those who have insisted the contrary who have been blue in face.

There's more to it than that.  I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not.  That’s not the point.

The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.

Was the counterpart log disclosed or not?  If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal.  That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.

An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe.  There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.

Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 07:42:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11280
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2020, 08:28:PM »
There's more to it than that.  I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not.  That’s not the point.

The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.

Was the counterpart log disclosed or not?  If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal.  That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.

An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe.  There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.

Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.

You and David are almost opposites. He is a poster who believes Jeremy is innocent - but his reasoning and posts often seem more supportive to the crown than the defence. You are a poster who suspects Jeremy may be culpable -  but your reasoning and posts seem more supportive to the defence than the crown.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 08:33:PM by Roch »

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2020, 08:40:PM »
There's more to it than that.  I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not.  That’s not the point.

The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.

Was the counterpart log disclosed or not?  If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal.  That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.

An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe.  There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.

Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
Your posts do have a certain literary merit, notwithstanding your disdain in a previous post for paperback gossip. However you hold no fixed view about anything, and though you intrigue me you're essentially a reed in the wind, a weathercock not a barometer.

To deal quickly with two points here: a 999 call was not made from White House Farm. Jeremy probably telephoned his answerphone at Bourtree Cottage from the Farm post-murders, hoping that this would substantiate his claim of a call from Nevill for assistance. The last number redial facility was nullified when a Police Officer that morning used the blue telephone in the office for some official business. But how you concoct a fantasy that a 999 call is a prerequisite for a conviction beats me.

On the second point the logs were disclosed to the Defence, but it either did not use them or did not find them to use.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 08:42:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2020, 09:31:PM »
There's more to it than that.  I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not.  That’s not the point.

The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.

Was the counterpart log disclosed or not?  If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal.  That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.

An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe.  There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.

Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.

All logs were disclosed and brought up at trial. All those involved in the emergency calls testified at the trial (Jeremy, West and Bonnet)

What has been suggested is that PC West took calls from both Nevill and Jeremy. Ainsley then re-typed Wests statements to hide Nevils call and West never mentioned anything about it at Jeremy's trial. These are just stupid ideas to make a stupid theory work.

A cohesive definitive evidence based timeline of the calls can be found here. 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650

The proponents of the Nevill 999 theory have no such timeline because it simply never happened and there is no evidence for it.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11280
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2020, 09:40:PM »
West (probably under duress from DS Jones / DCS Ainsley) forged different versions of his call log, without altering the time of the call.

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2020, 09:48:PM »
West (probably under duress from DS Jones / DCS Ainsley) forged different versions of his call log, without altering the time of the call.
That's theoretically possible, but wouldn't the urge be to please the boss first, namely DCI Taff Jones?

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2020, 11:00:AM »
All logs were disclosed and brought up at trial. All those involved in the emergency calls testified at the trial (Jeremy, West and Bonnet)

What has been suggested is that PC West took calls from both Nevill and Jeremy. Ainsley then re-typed Wests statements to hide Nevils call and West never mentioned anything about it at Jeremy's trial. These are just stupid ideas to make a stupid theory work.

A cohesive definitive evidence based timeline of the calls can be found here. 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650

The proponents of the Nevill 999 theory have no such timeline because it simply never happened and there is no evidence for it.

Thanks David.   I'm not sure I would agree with you that there is no evidence for it, but you say there was disclosure. Obviously, you'll appreciate there's lots of evidence, so I may have got things backwards-upwards on the disclosure issue. 

Let me put it this way.  The point is that, in my view (I'm not a lawyer, so it's only an opinion), non-disclosure can be prejudicial to the defendant in and of itself.  This is because non-disclosure prevents the defence testing the evidence and also prevents the defence raising questions that arise from the evidence, such as whether the Crown's extrapolations are consistent with the Crown's own case.  This is because all bits of evidence have to fit the narrative or be consistent with the 'story' or case theory.

In this instance, the Crown extract from the logs that Nevill never made a 999 call.  Yet, if I understand things correctly (you seem to be saying differently, it doesn't matter either way really for the moment) the Crown didn't disclose the full log at trial.  This means the defence were prevented from considering whether this bit of the Crown's theory made sense in view of the adduced facts.

And in that same vein, we still have the problem that Nevill doesn't call 999.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2020, 11:13:AM by QCChevalier »