Author Topic: Police Radio Log  (Read 2398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Junior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 44
Police Radio Log
« on: February 22, 2011, 03:46:PM »

AN ANALYSIS OF THE WIRELESS MESSAGE LOG
AND
ESSEX POLICE COMMUNICATION LOG

 

The Wireless Message Log and Essex Police Communications Log have crucial importance in this case. They are the two separate documents used for the recording of different information from an incident in real time as the investigation unfolds. Because they are written as things happen they have a validity and believability about them over and above other documentation in the case.

 

It is the very truthfulness of these two documents which is believed to have caused Essex Police to rewrite the first page of the Wireless Message Log because it contained information which gave Jeremy Bamber the first part of his alibi.

 

The following analysis of these two documents will show that the first page of the Log has been edited and rewritten to remove part of Jeremy Bambers alibi, it also shows clearly how and why it was removed.

 

THE WIRELESS MESSAGE LOG

 

04.02               FM CA7 – Duty Sgt, 1 Pc and Mr Bamber Junior left veh and Approaching house on foot, veh parked out of sight

 

 

04.03              All FSU stood down in ED and returning to HQ in preparation

For firearms to be drawn

 

 

04.09               FM CA7 – no signs of life in house, all lights on in premises and

Two dogs going berserk, son says dogs are normally quiet.  Son, Pc

And Sgt backing off from premises

04.12               A/Ins Targrass at CD informed of situation

 

 

04.18               C/Supt Harris of CD authorised the withdrawal of firearms

 

                                                      Corroborated by Mr Simpson 

04.27               C/I Clarke FSU informed of situation, not attending

 

 

04.31               CA6 attending New Times PH Tiptree as escort for firearms team to farm

House

 

 

04.35               QK26/QK50 attending scene along with Q/25

 

 

04.52               CA6 heading back to farmhouse with firearms team under escort

<>  

 

04.58               Firearms team and dog unit off at scene

 

 

05.25               Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm

 

 

05.29               From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response

 

Communications Log although was originally on an official Wireless Message Log. Page 2 of the Wireless All of these entries were written on the reverse side of the Essex Police Message Log starts:

 

To         From                              Text                                                              Time

I/R        CA7               FM Sgt Adams – several challenges made to              05.29

                                   Persons inside building with no response.

                                   Established that three adults and 2 children

                                   Should be in premises Ins Montgomery to be

                                   Informed to attend with 6 officers

 

The following analysis compares all of the known facts against the rewritten and edited Wireless Message Log.

 

According to the witness statement dated 8/11/85 Malcolm Bonnett received a call at 03.26 7th August 1985 when he commenced two logs. One an Essex Police Communications Log and the other an Incident Log.

 

Malcolm Bonnett states that ‘I produce the Incident Log ref MJB/1’ this was exhibited at court as Exhibit 29. It is confusing that Bonnett has referred to the Incident Log rather than by its title of Essex Police Communications Log and then not differentiated between that log and the Wireless Communications Log, which was not exhibited at court. These are two completely different documents which are set out in completely different formats.

 

It is this confusion of document identity which has allowed the Police and others to cloud the issue and obscure the facts of the matter regarding this issue.

 

The first thing to note about the Wireless Message Log is that only the information received is recorded – nothing Bonnett says is documented, so for instance it is not recorded what was said to Police Unit CA7 prior to their arrival at White House Farm. This is important because it has allowed uncertainty about the Police knowing Jeremy Bambers identity from the start. Car CA7 must have been informed that they were meeting the son of the occupants of White House Farm at the house. PC Saxby in his statement 23rd September 1985 confirms the above and goes on to state that he knew Jeremy Bamber personally from a car accident he had attended in which Jeremy Bamber had been involved in on 12th November 1984.

 

Bonnett had sent a message to police car CA7 at 03.35 but there is no record of what he told them. None of Bonnetts messages are recorded that he sent via his radio to other cars or officers so it is assumed that this is standard practice. However, for some reason Bonnett failed to log the radio message he received from car CA7 that they had arrived at White House Farm and had been met by Jeremy Bamber. A message he states on the separate Communications Log as received at 03.48 from CA7.

 

Why did Bonnett not record this message on the Wireless Message Log concerning what was said?

 

According to Bonnett the first radio message he received was at 04.02 when ‘Sgt 1 PC and Mr Bamber junior left veh and approached house’ but this leaves an unexplained gap of 14 minutes from arrival to doing anything and two minutes later the Firearms Special Unit are preparing to draw firearms prior to any information from the scene. According to Bonnett he has received no information from the scene, the police at the farm have not even had an opportunity to look at the house yet the Tactical Firearms Squad are readied. This is the first indication that the Wireless Communications Log has been edited.

 

It is clear that in 1985 the rules regulating the issuing of firearms to police officers were very strict indeed. Permission for the withdrawal of firearms had to be authorised by a Chief Superintendant and confirmed by the Deputy Chief Constable. To persuade them to give their authority the situation had to meet a number of criteria of the most serious nature. The only source of that information had to come from the police at the scene.

 

For instance it may have been the case that the police at the scene may have found that Mr Bamber had managed to calm Sheila down on his own and that all was ok at the farm and that no assistance was required. It is certain that before any additional or further assistance or action was required the police at the scene would have had to report back to Bonnett yet the Wireless Message Log suggests that the Tactical Firearms Unit are put on standby before the police at the scene have even looked at the house. This would seem very unlikely.

 

There are very few witness statements written on the 8th August 1985 by the police and only PC Myall who attended the scene first makes his statement on that date. The importance of this cannot be underestimated because as the investigation progressed it became increasingly necessary for the police to undo their original conclusions of four murders and a suicide and to fit Jeremy Bamber into the frame. To do this, evidence that could assist his defence was explained away or edited out of documentation and additional witness statements taken that suddenly included so called incriminating material. However those witness statements written on the 8th August 1985 have not been subject to alterations of prejudice.

 

PC Myall in his statement of 8th Aug 85 states that on arrival a short conversation occurred with Jeremy Bamber who stated what his father had said in a phone call to him, also what guns were in the house and that his sister had a history of psychological illness. He then states that himself, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber went to investigate the house. Oddly PC Myalls makes no mention of the incident in this statement of his seeing someone in the master bedroom walking in front of the window. It was the only incident of note that occurred during the investigation of the house. PC Myall, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber all ducked down behind a hedge. It is odd that this is not included in his statement nor that the light was on in the master bedroom yet PC Myall in the Major Incident Project document asks for that unidentified male to be looked for using finger print elimination. It could be that prior to this 8th August 1985 witness statement was given to the defence that this sighting of someone in the window was edited out. No prosecution could go ahead against Jeremy Bamber if the police in their very own statements were admitting someone was alive in the house when they arrived. Interestingly the pocket books of PC Myall, Sgt Bews and PC Saxby have never been made available to the defence for inspection of their entries on 8th Aug 85. It may be the case that no mention was made of the sighting of someone in the bedroom window, however when Sgt Bews was cross examined about this incident at trial he agreed that they all ducked down behind the hedge but claims that the movement was only a shadow or trick of light but it was significant enough for him to recall that it had happened. If this sighting had been included in the witness statements then the case against Jeremy Bamber would have collapsed.

 

After this first investigation of the house Sgt Bews, PC Myall and Jeremy Bamber returned to the police car, which was parked the other side of the orchard near to the farm cottages, some 200 metres or so from the farmhouse. A report was sent to headquarters via radio relating the information Jeremy Bamber had given concerning the firearms in the house, his sisters mental condition and it is believed the sighting of someone in the upstairs window. Sgt Bews and PC Myall then returned to the house alone, this was shortly after 04.00. It is very odd that no mention of this second investigation of the house is documented on the Wireless Message Log. PC Myall mentions this in his 8th August 1985 statement but what they did during this second look is not reported. Why did they not bang on the door? Why did they not look in the downstairs windows? Surely it would be the most obvious thing to do and the only reason not to approach the house was that they did see someone in the upstairs window and had to assume them to be armed and dangerous. According to PC Myall even the dogs were quiet on their second investigation of the house so why did they not knock on the door or look through windows?

 

According to the 04.09 entry in the Wireless Message Log it was as a result of reports of the dogs barking that the Tactical Firearms Unit were mobilised and firearms issued.

 

Four senior police officers were given messages from Bonnett concerning the situation at the farm. None of these messages have been made available to the defence and their significance to this case is crucial.

 

A/Ins Targrass was informed

 

C/Supt Harris authorised the issuing of firearms and would have had to write extensive reports justifying this. To draw firearms because he was told that the dogs were barking just is not sufficient justification.

 

C/I Clarke FSU (Firearms Unit) informed of the situation

 

Mr Simpson Dep Chief Constable informed

 

They key to appreciating the situation concerning the editing of this Wireless Message Log is that all of the vital information from the scene had to have come via the radio from police car CA7 yet this does not appear on the Wireless Message Log. What the defence didn’t know at trial but which came to light during the first CCRC investigation into this case in 2001 was that all telephone and radio communications was recorded on audiotape. Malcolm Bonnett is silent about the existence of these audiotape records in his 8th November 1985 statement but says in his 13th August 2001 statement ‘as a matter of course all radio and telephone messages are recorded on audio tape as an accurate means of recording

 

These audio tapes have never been revealed as being in existence prior to 2001 and have never been made available to the defence and are still being kept from the defence – these must contain vital alibi evidence which would prove the innocence of Jeremy Bamber. Not only would the recording of the radio communication be vital to the defence case but also the audio recording of the telephone which was off the hook in the kitchen. This was being monitored and recorded and appears as the entry in the Wireless Message Log at 07.36 Movement in house and voices.

 

This is significant because there is conflict between the defence and prosecution concerning the disruption to the kitchen. There is evidence to suggest that the police themselves caused some of this during their initial raid of the house. The raid officers all deny this but other officers state they did cause some disruption. From the photographs it does appear that the police have moved various things – listening to these audio recordings from that open phone line would prove that they did cause disruption to the kitchen on entry – again the police have been silent about these recordings. If they hadn’t caused this mess then the proof of this would be by listening to that tape in the Appeal Court in 2001 but again things have been omitted and kept back from the defence.

 

The importance of this tape is that part of the prosecutions case was that there was a fierce struggle in the kitchen and that the amount of disruption was proof of this. They state that Sheila had no injuries consistent with such a struggle, she was slight and so easily overpowered. Jeremy Bamber would have been easily capable of overpowering his father though the lack of injuries on him cannot and has not been explained. However the key issue now is that a tape recording exists of exactly what happened and what was said upon entry to the kitchen when the police entered. This would establish the actual facts of the matter and these tapes must be made available for the defence to listen to.

 

According to the Wireless Message Log at 05.25 the firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm. This information was not made available to the jury at the defendant’s trial. Because of the nature of this message it leaves room for others to interpret this message as not being what it plainly is – that there is someone inside the house in conversation with someone outside the house.

 

It has been said that the unidentified person referred to is not in the house but from inside the house and that person is Jeremy Bamber, standing outside. This does not fit with the facts because if it was Jeremy Bamber they were in conversation with he would have been named. Bonnett never refers to Jeremy Bamber other than as son or by name, never is he referred to as person . The only time person is used is when their identity is unknown, as in this case where someone inside the house who cannot be identified is in conversation with those outside. The use of the term farm appears right at the end of a line and is easily seen as a short form of farmhouse. But it is obvious they are meaning farmhouse because four minutes later when further communication is tried it is met with no response. This appears on page one of the Wireless Communications Log, from CA7 05.29 challenge to persons inside the house met with no response yet on page two of the Wireless Communications Log from CA7 05.29 several challenges made to persons inside building with no response.

 

This is further proof of editing and rewriting of the Wireless Message Log – why does the same message appear on the bottom of one page and the top of the next? There is not sufficient time to make such a mix up as the messages are coming in – this is proof of tampering.

 

The last point is what excuse Malcolm Bonnett will give for stating in his witness statement that at the start of this incident he started two separate documents yet for some unexplainable reason page one of the Wireless Communication Log appears rewritten on the back of the Essex Police Communication Log that Bonnett refers to as the Incident Log MJB/1 in his witness statement.

 

This is very odd indeed and because page one of the Wireless Log has been edited and rewritten it is crucial to listen to the audio recordings of all of the radio communications to discover why Malcolm Bonnett did this.

 

In Conclusion;

 

Yet again in this case documents that should give a contemporaneous record of events have been doctored and interfered with. This was not fully appreciated at either the trial or the Appeal in 2001. It is now known that there are audio recordings that would prove that the police did know that someone was alive and seen at the window whilst Jeremy Bamber was in the company of police officers - that at least four senior police officers were informed of this before giving permission to issue firearms – that police were in conversation with a person from inside the farm consistent with someone being seen alive in an upstairs window earlier in the incident. There is also a recording from the telephone that was off the hook in the kitchen. This would prove, contrary to their assertions that the police did cause some considerable disruption to the kitchen and so give less weight to the prosecutions case regarding the struggle that they say took place there.

 

The key to what happened is contained on these audio recordings from the radio communications and telephone calls and the telephone monitoring. The fact that these have always been kept from the defence by the prosecuting authorities is absolute proof that they contain evidence that would clear Jeremy Bamber. If they do not hand over these tapes to Jeremy Bambers lawyers that will be seen as a clear admission that they do contain evidence that would clear him.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 03:47:PM by Admin »