Author Topic: Timed references, anomaly - an adjustment may be necessary in pursuit of Accurac  (Read 6460 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
What caused Jeremy, to try to ring Neville back between 3.25am and 3.27am?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
What caused Neville to contact police between 3.25am and 3.27am?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28235
What caused Jeremy, to try to ring Neville back between 3.25am and 3.27am?

There requires proof that he did. Having previously left the phone off the hook, he know what would be the result of making a call to that number.

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
What could have happenned, to make Jeremy's attempt to re-establish contact with Neville,  between 3.24am to 3.26am. A dialling tone obtained by Neville Bamber at the farmhouse, or him having dialled a number produces a constant 'engaged tone'?

Think about 'it'?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 05:23:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
There requires proof that he did. Having previously left the phone off the hook, he know what would be the result of making a call to that number.

It's already proven - it has always been maintained by Jeremy that 'he tried to call Neville back', but that he 'got an engaged tone'. During the trial the prosecution sought to mislead the court by suggesting that because the phone was off the hook inside the farmhouse, that the line between the farmhouse and Jeremy's cottage remained open, preventing him from using the phone inside Jeremy's cottage to make any outbound calls! However, Jeremy has always maintained that he did attempt to call Neville back', and that on each of these two occasion he got an engaged tone. It now transpires, that after contacting Jeremy, had Neville Bamber simply tapped the receiver once, that this activity would have produce a dialling tone at the farmhouse. This would have allowed for Neville to then make his call to police (between 3.25am and 3.27am) at 3.26am. As a result, when Jeremy  tried to call Neville back' (between 3.25am and 3.27am) , he would get an engaged tone, he did get an engaged tone! It didn't even rely upon Neville already being in contact police, since by the simple action of the cradle of the phone at the farmhouse being depressed, thus producing a 'dialling tone'...

Jeremy didn't know, that immediately after the call from Neville got cut short, that Neville had depressed the cradle of the farmhouse phone, giving Neville a dialling tone, after which Neville rang the police between 3.25am and 3.27am - activities which would have caused Jeremy's attempt to recontact Neville to get an engaged tone...

Now, that we know these facts, it makes a huge difference against the credibility of otherwise of Jeremy's account! His account is more believable today, than it was at the time of his 1986 trial...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 08:46:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28235
It's already proven - it has always been maintained by Jeremy that 'he tried to call Neville back', but that he 'got an engaged tone'. During the trial the prosecution sought to mislead the court by suggesting that because the phone was off the hook inside the farmhouse, that the line between the farmhouse and Jeremy's cottage remained open, preventing him from using the phone inside Jeremy's cottage to make any outbound calls! However, Jeremy has always maintained that he did attempt to call Neville back', and that on each of these two occasion he got an engaged tone. It now transpires, that after contacting Jeremy, had Neville Bamber simply tapped the receiver once, that this activity would have produce a dialling tone at the farmhouse. This would have allowed for Neville to then make his call to police (between 3.25am and 3.27am) at 3.26am. As a result, when Jeremy  tried to call Neville back' (between 3.25am and 3.27am) , he would get an engaged tone, he did get an engaged tone! It didn't even rely upon Neville already being in contact police, since by the simple action of the cradle of the phone at the farmhouse being depressed, thus producing a 'dialling tone'...

Jeremy didn't know, that immediately after the call from Neville got cut short, that Neville had depressed the cradle of the farmhouse phone, giving Neville a dialling tone, after which Neville rang the police between 3.25am and 3.27am - activities which would have caused Jeremy's attempt to recontact Neville to get an engaged tone...

Now, that we know these facts, it makes a huge difference against the credibility of otherwise of Jeremy's account! His account is more believable today, than it was at the time of his 1986 trial...

 Cutting out all the frills, how is Jeremy's maintaining something, proof of anything?

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
Jeremy's account regarding the 'engaged tone' he got when he tried to ring Neville back (between 3.25am and 3.27am), is further proven to be a truthful and an honest explanation, because of the following:-

The occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident at the farmhouse between 3.34am and 3.36am (3.35am), prior to the call that Jeremy himself had made to Chelmsford police station (between 3.35am and 3.37am) at 3.36am. The appellate court accepted this as being mystifyingly true! This of course, was something which the appellate court concluded in the absence of the two phone call record contents, of Neville Bambers (C1) Communication log timed at 3.26am, and 'PC Wests' 3.36am, Police Message Report. Had the contents of these two phone logs been made readily available in 2002, I feel confident that the appellate court would have been compelled to conclude that the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident at the farmhouse, not only prior to Jeremy's call to police, was governed by the information received by PC West from Neville Bamber at 3.26am. I feel confident that the appellate court would have 'reasoned' that the contents of these two phone records had been 'made by different people', the first (3.26am) by Neville Bamber, the second (3.36am) made by Jeremy. Resolution of this conflict was 'the province of the jury', not by the trial judge, or by they 'themselves'. Simply, upon the basis that it had been a significant part of the prosecutions case that, had Sheila, Bambers sister, Neville's daughter, been running amok with 'the gun', or ' one of the guns belonging to Neville Bambers, he would have contacted the police, not Jeremy (the Son)? I feel confident that during the trial, the contents of both of these phone logs (3.26am, and the 3.36am calls) were not made available to the court, or to the defence team, otherwise, the defence would have certainly challenged 'that' assumption, that the existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, and Jeremy's 3.36am, phone log contents, undermined this feature in the prosecutions case, and that not only had Neville Bamber contacted Jeremy at around 3.25am (between 3.24am and 3.26am), but that Neville Bamber had very quickly terminated his call to Jeremy because his intention was only to alert Jeremy, before he called  police at 3.26am!!!

The existence of both phone records (3.26am, and 3.36am) were facts which the jury were entitled to know about, consider, and either reject, or accept, as being true!!!

The jury were deliberately denied the opportunity to consider this matter - not because of any 'fault' on behalf of the defence, but rather based upon the deliberate action of the prosecuting authorities!!!  They have to be held accountable for this deception, no-one else. The only reason both phone log contents (3.26am, and 3.36am) were not disclosed by the prosecution authorities during or before the October 1986 trial, because to have done so, not only undermined their own arguments, but more importantly it showed in clear unambiguous terms, that Jeremy Bamber had told the truth, that he was telling the truth, and that these convictions had been, were secured by a 'dishonest' approach on their part...

A jury should have decided 'these facts', but alas, the prosecuting authorities chose to play 'god' they took it upon themselves to withhold the contents of the two separate phone logs (3.26am, versus the 3.36am). This, as I feel sure all those currently in the 'guilty camp' , will agree that this approach was 'inpropper'!!!



« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 05:40:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
The occupants of CA07 deployed to the incident at the farmhouse at 3.35am, prior to Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am!!!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
The occupants of CA07 deployed to the incident at the farmhouse at 3.35am, prior to Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am!!!
This proves the call made to Chelmsford police station at 3.26am, was made by Neville, not by Jeremy Bamber! The wording and the phraseology recorded in the 3.26am log reads as though the information came from Neville, and it could only relate to a call made by Neville prior to the deployment of CA07 at 3.35am...

Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, was after the deployment of CA07 (3.35am), not beforehand!!!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28235
Jeremy's account regarding the 'engaged tone' he got when he tried to ring Neville back (between 3.25am and 3.27am), is further proven to be a truthful and an honest explanation, because of the following:-

The occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident at the farmhouse between 3.34am and 3.36am (3.35am), prior to the call that Jeremy himself had made to Chelmsford police station (between 3.35am and 3.37am) at 3.36am. The appellate court accepted this as being mystifyingly true! This of course, was something which the appellate court concluded in the absence of the two phone call record contents, of Neville Bambers (C1) Communication log timed at 3.26am, and 'PC Wests' 3.36am, Police Communications log. Had the contents of these two phone logs been made readily available in 2002, I feel confident that the appellate court would have been compelled to conclude that the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the incident at the farmhouse, not only prior to Jeremy's call to police, was governed by the information received by PC West from Neville Bamber at 3.26am. I feel confident that the appellate court would have 'reasoned' that the contents of these two phone records had been 'made by different people', the first (3.26am) by Neville Bamber, the second (3.36am) made by Jeremy. Resolution of this conflict was 'the province of the jury', not by the trial judge, or by they 'themselves'. Simply, upon the basis that it had been a significant part of the prosecutions case that, had Sheila, Bambers sister, Neville's daughter, been running amok with 'the gun', or ' one of the guns belonging to Neville Bambers, he would have contacted the police, not Jeremy (the Son)? I feel confident that during the trial, the contents of both of these phone logs (3.26am, and the 3.36am calls) were not made available to the court, or to the defence team, otherwise, the defence would have certainly challenged 'that' assumption, that the existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, and Jeremy's 3.36am, phone log contents, undermined this feature in the prosecutions case, and that not only had Neville Bamber contacted Jeremy at around 3.25am (between 3.24am and 3.26am), but that Neville Bamber had very quickly terminated his call to Jeremy because his intention was only to alert Jeremy, before he called  police at 3.26am!!!

The existence of both phone records (3.26am, and 3.36am) were facts which the jury were entitled to know about, consider, and either reject, or accept, as being true!!!

The jury were deliberately denied the opportunity to consider this matter - not because of any 'fault' on behalf of the defence, but rather based upon the deliberate action of the prosecuting authorities!!!  They have to be held accountable for this deception, no-one else. The only reason both phone log contents (3.26am, and 3.36am) were not disclosed by the prosecution authorities during or before the October 1986 trial, because to have done so, not only undermined their own arguments, but more importantly it showed in clear unambiguous terms, that Jeremy Bamber had told the truth, that he was telling the truth, and that these convictions had been, were secured by a 'dishonest' approach on their part...

A jury should have decided 'these facts', but alas, the prosecuting authorities chose to play 'god' they took it upon themselves to withhold the contents of the two separate phone logs (3.26am, versus the 3.36am). This, as I feel sure all those currently in the 'guilty camp' , will agree that this approach was 'inpropper'!!!

Again, dispensing with the frills. No one has ever denied that there was an engaged tone. The phone was off the hook.

Offline Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2366
. . . Neville Bambers (C1) Communication log . . .
Pc West used a C1 form, but Bonnett used a similar form that wasn't a C1 form (as far as I know).

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1500
I can't get my head round all this timing business, 😂

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 28235
I can't get my head round all this timing business, 😂

Take out the frills and you're left with the facts, Notsure.

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
Pc West used a C1 form, but Bonnett used a similar form that wasn't a C1 form (as far as I know).

The way I understand it, PC Wests contribution was the 3.36am 'Message Report', and 'Malcom Bonnetts' 3.26am, was the Communications log...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 05:32:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47988
Take out the frills and you're left with the facts, Notsure.

And the facts speak for themselves...

Hence, why as we look back at the present moment in time and we say, the occupants of CA07 left Witham police station at around 3.15am to deal with another Job, that Neville may have tried to contact Witham at around 3.20am, that Neville called Jeremy at around 5.25am, that Neville made the 3.26am call to the police, that Jeremy tried to ring Neville back at around 3.26am, that Jeremy unsuccessfully tried to contact Witham police station by 3.29am, that Jeremy called Julie at 3.30am, that the occupants of CA07 returned back to Witham police station by 3.34am, that they were deployed to the incident (3.35am) acting on behalf of the information passed to police earlier by Neville Bamber at 3.26am, that the occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene at 3.36am, that Jeremy called Chelmsford police station at 3.36am, and was put on hold for 5 minutes, that 'PC West'', spoke to a female operator at 3.42am, that Jeremy left his cottage at 3.46am to go to the farmhouse, that at 3.48am the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at 3.48am, that Jeremy himself arrived at the farmhouse by 3.52am, that the operator did not get back in touch with police until 3.56am to tell them that the phone inside the farmhouse was off the hook, that it was not until after Jeremy's arrival at the scene (3.52am) that he told the occupants of CA07 about the collection of shotguns and .410's kept by Neville inside the farmhouse, which was relayed back to the control room afterwards, the details of which were added to the (C1) Communications log, thereafter, and so on, and so forth...

Some of these timed events overlapped, or ran into, or out of the other events. There may have been periods of unreported activity in-between some of these events...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 05:35:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...