Author Topic: Timed references, anomaly - an adjustment may be necessary in pursuit of Accurac  (Read 17671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
What I am saying, is that the contents of 'PC West's' witness statement, dated the 9th August, 1985, is inconsistent with 'PC West's' witness statement, dated the 13th September, 1985!!!

The contents of one (9th August, 1985), does not match, or sit well with the contents of the other (13th September, 1985)!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 10:10:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
This, I suggest is because 'PC West' is lying!!!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
This, I suggest is because 'PC West' is lying!!!

Not only is 'PC West lying, but he has opened himself up, to being manipulated by somebody in the CPS, who prepared a witness statement for him, backdated, to the 9th August, 1985, to say that the timing of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station was at 9.26am!

If I am wrong, then produce the hand written version of the same witness statement, dated, 9th August, 1985, bearing 'PC West's ' signature!!!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
You, will not be able to, because the contents of the 9th August 1985 statement, were made by somebody at the CPS, on what they wanted 'PC West' to say, not what he was prepared to say!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 10:20:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
. . . ask yourself why in his 13th September 1985 witness statement, 'PC West' talks about being 'unsure' about the time he received Jeremy's call (3.36am / 3.26am)
I don't see anything about being unsure of the time in that statement. Perhaps you're referring to the evidence Pc West gave at trial.

His statements of 9th August and 13th September 1985 give different times, and that's consistent with a dispute about the time of Jeremy's call. However, they don't provide enough information to indicate that Pc West's mindset changed at around 13th September 1985.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549


................What we are dealing with here, is the introduction of witness statements by 'another', strictly for the purpose of causing mischief!!!

Hmm.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
I don't see anything about being unsure of the time in that statement. Perhaps you're referring to the evidence Pc West gave at trial

Yes, sorry when he testified and was put on the spot regarding the times in both his witness statements!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
The bottom two sentences clearly show that West was reluctant to give ground.  That is a significant level of defiance, given that he was a witness for the prosecution. 

Rivlin really didn't perform.  Why was Bamber given a prosecution barrister for his defence?

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
The bottom two sentences clearly show that West was reluctant to give ground.  That is a significant level of defiance, given that he was a witness for the prosecution. 

Rivlin really didn't perform.  Why was Bamber given a prosecution barrister for his defence?

It was his choice Roch and gives another clue to his psychopathy.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
It was his choice Roch and gives another clue to his psychopathy.

So he deliberately chose a prosecution barrister to defend him - and this was part of his plan to get-off with the killings?  Also an indicator of his alleged psychopathy?

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
So he deliberately chose a prosecution barrister to defend him - and this was part of his plan to get-off with the killings?  Also an indicator of his alleged psychopathy?

Why not? I'm not suggesting in isolation this is an indicator, I'm adding it to the already long list available, before he stands trial. For all we know this was part of his plan if he were to eventually be arrested.

Have you ever asked to see the psychopathy report his then legal team used to suggest he was a psychopath? Has Jeremy ever disclosed this to anyone?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 06:13:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

guest7363

  • Guest
The bottom two sentences clearly show that West was reluctant to give ground.  That is a significant level of defiance, given that he was a witness for the prosecution. 

Rivlin really didn't perform.  Why was Bamber given a prosecution barrister for his defence?
Not sure on this one but, I think I read where Bamber tried to get the main man from the law firm but he wasn't available?  Not sure though will try and check this.

guest7363

  • Guest
I don't know how true this is?

Jeremy wanted Sir David Napley, the best-known solicitor in London, to defend him. Napley’s reputation for taking on tough defences was as imposing as his gold-coloured Rolls-Royce. (Jeremy approached the seventy-old Sir David through his new girlfriend, Anji Greaves, sister of Virginia.) Sir David couldn’t personally take the case and introduced one of his partners, a young solicitor called Paul Terzeon. News that Napley’s firm had agreed to handle Jeremy’s case signalled to all that the trial would be even more sensational than first suspected.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Yes, sorry when he testified and was put on the spot regarding the times in both his witness statements!

'PC West'
'I was informed I actually spoke to the Information room prior to the one I recorded so I can only assume that  I have wrote --- I actually have recorded the wrong time, as it were'...
Rivlin, QC
'The situation is that you looked at the clock and recorded 3.36am. You were told subsequently that was almost certainly wrong. And you said you may have misread the clock'.
'PC West'
'Well, there was a dispute over the times. I doubt know whose time is right, and whose time is wrong'.

This is very interesting, since during his trial testimony, 'PC West implied that it might not have been he who might have misread the clock'! He was certainly implying that 'Malcom Bonnett' might have recorded the wrong time! This sheds a different light on the matter!!!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 08:36:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
I don't see anything about being unsure of the time in that statement. Perhaps you're referring to the evidence Pc West gave at trial.

Yes, sorry when he testified and was put on the spot regarding the times in both his witness statements!
Actually, Pc West did mention the time discrepancy near the end of his 13th September statement as well. He stated "As far as I am aware, this clock is normally accurate, although it is possible that when I noted the time of the original call from Mr Jeremy Bamber at 3.36 a.m. I may have misread it for 3.26 a.m. However, I cannot be sure of that." As he had put 3:36 a.m. at the beginning of this statement, he seemed to think that time was correct, but there's nothing to indicate when he formed that opinion.

As Pc West was asked about the time of Jeremy's call during the trial, but not asked to explain why it was given as 03.26 in his statement of 9th August 1985, it's possible that he wrote that statement without checking what he had written on 7th August, instead using a time that had been mentioned to him by the police sergeant who had asked him to write the statement or by some other officer.