Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Strobe]

From the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985:

“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”

During the Dickinson inquiry, PC Myall gave evidence of a call from PC West at 03.37.

“We received a telephone call at the P.Stn. [Police Station, Witham]. The officer (PC West) at CD Control [Chelmsford] was on the phone and told us that he was relating information to us and still had the informant (Jeremy Bamber) on the other telephone.”

[Caroline]

Jeremy originally said that he called Julie Mugford before he called the police. He said he called at  03.25 and this is corroborated by the time Julie Mugford originally gave for when she got the call. She said it was 03.30. Given the tendency people have to round off times to the nearest five minutes, the call probably took place at around 03.27. Another basic reason for rejecting the view that Jeremy called the police at 03.26 is that he was calling Julie Mugford at that time.

People who defend the position that Jeremy called West at around 03.24 don't only need to maintain that West mistimed his log at 03.36, they need to change the times of all the relevant phone calls in that period, which is a reduction to the absurd.

If a time is disputed then you look for corroboration by relating it to other accepted times, but in this case the opposition maintain that the times which should count as corroboration are also wrong by about the same amount.

3:36. Time West receiving Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:24.

03:25. Time Jeremy said he called Julie Mugford. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to some time earlier than 03.25 depending on the agenda.

03:30 Time Susan Battersby said she was woken up  by Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to 03.15 or whatever.

03.37 Time West's telephone call was received at Witham. Must be changed to whatever is required.

But with this last there is a another problem. Even if it is maintained that this call is mistimed, it can't seriously be denied that it took place. There is too much detail for there to be any doubt that West made a call by telephone  to Witham at approximately 03.37, which he strangely did not mention in his statements.

Yes, he did say he called Julie first, then quickly denied it and still denies it!

What evidence is there that West made a 'telephone' call to Witham at 03:37?

[David1819]

Jeremy originally said that he called Julie Mugford before he called the police. He said he called at  03.25 and this is corroborated by the time Julie Mugford originally gave for when she got the call. She said it was 03.30. Given the tendency people have to round off times to the nearest five minutes, the call probably took place at around 03.27. Another basic reason for rejecting the view that Jeremy called the police at 03.26 is that he was calling Julie Mugford at that time.

People who defend the position that Jeremy called West at around 03.24 don't only need to maintain that West mistimed his log at 03.36, they need to change the times of all the relevant phone calls in that period, which is a reduction to the absurd.

If a time is disputed then you look for corroboration by relating it to other accepted times, but in this case the opposition maintain that the times which should count as corroboration are also wrong by about the same amount.

3:36. Time West receiving Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:24.

03:25. Time Jeremy said he called Julie Mugford. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to some time earlier than 03.25 depending on the agenda.

03:30 Time Susan Battersby said she was woken up  by Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to 03.15 or whatever.

03.37 Time West's telephone call was received at Witham. Must be changed to whatever is required.

But with this last there is a another problem. Even if it is maintained that this call is mistimed, it can't seriously be denied that it took place. There is too much detail for there to be any doubt that West made a call by telephone  to Witham at approximately 03.37, which he strangely did not mention in his statements.

West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.

West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.
 
There are statements from friends of Susans who said the digital clock in her room was always running at the wrong time. Both Susan and Julie were half-asleep when taking note of the time anyway.

Back to the drawing board you must go.

[lookout]

Blimey, give the man a break. He's lost all his family yet is expected to remember every detail that's asked of him. I've said this before that if he had remembered details clearly, I'd have been bothered !

[Roch]

West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.

West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.
 
There are statements from friends of Susans who said the digital clock in her room was always running at the wrong time. Both Susan and Julie were half-asleep when taking note of the time anyway.

Back to the drawing board you must go.

David, why do you feel the need for the last sentence?   

Lomax is well worth a read regarding the Jeremy / Julie phone call.  I think AE is referenced in relation to it also.

[Roch]

Yes, he did say he called Julie first, then quickly denied it and still denies it!

What evidence is there that West made a 'telephone' call to Witham at 03:37?

Unless I misunderstanding either you or the CT, is this not what Myall references in his Dickinson interview?

[David1819]

David, why do you feel the need for the last sentence?   

Lomax is well worth a read regarding the Jeremy / Julie phone call.  I think AE is referenced in relation to it also.

Lomax told me there was no call from Nevill.

[Roch]

I bet it didn't.

In what sense?  Prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect - who would have requested sight of a genuine original 9th Aug statement?   It was an internal police document.  Once Jeremy becomes a suspect, his legal team can request sight of the statements.  But by that time, that's less of a problem for Ainsley - who is prepared.

[Reader]

West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.

In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.

West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.

Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.

Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.

[Roch]

Lomax told me there was no call from Nevill.

And he may be right.  Or he may be wrong.  But my reference to Lomax was in relation to the Jeremy Julie phone call.

My understanding of Lomax is that he can be quite a prickly character.  Wasn't there some fall out, regarding demands to see certain documents?  He then announced he was writing another book that Jeremy wouldn't have sight of.  But so far, it hasn't materialised.

[David1819]

In what sense?  Prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect - who would have requested sight of a genuine original 9th Aug statement?   It was an internal police document.  Once Jeremy becomes a suspect, his legal team can request sight of the statements.  But by that time, that's not a problem for Ainsley - who is prepared.

Coming up with a conspiracy theory to justify your position is not going to achieve anything.

PC West writing down one number incorrectly. Is not enough evidence to make the conspiracy theory a plausible one.

Furthermore the log from West to Bonnet that was shown in court is what is now alleged to be Nevills call. How could Ainsley let that one slip! 

[David1819]

In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.
Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.

It does't have a ring of truth to you because it doesn't suit your dogma.

Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.

This has already been explained to you. You are ignoring the full stop in the relevant sentence and misinterpreting as if he is saying he never made a statement at all.

[Kaldin]

I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. Sure, they had some of the family nagging at them, but that's not a good reason. They had Julie changing her statement, but that was a genuine reason to look again at the case. They had no reason  to hide anything.

[Roch]

I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. Sure, they had some of the family nagging at them, but that's not a good reason. They had Julie changing her statement, but that was a genuine reason to look again at the case. They had no reason  to hide anything.

We cant answer that without being castigated by David for 'conspiracy theories'.  He forgets that the police originally compiled a case file of evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible.

[Reader]

It does't have a ring of truth to you because it doesn't suit your dogma.

Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.

This has already been explained to you. You are ignoring the full stop in the relevant sentence and misinterpreting as if he is saying he never made a statement at all.

Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.

I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. . . They had no reason to hide anything.

Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.