Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Caroline]

I think he means that Saxby 'went along' with there being radio communication, as a result of the predicament that  Ainsley was placed in, by West stubbornly refusing to change the time of Jeremy's call.

But that's his assumption based no doubt on the evidence that, like David just did earlier, someone referred to 'call' when they actually meant radioed message.

[Caroline]

It would be helpful to see the Saxby interview that Bill is referring to?

[Bill Robertson]

It would be helpful to see the Saxby interview that Bill is referring to?

I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.

[David1819]

I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.

What are you on about. Myall's pocketbook states they left Witham at 3:39am and arrived at WHF at 3:45am.

[lookout]

COLP interview notes state a radio message re. a domestic incident at WHF--03.35--Saxby.

03.39 CA/7 with PS Bews, PC Mayall and Self to WHF.
 

[Bill Robertson]

What are you on about. Myall's pocketbook states they left Witham at 3:39am and arrived at WHF at 3:45am.

No, it doesn't say that at all. It says they left Witham at 03:39, it says nothing about when they arrived at WHF.
His witness statement says that he was on duty at 03:45; in the context of the arrival at Pages Lane that is a meaningless statement, it is not the time they arrived at WHF.

[Caroline]

I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.

This is just your opinion and based on timings that you have chosen to back! Please indicate (as you missed it from your time line) when Jeremy called Julie and why he chose to lie about it? Also, why did accuse West of perjury because of his 03:36 time entry?

[Caroline]

No, it doesn't say that at all. It says they left Witham at 03:39, it says nothing about when they arrived at WHF.
His witness statement says that he was on duty at 03:45; in the context of the arrival at Pages Lane that is a meaningless statement, it is not the time they arrived at WHF.

That's splitting hairs!

[David1819]

Someone guessed or remembered the time wrong = Nevil rang the police + Conspiracy

[Roch]

Someone guessed or remembered the time wrong = Nevil rang the police + Conspiracy

If you want people on the same side as you to debate on here, sarcastic dismissive remarks won't help. It just drives people back in to lurking.

[Adam]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-new-evidence-could-20651305.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjHv5ufvrXlAhVfThUIHQMuDQcQFjAFegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3t9LuDvHprWW92QAGYdJX6&ampcf=1

The Mirror is so accurrate it is claiming it is Jeremy's voice.

[Caroline]

If you want people on the same side as you to debate on here, sarcastic dismissive remarks won't help. It just drives people back in to lurking.

As you know, usually I don't get along with David, however, what I will say is that like me, he doesn't accept things just because they support an 'innocent' Bamber and it is rather frustrating when people come along, make sweeping statements, refuse to answer anything put to them and either just bugger off or loiter as a guest.

If their argument is sound, they should be able to back it up.  Bill et al's argument goes against what Jeremy maintained at the time (he called police around 03:25 and called the police before Julie) and against what both West and Bonnet stated (no call from Nevill).

I have asked Bill what time he thinks Bamber called Julie - no response.

[Caroline]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-new-evidence-could-20651305.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjHv5ufvrXlAhVfThUIHQMuDQcQFjAFegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3t9LuDvHprWW92QAGYdJX6&ampcf=1

The Mirror is so accurrate it is claiming it is Jeremy's voice.

WTF ...... 

[Caroline]

WTF ...... 

See how inaccurate these things are? Jeremy didn't call 999 for starters. They are obviously trying to dramatise the article.

[Adam]

It does not matter when Jeremy called Julie. Calling her to 'hear a friendly voice' could be done before or after calling the police.

But a bit weird getting a frantic 4 second call from Nevill, then calling Julie straight away.

More plausible he would call Julie after speaking to the police & calming down a bit. This would of course mean he phoned the police at 3.26am as he would not have time to call Julie after a 3.36am call.