Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[Jerry]

Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.

If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.

If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?

There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.

According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.

Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back.  I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then.  I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?

I found this too...

I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...

But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...

Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this.  Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976

[Hartley]

Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.

If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.

If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?

There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.

According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.

Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back.  I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then.  I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?

I found this too...

I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...

But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...

Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this.  Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976

From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.

Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.

It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.

[curiousessex]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

[Hartley]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

[curiousessex]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

[Hartley]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

[curiousessex]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

[Hartley]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.

[curiousessex]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.

Proving Jeremy to be innocent is a very different standard to establishing an unsafe conviction 

[Jerry]

Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.

If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.

If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?

There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.

According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.

Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back.  I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then.  I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?

I found this too...

I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...

But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...

Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this.  Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976

From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.

Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.

It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.

Well there is only one way to call his bluff, so lets see the itemised phone bill you already have Mike.

If you fail to post it we will know the answer to that particular question.

[vidvic]

Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.

If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.

If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?

There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.

According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.

Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back.  I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then.  I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?

I found this too...

I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...

But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...

Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this.  Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976

From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.

Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.

It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.

Well there is only one way to call his bluff, so lets see the itemised phone bill you already have Mike.

If you fail to post it we will know the answer to that particular question.

If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.

[Jerry]

If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.

That is most certainly a distinct and probable possibility. So why would Mike be telling porkies?

[ngb1066]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.

Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so.  We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that.  Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence.  Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.

[curiousessex]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.

Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so.  We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that.  Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence.  Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.

NGB1066

May I ask why, in your opinion, anything on this forum may detract from what is happening with the CCRC?

[simong]

I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.

It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.

There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.

Jeremy's original witness statements.

He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy.  You choose?

Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??

Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.

Well it does seem that way.

I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.

Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.

The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.

Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.

Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.

The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.

Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so.  We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that.  Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence.  Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.

I understand what you are saying but i cannot see why posting any itemised bill from 1983 onward that Mike says he has would harm anything submitted to the CCRC.