Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[Hartley]

... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...

Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.

In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?

One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.

Hi Harters,

Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.

It doesn't matter, there is not enough time to fit in what is being suggested.

[vidvic]

I also find it slightly amusing that for years we've heard team JB dismiss JB's SLOW driving that morning as irrelevant and now we hear he must have driven like a maniac to make these times fit.....

[Hartley]

Can I also add that when Jeremy arrived at whf, he was specifically asked why his father had not called the police himself.

Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement.

When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get “organisations” involved, preferring to keep things within the family.

[Hartley]

Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.

Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement

The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

[chochokeira]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26"  or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..

THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY   ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH  THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.

The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.


hmm  the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi  pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2  ...

what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?

for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..

I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.

Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.

not at all..

hmm  a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...

do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.

The fact that JB's current address is not of his own choosing then I would indeed suggest that it is the defence who need to provide evidence of their theories.

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

[chochokeira]

Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.

Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement

The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

I've read that Jeremy was told not to wait for the police.

[Hartley]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five (or four if you're of the other view) people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

[Hartley]

Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.

Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement

The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

I've read that Jeremy was told not to wait for the police.

Sorry Choc, I don't think I understand what you mean. 

[chochokeira]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.

Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.

[Hartley]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.

Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.

Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.

In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict, I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.

[smiffy]

still waiting for someone to provide evidence of the call from JB to the police taking 11 minutes...
Anne Eatons claims about 11 minutes are hearsay at best and have no foundation so are worthless.

Mike has mentioned things in previous threads that bring these phone logs credibility into question.

wasnt it claimed that Wests' log time was out by 10 minutes allegedly due to West misreading a digital clock... ?
then there is question marks about who dispatched CA5..

Then there is the "DUTY PS" insertion in one of the logs...and such "insertions" in police logs and notebooks etc are notorious as being possible alterations used to build cases against people!
was "DUTY PS" really car CA7 ?...and only later when realised was this addition made as seperate dispatching was done for what at the time were what may have been thought 2 seperate incidents...ie Bonnett and West not in communication very early on...but were communicating later after it was realised the calls received were about the same incident but reported by 2 different people.

[curiousessex]

In my opinion and I have always believed the answer to innocent or guilty lies in resolving the issue of the telephone calls.

The answers for timings needs to work backwards and forwards. With the end point being 3.48 where the defence state, according to websites, that Jeremy arrives at White House Farm.

The starting point being shortly after 3.00 am on the morning of 7th August. I state shortly after 3.00 am because this timing has been used by the defence in various forms and configurations in various websites and case synopsis.

In my opinion the biggest problem the defence has will be with the incorporation of an explanation for the testimony of Julie’s flatmates who are three in number and who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. These times relating to a telephone call which Jeremy admits making. It must be remembered these witnesses are not the police, Julie Mugford or any family relative and thus will lie outside any defence allegation of evidence tampering or financial gain through selling a story or by inheritance.

On the subject of the 3.26 and 3.36 telephone logs both have similar content and clearly relate to an alleged firearms incident with someone reportedly going berserk whilst in possession of a firearm. Both logs refer to the telephone going ‘dead’.

On the PTO side of the 3.36 telephone log, as posted by Mike in the ‘Logs of Incident’ thread it is detailed – ‘Informant: Father sounded terrified on phone…. Keeps collection of guns inc 12 bore shotguns, 4/10 shotguns, and .22 rifles.’

This is a bit I also have trouble reconciling –

According to Jeremy

1 - he received a telephone call from his father.
2 – the telephone line goes dead
3 – he tries to call his father back but only gets the engaged tone.
4 – he later reports to the Police that his father sounded terrified

Yet between events 3 and 4 Jeremy does not immediately dial 999 instead he does two things in either order (a) looks up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police Station (b) makes a telephone call to Julie.

The telephone call to Julie (b) is the telephone call which her flatmates have testified they heard the telephone ringing ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.

Something is not quite right…………….

[smiffy]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

[curiousessex]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.

Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.

[chochokeira]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.

Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.

Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.

In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,

I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.

You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.