Nevill's Voice, Jeremy's Voice

[Roch]

They are IDENTICAL.

CA5 to scence. CA5 to scene.

[David1819]

CA5 to scence. CA5 to scene.

In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.

https://streamable.com/j2sqyf

The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.

[Roch]

In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.

https://streamable.com/j2sqyf

The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.

Is G White an English language guardian angel?

[gringo]

In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.

https://streamable.com/j2sqyf

The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.

   It is this that is important. What is the reason for the rewriting? I suspect that it is something to do with preventing ESDA testing on the original. EP seem very determined to prevent this possibility.
   

[David1819]

   It is this that is important. What is the reason for the rewriting? I suspect that it is something to do with preventing ESDA testing on the original. EP seem very determined to prevent this possibility.
   

The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.

[gringo]

The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.

    When did this happen?

[gringo]

The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.

   Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?

[David1819]

   Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?

I very much doubt it. Why would it take 6 years to update a log?

[gringo]

I very much doubt it. Why would it take 6 years to update a log?

   Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
     The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
     I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.

[guest29835]

   Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
     The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
     I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.

I will go some distance in agreeing with you there.  I think their conduct of the evidence post-trial is suspicious in the extreme, has introduced prejudice, and, in my view, potentially renders the convictions unsatisfactory.

[David1819]

   Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
     The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
     I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.

To me its rather simple. The duty sergeant who signed of the copy on the right. Updated it with additional information and corrected illegible text like Nevills age for example. The typed text on the logs state that copies should exist and a duty sergeant should check and sign it.

[Bill Robertson]

   Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?

Yes, it was forged before the COLP investigation in 1990/91 so as to thwart ESDA testing. Luckily for EP PC West was still around to assist with the forgery. But still couldn’t spell, or copy accurately from the 1985 version of the form.

[David1819]

Yes, it was forged before the COLP investigation in 1990/91 so as to thwart ESDA testing. Luckily for EP PC West was still around to assist with the forgery. But still couldn’t spell, or copy accurately from the 1985 version of the form.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Karl]

In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.

https://streamable.com/j2sqyf

The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.

The rewritten sentence with the misspelling of scene as "scence" is in PC West's handwriting.

The sentence  "C A 5  To scence" is in  the copy signed by PS G White  which shows the sergeants handwriting in the result box and his signature below it. His writing is obviously different to that of West.

You have coloured red additions made by West some time after the log was written, but you have not coloured red the sentence "C A 5  To scence", which you also claim was written by White. At any rate the additions like "illness" (after the word "mental") and "age 62", said of Nevill Bamber, are in the handwriting of PC West.

West's handwriting

Notice West writes some lower case letters as capitals, but smaller. His "e" and his "t" are written like that. Also his "n" is the same shape in both copies. PS G White would need to be an expert forger to fake West's handwriting so well. It would have been much simpler for DCS Ainsley to get West himself to do it.

West must have been asked to write parts of the log again. Perhaps the police were looking for an excuse not to hand over the original log and they thought that producing an improved version with clearer writing in certain places would explain withholding the original which was thought to be below the required standard.

Remember that the reason given for cutting out negatives from from the strips was that the removed images were thought to be sub-standard.  It seems like another instance of an old and familiar routine to justify withholding crucial evidence which could prove something once and for all.

The most serious mistake anybody can make about the Bamber case is to assume that that the authorities have been acting in good faith.

Here are the two logs put together by you for comparison.  There can be no doubt that West rewrote the parts in red apart from the content of the result box and the signature by PS G White.

[David1819]

The rewritten sentence with the misspelling of scene as "scence" is in PC West's handwriting.

The sentence  "C A 5  To scence" is in  the copy signed by PS G White  which shows the sergeants handwriting in the result box and his signature below it. His writing is obviously different to that of West.

You have coloured red additions made by West some time after the log was written, but you have not coloured red the sentence "C A 5  To scence", which you also claim was written by White. At any rate the additions like "illness" (after the word "mental") and "age 62", said of Nevill Bamber, are in the handwriting of PC West.

West's handwriting

Notice West writes some lower case letters as capitals, but smaller. His "e" and his "t" are written like that. Also his "n" is the same shape in both copies. PS G White would need to be an expert forger to fake West's handwriting so well. It would have been much simpler for DCS Ainsley to get West himself to do it.

West must have been asked to write parts of the log again. Perhaps the police were looking for an excuse not to hand over the original log and they thought that producing an improved version with clearer writing in certain places would explain withholding the original which was thought to be below the required standard.

Remember that the reason given for cutting out negatives from from the strips was that the removed images were thought to be sub-standard.  It seems like another instance of an old and familiar routine to justify withholding crucial evidence which could prove something once and for all.

The most serious mistake anybody can make about the Bamber case is to assume that that the authorities have been acting in good faith.

Here are the two logs put together by you for comparison.  There can be no doubt that West rewrote the parts in red apart from the content of the result box and the signature by PS G White.

How does West rewriting one sentence with a spelling mistake show a cover-up of a call from Nevill?