Two hundred pieces of evidence against Bamber

[snow66!]

I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.

Yes Rob,and that must have been when West was told in no uncertain terms that he only received one phone call.

[David1819]

I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.

Who do you believe took Nevils alleged call?

[snow66!]

Who do you believe took Nevils alleged call?

It had to be West,because Bonnets log says that is who passed the info on Dave.

[snow66!]

And wasn't it suggested that they would have convinced West that JB made both calls anyway.Hence West did what he thought was right ,and denied he received two calls.Quite possible,and the only thing that fits as far as I can see.

[Cambridgecutie]

What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 ,  999call from the farm house Jane?

There is no documented evidence of a 999 call being made from WHF at any time that night.

There were 3 'event' logs made on the night, documenting the events as they unfolded.  At least 2 of them documented an event at 6.09

It is absolutely clear that at 6.09 a BT operator patched through the open line at White House Farm, to an operative at HQIR in Chelmsford (HQIR in Chelmsford being the place where 999 calls go to, hence the reference to 999).   

This was at the request of the police so that the police could monitor the open line in the kitchen. The logs clearly document the line being diverted to Chelmsford HQIR. 

Up until 06:09am it had been a BT operator who had been listening in on the line.

There was no actual 999 call made from WHF.  And the fact that people say that a 999 call was made at 6.09am, is proof that there was no such 999 call, because the thing they are referring to is a BT operator diverting the line to the place where 999 calls are received.

[Cambridgecutie]

Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.

Because the sender boxes and the receiver boxes reveal who actually made the two calls.

The time stamps are a red herring, they prove nothing.  The contents of the sender boxes prove everything.  Therefore the time stamps become irrelevant to the very pertinent point of who made the two calls.

Nevill Bamber isn't named in any of the boxes, sender or receiver.  Therefore he did not make any of the calls.  There is no way of getting around that.  That is fact, undeniable fact.  And it is why Jeremy Bamber and the Campaign team never mention the sender and receiver boxes.

The webpage on JB's campaign team website that covers the call logs, mentions everything that is written on the two forms, except the contents of the sender and receiver sections.

Jeremy Bamber is named as the sender on one form, because he phoned PC West at Chelmsford Local police station

PC West is named as the sender on the other form, because he radio'd JB's message to Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR in Chelmsford.

So only Jeremy Bamber made a call, and only PC West made a call.

Nevill Bamber therefore did not make a call, not according to these forms.  Therefore everything else on the form is irrelevant to whether Nevill Bamber made a call or not.

[David1819]

It had to be West,because Bonnets log says that is who passed the info on Dave.

West took JBs call.

[Jane]

What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 ,  999call from the farm house Jane?

Wishful thinking, Snow? Have you read "killingeve's" excellent post, yet? Probably not, would be my guess.

[Jane]

How do you explain the vast difference in the wording of the logs Dave,apparently from the same call from JB?

Howz about only West heard, and wrote down, to his own satisfaction, JB's exact words. Bonnet only heard, and wrote down, his own version of what West had said that JB had said. Personally, for the purposes of calling emergency services, I'd say Bonnet got it as close as makes no difference, given that he received it third hand...........Now! should you ever have had to do dictation, at school, you'll recall that your work would have been marked down if the punctuation marks were incorrect. We can't expect messages about potential tragedies to be written that way.

[Jane]

It was me who said 200 pieces of evidence, and I said it in reference to taking all of the publicly available evidence into account in its totality. Only then can you get an idea of what actually happened.

To ascertain guilt or innocence, you need to look at all the evidence in its totality, which is how the legal system works.  And it's why the legal system continues to say he is guilty.

The evidence taken as a whole, will tell the most accurate story.

What Jeremy Bamber has been doing over the decades is to take a single piece of evidence, create a narrative that supports his innocence from that single piece of evidence, and then claim that that piece of evidence alone proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.

On the surface, and to a member of the public who hasn't investigated further, such out of context single pieces of evidence, can look very convincing.

And to the CCRC in 2012 those single pieces of evidence was declared to be "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"

An example would be the two call logs, one of which Bamber says shows that Nevill Bamber spoke to Malcolm Bonnett at Chelmsford HQIR at 03:26 am

FYI - Chelmsford HQIR is where 999 calls go to, and civilian staff like Malcolm Bonnett then co-ordinate the emergency, such as sending ambulances, police cars etc.

The other 'call log' shows a call from Jeremy Bamber calling the local Chelmsford police station at 03:36 am

For the uninitiated, If Nevill Bamber directly spoke to the police that night, then it means that Sheila really was going crazy with the gun, and that would make Jeremy Bamber innocent.

But in reality,  neither of those 'call logs' show that Nevill Bamber phoned Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR.


And this is the reason why:

There is a piece of information on both forms (or call logs) that shows categorically, exactly who made the phone calls.

Each form has a box on the top left that is labelled 'sender'

Each form has a box on the top right that is labelled 'receiver'

The box labelled 'sender' contains the name of the person who made the call.

The box labelled 'receiver' contains the name of the person who took the call.

On the form that has a handwritten time stamp of 03:36, the 'sender' box contains the originator of the call, and that is Jeremy Bamber, Goldhanger Lane.

On that same form the 'receiver' is PC 1990, which is PC West's Police ID number.  Therefore PC West took the call, from Jeremy Bamber. 

The message that Jeremy Bamber gave to PC West in that message, recorded in writing on the same form, is obviously an emergency, and so as per police protocol, he contacted the 999 call handlers to hand what was obviously an emergency over to them.

However, PC West already had Jeremy Bamber on the only available phoneline, and didn't have access to another phone, so he used his radio to contact Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR (the 999 emergency call handling facility)

PC West explained to Malcolm Bonnett what Jeremy Bamber had said to him, and Malcolm Bonnet, as per police procedures, created another form (the other call log).

In the 'sender' box he wrote 1990 (PC Wests police ID number), because PC West was the originator of the call.

In the 'receiver' box he wrote MB, short for Malcolm Bonnett, which was himself, as he was taking the call from PC West.

Malcolm Bonnet wrote 03:26 on the form for the time stamp.

And that is the simple true story of how the two 'call logs' came to be.

And it shows conclusively that Nevill Bamber was NOT the originator of either of those calls. Jeremy Bamber was the originator of one, and PC West was the originator of the other

And therefore it proves that Jeremy Bamber has used these forms to create the narrative that Nevill Bamber made a call to the police, when in fact it is easily provable with the very evidence that Jeremy Bamber has submitted, that Nevill Bamber did no such thing.

Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers, his campaign team, and his supporters, have never made any mention whatsoever of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes.

And that is because the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes provide
insurmountable evidence (proof in all but name) that neither call was made by Nevill Bamber.

Given the strength of the above evidence in relation to the call logs, the different time stamps (03:26 and 03:36), which Jeremy Bamber attaches so much importance to, actually becomes insignificant.

And that is how, using single pieces of evidence and taking them out of context, Jeremy Bamber has attempted to make himself look innocent,  when the very same evidence that he submits, very often says the opposite, when you look at it more closely.

Excellent post, killingeve. Wasted on supporters, I fear, but good to see it laid out so clearly, nonetheless.

[Jane]

The facts speak for themselves.  The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls.  Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls. 

The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.

As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.

Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA.  At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...

If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”


“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”


What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”

What you have to say regarding lawyers has always been my own belief. I've said it here on several occasions. I regard the courtroom as a theatre and the barrister who can deliver the most impassioned and believable closing speech is the one most likely to win. Their client's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. They're less interested in what really happened, than in what their client claims to have happened. To believe otherwise is childishly naive.

[snow66!]

West took JBs call.

Yes,then Nevills.

[snow66!]

Wishful thinking, Snow? Have you read "killingeve's" excellent post, yet? Probably not, would be my guess.

Good morning Jane,yes I have just read Killingeve's post.I am simply going by what Stuart Bower says on this point.

[snow66!]

Yes,then Nevills.

Sorry,Nevills then JBs.

[snow66!]

There is no documented evidence of a 999 call being made from WHF at any time that night.

There were 3 'event' logs made on the night, documenting the events as they unfolded.  At least 2 of them documented an event at 6.09

It is absolutely clear that at 6.09 a BT operator patched through the open line at White House Farm, to an operative at HQIR in Chelmsford (HQIR in Chelmsford being the place where 999 calls go to, hence the reference to 999).   

This was at the request of the police so that the police could monitor the open line in the kitchen. The logs clearly document the line being diverted to Chelmsford HQIR. 

Up until 06:09am it had been a BT operator who had been listening in on the line.

There was no actual 999 call made from WHF.  And the fact that people say that a 999 call was made at 6.09am, is proof that there was no such 999 call, because the thing they are referring to is a BT operator diverting the line to the place where 999 calls are received.

Good day Killingeve,I will have to look in to this,Mike has done many posts about it,I believe.