Malcolm Bonnett statement (date unknown)

[Hartley]

Malcolm Bonnett statement (date unknown)

This unfortunately isn't very good quality and I can't see a date, but it is still just about legible.

[mike tesko]

If Malcolm Bonnett received the call at 3.26am then the call from the Bamber's must have been before this time?

[grahameb]

I can't read it.

[Hartley]

It's difficult to see, I'll type it out tomorrow, there's not much to talk about on this one anyway.

[smiffy]

If Malcolm Bonnett received the call at 3.26am then the call from the Bamber's must have been before this time?

that is a very logical conclusion to make...information cannot be passed on until it has been received.
so if this statement is true and correct then others have lied/misinformed....or Bonnets statement is itself lies or a mistake.

[Hartley]

If Malcolm Bonnett received the call at 3.26am then the call from the Bamber's must have been before this time?

that is a very logical conclusion to make...information cannot be passed on until it has been received.
so if this statement is true and correct then others have lied/misinformed....or Bonnets statement is itself lies or a mistake.

Erm, I'm pretty sure he meant Nevills call to Jeremy and not Nevills call to the police. Which is irrelevant anyway because neither actually happened. 

[grahameb]

If Malcolm Bonnett received the call at 3.26am then the call from the Bamber's must have been before this time?

that is a very logical conclusion to make...information cannot be passed on until it has been received.
so if this statement is true and correct then others have lied/misinformed....or Bonnets statement is itself lies or a mistake.

Erm, I'm pretty sure he meant Nevills call to Jeremy and not Nevills call to the police. Which is irrelevant anyway because neither actually happened. 

In your opinion.

[smiffy]

If Malcolm Bonnett received the call at 3.26am then the call from the Bamber's must have been before this time?

that is a very logical conclusion to make...information cannot be passed on until it has been received.
so if this statement is true and correct then others have lied/misinformed....or Bonnets statement is itself lies or a mistake.

Erm, I'm pretty sure he meant Nevills call to Jeremy and not Nevills call to the police. Which is irrelevant anyway because neither actually happened. 

you seem to be struggling here "hartley" yet again.
dave's comment does say Bamber's  so would appear to be implying whf and a call from Neville...MAYBE dave screwed up here a tad and meant the call from JB to the police....
However the same comment applies in that Bonnet if really being contacted by Chelmsford police in response to a call from JB cannot have been passed the message until it was given to the police by JB which puts JB's call to the police as being before 3.26am if Bonnet's statement it correct.

either way...this supports JB's position and undermines the credibility of the police/prosecution claims.

[Hartley]

you seem to be struggling here "hartley" yet again.

Groan. 

dave's comment does say Bamber's  so would appear to be implying whf and a call from Neville...MAYBE dave screwed up here a tad and meant the call from JB to the police....
However the same comment applies in that Bonnet if really being contacted by Chelmsford police in response to a call from JB cannot have been passed the message until it was given to the police by JB which puts JB's call to the police as being before 3.26am if Bonnet's statement it correct.

either way...this supports JB's position and undermines the credibility of the police/prosecution claims.

It does no such thing. As his position has changed so often regarding these calls, which of his positions do you think it supports?

Nevills call to the police never happened IMO.

Nevills call to JB never happened IMO.

JB's call to West was logged at 3:26 but placed at 3:26 or just before and put down as an error. Whether you believe this error or not is up to you, the Appeal judges believed it however.

Wests call to Bonnett is logged at 3:26.


Other than that I have no idea what you are trying unsuccessfully to convey? 

[smiffy]

you seem to be struggling here "hartley" yet again.

Groan. 

dave's comment does say Bamber's  so would appear to be implying whf and a call from Neville...MAYBE dave screwed up here a tad and meant the call from JB to the police....
However the same comment applies in that Bonnet if really being contacted by Chelmsford police in response to a call from JB cannot have been passed the message until it was given to the police by JB which puts JB's call to the police as being before 3.26am if Bonnet's statement it correct.

either way...this supports JB's position and undermines the credibility of the police/prosecution claims.

It does no such thing. As his position has changed so often regarding these calls, which of his positions do you think it supports?

Nevills call to the police never happened IMO.

Nevills call to JB never happened IMO.

JB's call to West was logged at 3:26 but placed at 3:26 or just before and put down as an error. Whether you believe this error or not is up to you, the Appeal judges believed it however.

Wests call to Bonnett is logged at 3:26.


Other than that I have no idea what you are trying unsuccessfully to convey? 

hmm logged at 3.26am   ..are you squirming.
so that can be different then from when it was made and not be accurate  ..okies so that means JB's call to the police had to be before 3.26pm if Bonnet is to be beleived and which seems to be what your implying.

you seem to think JB's call to West was logged in error at 3.26pm ...and you used the word "before" so any error would be that the call by JB was made before the time logged.

[grahameb]

It seems to me that this explanation of a "mistake" in the times was accepted all too readily by the appeal court judges?

[Hartley]

hmm logged at 3.26am   ..are you squirming.

I don't seem to be 

so that can be different then from when it was made and not be accurate  ..okies so that means JB's call to the police had to be before 3.26pm if Bonnet is to be beleived and which seems to be what your implying.

Read the 2002 Appeal Judgement, it's very clear. I'm not implying anything, simply conveying what is recorded in that judgement.

you seem to think JB's call to West was logged in error at 3.26pm ...and you used the word "before" so any error would be that the call by JB was made before the time logged.

Yes I made a mistake you are quite right, I should have said:

JB's call to West was logged at 3:36 but placed at 3:26 or just before and put down as an error. Whether you believe this error or not is up to you, the Appeal judges believed it however.

Again as is documented in the 2002 Appeal Judgement.

[No-Bits]

A clearer copy:

[Reader]

JB's call to West was logged at 3:26 [3:36 intended] but placed at 3:26 or just before and put down as an error. Whether you believe this error or not is up to you, the Appeal judges believed it however.

The appeal court judges also wrote "Using a radio link PC West contacted Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room." This is inconsistent with Bonnett's log and statement, both of which indicate that he was contacted by telephone.

Bonnet's statement clearly wasn't supplied to the defence before the trial. Had it been, the audio tapes mentioned would have been asked for.

The third image in the preceding post by Harters is the second page of Bonnett's statement of 08/11/1985. The first page of that statement is shown below.

[No-Bits]

The appeal court judges also wrote "Using a radio link PC West contacted Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room." This is inconsistent with Bonnet's log and statement, both of which indicate that he was contacted by telephone.

Bonnet's statement clearly wasn't supplied to the defence before the trial. Had it been, the audio tapes mentioned would have been asked for.

As this statement is dated 2001, I think it's quite likely that it wasn't provided to the defence at the original trial.