Author Topic: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August  (Read 67007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2011, 09:43:PM »


Look more closely - telephone call timed at 3:26am, subject Ralph Bamber, refers to SENDER as 1990, whereas, in police record timed at 3:36am, subject Jeremy Bamber, it refers to RECEIVER as being 1990, how could 1990 be the sender at 3:26am, and be the receiver at 3:36am, if the contents of th two messages relate to the same call allegedly made by Jeremy to the police?

Yes! The sender of the message to Malcolm Bonnet at 3.26 was 1990 (PC West). The receiver of the call from Jeremy was 1990 (PC West).

PC West received a call from Jeremy. He then phoned Bonnet and told him about it - that's why on Bonnet's log it says the sender was 1990.

I realise that the time thing is a problem - I know that. The court said it was too, and it was decided that PC wrote down the time wrong, and that the call he received from Jeremy was not at 3.36, it was earlier than that. Now you can dispute that, but then where is the log of the phone call received from Neville? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. Neville didn't call Bonnet - it clearly says that his message was received from PC West (1990).

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2011, 09:44:PM »
Kaldin - Re You mean Mike is saying that Jeremy called Julie before he called the police?

Well that is what it appears to look like to me unles I am missing something....... What do you think?

He does appear to be saying that. He says that Jeremy phoned Julie at 3.30, and that Jeremy called the police at 3.36.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2011, 10:03:PM »
Allow me to explain, When Jeremy was first spoken to too by DCI "Taff" Jones, and DS "Stan" Jones, at his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, the police said that Jeremy told them that he called the police, (3:36am), after he called his girlfriend, (3:30am), Julie Mugford...

Later, when the nature of the investigation altered, at the beginning of September 1985, from SC/688/85, into SC/786/85, Jeremy was arrested, and spoken to, during interview by the police, who put it to him, that although he told the police originally, that he had spoken to Julie Mugford (3:30am) on the telephone before (3;36am)  he had spoken to the police, that police records showed that he had in fact spoken to Julie, (3:30) after he had spoken to the police, (3:26am). In other words, they tried to disorientate him, which led to Jeremy responding by saying that the first version he had given to the police at his cottage, was the correct explanation...

They tried to disorientate him, by using references to two different times(3:30am and 3:15am)  that Jeremy supposedly made the call to Julie on the morning of 7th August 1985, and by reference to two differently timed telephone calls received by the police, namely, 3:26am and 3:36am...

It would depend from a readers point of view, which time reference for the call to Julie you chose to rely upon, as opposed to the timing of the call made to the police, either Ralph's call timed at 3:26am, or Jeremy's own call timed at 3:36am, as to whether you chose to believe that Jeremy called Julie before or after the call to the police......
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 10:09:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2011, 10:25:PM »
So Jeremy claims he called Julie before he called the police. I don't see a problem with that, other than you'd think he'd call the police first really. He may have called her at 3.20 or something, then called the police at 3.26. Even if he did call the police at 3.36 (and I don't think he did), there's no contradiction is there?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2011, 11:04:PM »
So Jeremy claims he called Julie before he called the police. I don't see a problem with that, other than you'd think he'd call the police first really. He may have called her at 3.20 or something, then called the police at 3.26. Even if he did call the police at 3.36 (and I don't think he did), there's no contradiction is there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there is a contradiction, because when they were interviewing Jeremy at the beginning of September 1985, at one stage they were leading Jeremy to believe that he had told them that he had made the call to his girlfriend before he called the police, but they also suggested to Jeremy that what he had told them was wrong, because police records showed that he had made the call to Julie (3:30am) after the call to the police (the one made by Ralph at 3:26am)...

At this point, Jeremy told them that the police were trying to confuse him, and he told the police that what ever he said when the police first spoke to him, would be the correct explanation...

Therefore, by the time the case came to trial, the police sought to introduce details of Ralph's call to the police timed at 3:26am, as the call Jeremy had made, without actually producing the details in that log from examination and consideration during the trial, and got around this by getting one of the police officers to suggest that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast...

Jeremy's call in principle timed at 3:36am, was duly altered to have taken place at 3:26am, without actually producing the document in question, and they sued this time to try and show that Jeremy lied to the police about the timing of the call Jeremy made to his girlfriend, by suggesting that the call to Julie took place after the 3:26am call to the police, not beforehand - 3:36am...

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2011, 11:16:PM »
So Jeremy claims he called Julie before he called the police. I don't see a problem with that, other than you'd think he'd call the police first really. He may have called her at 3.20 or something, then called the police at 3.26. Even if he did call the police at 3.36 (and I don't think he did), there's no contradiction is there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there is a contradiction, because when they were interviewing Jeremy at the beginning of September 1985, at one stage they were leading Jeremy to believe that he had told them that he had made the call to his girlfriend before he called the police, but they also suggested to Jeremy that what he had told them was wrong, because police records showed that he had made the call to Julie (3:30am) after the call to the police (the one made by Ralph at 3:26am)...

At this point, Jeremy told them that the police were trying to confuse him, and he told the police that what ever he said when the police first spoke to him, would be the correct explanation...

Therefore, by the time the case came to trial, the police sought to introduce details of Ralph's call to the police timed at 3:26am, as the call Jeremy had made, without actually producing the details in that log from examination and consideration during the trial, and got around this by getting one of the police officers to suggest that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast...

Jeremy's call in principle timed at 3:36am, was duly altered to have taken place at 3:26am, without actually producing the document in question, and they sued this time to try and show that Jeremy lied to the police about the timing of the call Jeremy made to his girlfriend, by suggesting that the call to Julie took place after the 3:26am call to the police, not beforehand - 3:36am...

It's hard for me to comment on that because I don't believe that Neville called the police - yet.

If Bonnet's log was not introduced in evidence, what reason did PC West give for saying that he got the time wrong? Did he volunteer that information or did the prosecution ask him about it? If they asked him about it, the defence must have wondered why they asked because at the time they didn't know about the 3.26 log.

Since some of Julie's flatmates seemed to think that he called around 3 am I don't see what the police hoped to achieve anyway.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2011, 11:24:PM »
So Jeremy claims he called Julie before he called the police. I don't see a problem with that, other than you'd think he'd call the police first really. He may have called her at 3.20 or something, then called the police at 3.26. Even if he did call the police at 3.36 (and I don't think he did), there's no contradiction is there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there is a contradiction, because when they were interviewing Jeremy at the beginning of September 1985, at one stage they were leading Jeremy to believe that he had told them that he had made the call to his girlfriend before he called the police, but they also suggested to Jeremy that what he had told them was wrong, because police records showed that he had made the call to Julie (3:30am) after the call to the police (the one made by Ralph at 3:26am)...

At this point, Jeremy told them that the police were trying to confuse him, and he told the police that what ever he said when the police first spoke to him, would be the correct explanation...

Therefore, by the time the case came to trial, the police sought to introduce details of Ralph's call to the police timed at 3:26am, as the call Jeremy had made, without actually producing the details in that log from examination and consideration during the trial, and got around this by getting one of the police officers to suggest that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast...

Jeremy's call in principle timed at 3:36am, was duly altered to have taken place at 3:26am, without actually producing the document in question, and they sued this time to try and show that Jeremy lied to the police about the timing of the call Jeremy made to his girlfriend, by suggesting that the call to Julie took place after the 3:26am call to the police, not beforehand - 3:36am...

It's hard for me to comment on that because I don't believe that Neville called the police - yet.

If Bonnet's log was not introduced in evidence, what reason did PC West give for saying that he got the time wrong? Did he volunteer that information or did the prosecution ask him about it? If they asked him about it, the defence must have wondered why they asked because at the time they didn't know about the 3.26 log.

Since some of Julie's flatmates seemed to think that he called around 3 am I don't see what the police hoped to achieve anyway.
---------------------------

they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2011, 11:33:PM »



they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...

Why? Why would they need to do that?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 11:35:PM by Kaldin »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2011, 11:38:PM »



they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...

Why? Why would they need to do that?
-----------------------------------------

Because it would have helped to show him in a poor light, and damage his credibility, as a witness of truth...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2011, 11:40:PM »



they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...

Why? Why would they need to do that?
-----------------------------------------

Because it would have helped to show him in a poor light, and damage his credibility, as a witness of truth...

No it wouldn't. I don't get that at all.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2011, 11:42:PM »



they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...

Why? Why would they need to do that?
-----------------------------------------

Because it would have helped to show him in a poor light, and damage his credibility, as a witness of truth...

No it wouldn't. I don't get that at all.
-------------------------------------

Yes it would...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2011, 11:49:PM »



they set out to portray Jeremy as having told lies about the timing of his call to the police and to Julie...

Why? Why would they need to do that?
-----------------------------------------

Because it would have helped to show him in a poor light, and damage his credibility, as a witness of truth...

No it wouldn't. I don't get that at all.
-------------------------------------

Yes it would...

Sorry but I haven't got the faintest idea what all this is about.

Offline curiousessex

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1418
  • ROCH INDEX 70
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2011, 01:20:AM »
The sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August is critical.

The "outside" world knows nothing about the events in White House Farm until it is effectively notified.

The "outside" world, given the verdict of the original trial, does not necessarily include Jeremy as the court beleived he would have "known" about the events in White House Farm when the telephone calls to the Police were made.

However, if we assume Jeremy is innocent and thus has no knowledge of the events unfolding at White House Farm.

Mike, in an earlier posting on this subject, confirmed Jeremy received at 3.25 am a telephone call from Neville Bamber who was at White House Farm. This has been indicated as a fact although this time could still be an approximate time if I have misunderstood Mike's posting.

Having received a call at 3.25 am, I have assumed Jeremy would have been woken by the telephone call from Neville Bamber. Words are confirmed to have been spoken but the telephone call for some reason was cut short. Jeremy then tries to repeatedly to call back White House Farm but only gets the engaged tone.

It has been explained, in earlier posts, that this would be because Neville Bamber is talking to the Police re the "Daughter gone beserk" telephone log.

If this is correct then this would be at 3.26 am when the "first" telphone call was being received by the Police. The "outside" world could thus only know about the events at White House Farm at the earliest by either 3.25 am or 3.26 am depending upon Jeremy's innocence.

If Julie had been made aware that there were things unfolding at White House Farm before 3.25 am then this would be before the "outside" world could have possibly known of anything untoward happening at White House Farm.

Thus, the sequence and times of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August is of critical importance particularly as there appears to also be some dispute about  the time Julie received the telephone call from Jeremy. I understand different times have been mentioned by the coinhabitants at Julie's residence in London.

Does anyone know the alledged disputed times of the telephone call from Jeremy to Julie according to the coinhabitants of Julie's residence in London?
 

bb2010

  • Guest
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2011, 09:34:AM »
Isn't the issue, regardless of timings, that the only 'proof' that Ralph made a call at all is that Jeremy said he did?

The scenarios are

Ralph calls police: Not verified by police
Ralph calls Jeremy: Verification from Jeremy
Jeremy calls Julie: Both sides verify
Jeremy calls police: Both sides verify

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2011, 10:08:AM »
I'm not sure what curiousessex is trying to establish here - is he trying to establish the time of Jeremy's call to the police?

Jeremy says he called Julie before he called the police. He has no real reason to lie about that. In fact it shows him in rather a bad light because the natural thing would have been to call the police first.

If the timing of the call to Julie could be established beyond doubt, that would cast more light on whether Jeremy called the police at 3.26 or 3.36. Is that right?

The trouble is that neither Julie or her flatmates are absolutely sure about when he phoned.

I don't know if there are witness statements available but there is a huge amount of stuff about the timing of his call to Julie in the Appeal Document - have a look at it if you have the time and patience.  ;D

The relevant bits are paras 101 - 104, and 289 - 330.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm