The telephones

[Kaldin]

There is evidence that Jeremy called the police at 3:36am, and that Ralph called the police at 3:26am...

You cannot seek to exclude an official Essex police document on the one hand (with reference to the call made by Ralph Bamber at 3:26am) and yet seek to rely upon a similar document which talks about a call made to the police by Jeremy, at 3:36am? Similarly, you cannot displace the timing of the call made by Ralph, as shown in this Essex police document which Ralph Made at 3:26am, and claim that Jeremy made the call at 3:26am, just because you want it to support you're theory...

Both records exist, a record of Ralph's call timed at 3:26am, and a record of Jeremy's call timed at 3:36am - let the court of appeal decide which is evidence, or not...

This is a transcript of the log relating to a phone call to PC West.  This log was written by Malcolm Bonnet who wrote down what PC West told him. The log is timed at 3.26.

Daughter gone berserk

Mr Bamber
White House Fm
Tolleshunt D'arcy

Daughter Sheila Bamber aged 26 years has got hold of one of my guns.

Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s.

You see the line which says that it was Jeremy who passed the message to CD? I think this is a log of the call from Jeremy.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/05/article-1300521-0AB1F626000005DC-335_468x571.jpg

[Kaldin]

Mike, thank you for posting the log of the call to PC West in the official documents thread.

That was the call from Jeremy, I agree, but the log of Malcolm Bonnet was I believe referring to the same call. PC West had taken the call from Jeremy and wrote it all down. Then he contacted Malcolm Bonnet and repeated what Jeremy had said. The log timed at 3.26 was recording what PC West told Malcolm Bonnet about the call from Jeremy.

I know there is a discrepancy in the times, but that was explained at the trial - PC West misread the clock.

[mike tesko]

Mike, thank you for posting the log of the call to PC West in the official documents thread.

That was the call from Jeremy, I agree, but the log of Malcolm Bonnet was I believe referring to the same call. PC West had taken the call from Jeremy and wrote it all down. Then he contacted Malcolm Bonnet and repeated what Jeremy had said. The log timed at 3.26 was recording what PC West told Malcolm Bonnet about the call from Jeremy.

I know there is a discrepancy in the times, but that was explained at the trial - PC West misread the clock.

----------------------------------------------

Thanks for your explanation, but nevertheless, if the explanation was as innocent as you are suggesting, why wasn't the log of the purported call from Ralph Bamber, (3:26am) and the references to his daughter going "berserk", and having possession of one of "My' guns, disclosed and made available to the court, and to Jeremy, and his legal team, which was dealing with this matter?

Why conceal both documents, which contain conflicting information, and evidence, if the explanation was such an innocent one?

Worse still...

Can you offer any explanation for why the details of Ralph's call are recorded on the Back of another police message log, connected with the investigation, which was completed at a different time, in connection with other matters, linked to the case?

The original document is not available, and has gone missing, or has been destroyed...

Why is the record which relates to Jeremy's call to the police timed at 3:36am, recorded on the correct form, yet the details which relate to Ralph call to the police timed at 3:26am, a photocopy on the reverse of a different police message log from the scene, or elsewhere?

[Kaldin]

Thanks for your explanation, but nevertheless, if the explanation was as innocent as you are suggesting, why wasn't the log of the purported call from Ralph Bamber, (3:26am) and the references to his daughter going "berserk", and having possession of one of "My' guns, disclosed and made available to the court, and to Jeremy, and his legal team, which was dealing with this matter?

Why conceal both documents, which contain conflicting information, and evidence, if the explanation was such an innocent one?

Worse still...

Can you offer any explanation for why the details of Ralph's call are recorded on the Back of another police message log, connected with the investigation, which was completed at a different time, in connection with other matters, linked to the case?

The original document is not available, and has gone missing, or has been destroyed...

Why is the record which relates to Jeremy's call to the police timed at 3:36am, recorded on the correct form, yet the details which relate to Ralph call to the police timed at 3:26am, a photocopy on the reverse of a different police message log from the scene, or elsewhere?

The log which Malcolm Bonnet wrote - which you allege refers to a call from Neville - has a note on it which clearly says "The Crown Court at Chelmsford". Why does it say that if was not there as evidence?

How do you know that Malcolm Bonnet's log was written on the back of another log? It clearly says "Essex Police Communications" at the top.

[mike tesko]

Thanks for your explanation, but nevertheless, if the explanation was as innocent as you are suggesting, why wasn't the log of the purported call from Ralph Bamber, (3:26am) and the references to his daughter going "berserk", and having possession of one of "My' guns, disclosed and made available to the court, and to Jeremy, and his legal team, which was dealing with this matter?

Why conceal both documents, which contain conflicting information, and evidence, if the explanation was such an innocent one?

Worse still...

Can you offer any explanation for why the details of Ralph's call are recorded on the Back of another police message log, connected with the investigation, which was completed at a different time, in connection with other matters, linked to the case?

The original document is not available, and has gone missing, or has been destroyed...

Why is the record which relates to Jeremy's call to the police timed at 3:36am, recorded on the correct form, yet the details which relate to Ralph call to the police timed at 3:26am, a photocopy on the reverse of a different police message log from the scene, or elsewhere?

The log which Malcolm Bonnet wrote - which you allege refers to a call from Neville - has a note on it which clearly says "The Crown Court at Chelmsford". Why does it say that if was not there as evidence?

How do you know that Malcolm Bonnet's log was written on the back of another log? It clearly says "Essex Police Communications" at the top.

-----------------------------------------------

CPS had it there, but they did not disclose it, or rely upon its contents, and secondly, are you seriously suggesting that such a police document was disclosed and brought to the attention of the court, and that Jeremy and his legal team didn't jump onto it, with a view to making a complete nonsense of the prosecutions case, involving this particular matter? It may have a crown court stamp upon it now, but there is absolutely no record in the official court transcript of this second telephone log being disclosed or mad available to Jeremy, to his legal team, or to the court which was trying Jeremy for these murders...

Oh, and yes, so are you seriously asking me to believe that this photocopy which is printed on the reverse of another police message log, was actually exhibited at the crown court which tried Jeremy for these murders, even though it was not an original document, and that it was recorded on the reverse of a different document?

My understanding is that original documents must be lodged with the court, unless leave from the trial judge was sought and obtained because such a document, contained very relevant evidence which ought to be allowed, despite the original not being available, but such a request for a duplicate document to become part of the crime & court file, would require that some form of legal argument be placed before the court, with submissions from both parties, and a judgement, by the trial judge, outlining his reasons for rejecting such an application, or accepting it...

There was no such application in so far as this matter is concerned and so it is very worrying, as to how the crown court stamp appears on the face of Ralph Bambers call to the police at 3:26am, despite it only being a copy that was recorded on the reverse of a different police message log?

Not only did the CPS not disclose the details of Ralph's call to the police (3:26am) but they concealed or removed, or destroyed the original version of it...

[Kaldin]

CPS had it there, but they did not disclose it, or rely upon its contents, and secondly, are you seriously suggesting that such a police document was disclosed and brought to the attention of the court, and that Jeremy and his legal team didn't jump onto it, with a view to making a complete nonsense of the prosecutions case, involving this particular matter? It may have a crown court stamp upon it now, but there is absolutely no record in the official court transcript of this second telephone log being disclosed or mad available to Jeremy, to his legal team, or to the court which was trying Jeremy for these murders...

Oh, and yes, so are you seriously asking me to believe that this photocopy which is printed on the reverse of another police message log, was actually exhibited at the crown court which tried Jeremy for these murders, even though it was not an original document, and that it was recorded on the reverse of a different document?

My understanding is that original documents must be lodged with the court, unless leave from the trial judge was sought and obtained because such a document, contained very relevant evidence which ought to be allowed, despite the original not being available, but such a request for a duplicate document to become part of the crime & court file, would require that some form of legal argument be placed before the court, with submissions from both parties, and a judgement, by the trial judge, outlining his reasons for rejecting such an application, or accepting it...

There was no such application in so far as this matter is concerned and so it is very worrying, as to how the crown court stamp appears on the face of Ralph Bambers call to the police at 3:26am, despite it only being a copy that was recorded on the reverse of a different police message log?

Not only did the CPS not disclose the details of Ralph's call to the police (3:26am) but they concealed or removed, or destroyed the original version of it...

I can accept that Bonnet's log was not disclosed to the defence, but did they not ask for it? PC West must have said that he talked to Bonnet. I think the log of PC West was disclosed - is that right?

I still don't get this business of Bonnet's log being on the reverse of another log. It does say "Essex Police Communications" at the top. What makes you think it was on the back of another log?

I think that the bit where it says "the Crown Court at Chelmsford" looks odd but I don't know what to make of that.

Anyway, assuming that the court did not see this document, I still think that it does not prove that Neville called the police - quite the opposite in fact.

Are you now saying that the CPS as well as the police framed Jeremy?

[bb2010]

I agree "it does not prove that Neville called the police"

[Kaldin]

I agree "it does not prove that Neville called the police"

I'm so glad that someone else can see what I've been saying about that. 

[Kaldin]

Kaldin, in answer to your question re. the CPS and the police, you might find this interesting:
Topic: DPP responsible for creation of second file, under SC/786/85
It's on this forum - I think I mentioned it to you before?
The government dept (DDP) in the letter is now the CPS

Oh yes! I did find it and then I got distracted. I'll read that - thank you.

[Kaldin]

CPS had it there, but they did not disclose it, or rely upon its contents, and secondly, are you seriously suggesting that such a police document was disclosed and brought to the attention of the court, and that Jeremy and his legal team didn't jump onto it, with a view to making a complete nonsense of the prosecutions case, involving this particular matter? It may have a crown court stamp upon it now, but there is absolutely no record in the official court transcript of this second telephone log being disclosed or mad available to Jeremy, to his legal team, or to the court which was trying Jeremy for these murders...

Oh, and yes, so are you seriously asking me to believe that this photocopy which is printed on the reverse of another police message log, was actually exhibited at the crown court which tried Jeremy for these murders, even though it was not an original document, and that it was recorded on the reverse of a different document?

My understanding is that original documents must be lodged with the court, unless leave from the trial judge was sought and obtained because such a document, contained very relevant evidence which ought to be allowed, despite the original not being available, but such a request for a duplicate document to become part of the crime & court file, would require that some form of legal argument be placed before the court, with submissions from both parties, and a judgement, by the trial judge, outlining his reasons for rejecting such an application, or accepting it...

There was no such application in so far as this matter is concerned and so it is very worrying, as to how the crown court stamp appears on the face of Ralph Bambers call to the police at 3:26am, despite it only being a copy that was recorded on the reverse of a different police message log?

Not only did the CPS not disclose the details of Ralph's call to the police (3:26am) but they concealed or removed, or destroyed the original version of it...

I'll just reply to this again. Bonnet's log was referred to in the 2002 appeal by the judges. They were talking about the events after the shootings. Are you quite sure it was not disclosed?

PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.

[Kaldin]

Thanks for your explanation, but nevertheless, if the explanation was as innocent as you are suggesting, why wasn't the log of the purported call from Ralph Bamber, (3:26am) and the references to his daughter going "berserk", and having possession of one of "My' guns, disclosed and made available to the court, and to Jeremy, and his legal team, which was dealing with this matter?

Why conceal both documents, which contain conflicting information, and evidence, if the explanation was such an innocent one?

Worse still...

Can you offer any explanation for why the details of Ralph's call are recorded on the Back of another police message log, connected with the investigation, which was completed at a different time, in connection with other matters, linked to the case?

The original document is not available, and has gone missing, or has been destroyed...

Why is the record which relates to Jeremy's call to the police timed at 3:36am, recorded on the correct form, yet the details which relate to Ralph call to the police timed at 3:26am, a photocopy on the reverse of a different police message log from the scene, or elsewhere?

I'd like to clear this up this business about whether Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was available in court or not - I mean the document which you claim is a log of a phone call from Neville.

You said that document was not made available to the court, despite it having a stamp on it to indicate it was an exhibit.

On this very site it is stated that the document was in court and was distributed to everyone.

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.

http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=wireless-message-log_Jeremy_is_.innocent

The appeal court referred to Malcolm Bonnet's log too.

If it was in court then how can it be new evidence, and why was it not argued in court at the time that it was referring to a call from Neville Bamber?

[curiousessex]

Just an observation having only been on the Forum for a couple of days.

There is a lot of discussions around the telephones, calls made, by whom and at what time / in which sequence. It appears to me that these are key to solving the mysteries given from this point on it appears that numerous parties central to how things panned out have things to gain or justify with, it could be argued, their own interests at heart.

[mike tesko]

Just an observation having only been on the Forum for a couple of days.

There is a lot of discussions around the telephones, calls made, by whom and at what time / in which sequence. It appears to me that these are key to solving the mysteries given from this point on it appears that numerous parties central to how things panned out have things to gain or justify with, it could be argued, their own interests at heart.

------------------------------------------

Fair comment...