Grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court.

[Kaldin]

There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...

Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...

How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?

No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.

There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.

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

But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...

If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...

Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?

PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.

I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.

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

Hence why the bit which was added onto the 3:26am call from Ralph to the police, makes mention of a call from the son...

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I don't see why Malcolm Bonnet would add to one message that another message was received later. That makes no sense to me.

Also, there would be two logs from PC West if there were two phone calls.

Neither of those two said there was more than one call concerning the same incident.

[mike tesko]

Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?

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

Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...

Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?

Do you know something that I don't?

[mike tesko]

There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...

Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...

How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?

No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.

There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.

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

But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...

If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...

Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?

PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.

I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.

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

Hence why the bit which was added onto the 3:26am call from Ralph to the police, makes mention of a call from the son...

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I don't see why Malcolm Bonnet would add to one message that another message was received later. That makes no sense to me.

Also, there would be two logs from PC West if there were two phone calls.

Neither of those two said there was more than one call concerning the same incident.

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

I choose to believe that as more information comes to light that it would be perfectly normal to ad additional detail onto or into an already existing log, or police record, information that might be pertinent to an incident that was already ongoing...

Comments about  call from son, could easily have been added to the details which Ralph had already supplied to the police...

in my opinion...

[Kaldin]

Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?

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

Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...

Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?

Do you know something that I don't?

I think they would have mentioned it!

[Kaldin]

I choose to believe that as more information comes to light that it would be perfectly normal to ad additional detail onto or into an already existing log, or police record, information that might be pertinent to an incident that was already ongoing...

Comments about  call from son, could easily have been added to the details which Ralph had already supplied to the police...

in my opinion...

Then Malcolm Bonnet would have said in his statement that he added that bit on as a result of a further call from Jeremy or PC West - in my opinion.

[Kaldin]

Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!

[curiousessex]

In all events the 3.26 am log was available at the original trial. I recall it has a Chelmsford Court label on it. So CCRC probably do not regard any of this of new evidence as grounds for an appeal.

However, as I have stated in other threads, I beleive this is a subject matter which would be challenged vigorously by both sides if there was a retrial. In such an event, from what I can see, the argument for one telphone call being received by the Police from Jeremy at 3.26 am and no telephone call being received from Neville Bamber to the Police is curently the stronger argument. Not forgetting in the original trial the Judge in summing up the case to the jury gave the defence a benefit of the doubt in the timing of Jeremy's call to the Police at 3.26 am. Given such a statement by a Judge in summing up Jeremy would appear to have been worse off at the original trial if his call was at 3.36 am. All things to bear in mind.

[mike tesko]

Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?

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

Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...

Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?

Do you know something that I don't?

I think they would have mentioned it!

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

I think that if the record which provides the detail of Ralph's call (3:26am) had been disclosed at the trial, it would have been mentioned, by virtue of the fact that there is conflicting information recorded on that same log - for example, reference to Ralph Bamber informing the police that his daughter has got one of his guns, and that she was going berserk, including giving his daughters age, and the fact that information had also been passed by the son, to the police, about a call he had received from his father...

The son bit on that log, does not sit very well with the details of the daughter getting hold of one of Ralph Bambers guns, and going berserk, in my opinion, since in the record which records what Jeremy told the police, it clearly states that Jeremy told the police that he was contacted by his father who told him your sister has got the gun, she;s gone crazy, come quickly?

The contents of both logs, do not sit comfortably together in my opinion, as referring to the same call - it relates to two different calls, at least that what I choose to believe...

...

[mike tesko]

Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!

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

The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...

[mike tesko]

In all events the 3.26 am log was available at the original trial. I recall it has a Chelmsford Court label on it. So CCRC probably do not regard any of this of new evidence as grounds for an appeal.

However, as I have stated in other threads, I beleive this is a subject matter which would be challenged vigorously by both sides if there was a retrial. In such an event, from what I can see, the argument for one telphone call being received by the Police from Jeremy at 3.26 am and no telephone call being received from Neville Bamber to the Police is curently the stronger argument. Not forgetting in the original trial the Judge in summing up the case to the jury gave the defence a benefit of the doubt in the timing of Jeremy's call to the Police at 3.26 am. Given such a statement by a Judge in summing up Jeremy would appear to have been worse off at the original trial if his call was at 3.36 am. All things to bear in mind.

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

Not true, 3:26am log was only a photocopy on the reverse of another log from the scene...

[mike tesko]

Phone Call timed at 3:26am

The original of this was not disclosed during the trial of Jeremy Bamber, Chelmsford Crown court, October 1986. A photocopy was printed on the reverse of another log which contained details of events at the scene (which was disclosed)...

What appears to have happened is that somebody has copied the details of the 3:26am call detailing Ralph Bambers call to the police at that time, onto the reverse of the other log commencing at 4:02am, and this piece of paper, has been official stamped, with the crown court seal, to give a false impression that it was disclosed at the trial, but it was not...

You cannot introduce a photocopy of a record into a trial without first of all there being legal argument for and against allowing a copy to be accepted, and since this did not take place, there is no way on gods earth that the judge would have allowed a photocopy of the 3:26am, log to become an exhibit...

Impossible...

[Kaldin]

Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!

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

The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...

Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.

Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.

[Kaldin]

Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.

[mike tesko]

Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!

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

The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...

Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.

Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.

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

Yes, the timing of PC West's log was brought up in court, that is correct, but it was not brought up because the second log (3:26am from Ralph Bamber) and its contents had been disclosed, the time was brought up and mentioned for an entirely different reason or matter...

[Kaldin]

Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!

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

The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...

Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.

Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.

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

Yes, the timing of PC' log was brought up in court, that is correct, but it was not brought up because the second log (3:26am from Ralph Bamber) and its contents had been disclosed, the time was brought up and mentioned for an entirely different reason or matter...

What reason?

This is from the Appeal document of 2002. The judges were just recapping what happened at the trial. It was known about in 2002, and I think it was known about at the trial as well.

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.