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

[curiousessex]

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.

Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun?

Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.

[mike tesko]

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.

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

The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...

[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.

Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun?

Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.

Sorry, I'm talking about the log of events. This one ....

http://www.jeremybamber.com/jeremybamber1.htm

I think Mike is saying it was written at the scene, and I'm saying it was not. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet.

[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.

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

The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...

Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?

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

If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.

[Kaldin]

The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.

[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' 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.

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

By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...

Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......

[mike tesko]

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.

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

The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...

Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?

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

If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.

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

Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?

[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.

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

The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...

Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?

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

If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.

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

Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?

I'm not - you already told me you didn't write that article. That article says something different to what you're saying - the opposite in fact. It's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was in court but that the first page of the event log was not.

[Pete0001]

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.

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

The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...

Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?

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

If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.

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

Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?

To be fair I don't think he is... he's just trying to understand what part of the log theory is just that, theory and what part is fact.
I still don't believe Neville and Jeremy both phoned the local station. I think the logs are two seperate peoples take on the message they were relayed.

[mike tesko]

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.

Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun?

Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.

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

The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...

Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...

The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...

Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?

What a coincidence.,..

 

[Kaldin]

By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...

Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......

The implication in the judges' words is clear. They said that the appellant must have phoned at 3.26 or shortly before that - because of Malcolm Bonnet's log. They never mentioned a call from Neville. Don't you think they would have said something if they thought it was a log of a call from Neville?

If the defence had thought that Bonnet's log referred to a call from Neville don't you think they would have brought it up as a ground for appeal in 2002?

[mike tesko]

By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...

Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......

The implication in the judges' words is clear. They said that the appellant must have phoned at 3.26 or shortly before that - because of Malcolm Bonnet's log. They never mentioned a call from Neville. Don't you think they would have said something if they thought it was a log of a call from Neville?

If the defence had thought that Bonnet's log referred to a call from Neville don't you think they would have brought it up as a ground for appeal in 2002?

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

That is precisely the point...

Thats why it was not disclosed, because if it had been they would have acted upon it accordingly...

[mike tesko]

The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.

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

Defense did not know about contents of log timed at 3:26am, at time of 2002 appeal, otherwise they would have acted upon it...

[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.

Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun?

Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.

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

The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...

Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...

The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...

Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?

What a coincidence.,..

So if it was known at the trial that there was a log of a call at 3.26, why on earth would the defence not want to see that? They must have asked where the information came from. I don't believe they didn't know about Malcolm Bonnet's log at the time.

Why would the prosecution be keen to say that Jeremy called Julie after he called the police? What was the point of that?

[Kaldin]

The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.

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

Defense did not know about contents of log timed at 3:26am, at time of 2002 appeal, otherwise they would have acted upon it...

Well the judges knew, and you've just said that a 3.26 call was mentioned at the trial, so the defence must have known something.