The Recent Appeal

[Mike]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines of a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to 'bed' regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

[Kaldin]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

[Mike]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

   

Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   on an official Essex Police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time, date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say there appears to be an inherent inference that this was flawed - please explain. Mike

[Kaldin]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

[mike tesko]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

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

Message which Kaldin posted is misleading, since timed call and details which refer to the 3:26am, call are recorded on the reverse of a log that was kept at the scene...

Neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West were ever present at the scene, and so there remains a huge question mark handing over what Kaldin is proposing...

Something very dodgy going on here...

[Kaldin]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

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

Message which Kaldin posted is misleading, since timed call and details which refer to the 3:26am, call are recorded on the reverse of a log that was kept at the scene...

Neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West were ever present at the scene, and so there remains a huge question mark handing over what Kaldin is proposing...

Something very dodgy going on here...

I don't agree. The log is written on the correct form. It has "Essex Police Communications" at the top of it.

That log clearly relates to a call PC West received, and PC West has not said he received two calls. He had one call from Jeremy.

[mike tesko]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

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

Message which Kaldin posted is misleading, since timed call and details which refer to the 3:26am, call are recorded on the reverse of a log that was kept at the scene...

Neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West were ever present at the scene, and so there remains a huge question mark handing over what Kaldin is proposing...

Something very dodgy going on here...

I don't agree. The log is posted on the correct form. It has "Essex Police Communications" at the top of it.

That log clearly relates to a call PC West received, and PC West has not said he received two calls. He had one call from Jeremy.

-----------------------------------
which is a photocopy on the reverse of an original log, that was made out, at the scene...

PC West was not at the scene, and neither was Malcolm Bonnet - and so, to be pondered is how did a copy of Ralph's call get made in phtocopy fashion, on the revese of a handwritten log that ws made out at the scene?

Work it out for yourself, it's well dodgy...

[Kaldin]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

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

Message which Kaldin posted is misleading, since timed call and details which refer to the 3:26am, call are recorded on the reverse of a log that was kept at the scene...

Neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West were ever present at the scene, and so there remains a huge question mark handing over what Kaldin is proposing...

Something very dodgy going on here...

I don't agree. The log is posted on the correct form. It has "Essex Police Communications" at the top of it.

That log clearly relates to a call PC West received, and PC West has not said he received two calls. He had one call from Jeremy.

-----------------------------------
which is a photocopy on the reverse of an original log, that was made out, at the scene...

PC West was not at the scene, and neither was Malcolm Bonnet - and so, to be pondered is how did a copy of Ralph's call get made in phtocopy fashion, on the revese of a handwritten log that ws made out at the scene?

Work it out for yourself, it's well dodgy...

It's a photocopy because it was photocopied to be distributed to a lot of people. What do you mean it was photocopied on the back of the log which was recording what happened at the scene? Malcolm Bonnet was in the information room writing down the messages which came through from the scene. I don't get what you're saying. The message log of the call was not on the back of anything.

[mike tesko]

I was most disappointed to read in this morning's press that the appeal had been thrown out.

After the discovery and publication of the official police document showing that Mr Bamber Senior had called Essex Police in the early hours on the day of the murder l, in common with others, felt it was just a matter of time before Jeremy was released. So just what was the obstacle?

Like Jeremy I'm a farmer's son well acquainted with guns and one instinctively knows that you do not use a powerful .22 long rifle within the confines a house. Ricochet is unpredictable and you can end up easily enough shooting yourself. Too many things did not add up in this case and only one thing is absolutely clear that being that the police team at the time were utterly incompetent and out for an easy option to put a high profile case to bed regardless of justice.

I do hope that the legal team can change the decision in the 30 days allowed.

Mike

The obstacle is that the document you refer to does not show that Neville called the police, and that it was dealt with at the time.  End of story really. 

    Surely I read a copy, published in the press, of a message   written on an official Essex police incoming telephone  log  form detailing the time date and contents of a phone message from Neville Bamber. According to what you say this was flawed - please explain. Mike

You saw a police log which some people claim relates to a call from Neville. I've posted on this topic a lot and I really don't want to explain it all again in detail, but the log relates to a message passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West, and in my opinion it relates to the call from Jeremy to PC West.

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

Message which Kaldin posted is misleading, since timed call and details which refer to the 3:26am, call are recorded on the reverse of a log that was kept at the scene...

Neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West were ever present at the scene, and so there remains a huge question mark handing over what Kaldin is proposing...

Something very dodgy going on here...

I don't agree. The log is posted on the correct form. It has "Essex Police Communications" at the top of it.

That log clearly relates to a call PC West received, and PC West has not said he received two calls. He had one call from Jeremy.

-----------------------------------
which is a photocopy on the reverse of an original log, that was made out, at the scene...

PC West was not at the scene, and neither was Malcolm Bonnet - and so, to be pondered is how did a copy of Ralph's call get made in phtocopy fashion, on the revese of a handwritten log that ws made out at the scene?

Work it out for yourself, it's well dodgy...

It's a photocopy because it was photocopied to be distributed to a lot of people. What do you mean it was photocopied on the back of the log which was recording what happened at the scene? Malcolm Bonnet was in the information room writing down the messages which came through from the scene. I don't get what you're saying. The message log of the call was not on the back of anything.

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

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

[Kaldin]

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

I have got my facts straight. I have seen the log - it's clearly written on the front of form "Essex Police Communications" unless you think that heading is fake.

[Kaldin]

[mike tesko]

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

I have got my facts straight. I have seen the log - it's clearly written on the front of form "Essex Police Communications" unless you think that heading is fake.

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

You obviously are not as clued up as you appear to be making out about this matter, yes, the photocopy of the record, shows that the details were recorded upon an official communications log, but this is a photocopy that was recorded on the reverse of the original log that was made up at the scene - in other words, there is an original documnet recorded on one side of the paper, and a photocopy on the other...

Guess what - the copy on the reverse are the details of Ralph's call to the police, timed at 3:26am, and the original details on the other side were recorded at the scene by the log keeper who was there at the scene...

Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West, were at the scene, so please try to explain how the details of the call timed at 3:26am, could have been recorded at the scene at 3:26am, on the reverse of the original log details made out at the scene, contemporaneousnessly?

I await your theory with interest...

[Kaldin]

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

I have got my facts straight. I have seen the log - it's clearly written on the front of form "Essex Police Communications" unless you think that heading is fake.

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

You obviously are not as clued up as yopu appear tp be m,aking oput about this matter, yes, the photocopy of the recoprd, shows that the details were recorded upon an official communications log, but this is a photocopy that was redorded on the reverse of the origobnal log that was made up at the scene - in other words, there is an orijgional documnet recorded on one side of theb parer, and a copy onj the other...

Guess what - the copy on the reverse are the details of ralph's call to the police, timed at 3:26am, and the original details on the bother side were recorded at the scene by the log keeper who was there at the scene...

Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West, were at the scene, so please try to explain how the details of the call timed at 3:26am, could have been recorded at the scene at 3:26am, on the reverse of the original log details made out at the scene, contemporaneousnessly?

I await your theory with interest...

I didn't understand that post. As far as I can see, the log of the call is on the correct form. If the log recording what happened at the scene is on the other side of the original, then it was written on the other side of it. It's not relevant that Malcolm Bonnet was not at the scene. The log of what happened at the scene was written by him from information he received via radio or whatever in the information room.

[mike tesko]

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

I have got my facts straight. I have seen the log - it's clearly written on the front of form "Essex Police Communications" unless you think that heading is fake.

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

You obviously are not as clued up as yopu appear tp be m,aking oput about this matter, yes, the photocopy of the recoprd, shows that the details were recorded upon an official communications log, but this is a photocopy that was redorded on the reverse of the origobnal log that was made up at the scene - in other words, there is an orijgional documnet recorded on one side of theb parer, and a copy onj the other...

Guess what - the copy on the reverse are the details of ralph's call to the police, timed at 3:26am, and the original details on the bother side were recorded at the scene by the log keeper who was there at the scene...

Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West, were at the scene, so please try to explain how the details of the call timed at 3:26am, could have been recorded at the scene at 3:26am, on the reverse of the original log details made out at the scene, contemporaneousnessly?

I await your theory with interest...

I didn't understand that post. As far as I can see, the log of the call is on the correct form. If the log recording what happened at the scene is on the other side of the original, then it was written on the other side of it. It's not relevant that Malcolm Bonnet was not at the scene. The log of what happened at the scene was written by him from information he received via radio or whatever in the information room.

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

Ok, we will start again - details of log recorded at the scene was written by someone other than PC west, or Malcolm Bonnet, and these details on one side of that document were in original handwriting of this other person...

How could PC West, or Malcolm Bonnet record anything on the reverse of such a document that only came into existence, at the scene - when the details of the phone log timed at 3:26am, is only a photocopy?

PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet, could be at police DHQ, and at the scene, at one, and the same time...

[Kaldin]

But it was, that's the whole point, the details from the 3:26am call are recorded on the back of log details which were recorded at the scene, not by anyone at the police station - you should try to get your facts right before you make any posts about such matters...

I have got my facts straight. I have seen the log - it's clearly written on the front of form "Essex Police Communications" unless you think that heading is fake.

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

You obviously are not as clued up as yopu appear tp be m,aking oput about this matter, yes, the photocopy of the recoprd, shows that the details were recorded upon an official communications log, but this is a photocopy that was redorded on the reverse of the origobnal log that was made up at the scene - in other words, there is an orijgional documnet recorded on one side of theb parer, and a copy onj the other...

Guess what - the copy on the reverse are the details of ralph's call to the police, timed at 3:26am, and the original details on the bother side were recorded at the scene by the log keeper who was there at the scene...

Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West, were at the scene, so please try to explain how the details of the call timed at 3:26am, could have been recorded at the scene at 3:26am, on the reverse of the original log details made out at the scene, contemporaneousnessly?

I await your theory with interest...

I didn't understand that post. As far as I can see, the log of the call is on the correct form. If the log recording what happened at the scene is on the other side of the original, then it was written on the other side of it. It's not relevant that Malcolm Bonnet was not at the scene. The log of what happened at the scene was written by him from information he received via radio or whatever in the information room.

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

Ok, we will start again - details of log recorded at the scene was written by someone other than PC west, or Malcolm Bonnet, and these details on one side of that document were in original handwriting of this other person...

How could PC West, or Malcolm Bonnet record anything on the reverse of such a document that only came into existence, at the scene - when the details of the phone log timed at 3:26am, is only a photocopy?

PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet, could be at police DHQ, and at the scene, at one, and the same time...

You're suggesting that the log which runs from 4.02 to 5.29 was not written by Malcolm Bonnet?