telephone logs.

[mike tesko]

Is there a good reason why you can't post them on here?

No...

[Neil]

So, back to the phone logs, two different conflicting logs about information received from two indirect sources, from Ralph, and from Jeremy, the details of which were passed on to Malcolm Bonnet by PC West, whose own log (3:36am) doesn't even have a court exhibit reference number stamped upon it, or allocated to it. No copy of this log (3:36am) was placed on the court file, otherwise it would have got the aforementioned stamp upon its page - but such a stamp is absent. Its absence tells us that it was never an exhibit during the trial. If it had been there would be some reference in the court transcript that the log (3:36am) had been allocated a court exhibit reference number in keeping with normal procedure. None existed, non was given to it, non exists upon it. There has to be a reason for this / that?

Administrative error?  Or would this be most unusual?

[mike tesko]

People tend to post according to their stance.  Mine hovers around 70/30 - 80/20.  I find it very difficult to accept that many people would knowingly burn a man.  It is easier to understand why a select few with a lot to lose might do so.  However, no offence but West is cannon fodder.  Either he has been easily goaded in to burning a man or he didn't take a call from Ralph.

Then somebody else did at 3:26am, and PC West only reported what Jeremy spoke to him about at 3:36am...

Problem solved...

[-Harters-]

People tend to post according to their stance.  Mine hovers around 70/30 - 80/20.  I find it very difficult to accept that many people would knowingly burn a man.  It is easier to understand why a select few with a lot to lose might do so.  However, no offence but West is cannon fodder.  Either he has been easily goaded in to burning a man or he didn't take a call from Ralph.

Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.

That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. 

[mike tesko]

Administrative error?  Or would this be most unusual?

Most unusual, indeed, considering that there is no mention at all anywhere in the court transcript to this particular log having a court exhibit reference number, and no-one seeking to identify it by that reference, whilst testifying allegedly about it, or being shown it and confirming its identity by reference to the court exhibit number...?

[mike tesko]

Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.

That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. 

Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?

Oh, I see....

[-Harters-]

Most unusual, indeed, considering that there is no mention at all anywhere in the court transcript to this particular log having a court exhibit reference number, and no-one seeking to identify it by that reference, whilst testifying allegedly about it, or being shown it and confirming its identity by reference to the court exhibit number...?

What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?

Unusual? No not even close.

[mike tesko]

Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?

Oh, I see....

Bamber was convicted on imaginary evidence, borne out in the minds of the relatives and some police officers who shot and killed Sheila and sought to cover it up...

[-Harters-]

Do you mean like the police, relatives and the prosecutions case has been doing for all these years?

Oh, I see....

No I didn't. But if that is the case, and you are doing the same, then you have just lost all of your complaint chips.

[Neil]

What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?

Unusual? No not even close.

Sorry, bit slow on the uptake here! What is your point?

[mike tesko]

What was the exhibit reference for Bews, Myalls and Saxbys statements, or Collins statement?

Unusual? No not even close.

You haven't got a fucking clue you have you, the original statements made by these police officers, and any other witness who testifies in the case, would be kept on the court file, and bear the official court stamp - which is why I know the log (3:36am) was never an exhibit during the trial because the official court stamp for Chelmsford CC is absent, and not present on any copy of the same...

[mike tesko]

No I didn't. But if that is the case, and you are doing the same, then you have just lost all of your complaint chips.

Don't worry about it, I will simply obtain as many complaint chips as I need...

[mike tesko]

The other glaring feature of this matter, is that there is no mention in the court transcript, or in the appeal judgement (2002) of any comparison between the contents of logs 3:26am and 3:36am? If both logs had been present during the trial, how could the defence not have noticed all those glaring inconsistencies, and glaring contradictory features, and not raise them before judge and jury? It did not happen because both logs were not disclosed at the same time, and this was done deliberately so as not to alert the defence to the fact that the police received information from another source prior to Jeremy's call to PC West at 3:36am...

[Roch]

Regardless of a persons stance, without some sort of indication that there is any substance to a particular allegation, then it's not really going to amount to anything.

That applies both ways, I'm not in anyway being selective. If something is a theory, then refer to it as such, don't make up a story and ram it down peoples necks whilst proclaiming it to be fact. 

I meant that 20-30% of my posts will be ones not necessarily beneficial to the innocent argument.

[Neil]

No...

Will you?