telephone logs.

[grahameb]

I think chevaliers point was that the log that was supposed to represent Nevill's telephone call to the police was because it was a 999 call AT 3.26 was treated as an emergency. Therefore CA7 was dispatched (where from we are not told)
But Jeremy's call which was at 3.36 was not counted as an emergency call because he phoned the police station and so car CA5 was dispatched at 3.36 and reached the crime scene 0ver 40 minutes later.

Now the log that was supposed to be Nevills call to the police was found amongst other papers that were being held under PII was found to be written on the back of another document a few years after the trial. Jeremy found it and immediately snapped it up as being proof that his father had in fact phoned the police.

A judge examined it apparently and judged that it was the same call that Jeremy had made and was passed on to another officer and this officer had obvioiusly written down the wrong time. He wrote 3.26 instead of 3.36.

Chevaliers question was I think that if Jeremy phoned at 3.36. Ehich by the way was not disputed at the original trial and was verified by certain officers to be the correct time. Why then was car CA7 sent out at 3.35 which was before Jeremy had made the call?

[Bridget]

Chevaliers question was I think that if Jeremy phoned at 3.36. Ehich by the way was not disputed at the original trial and was verified by certain officers to be the correct time. Why then was car CA7 sent out at 3.35 which was before Jeremy had made the call?

From the appeal:

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.

[grahameb]

From the appeal:

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.

Bridget it seemed all to easy to say he must have read the time incorrectly after the second log was found. In other words to fit the second log around the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial. But I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly. But in fact it must have been car CA7 that overtook him. CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later. The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7. There are also big differences between the first log again confirmed and accepted at trial and the second log. First there was a different address and then the age of the sister. Then not sister by daughter. Again the mention of different guns sauch as a number of 410's etc. But the first log, Jeremy's he doesn't mention 410's he says "the gun". In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake, whi I suggest was conveniently changed in order to fit it into the accepted scenario.

[Bridget]

Bridget it seemed all to easy to say he must have read the time incorrectly after the second log was found. In other words to fit the second log around the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial. But I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly. But in fact it must have been car CA7 that overtook him. CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later. The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7. There are also big differences between the first log again confirmed and accepted at trial and the second log. First there was a different address and then the age of the sister. Then not sister by daughter. Again the mention of different guns sauch as a number of 410's etc. But the first log, Jeremy's he doesn't mention 410's he says "the gun". In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake, whi I suggest was conveniently changed in order to fit it into the accepted scenario.

I hear what you're saying Grahame and accept there are differences, some of which may only be explained as mistakes. I think you also have to consider that we don't know the full extent of the conversation between Jeremy and PC West, which could have been rather more vague on the details than the log implies. Do we know whether either West or Bonnet wrote their logs as they were talking to their callers or were parts of them written afterwards from memory? The 3.26am log has a sender and receiver box which clearly shows that it's a call from West to Bonnet, and neither of them have ever said anything different.

Was Bonnet working in a position where he would have received calls from the public that night?

[grahameb]

I hear what you're saying Grahame and accept there are differences, some of which may only be explained as mistakes. I think you also have to consider that we don't know the full extent of the conversation between Jeremy and PC West, which could have been rather more vague on the details than the log implies. Do we know whether either West or Bonnet wrote their logs as they were talking to their callers or were parts of them written afterwards from memory? The 3.26am log has a sender and receiver box which clearly shows that it's a call from West to Bonnet, and neither of them have ever said anything different.

Was Bonnet working in a position where he would have received calls from the public that night?

Yes I do understand all that Bridget and it is quite reasonable to speculate all that. But unfortunately the only concrete evidence that we hacve to go on are the logs themselves. Although as you say it is a log between two police officers. Either that or we are missing a further log from Nevill? But as this is an internal log then I can only accept what you say.

[Reader]

There are some significant points above by grahame, and I would like to see the evidence alluded to.
For convenience, below are better images of the first sides of each log than the images linked to earlier in this topic.

. . . the first log that had been accepted and confirmed at trial.

What evidence at trial confirmed Pc West's log?

. . . I also remember the occupants of car CA5 saying when they overtook Bamber he was driving very slowly.

Is there a transcript or statement detailing this available, especially the identification of CA5 rather than CA7? The car that overtook JB's car was certainly hurrying to the scene, so JB's speed was simply estimated. Any "normal" speed would seem slow in comparison to the likely speed of car CA7.

. . . CA5 turned up much later at the scene. In fact 40 minutes later.

Consistent with travel from Chelmsford as distinct from Witham.

. . . The discovery of the second log was the first they had even heard of car CA7.

Do you mean a car identified as CA7? Pc West's log refers to two cars, but identifies only one of them.

. . . In fact the for you read both documents you see more so called mistakes. Yet they only mention one seeming mistake . . .

Can you correct the first sentence, which is misworded, and explain what people you are referring to as "they"?

I do understand all that Bridget and it is quite reasonable to speculate all that. But unfortunately the only concrete evidence that we have to go on are the logs themselves.

Even if they're not "concrete" evidence, we should at least consider the statements made later by Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett.

[grahameb]

They seem to me to be reasonable conclusions Reader.

[lebaleb]

Someone once told me if you want the police to come quickly then don't hang up the phone as this ties up the line. If that had happened would the police need the GPO to confirm the phone was off the hook? Ralph could have been making a third call to a doctor. However, we still have to find out why the phone was off the hook. I don't believe Ralph managed to call the police at all. I think he was in the process of making a call when something happened to make him drop the receiver... in my opinion.

[-Harters-]

What evidence at trial confirmed Pc West's log?

Are you asking what proof is there that both Bonnetts and Wests logs were at the original trial?

In Bonnetts log in your post, a court exhibit sticker is highlighted in red, so I'm assuming we accept that it was present and available?

With regards to Wests log, he refers to it whilst giving evidence, as can be seen below.


Or have I misinterpreted you meaning? 

[mike tesko]

Everyone appears to be treating the issie of these telephone calls as if the only way it or they could be veryfied is by reference to itemised billing? Fact is, the drugs squad had Jeremy under surveilance, and Special branch had took an interest because threats had been made against Ralph Bamber, and his families, lives...

An attack alarm had also been fitted at yhe farmhouse linked to the police station by the telephone line.

I do not need anyone telling me that thr police and Special branch did not have the capability back in August 1985 to be able to check and find out who called who, when and whyfore - of course the pilice and Special branch had the aity and capability to trace calls like these. Anyone who thinks they did not, I suggest you do a reality check on yourselves....

[grahameb]

Everyone appears to be treating the issie of these telephone calls as if the only way it or they could be veryfied is by reference to itemised billing? Fact is, the drugs squad had Jeremy under surveilance, and Special branch had took an interest because threats had been made against Ralph Bamber, and his families, lives...

An attack alarm had also been fitted at yhe farmhouse linked to the police station by the telephone line.

I do not need anyone telling me that thr police and Special branch did not have the capability back in August 1985 to be able to check and find out who called who, when and whyfore - of course the pilice and Special branch had the aity and capability to trace calls like these. Anyone who thinks they did not, I suggest you do a reality check on yourselves....

Mike what was the answer as to why Ralph hadn't pressed the attack alarm?

[mike tesko]

It wasn't overlooked at all. Jeremys call was at 3:26 not 3:36.

You were answered in the thread where you originally posted.

No, you have got it wrong, Jeremy's call was at 3:36am, and added to the original call made by Ralph Bamber at 3:26am, in the 3:26am log written up by PC West. Anyone who looks at the contents of that (3:26am) log, can see that it is made up of and compromises of two messages on the same page. The first part a recording of what Ralph spoke about, and the second part mentions what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Bonnet repeated to West. Fact is, the contents of the 3:26am logs are two portions of messages, one part from Raph, and the other from Malcolm Bonnet who repeated to PC West what Jeremy had told him. The court of appeal has been deceived yet again by the police into thinking the contents of log 3:26am, related to just one call. This allowed someone to suggest that Bonnet got the timing of Jeremy's call wrong by 10 minutes, but once you know there are two parts to the messages on the log (3:26am) all becomes absolutely clear that PC West got information for the first part of the log from another source other than from Malcolm Bonnet or Jeremy Bamber, and that other source could only have been Ralph Bamber, and no-one else...

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons...

A court has yet to consider the argument that the contents of phone log 3:26am, is an almagamation of calls from Ralph and Jeremy, not simply a record of a call from either Ralph, or Jeremy, solely?

[mike tesko]

No, you have got it wrong, Jeremy's call was at 3:36am, and added to the original call made by Ralph Bamber at 3:26am, in the 3:26am log written up by PC West. Anyone who looks at the contents of that (3:26am) log, can see that it is made up of and compromises of two messages on the same page. The first part a recording of what Ralph spoke about, and the second part mentions what Jeremy told Malcolm Bonnet, and what Bonnet repeated to West. Fact is, the contents of the 3:26am logs are two portions of messages, one part from Raph, and the other from Malcolm Bonnet who repeated to PC West what Jeremy had told him. The court of appeal has been deceived yet again by the police into thinking the contents of log 3:26am, related to just one call. This allowed someone to suggest that Bonnet got the timing of Jeremy's call wrong by 10 minutes, but once you know there are two parts to the messages on the log (3:26am) all becomes absolutely clear that PC West got information for the first part of the log from another source other than from Malcolm Bonnet or Jeremy Bamber, and that other source could only have been Ralph Bamber, and no-one else...

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons...

A court has yet to consider the argument that the contents of phone log 3:26am, is an almagamation of calls from Ralph and Jeremy, not simply a record of a call from either Ralph, or Jeremy, solely?

I am sure that there are others with a greater mind capacity than mine, who can put forward such an argument along the lines that the contents of [phone log 3:26am, corroborates the fact that Jeremy told the truth about the call from his father, and that if accepted it will lead to his convictions being quashed...

[mertol22]

I was under the view the calls were on 1 rolling log mike.

[mike tesko]

I was under the view the calls were on 1 rolling log mike.

Contents of log 3:26am, were - but contents of log 3:36am were recorded separately by Civilian Employee Malcom Bonnet...