telephone logs.

[-Harters-]

My understanding is that the timing inconsistency was known about, but Bonnett's log was not produced. The defence would obviously have noticed the further inconsistencies had they seen it.

There is no evidence of that being the case.

[mike tesko]

In a witness statement , dated, 16th December 1985, Malcolm Bonnet states that at 03:26am, on Wednesday, 7th August 1985, he received a telephone call on the internal line. That the officer on the other end of the line identified himself as PC 1990 from Chelmsford. On completion of the conversation with PC 1990 I called a mobile police car identified by call sign "Charlie Alpha 7" and sent that vehicle directly to the scene of the alleged incident at whf, Tolleshunt D'Arcy. I have recorded that I sent vehicle CA07 at 3;35am. Other units were sent to the scene. The vehicle CA07 notified me by radio his arrival at 3:48am...

No detail as to the nature of the call made by PC 1990 is recorded at all in this witness statement, and based on the contents of the phone log timed at 3:26am, it seems clear that PC West must have referred the details of Ralph Bambers call to the police which Bonner duly recorded in the first part of the log (Daughter has got one of my guns), and that whilst PC West was engaged in talking to Bonnet about what Ralph Bamber had reported, Jeremy had then also made a call to the police which PC West also referred to Bonnet, hence why the log timed at 3:26am, is made up of two different messages, one referring to the call made by Ralph, and the second part relating to the call made by Jeremy...

(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=541.0;attach=1741;image

[Reader]

There is no evidence of that being the case.

Perhaps mike tesko knows of some direct evidence, but it seems quite absurd to suppose that the defence had seen Bonnett's log and yet failed to raise the discrepancies it raised during the trial and also failed to raise them in the two appeals.

[-Harters-]

Perhaps mike tesko knows of some direct evidence, but it seems quite absurd to suppose that the defence had seen Bonnett's log and yet failed to raise the discrepancies it raised during the trial and also failed to raise them in the two appeals.

Not even remotely. Unless this is in the same vein as Rivlin questioning Myall about moonlight reflecting off of windows, yet years later the reflection turns into the sighting of a person.

Or are we suggesting that Jeremy withheld this from his own legal team?

[Reader]

Why would the defence ignore the fact that two official logs differed in relation to various other details given in them when they were already questioning the different call times? There's a world of difference between that situation and the police disagreeing with the accused.

[-Harters-]

Why would the defence ignore the fact that two official logs differed in relation to various other details given in them when they were already questioning the different call times? There's a world of difference between that situation and the police disagreeing with the accused.

I have no idea Reader, however it is still not evidence that they had been withheld, there is nothing which suggests that to be the case. The defence didn't pick up on a number of other items, which in hindsight seems strange, almost negligent.

Personally I don't see the logs as being sufficiently different to cause concern. 

[mike tesko]

I have no idea Reader, however it is still not evidence that they had been withheld, there is nothing which suggests that to be the case. The defence didn't pick up on a number of other items, which in hindsight seems strange, almost negligent.

Personally I don't see the logs as being sufficiently different to cause concern.

There is a significant difference between the contents of phone log 3:26am, and 3:36am. Anyone who compares the contents of both cannot fail to see that the contents of 3:26am relate to details received from different indirect sources, namely, Ralph Bamber, (daughter has got one of my guns), and Jeremy (sister has got the gun)? This is in stark contrast to the content of log 3:36am which simply deals with the detail of Jeremy's call to the police. There is a marked
difference between both logs which I feel cannpt be ignoresd

[mike tesko]

There is a significant difference between the contents of phone log 3:26am, and 3:36am. Anyone who compares the contents of both cannot fail to see that the contents of 3:26am relate to details received from different indirect sources, namely, Ralph Bamber, (daughter has got one of my guns), and Jeremy (sister has got the gun)? This is in stark contrast to the content of log 3:36am which simply deals with the detail of Jeremy's call to the police. There is a marked
difference between both logs which I feel cannpt be ignoresd

One of these two logs  (3:26am) has got the court stamp on whilst the other (3:36am) does not. What this tells me is that both logs were not exhibited during the trial together. Therefore, it was not possible for anyone to notice or argue the relevant differences contained in both...

[mike tesko]

One of these two logs  (3:26am) has got the court stamp on whilst the other (3:36am) does not. What this tells me is that both logs were not exhibited during the trial together. Therefore, it was not possible for anyone to notice or argue the relevant differences contained in both...

It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call  from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...

[mike tesko]

It now becomes clear  that the following sequence of events took place involving calls between Ralph at the scene and Jeremy at his cottage, between Jeremy at his cottage and whf (engaged), between Ralph and the police, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, between Jeremy and PC West, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, and between Malcolm Bonnet and the occupants of CA07, and between PC West and Jeremy?

[mike tesko]

It now becomes clear  that the following sequence of events took place involving calls between Ralph at the scene and Jeremy at his cottage, between Jeremy at his cottage and whf (engaged), between Ralph and the police, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, between Jeremy and PC West, between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, and between Malcolm Bonnet and the occupants of CA07, and between PC West and Jeremy?

According to the contents of Malcolm Bonnets witness statement (December 1985) audio recordings were made of all the calls he dealt with, including the call he recieved commencing at 3:26am. Therefore the production of the relevant audio recording, timed and dared and access to its contents would reveal the true  circumstances of PC Wests call to Malcolm Bonnet. This audio recording would confirm that the contents of log 3:26am, is actually a recording of two calls received by the police, one from Ralph and the other from Jeremy...

[-Harters-]

It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call  from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...

Make your mind up. So now Bonnetts log was available, but Wests log wasn't?

Well unfortunately that's just not true, West refers to his log whilst giving evidence, as can be seen from the trial transcript.


Oops. 

[Neil]

It was one thing for PC West to testify and claim he got the time of the call  from Jeremy wrong by 10 minutes, by claiming the call took place at 3:26am, rather than 3:36am, but something completely different to introduce and rely only on the contents of the 3:26am log written up by Malcolm Bonnet, whilst failing to produce his own (3:36am) log containing only the information passed to him by Jeremy? In order for the truth in this matter to be considered fairly, it required the contents of both logs to be exhibited side by side, but as we now know, only one version of the logs were exhibited during the trial, the other was deliberately absent, as confirmed by the absence of any court stamp on log 3:36am...

Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?

[grahameb]

Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?

If the second log was not discovered years later we would not be having this argument. The plain facts are that they contradict oneanother in more than one way. But instead of seeing something wrong here there are those here who won't accept those contradictions as being very odd. But instead for reasons best known to themselves would rather accept that the police officer made umpteen mistakes just in order to harmonise the two telephone logs. Abit like using a big hammer to make lots  of pieces of jigsaw fit in the way they want it to fit in. Although the final result is glaringly wrong? But then we are accustomed to the antis using such tactics aren't we. Not being honest towards others and even not being honest with themselves.

[-Harters-]

Could the absence of a court stamp simply be, an administrative error?

No I wouldn't have thought so. It's probably more likely that it is just a photocopy of the log made before the trial took place.
To highlight that point, here is Bonnetts log without a court sticker:


And here it is with a court sticker: