telephone logs.

[jon]

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.

Very well put !!

[-Harters-]

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:

Those who have been around for a little while may remember Mike trying to make out that the court sticker on this log was strategically placed to cover up something on the log proving another call took place, unfortunately he forgot that argument when he posted a copy of the log without the court sticker. 

One wonders why people don't believe him. 

[Bridget]

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.

Why do you feel the need to imply dishonest tactics? To me, it is totally, blatantly and glaringly obvious that these logs relate to the call from JB to West, and the call from West to Bonnet and nothing else.

[-Harters-]

We're still waiting for Mike to post:

1) Itemised phone bills.
2) Sheila's autopsy report which Mike T says indicates gouge marks to Sheila's arms and that the bullet removed from her neck was fragmented.
3) A statement from Myall that he saw a figure in whf at 3:45.


As it's Mike T's objective to persuade people that JB is innocent (I think), then I have no idea why he won't post documents that he quotes and relies on to bolster his arguments.

EDIT: unless they don't exist of course. 

As can be seen from the above post, not much has changed around here. 

The only thing I can't get my head around is why people are so happy to swallow any old crap the gets fed to them, it's utterly bizarre. 

[Jane]

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.

How is it that when they apply certain rules it supplies them with hard fact ans when we use the same rules theyn call it supposition or conjecture?

[-Harters-]

How is it that when they apply certain rules it supplies them with hard fact ans when we use the same rules theyn call it supposition or conjecture?

I don't believe that's the case at all, could you give us an example?

[mike tesko]

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. 

Oops...

And what unique court exhibit reference was PC Wests log (3:36am) given? Furthermore, Oops, where is the copy of the log in question bearing this unique identification mark upon it? Oops, there doesn't appear to be one, Oops...

[-Harters-]

Oops...

And what unique court exhibit reference was PC Wests log (3:36am) given? Furthermore, Oops, where is the copy of the log in question bearing this unique identification mark upon it? Oops, there doesn't appear to be one, Oops...

The fact that you haven't posted it on the forum, is not an indication that it does not exist.

However, the fact that West is handed his log to refer to in court, as clearly indicated in the above transcript, clearly shows that it was available and not withheld at all.

There isn't even an argument here.

[Reader]

To me, it is totally, blatantly and glaringly obvious that these logs relate to the call from JB to West, and the call from West to Bonnet and nothing else.

Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?

[-Harters-]

Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?

Yes, the sender is PC1990 (West), the receiver is MB (Bonnett).

[mike tesko]

As can be seen from the above post, not much has changed around here. 

The only thing I can't get my head around is why people are so happy to swallow any old crap the gets fed to them, it's utterly bizarre. 

Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself.  like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...

[Bridget]

Would that still be the case if you considered just Bonnett's log, but without taking into account the paragraph beginning "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber"?

Without that part I agree it would be less clear just from reading the log, but I would still be quite happy to accept MB's explanation.

[Bridget]

Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself.  like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...

What do you think he was referring to at trial then?

[Reader]

I would still be quite happy to accept MB's explanation.

What explanation?

[-Harters-]

Where is the unque court exhibit reference for PC Wests log (3;36am), more to the point what is it? One does not appear to exist at all, and certainly one is not visible anywhere at all on the log itself.  like you you say, nothing changes, its still the same old false evidence syndrome being utilized by the Bamber is guilty camp?
R
If no court exhibit reference exists for PC Wests log (3:36am) it didn't exist at the time of the trial in its current format. You have failed to prove that PC Wests log was tended into evidence at the sa.e time as the other log...

Rubbish, as per my previous post, the fact that you have not supplied Wests log with a court sticker, does not indicate that it does not exist.

As is clearly highlighted by the fact that there is a copy of Bonnetts log, with and without a sticker.

The fact that it is mentioned as being in court and referred to, in Wests court transcript above, completely dispels your myth I'm afraid.

I don't need to prove anything Mike, you are the one who is trying to present an alternative chain of events and pursuade people that something else happened.