telephone logs.

[Bridget]

What explanation?

That he recieved a call from PC West and recorded it on the form.

[mike tesko]

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.

Without reference to the unique court exhibit identifying mark given / allocated to log 3:36am, it cannot be established that it was the same log you yourself are referring to now. Furthermore, there is a glaring error with the time the call was allegedly made, intensified because the times on both logs are inconsistent, am iguos and contradictory. You cannot rely on the contents of one of these logs, without having regard for the contents of the other. BOTH LOGS needed to be disclosed and exhibited, not just one of them. For this reason the court was decieved regarding this matter...

[-Harters-]

Without reference to the unique court exhibit identifying mark given / allocated to log 3:36am, it cannot be established that it was the same log you yourself are referring to now. Furthermore, there is a glaring error with the time the call was allegedly made, intensified because the times on both logs are inconsistent, am iguos and contradictory. You cannot rely on the contents of one of these logs, without having regard for the contents of the other. BOTH LOGS needed to be disclosed and exhibited, not just one of them. For this reason the court was decieved regarding this matter...

The obvious point here is that you are trying to persuade people that the log was not available.

You have not been successful as you have not shown people anything which indicates that as having been the case. Nothing, nada, zip.

Most people realise that.

[mike tesko]

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.

The only person talking rubbish is you I am afraid...

The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all. This is evidence that the log contents gave been tampered with...

[-Harters-]

The only person talking rubbish is you I am afraid...

The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all. This is evidence that the log contents gave been tmpered with...

Here we go again. 

Refer to my previous posts:

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.

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 persuade people that something else happened.

The obvious point here is that you are trying to persuade people that the log was not available.

You have not been successful as you have not shown people anything which indicates that as having been the case. Nothing, nada, zip.

Most people realise that.

[Reader]

The 3:36am log was never given a unique court exhibit reference, and no copy of that log exists, or existed at all.

How can it not exist and not have existed at all, given that it has already been posted on this forum and is referred to in the court transcript?

[grahameb]

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?

Prejudice on their part. That's the only way that will happen. They start from the position that JB is guilty and that we must prove to them without any shadow of doubt that he is innocent.
But I for one came to the case with an open mind and could see so many mistakes and anomalies that I thought to myself, funny. Funny I thought. Funny. There's something not quite right here. Perhaps some here should start removing their blinkers of prejudice andthen they might see that something just ain right here.

[Reader]

That he received a call from PC West and recorded it on the form.

It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).

[Bridget]

It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).

Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, and possibly a record of a second (or prior) call from West to Bonnet since JB was still on the line when West called Bonnet during his call.

Also, imagine the coversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". West calls Bonnet and says "I have received a called from a JB, who has said that his father (RB) has called him to say his sister has gone crazy and has a gun". From that Bonnet isn't going to know whether the person with the gun is JBs sister, or RB's sister, so clarification would have to be sought, which would be JB's sister, RB's daughter, hence the way that MB's log is written, and then the last paragraph as clarification of the circumstances of the call.

[mike tesko]

There does not exist any court exhibit reference for PC Wests log , (3:36am) - this means it was not disclosed or referred to during the trial. Everything of this nature has to have a unique court exhibit reference, if it does'nt have such a unique court exhibit reference it cannot be used or relied upon during the trial. If it does get used or relied upon during trial and  it is not given a court exhibit reference it could render the convictions unsafe because a piece of evidence was relied upon to help secure a conviction which was not an official exhibit (Not disclosed properly to the defence)...

[-Harters-]

It's evident that Malcolm Bonnett recorded that he was called by Pc West, but that's not the current issue. The issue is whether the details recorded about the call Pc West said he had received related to a call from Jeremy to Pc West or a call from Ralph to Pc West or both (if the lower paragraph related to a separate call from Pc West).

Surely their witness statements and court evidence comprehensively clears this up?

[-Harters-]

Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, and possibly a record of a second (or prior) call from West to Bonnet since JB was still on the line when West called Bonnet during his call.

Also, imagine the coversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". West calls Bonnet and says "I have received a called from a JB, who has said that his father (RB) has called him to say his sister has gone crazy and has a gun". From that Bonnet isn't going to know whether the person with the gun is JBs sister, or RB's sister, so clarification would have to be sought, which would be JB's sister, RB's daughter, hence the way that MB's log is written, and then the last paragraph as clarification of the circumstances of the call.

It's also worth noting that the first police officers on the scene (Bews, Myall & Saxby) asked Jeremy why his father had not phoned the police himself.

When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family.

From 2002 Appeal Judgement

[Reader]

Surely their witness statements and court evidence comprehensively clears this up?

It clears up that particular point for me. If mike tesko realizes that not every page of evidence receives a court sticker, he might not try to press his point. However, the sticker on Malcolm Bonnett's log doesn't prove that this log was seen by the defence at the time.

[-Harters-]

It clears up that particular point for me. If mike tesko realizes that not every page of evidence receives a court sticker, he might not try to press his point. However, the sticker on Malcolm Bonnett's log doesn't prove that this log was seen by the defence at the time.

I accept that in principle, although given the fact that West refers to Bonnett in his log and during his court evidence (and probably in his statements which we haven't seen), then I'd find it highly unlikely that the defence would not have seen Bonnetts log, or at the very least been aware of it. If they didn't have it, then I'd expect them to ask for it, demand to see it even. For that reason alone, I believe that they did see it and have a copy of it.

Having said that, for arguments sake, let's say that the defence didn't actually see it, what it does not do for me, is indicate in any way, shape or form, that Bonnetts log was purposely withheld from the defence in order to cover anything up or deny important evidence from them. As is suggested by Mike.

In any event, there isn't any information in either log which detracts from the prosecutions case, or at least nothing which is sufficiently alarming to the CCRC to allow them to refer back to the CoA.

[Reader]

Ok, I see what you're getting at but if that were the case then surely there would be a record of Ralph's call to PC West, . . .

Yes, there should be. If there is, it may be amongst the withheld documents.

Also, imagine the conversation: JB says to West "my father called me and said my sister has gone crazy and has a gun (etc)". . . .

Surely even you wouldn't assert that you are 100% sure that this imagined explanation is correct. If the two logs refer to a single call from JB to Pc West, how do you explain that the two logs give Sheila's age differently, and why did Pc West stay on the line to Malcolm Bonnett for at least 9 minutes from the receipt of JB's call, enabling him to know about the police car that Bonnett sent to the scene?