telephone logs.

[Reader]

There's no inconsistency, because, as I've already mentioned, it's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. By the way, the exhibit number shown on MB's log is 29, not 9.

[vidvic]

If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?

This also means he called Julie before he called police.

This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.

[Reader]

To be overtaken at 3:48, he probably left home immediately after calling the police. I am suggesting his call to Pc West took under 5 minutes, which is less time than some people have suggested, but not impossible.

I agree that he called Julie before calling the police. I think he misremembered that detail when being interviewed. I think he didn't decide to telephone the police until after he had spoken to Julie.

Where does he state initially that his father rang at 3:20? I thought he hadn't noted the time. He spent some time trying to ring his father back. He also used some time to ring Julie (probably at about 3:30) and some time to get dressed to go out. I doubt that he took a shower.

[mike tesko]

The deception which appears to have been carried out revolves around the claim that PC West contactd Malcolm Bonnet 10 minutes sooner than PC West recorded in his own log (3:36am) so that it matched the time (3;26am) recorded in Malcolm Bonnets log. This becomes more obvious with the introduction of Malcolm Bonnets witness statement contents in December 1985, where Bonnet seeks to clarify matters about the timing of PC Wests call which he puts as having occurred at 3:26am...

PC West (3:36am) and Malcolm Bonnets (3:26am) timing relating to the call made by PC West to Bonnet are at odds with one another. In order to alleviate this factual and problematic feature involving thier accounts, Wests log (3:36am) appears to have been kept out, and Bonnets log (3:26am) put in, without it actually having been seen or refferred to in evidence...

[mike tesko]

There's no inconsistency, because, as I've already mentioned, it's not the case that every single page of every document used in a trial has a court stamp or exhibit reference on it. By the way, the exhibit number shown on MB's log is 29, not 9.

PC Wests log bearing the time of 3:36am was / is the only page - under the circumstances how can it not have a coudt stamp upon it, and not be allocated a court exhibit number?

[-Harters-]

To be overtaken at 3:48, he probably left home immediately after calling the police. I am suggesting his call to Pc West took under 5 minutes, which is less time than some people have suggested, but not impossible.

I agree that he called Julie before calling the police. I think he misremembered that detail when being interviewed. I think he didn't decide to telephone the police until after he had spoken to Julie.

Where does he state initially that his father rang at 3:20? I thought he hadn't noted the time. He spent some time trying to ring his father back. He also used some time to ring Julie (probably at about 3:30) and some time to get dressed to go out. I doubt that he took a shower.

Is your 5min. call duration still current when you include Wests call to Witham?

Jeremy has also said that he spent 10 minutes looking for the police phone number in Yellow Pages, having initially phoned Witham station but not got any answer.

Jeremey states in his 7/8/85 statement that Ralph called at about 3:10.

[grahameb]

If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?

This also means he called Julie before he called police.

This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.

Because the "discovered" logs indicate that someone called the police before that time. There are so many anomalies on that later log that it can be and indeed has been suggested that it is an amalgum of two messages? As far as I can recall this second log was discivered by Jeremy and it was written on the back of another document? I THINK that is what I have read, but unfortunately cannot find where is says that.

[mike tesko]

Because the "discovered" logs indicate that someone called the police before that time. There are so many anomalies on that later log that it can be and indeed has been suggested that it is an amalgum of two messages? As far as I can recall this second log was discivered by Jeremy and it was written on the back of another document? I THINK that is what I have read, but unfortunately cannot find where is says that.

Yes thats right, log 3:26am is only a copy which was photocopied onto the back of another document, or vice versa...

[lookout]

If bamber didn't call police until 3.36, then how did he get overtaken by a police car at 3.48?

This also means he called Julie before he called police.

This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.

Hi Vidvic,,,simply because Jeremy wasn't aware of the serious situation that existed. He probably just thought it was another of Sheilas' outbursts,,to which he'd attended on occasion to assist his father on keeping her calm.

[Steve_uk]

Lookout are you suggesting that Jeremy Bamber had on a previous occasion hurried to White House Farm to mediate an argument between Ralph and Sheila? From all that I have read the father was the one stable influence in her life.

[lookout]

Lookout are you suggesting that Jeremy Bamber had on a previous occasion hurried to White House Farm to mediate an argument between Ralph and Sheila? From all that I have read the father was the one stable influence in her life.

Steve,,,it wasn't the father who instigated arguments,,,it was June,,,as both her and Sheila were daggers drawn at times and June was like a red rag to a bull when Sheila was around.  Indeed,Nevill was the mainstay of the family,,and acted as a go-between if trouble arose. Whenever Sheilas' bouts got out of hand,Nevill would phone Jeremy to assist him in calming her down,,,most likely to try and reason with her.

[Steve_uk]

Could you produce the evidence that Ralph(Nevill) was in the habit of telephoning Jeremy for his assistance?

[mike tesko]

I am still waiting to hear from anybody as to how phone log 3:26am (which was photocopied onto the reverse of another document, or vice versa), managed to become an exhibit during the trial? Nobody mentions it or its contents, yet it becomes a court exhibit (29) -  I wonder what court exhibit tbe other document on the reverse side became?

[Reader]

Jeremy has also said that he spent 10 minutes looking for the police phone number in Yellow Pages, having initially phoned Witham station but not got any answer.

When did Jeremy state that? The number wouldn't have been in the Yellow Pages. I thought he stated that getting through to the police took ten minutes at the outside. However, that would have included looking up the numbers for both Witham and Chelmsford police stations and unsuccessfully attempting to get through to Witham.

Jeremy states in his 7/8/85 statement that Ralph called at about 3:10.

After his arrest, Jeremy confirmed that he phoned Julie and then rang the police. He also thought his original statement would have been accurate. However, I think it was his 7/8/85 statement that was inaccurate in some respects.

This also means that it took him approx 26 mins to call police from when he originally claimed the call was made by his father.

I think that his estimate in his 7/8/85 statement of 3:10 am as the time when his father called him was probably also inaccurate, but only because 26 minutes would have been rather long. I think that he was called before he rang Julie, but his call to Julie was, according to Julie's statement of 8/8/85, made at about 3:30 am.

I would be interested to see Jeremy's second statement (made on 8/8/85 I think) if mike tesko is able to post a copy of it.

[Steve_uk]

I am still waiting to hear from anybody as to how phone log 3:26am (which was photocopied onto the reverse of another document, or vice versa), managed to become an exhibit during the trial? Nobody mentions it or its contents, yet it becomes a court exhibit (29) -  I wonder what court exhibit tbe other document on the reverse side became?

It should not have become an exhibit in itself,but ought to have been shown in its entirety as part of a 24 page log. A further complication is that these first two pages had been rewritten and edited,thereby making them next to worthless in a court of law. I'm inclined to the PC Bewes theory that it was more cock-up than conspiracy,though there is a report here by the former MP Andrew Hunter which had the jury known all the facts would possibly not have led to the conviction of the defendant.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050209/halltext/50209h05.htm