telephone logs.

[-Harters-]

Is this what Campion was asking the other day ?

Nothing suggests that there are any logs.

The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.

The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.

PII isn't a cover all excuse you know  It's being far too casually cited. 

[jon]

Nothing suggests that there are any logs.

The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.

The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.

PII isn't a cover all excuse you know  It's being far too casually cited. 

Why did they withhold the logs for 19 years  ?

[-Harters-]

Why did they withhold the logs for 19 years  ?

They didn't. 

As can be seen by the court stamp on Bonnets and Wests was handed to him in court, see his court transcript. 

[lebaleb]

From the 2002 AJ.

This was not true as it says Jeremy claimed that the call was abandoned with the receiver left off the cradle. That is false.

[jon]

They didn't. 

As can be seen by the court stamp on Bonnets and Wests was handed to him in court, see his court transcript. 

The Wireless Message Log has become a document of central importance to the application for an appeal from the CCRC. Page one states that at 5.25am the police were ‘in conversation with person from inside the farm’. Correspondence with the police during the past few months has led to them admitting that only page one of the Wireless Message Log was available to the defence at trial, thereby conceding that all other fourteen pages of the Wireless Log that were not available would be classed as non-disclosed evidence. The complete document consisting of 21 pages was only made available for the defence when sent to them on 3rd March 2004 by the Essex Police.

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
Not that you need to read it Hartley , but as you are no doubt aware this is what i meant , i have noticed you making a lot of mistakes on here in the last few days , i hope you have found out whether SC did miss appointments at the doctors , or who produced what log at court , i think there was another , regarding NB chair  !! Do you think you will ever make a mistake and it will point to JB's innocence ? Or will even your mistakes always point to his guilt ?
I forgot my  , do grow up !!

[-Harters-]

This was not true as it says Jeremy claimed that the call was abandoned with the receiver left off the cradle. That is false.

I'd say it's misinterpretation rather than not being true.

This was actually discussed at trial, hence the calling of an expert witness.

[-Harters-]

The Wireless Message Log has become a document of central importance to the application for an appeal from the CCRC. Page one states that at 5.25am the police were ‘in conversation with person from inside the farm’. Correspondence with the police during the past few months has led to them admitting that only page one of the Wireless Message Log was available to the defence at trial, thereby conceding that all other fourteen pages of the Wireless Log that were not available would be classed as non-disclosed evidence. The complete document consisting of 21 pages was only made available for the defence when sent to them on 3rd March 2004 by the Essex Police.

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
Not that you need to read it Hartley , but as you are no doubt aware this is what i meant , i have noticed you making a lot of mistakes on here in the last few days , i hope you have found out whether SC did miss appointments at the doctors , or who produced what log at court , i think there was another , regarding NB chair  !! Do you think you will ever make a mistake and it will point to JB's innocence ? Or will even your mistakes always point to his guilt ?
I forgot my  , do grow up !!

Rant over? 

[jon]

Rant over? 

My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!

[Patti]

My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!

Well said Jon.. 

[Jane]

Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.

[-Harters-]

My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!

Oh right okay. 

I'm not sure what that has to do with me, but thanks anyway. 

[jon]

Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.

There are one or two anomaly's in this case !!
Quite sickening really in such a great country !!

[lookout]

My rant will be over , when JB is given a fair trial ,with all evidence put before a jury , nothing withheld NOTHING !!

Not to worry,,Jon. There won't be a stone unturned.

[jon]

Nothing suggests that there are any logs.

The officer at Witham who West spoke to was likely to be Bews, Myall or Saxby, probably Saxby.

The information you are looking for will no doubt be in their witness statements. They are not being withheld under PII, Mike just hasn't posted them on the forum.

PII isn't a cover all excuse you know  It's being far too casually cited. 

I would have started here myself Hartley , maybe you can get the COA to look at
the times for you !!

[grahameb]

Hello Jon. Yet another anomaly is the police saying they "were in conversation with somebody from inside the farm." It is my understanding of "conversation" that at least two people are involved in dialogue. So who did the police believe they were in conversation with and who was responding to them? I would argue that if there was no response, there was no conversation.

Something has obviously been missed out of those written logs. Strange wording indeed. I would expect policemen to have some kind of teaching on the meaning of words and how to use the correct words in a phrase?