Jeremy got to scene (whf) much faster than people give him credit for...

[lookout]

Watch the route taken by Jeremy, from his cottage to whf, on 7th August 1985, as recorded by me and posted on You Tube, at the following link address:-

(1) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJWOymoAlaU

I wouldn't be cycling there at night time that's for sure.

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike
Don't you understand?
In order to fit the evidence of the timing of the call from Jb to Julie, JB had to put his case on the basis that his call to the police was earlier than 03.36 !!!
I'm sure that you're not suggesting that WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM JB, Rivlin went on a frolic of his own?
So, will you accept three points:
1. JB's case at Trial was that he made the phone call to the police at 03.26
2. JB's current case is that he made that telephone call at 03.26
3. On the assumption that 1 and 2 are accepted, that constitutes JB having changed his case since the Trial
Jim

I think it is a typing mistake, because the 3:26am phone log (Ralph Bambers call to police) did not come to light, until 2003/04...

[mike tesko]

I wouldn't be cycling there at night time that's for sure.

If Jeremy drove his car along the same route I took in the trial, and he did it two minutes faster than I did, then there can be no doubt that he drove recklessly along that route in an attempt to get there, that is what I am saying ( I am a trained professional driver and to drive along that route in the middle of the night with all its twists and turns at the speed he must have been driving, can only lead to one conclusion, that being that Jeremy did not waste any time in trying to get to the scene, he must have driven along parts of that route like a man possessed, until he became aware of the police car with flashing lights which caused him to slow down, a natural thing he might do, considering that Jeremy must have been breaking every speed limit along that route, before the police car showed up. He slowed down naturally, as any one of us would have done...

[jim ignatowski]

I think it is a typing mistake, because the 3:26am phone log (Ralph Bambers call to police) did not come to light, until 2003/04...

Hi Mike
It most certainly is NOT a typing mistake!!
Read the cross examination of PC West!!
So, JB's case at Trial was that he made the phone call at 03.26 and you tell us that he didn't get to Pages Lane until 03.52 - that seems an awful long time to me !!!
Will you please accept that JB most certainly did NOT get to the scene (WHF) much faster than people give him credit for?
Jim

[mike tesko]

What the  anti - Bamber is guilty brigade should all do, is drive along the same route I took during the trial, and see what sort of speeds you would have to travel to get from A to B in five minutes, once you dio that you will be left in no doubt whatsoever that Jeremy bamber was trying to ghet to the scene as fast as it was physically opossible to get there, until the patrol car with the flashing lights showed up on the scene...

Go on, drive that route, get from A to B in five minutes, and be prepared to pay at least one £60 fine and at least three penalty points on your license...

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike
It most certainly is NOT a typing mistake!!
Read the cross examination of PC West!!
So, JB's case at Trial was that he made the phone call at 03.26 and you tell us that he didn't get to Pages Lane until 03.52 - that seems an awful long time to me !!!
Will you please accept that JB most certainly did NOT get to the scene (WHF) much faster than people give him credit for?
Jim

As you pointed out in your post, PC West was sure the clock he relied upon was accurate, and that the timing of the call was at 3:36am, not 3:26am, so as I am saying, it took Jeremy only five minutes to travel the route from his cottage to the scene. You are trying to make a case for PC West saying the timing of jeremys call was 10 minutes sooner than it actually was, just so you can present the argument that it took Jeremy longer to get to the scene, than I am saying it took Jeremy to get there on the night in question, do you not agree...

[jim ignatowski]

As you pointed out in your post, PC West was sure the clock he relied upon was accurate, and that the timing of the call was at 3:36am, not 3:26am, so as I am saying, it took Jeremy only five minutes to travel the route from his cottage to the scene. You are trying to make a case for PC West saying the timing of jeremys call was 10 minutes sooner than it actually was...

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear - what is so important is not what the evidence of PC West was at the Trial but what JB's case was at Trial!
It's as plain as a pikestaff that JB has changed his case !
I wonder why eh?
Please accept that JB's case has NOT  been consistent?
Jim

[mike tesko]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear - what is so important is not what the evidence of PC West was at the Trial but what JB's case was at Trial!
It's as plain as a pikestaff that JB has changed his case !
I wonder why eh?
Please accept that JB's case has NOT  been consistent?
Jim

It was not Jeremys case at trial that the timing of his call to the police was made at 3:26am, he had no idea what time any of the calls he made had been made, you are attempting to put onto Jeremys shoulders something which his counsel was pursuing at that time in cross examination. Anyone who has evert had the misfortune to be on trioal will tell you that sometimes the people representing you say things which infuriate youn as a defendant, and sometimes they don't say what needs to be said...

Just because Rivlin QC said something at Jeremys trial, does not necessarily mean it was what Jeremy was saying, Rivlin could not testify on Jeremys behalf, and anything which Rivlin said cannot be taken to mean it was what Jeremy was saying...

[jim ignatowski]

It was not Jeremys case at trial that the timing of his call to the police was made at 3:26am, he had no idea what time any of the calls he made had been made, you are attempting to put onto Jeremys shoulders something which his counsel was pursuing at that time in cross examination. Anyone who has evert had the misfortune to be on trioal will tell you that sometimes the people representing you say things which infuriate youn as a defendant, and sometimes they don't say what needs to be said...

Just because Rivlin QC said something at Jeremys trial, does not necessarily mean it was what Jeremy was saying, Rivlin could not testify on Jeremys behalf, and anything which Rivlin said cannot be taken to mean it was what Jeremy was saying...

Errrrrr Mike,
I'm afraid that it most certainly WAS JB's caase at Trial that the phone call was made at 03.26
Rivlin cross examined 2 witnesses on that basis
Rivlin MUST have had instructions from JB to that effect - it's a rule at the Bar
I'm afraid that you appear to have dug yourself into a hole and in such circumstances the best advice you can follow is to stop burrowng - your position becomes more untenable with each post
Jim
By the way, any chance of you agreeing to post the tel logs and the photo of Sheila on the bed by, say, December 18th 2013?
I've made 2 previous requests but you appear to have igored them
Jim

[-Harters-]

So,

According to Mike.

1. JB received a call from Ralph whilst JB was in bed and it woke him up.
2. JB then tried to call Ralph back.
3. He phoned Julie.
3. He searched for up to 10 minutes for the local police stations telephone number.
5. He phoned Witham police station but got no answer.
6. He phoned Chelmsford police station and spoke with West, the call lasted 11 minutes.
7. He immediately ran out of the door jumped in his car and drove to WHF at nearly the speed of sound and arrived at Pages Lane in 5minutes flat (The Stig would be proud), whilst also managing to slow down whilst the police passed him.


When did he get well dressed and groomed? Whilst on the road?

Or maybe he turned up naked and Bews, Saxby and Myall have all lied to spare his blushes?

[Jane]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear - what is so important is not what the evidence of PC West was at the Trial but what JB's case was at Trial!
It's as plain as a pikestaff that JB has changed his case !
I wonder why eh?
Please accept that JB's case has NOT  been consistent?
Jim

I'm not too certain what is the problem with Jeremy being inconsistent! I feel perfectly certain that at X minutes past 3 he was not looking at a clock or watch to check for accuracy just in case. Also, isn't there something about disputing the time the call was logged at the police station, and because of too many silly ciggies, nobody in the Mugford camp could put an accurate time to the call. It seems to have been a night of inconsistencies all round.

April

[mike tesko]

Errrrrr Mike,
I'm afraid that it most certainly WAS JB's caase at Trial that the phone call was made at 03.26
Rivlin cross examined 2 witnesses on that basis
Rivlin MUST have had instructions from JB to that effect - it's a rule at the Bar
I'm afraid that you appear to have dug yourself into a hole and in such circumstances the best advice you can follow is to stop burrowng - your position becomes more untenable with each post
Jim
By the way, any chance of you agreeing to post the tel logs and the photo of Sheila on the bed by, say, December 18th 2013?
I've made 2 previous requests but you appear to have igored them
Jim

It was not Jeremys case that the call he made to the police was timed at 3:26am, it was Malcom Bonnets case that the call was made at that time, and Rivlin was trying to trip PC West up regarding the timings, in the same way Ds Jones was trying to do when they interviewed Jeremy. If what you are suggesting had any truth to it, why did Jeremy make such a big thing about the discovery of the second telephone log timed at 3:26am, which mentions "daughter has got hold of one of my guns"?

If anyone is digging themselves into a bigger hole, it is not me, but you...

[jim ignatowski]

I'm not too certain what is the problem with Jeremy being inconsistent! I feel perfectly certain that at X minutes past 3 he was not looking at a clock or watch to check for accuracy just in case. Also, isn't there something about disputing the time the call was logged at the police station, and because of too many silly ciggies, nobody in the Mugford camp could put an accurate time to the call. It seems to have been a night of inconsistencies all round.

April

Hi April
The problem as I see it is one of credibility and it most certainly doesn't inspire confidence in a defendant's credibility if that defendant is not consistent about crucially important parts of his case
Jim

[mertol22]

Mike from 1985 to the route you took, ive seen it by the way on youtube, has there been changes along the route, speed limits , junctions, hedgrows, streetlights, speed cameras , mobile and fixed .

[mike tesko]

Mike from 1985 to the route you took, ive seen it by the way on youtube, has there been changes along the route, speed limits , junctions, hedgrows, streetlights, speed cameras , mobile and fixed .

I think so...