Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

---------------------------

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.

I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.

Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?

--------------------

I disagree - look here...

the lines do not match up, you can see that someone has added a piece of paper onto the document and copied it, hence why the lines do not match up and are out of synchronization...

[mb1]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

---------------------------

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.

I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.

Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?

--------------------

I disagree - look here...

Sorry, I was looking at something else!

I'll look again.

[mike tesko]

I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on,  that EP did not want us to see or know about...

[mb1]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

---------------------------

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.

I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.

Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?

--------------------

I disagree - look here...

Sorry, I was looking at something else!

I'll look again.

It's an adhesive sticker. It will have a counterpart in court records. It's fine.

May I ask again, do you consider the timings on 4.02 log page to be 10 minutes out?

[mb1]

I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on,  that EP did not want us to see or know about...

Like what?

I can't see how anything would be written on the left hand side as the writing is centralised and there isn't a defined left margin. So why would someone write something specific there?

[mb1]

Oh, and who do you think put the sticker on there?

[Reader]

The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...

Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to Pc West. Pc West then contacted Essex Police HQ information room, which is in a different building (at a completely different address) from Chelmsford police station, so it doesn't share any clock with the one that Pc West was using.

It's not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

Please post a copy of any other form (preferably) or statement bearing the court stamp (with the original background lines of the stamped sheet also visible "behind" the court stamp) so that we can see how a genuine court stamp appears.

I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision

In the meanwhile, can you tell us whether those telephone bills were full itemized or only partially itemized (i.e. summarizing local calls rather than listing each one individually)?

[mb1]

The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...

Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to Pc West. Pc West then contacted Essex Police HQ information room, which is in a different building (at a completely different address) from Chelmsford police station, so it doesn't share any clock with the one that Pc West was using.

It's not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

Please post a copy of any other form (preferably) or statement bearing the court stamp (with the original background lines of the stamped sheet also visible "behind" the court stamp) so that we can see how a genuine court stamp appears.

I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision

In the meanwhile, can you tell us whether those telephone bills were full itemized or only partially itemized (i.e. summarizing local calls rather than listing each one individually)?

Evidence stickers - this is how they appear.
I initially thought Mike was referring to a notarised ink stamp.

Doesn't it follow that if timings are wrong on page 1 of the log, then they are also wrong on page 2 - 4.02 onwards.
Matching the actions on page 2 to other evidenced actions would settle it.

But this would then mean JB's call is 3.16am and the transferred call/separate call (to avoid argument!) would be 20 minutes later at 3.36am

If both clocks aren't wrong, then the time of the police cars arriving may help.

I'm struggling to see the point as this all feels re-hashed. Unless we're in for some new 'revelation'!

[Reader]

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?

Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?

Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.

Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.

[mb1]

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?

Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?

Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.

Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.

Apologies for any name mix up.

Yes, I've made conclusions on a relationship between 1 and 3 because
Mike Tesko has referred to it's totality as the Mike Bonnett log.
Both bear a square stamp with the number 1 inside, establishing a relationship identifier.
The last entry on doc 1 is 03.56, the first on Doc 3 4.02
The handwriting appears to be the same.

Know nothing about the pages missing from doc 2. or whether these have been posted to support a separate thread.

Like you, waiting for an alternative reference 3.36am otherwise cannot see how the 10 minute time difference was previously discussed.

If all three documents were present at the trial, the wording was available and is not a ground for appeal.

If document 1 was not present at the trial it offers two grounds
    the wording discrepancy
    evidence that EP either faked or withheld an exhibit   

Mike Tesko also refers to a 'communal clock'. Do you believe documents 1 and 2 to have been written in the same room/space using the same clock for reference?

[Reader]

They were in different buildings unless the various assertions that Jeremy called Chelmsford police station were incorrect.

I note that the 2002 appeal judgement also mentions that the first police car that went to WHF had been sent at 03.35. I would like mike tesko to explain how that time was known in 2002 without use of the communications log.

[Kaldin]

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?

Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?

Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.

Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.

Malcolm Bonnet did say he started an incident log, but the log which starts at 4.02 doesn't appear to have any kind of official form title. It might have one of course but it's not visible to me. I agree that MB wrote that log but I'm not sure what he wrote it on.

[mb1]

Doc 1
Top right hand corner number '15(illegible)

Doc 3
Top right hand corner number '158'

Speculating, but the beginning of the illegible number appears as a small dash, perhaps the horizontal upper line of the number 7.
This would create a further relationship of continuing pages.

They both bear a dark ink stamp.

Both should have been in the original suicide file, both should have been transferred to the murder file as they bear the same relevance.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Some questions queries:

- If it's accepted that the 10 minutes fast clock was indeed 10 minutes fast - are we to assume ALL logs using that clock as a reference are 10 minutes fast, or merely the initial entry (by way of a hurried mistake) ?

- Although claimed to be a mistake (and accepted), COULD it be that PC West go the call at approx 3.26, called Malcolm Bonnet about it at approx 3.26, spent a while on the call, and a while doing something else then wrote the time in the log, as 3.36 (which it WAS) never realising the event would turn out to be as important as it was, or that the logs would be so closely scrutinised?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Image 3 is the reverse side of image 1... same handwriting (check the letter k' with the looping k).

last entry on the first side was 3.56, and no room left. Turns the page over, 04.02... and continues the log.

Does anybody dispute this?