Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[Kaldin]

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?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[mb1]

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?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yep!


mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 2153
Karma: +60/-26
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #330 on: February 16, 2011, 08:22:PM »
Quote from: curiousessex on February 16, 2011, 08:18:PM
Quote from: mike tesko on February 16, 2011, 08:09:PM
Quote from: curiousessex on February 16, 2011, 07:58:PM
Mike

'Re - You don't know that - what you do know is that at some point after Bonnet starts to record the details of Ralph's call to himself, he is contacted by PC West, at around 3:36am, who informs him that the son of Mr Bamber has called the police, and from that point onwards, Bonnet records those additional facts onto the phone record that he was making out in connection with Ralph's earlier call to him...

Simple deduction...'

And

'Mike, if you are correct and in your opinion, is the 3.36 am time a time which relates to the beginning of Jeremy's call to the Police or a time which relates to the end of Jeremy's call to the Police or a time sometime in the middle of Jeremy's call to the Police?'

Your response 'Beginning...'

Jeremy, at the original trial, in brief summary detailed he received a telephone call from his father, the line went dead, he tried 'two or three times' to phone his father back but the line was engaged.

If I am not mistaken, an explanation for the line being engaged at the time Jeremy was trying to call Neville Bamber was that Neville Bamber was making the alleged telephone call to the Police.

Surley, if this is correct then Neville Bamber could not have called the Police at 3.26 am. In the alternative if he had then his telephone call would have lasted for 10+ minutes whilst his daughter was going beserk. I am sure the Police would have documented more details of this alleged call. Additionally those who would have been despatched to White House Farm would have had more information to hand at the time of Jeremy's arrival at White House Farm.
---------------------------------------------------

Firstly, nobody knows how long Ralph's call to the police at 3:26am, lasted - it could have been just long enough for Ralph to tell Bonnet what Bonnet recorded in the main part of his message. For all we know, the phone may have been cut off, or disengaged, or whatever, so there is no evidence that Bonnet was talking to Ralph Bamber for any longer than it would take for Ralph to impart the words which Bonnet duly recorded on phone log 3:26am...

Bonnet could simply have been in the process of writing up the details what Ralph had spoken about, and then Bonnet was contacted by PC West, who spoke to him about the other call from Jeremy at 3:36am...

The entries CD (1990) could have been added later, into the sender box, in the same way that the details about when the various police cars were dispatched to the scene at and from 3:35am, were duly added later into those boxes...

What I am interested in, is the manner with which it is recorded that Bonnet was contacted - namely by "Exchange line"...

How do you say, PC West contacted Bonnet, at or around, 3:36am?

What method of contact was used by PC West to contact Bonnet and pass all this information on?

So Mike, in your opinion, did Neville Bamber call Jeremy at 3.35 am just before Jeremy called the Police as would be indicated by Jeremy's statement, at the original trial i.e. Jeremy detailed he received a telephone call from his father, the line went dead, he tried 'two or three times' to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
----------------------------

Ralph called Jeremy at about 3:25am, line went dead, Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with father, but kept getting the engaged tone. In meantime Ralph calls police and Bonnet records details on log 3:26am...

Jeremy tries to re-establish contact before then phoning Julie Mugford up, at about 3:30am...

Jeremy calls police at 3:36am...

Jeremy leaves cottage to go to whf at about 3:45am...

Jeremy arrives at farm at about 3:52am...


Apologies for copy/paste and bold - I'm was too dim to know how to quote from one thread to another. Now realise I should have quoted then copied and left original thread for second thread and pasted there... 

 For Mike Tesko
The above was posted in a separate thread in February.
Did you have possession/sight of documents '1-3' at that time?

Does the following accurately reflect your revised view of timings?

Ralph called Jeremy at about 3:25am 3.10am, line went dead, Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with father, but kept getting the engaged tone. In meantime Ralph calls police and Bonnet records details on log 3:26am...

Jeremy tries to re-establish contact before then phoning Julie Mugford up, at about 3:30am ...

Jeremy calls police at 3:36am 3.16am...

Jeremy leaves cottage to go to whf at about 3:45am 3.35am...

Jeremy arrives at farm at about 3:52am 3.42am...

What has led you to revise these timings?

Would this not make West's log wrong by 20minutes?
How can West's log be wrong by 20minutes and Bonnett's by 10 minutes if - as you say - they are using a communal clock?
It would be very poor office planning if the incident room, switchboard, reception are all in one open space using the same clock. Inevitably, some officers would have to move from their work stations to view the clock.

Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?

Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.

Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.

I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.

As for this kind of post ...

Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. 

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

How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?

Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet?  PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am?  If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?

Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...

First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.

It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.

PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.

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

I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...

Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West,  then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?

My bold again.

For Mike Tesko
You state that document 1 (3.26am) was not a court exhibit and therefore the court sticker is a forgery,
and that it appeared 'much later' on the reverse of document 3 (4.02am)

May I clarify again - which of these is the 'original'.

Also, documents are made available to both prosecution and defence counsel. They decide which evidence they will rely on in court.
Are you stating that Doc 1 3.26am was not available to the original defence team, prosecution team or both? Not asking if it was used in court. Specifically asking if it was made available by EP.
When is 'much later'?

Likewise, was Doc 2 (3.36am) a court exhibit in support of West's testimony?
If so, how did he support the '10 minute' discrepancy without reference to Doc 1 (3.26am)
If Doc 2 was a court exhibit the stamp must be overleaf. Where is the continuum page 2 of this document and what is on it?

Ditto Doc 3 (4.02am). Was this a referred to as a court exhibit during the trial?
If not, was it available to the original defence team, prosecution team or both?
Again, if not, when was this made available?

Lastly, JB asserted to COLP in 1991 that Nevill phoned earlier, around 3.10am.
Did the Defence strenuously challenge the 3.26/3.36am at trial or did JB then accept that it took 15 minutes for him to make two non 999 call to the police, the first going unanswered?
JB's memory of events must have been clearer between Aug 1985 and trial at Oct 1986.
What had improved his memory/changed his mind by 1991?

Apologies for all the questions, but a serious allegation is being made.
You'll be glad to know that I'm off to work in Gibraltar for the next few days, so out of your hair!

[Kaldin]

I must say - these phone calls are getting earlier and earlier - allegedly. 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I must say - these phone calls are getting earlier and earlier - allegedly. 

Why not claim it's the wrong year, then it Bamber's free!
Mike's missed a trick there.

[Kaldin]

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?

Also sounds reasonable.

It would help to have PC West's statement or testimony at the trial. I haven't seen proof that the clock he looked at was fast anyway - he might have misread the time, or he might have filled in the time later as you suggest.

[curiousessex]

I have been away from the site for a few weeks and have just been reading a few of the recent posts.

What I have noticed is the following………

In terms of the poll being available on the site it does appear there is a perceived drift towards Jeremy being / probably being guilty.

I have always believed the telephone calls and sequence of telephone calls on the evening and morning of 6th and 7th August 1985 hold the answer to this mystery.

Nothing has changed, in fact the presence and activity in this thread would seem to indicate that this remains a very important subject matter in the determination of (i) the previous crown case and (ii) the outcome of any future trial, should one be granted.

In my opinion and having read and re-read the Documents identified as being 1 / 2 / 3 in this thread the following has become logical to me.

Document 3 is the reverse of Document 1. This I deduce for the following reasons;

A - The numbering in the top right hand corner 15(7) and 158
B - The numbering at the top of each page i.e. 1 in a circle and 2 in a circle (same hand writing)
C - The mutual sharing of a number 1 in a box. – This I presume is the first document record
that Essex Police would have for any incident occurring at White House Farm (Before the telephone call the outside world is unaware of anything untoward happening)
D – Above where it is detailed ‘CD contacting CW by landline.’ the pro forma part of the Communications log in 15(7) appears to detail ‘continue log sheet if necessary’.
E – The last entry on 15(7) is timed at 03.56
F – The first entry of 158 is timed at 04.02

Further, in my opinion, when reading Documents 1 and 2 there are also certain cross references which appear consistent in verifying each other especially when Jeremy admits he called Chelmsford Police Station as opposed to ringing 999.

There has been much speculation about clocks being 10 minutes fast etc. maybe the times for this Police log are correct and it is the 3.36 time in Document 2 which is incorrect / misleading. i.e.  the time the call ended as opposed the time the call was first received. If so a lot more makes sense….

I know Kaldin has often asked who ‘CW’ maybe and why CA5 was despatched at 3.35 which is before 3.36?

Document 1 specifically details ‘CD contacting CW by landline’ (written as if in the present)
Document 2 specifically details ‘CW informed + unit + duty PS Despatched (written as if in the past)

Document 2 (Bottom right hand corner details ‘Checked: ……… Duty Sergeant’ the signature possibly looks like, C White PS40 – Maybe CW is the duty sergeant.

[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?

Also sounds reasonable.

It would help to have PC West's statement or testimony at the trial. I haven't seen proof that the clock he looked at was fast anyway - he might have misread the time, or he might have filled in the time later as you suggest.

It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?

It doesn't sound at all correct that any 'official' clock in a Police station or office would be 10 mins fast. I could accept it was known to be a little inaccurate by a minute or so, but 10 mins fast is more akin to the technique some people use to avoid being late for things.

[Hartley]

It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?

Yes that's what it says in the 2002 judgement:

PC West recorded the time of the appellant’s call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer’s contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant’s call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Right!

So where's this damn 10 minute fast crap come from?

Mike - is this your doing?
Never mind winding clock forwards, it's winding ME up!!!!


Maybe it was a Mickey Mouse wall clock and Mickey's finger was a bit bent (like all the coppers on this case apparently)

[curiousessex]

Jeremy was given the benefit of the doubt in the Judge's summing up at the original trial in terms of a 10 minute differential.

I have been away for a few weeks but it would appear to me the 10 minutes fast being used now are because the previous times of events as have been posted on this forum do not add up.

[mb1]

It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?

Yes that's what it says in the 2002 judgement:

PC West recorded the time of the appellant’s call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer’s contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant’s call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.

My bold...

So, by 2002 Appeal, it is agreed all parties had sight of Doc 1?
Where else could they have got 3.26am and Bonnett?

9 years later they say it is both
      a fraud
      yet accepted as genuine for Appeal ground - father/daughter son/sister wording discrepancy.
      starting point for 10 minute time discrepancy - 3.26 becomes 3.16

Does anyone remember the American comedy series Soap? Had a ventriloquist's dummy as a character, plus Billy Crystal. Used to be allowed to stay up late on a Friday night to watch it on the (then) new Channel 4.  Right now, that viewing is serving me well...

[Kaldin]

Jeremy was given the benefit of the doubt in the Judge's summing up at the original trial in terms of a 10 minute differential.

I have been away for a few weeks but it would appear to me the 10 minutes fast being used now are because the previous times of events as have been posted on this forum do not add up.

They're being used for something, that's for sure. 

[Kaldin]

Right!

So where's this damn 10 minute fast crap come from?

Mike - is this your doing?
Never mind winding clock forwards, it's winding ME up!!!!


Maybe it was a Mickey Mouse wall clock and Mickey's finger was a bit bent (like all the coppers on this case apparently)

I feel your pain. 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

*whispers slowly* - I still find the 'misread the clock' a bit iffy too, but more plausible than fast clock.

I suspect that even 'misread the clock' is a polite way of saying "wrote down the wrong time cos he was a bit careless and at that point in time, it wasn't a huge deal"

[Kaldin]

*whispers slowly* - I still find the 'misread the clock' a bit iffy too, but more plausible than fast clock.

I suspect that even 'misread the clock' is a polite way of saying "wrote down the wrong time cos he was a bit careless and at that point in time, it wasn't a huge deal"

He probably had no idea what he'd done. He wrote down a time and then later someone says they wrote down a different time which is more feasible, and by then he can't remember what he did.