Author Topic: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...  (Read 43983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #90 on: March 15, 2011, 02:49:PM »
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...

We've been here before though haven't we?

In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.

The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.

What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #91 on: March 15, 2011, 02:56:PM »
Answer machine is integral part of case, proving he did not make call to himself, taking into account, the other evidence linked to this matter...

No, it proves nothing because it has not been established that call even took place.

If you forgive my scepticism, but until you can show us these call logs and until they can be seen to corroborate your statements then I just can't believe they exist on your say so alone, particularly given some of your other conclusions and what they have been based on.

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #92 on: March 15, 2011, 03:33:PM »
An answer machine proves nothing.

In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).

If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.


Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #93 on: March 15, 2011, 04:19:PM »
An answer machine proves nothing.

In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).

If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.
... EP took possession of the answer phone from JB's cottage, as part of the process to prove or disprove that a call was made from Whf to JB's cottage - when taken into consideration along with other material. For this reason, seizure of the answer phone machine cannot be easily be disgarded...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2011, 04:32:PM »
An answer machine proves nothing.

In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).

If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.
... EP took possession of the answer phone from JB's cottage, as part of the process to prove or disprove that a call was made from Whf to JB's cottage - when taken into consideration along with other material. For this reason, seizure of the answer phone machine cannot be easily be disgarded...

All it signifies to me is:

1) They grabbed all the could
or
2) They specifically considered how it could be important (either as a tool for a fake alibi, or to support his claim of a call.

Given the highly primitive nature of answering machines at that time, IF he was guilty, he'd have destroyed the tape that incriminated him.
If he was innocent, then he'd have mentioned and used the tape as evidence

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2011, 07:56:PM »
There was no evidence that JB had tampered with, cleaned or destroyed any audio tape connected with or associated to the answer phone machine that EP seized from his cottage - if such evidence existed the prosecution would surely have relied upon it at the time of the trial...

But they did not...

EP seized this answer machine, as part of their investigation, at a time when they almost certainly had gathered sufficient intelligence to believe that the answer phone machine might hold some vital clue or other to help the police establish what had actually taken place...

I am convinced that EP obtaioned the itemized billing for the phone account at whf, and they they discovered that there was two calls made from the scene during the early hours of 7th August 1985...

(1) - a call made to Jeremy's cottage at 3:15am

(2) - a call made to the police at 3:16am

What is more, I believe that EP knew how long each call had lasted - with this information in their possession, I believe they seized the answer phone machine from Jeremy's cottage, and checked to see if there was any evidence on the audio tapes that matched the duration of the call that was made from whf at 3:15am. If they had found any evidence of this, they would almost certainly have used it at the trial to suggest to the jury that Bamber had been at the scene and that he had called his cottage from whf, but evidence was recorded on his answer machine, etc...

The fact that they found no such evidence, led the police to conclude that Bamber must have hired a hit man, who called him from the scene, once the murders had been finalized - but inquiries in this direction, also proved fruitless...

I think there are very strong grounds for believing that there were or may have been two calls made from whf that morning, one timed at 3:15am, made to Jeremy's cottage, and the other, timed at 3:16am, made to the police...

The clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, and this can be relied upon to show that the first message recorded at the police station, related to a call from Ralph Bamber, timed at 3:26am, but the real time was 3:16am...

The next call, made by Jeremy to the police was timed as, 3:36am, but because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the real time was 3:26am...

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

There is other information available to back this up:-

None more significant, than a reference in a Police Major Incident Project document, which states that at 03:45am, PC Lowe had seen an unidentified male suspect at WHF?

How could PC Myall have seen this unidentified male suspect at 3:45am, if the police car he arrived at to the scene, did not officially arrive, there until 3:48am? This problem is solved by reference to the fact that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, so although the record contained in / on message 3:26am, states that patrol car, CA07 was dispatched to the scene at 3:35am, and it arrived there at 3:48am, the actual time it was deployed to the scene was at 3:25am, arriving at the scene at 3:38am - allowing PC Myall to make the sighting of the unidentified male at the scene (inside the bedroom window of the farmhouse when he was in the grounds along with PS Bews, and JB)...

JB officially arrived at the scene, at 3:52am, but because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the actual time JB arrived at the scene was at 3:42am...

Another area of contention relating to the timing of the telephone calls, involves the call JB made to JM, which was originally said to have taken place at about 3:30am, but which was later displaced to the earlier occasion of about 3:15am...

I think the timings were all altered because of the clock in the control room being ten minutes fast, and later evidence to show that the clock in the bedsit where JM was living being about 15 minutes fast...

Once you know all these factors, including for the possibility that EP obtained billing details for the phone at whf, and that there was / is evidence that two calls were made from whf, one timed at 3:15am, made to JB's cottage, and the second one, at 3:16am, to the police, the rest just falls into place, including the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone...

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

By the time of the trial, (October 1986) EP were relying upon the fact that the clock in the control room, was ten minutes fast, and the two different phone message logs, (3:26am and 3:36am) were relied upon to try and suggest that the content referred to the same call, but they were not - a fact provable once the billing details were disclosed showing that there had been two calls made from whf, one at 3:15am, and the other at 3:16am...

Details of the first call timed at 3:26am, were photocopied onto the reverse of another original log which had been compiled from information received from the scene timed at 4:02am...

This was a crucial forgery designed to join both calls together, (3:26am and 3:36am) as being one and the same - exposed, because of the fact that the original details as per the 3:26am, phone call from Ralph Bamber, were not disclosed, and to this day, despite some 25 years having elapsed, the original version of these notes is missing, has been destroyed or EP and th DPP / CPS, refuse to disclose it, under pii...
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 08:05:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #96 on: March 15, 2011, 07:57:PM »
Answer machine is integral part of case, proving he did not make call to himself, taking into account, the other evidence linked to this matter...

No, it proves nothing because it has not been established that call even took place.

If you forgive my scepticism, but until you can show us these call logs and until they can be seen to corroborate your statements then I just can't believe they exist on your say so alone, particularly given some of your other conclusions and what they have been based on.
------------------------

I question some of your conclusions as well....
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #97 on: March 15, 2011, 07:59:PM »
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...

We've been here before though haven't we?

In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.

The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.

What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
-------------------

I think you got mixed up a little, Ralph called Jeremy first, and then Ralph called the police...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #98 on: March 15, 2011, 08:15:PM »
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago?  :)

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #99 on: March 15, 2011, 08:30:PM »
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago?  :)
---------------------------------

EP already must have them, because they obtained the others from 1984 to July 1985...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #100 on: March 15, 2011, 08:32:PM »
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...

We've been here before though haven't we?

In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.

What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?

How do you know that for certain?

Offline Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #101 on: March 15, 2011, 08:33:PM »
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago?  :)
---------------------------------

EP already must have them, because they obtained the others from 1984 to July 1985...

I was rather thinking of Bamber's defence team being able to obtain a copy directly from BT.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #102 on: March 15, 2011, 08:41:PM »
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...

We've been here before though haven't we?

In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.

What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?

How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------

It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #103 on: March 15, 2011, 08:45:PM »
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...
« Reply #104 on: March 15, 2011, 08:58:PM »
Look, if Malcolm Bonnet's log was photocopied onto the other side of another original log, that means the original log must have been put into the paper-in compartment of the copier, and Malcolm Bonnet's log must have put onto the glass sheet on the top of the copier. Then the copy button would be pressed, and the Bonnet log would appear as a copy on the other side of the other original log.

Can anyone tell me why someone would do that?