You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
....
No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...
Let's look at it again.
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.
He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.
----------------------------
I think this post by this other person, is trying to make reference to the fact that the contents of the 4:02 log from the scene, does not include the original comments which were passed from the scene by PC Myall, when Myall, Bews and Bamber, returned to the patrol car (CA07) which was parked up in Pages lane, after they had returned there from seeing the figure at the bedroom window - there is nothing in that log about requesting the firearms officers to be deployed, and the reasons for the firearms officers needing to be deployed...
A suggestion that those contents are a forgery...
in my opinion...
