Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...

You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...

[Kaldin]

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...

The document I just posted starts at 4.02 ...

[Kaldin]

I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...

You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...

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...

Your words ...

[mike tesko]

Mike, are you saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was copied onto the back of this original document?

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

no...

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

Well that's the log which starts at 4.02, and that's what you referred to earlier.

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

Yes, log that was actually produced at the trial started at 4:02am, but its contents were different to those posted, above...

This leads me to believe that the person who posted that document you are referring to (above) was talking about the differences between the original log (4:02am) and the one you posted?

[Kaldin]

Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...

Thanks.

[Kaldin]

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.

To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?

[mike tesko]

I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...

You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...

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...

Your words ...

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

Yes, by suggesting that the details of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, were copied onto the reverse of the other log (4:02am) from the scene, I am describing it as a forgery, because that is what it is - a copy on one side and original handwritten details on the other. For the purposes of clarity, the handwriting on both sides would need to be original for the document not to be a forgery...

If one side of the document has been forged, because someone has copied something onto it, it automatically makes the whole document a forgery because someone has tried to present it as an original document, when it is obviously not...

Are you trying to suggest that it doesn't matter that one side is a forgery, the other side is an original which stands on its own merits?

I did not forge that document, and I did not make the posts that someone else did and which you are trying to pin on me...

You have asked me about these discrepancies and I have given you my answer as best I can...

[mike tesko]

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.

To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?

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

After studying its contents I do not think it is cl;ear what the person who posted those comments is saying, it is certainly not what I would say, and I hold a different view to those expressed in that account...

[Kaldin]

Yes, by suggesting that the details of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, were copied onto the reverse of the other log (4:02am) from the scene, I am describing it as a forgery, because that is what it is - a copy on one side and original handwritten details on the other. For the purposes of clarity, the handwriting on both sides would need to be original for the document not to be a forgery...

If one side of the document has been forged, because someone has copied something onto it, it automatically makes the whole document a forgery because someone has tried to present it as an original document, when it is obviously not...

Are you trying to suggest that it doesn't matter that one side is a forgery, the other side is an original which stands on its own merits?

I did not forge that document, and I did not make the posts that someone else did and which you are trying to pin on me...

You have asked me about these discrepancies and I have given you my answer as best I can...

You're describing what as a forgery? Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West, or the police log of the scene which starts at 4.02? It's not clear to me what you're saying.

[Kaldin]

Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.

I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.

[mike tesko]

Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...

Thanks.

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

I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...

in my opinion...

[Kaldin]

Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...

Thanks.

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

I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...

in my opinion...

Please pay attention.

I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PIN THAT POST ON YOU.

I hope that's clear.

Can't you just explain what you're talking about in a simpler way?  Please just post the document which you think was forged!

[Kaldin]

In fact, can anyone else explain what on earth Mike is going on about?

[mike tesko]

Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.

I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.

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

Of course both of us can be right - the person who was responsible for making that post is obviously talking about a different feature than the one I have referred to (although inextricably linked)...

How do you think the firearms team got deployed to the scene?

You show me in the log you have just posted, anywhere that gives the police a good reason to deploy the forearms team to the scene as a result of the occupants of CA07 contacting the incident room, at 4:02am?

There's nothing there at all in that version of the log, so there must have been a different log...

[mike tesko]

Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...

Thanks.

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

I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...

in my opinion...

Please pay attention.

I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PIN THAT POST ON YOU.

I hope that's clear.

Can't you just explain what you're talking about in a simpler way?  Please just post the document which you think was forged!

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

This document is a forgery:-