Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

The above document has only recently come to light and could not have been an exhibit at Jeremy's trial in 1986...

[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.

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

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...

You're not saying the same thing at all!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the log which Malcolm Bonnet of the call from PC West was in court, and the log which I just posted was also written by Malcolm Bonnet.

Now I'm not wasting any more time on this. If you can't explain properly, how can you expect anyone to know what you're talking about? You're just speculating yet again and accusing the police of forging documents left, right, and centre with no proof whatsoever.

[Kaldin]

The above document has only recently come to light and could not have been an exhibit at Jeremy's trial in 1986...

I don't believe that ...

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted / distributed...

[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...

You're not saying the same thing at all!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the log which Malcolm Bonnet of the call from PC West was in court, and the log which I just posted was also written by Malcolm Bonnet.

Now I'm not wasting any more time on this. If you can't explain properly, how can you expect anyone to know what you're talking about? You're just speculating yet again and accusing the police of forging documents left, right, and centre with no proof whatsoever.

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

The only person speculating is you...

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...

It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.

[Kaldin]

Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.

 

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...

It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.

.......................

I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...

Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...

My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...

It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.

.......................

I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...

Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...

My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...

This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!

[Roch]

It's toe to toe on here tonight. Smashing entertainment.  :D

[mike tesko]

Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.

 

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

Lets put things into perspective - phone message log (3:26am) which provides details of Ralph Bambers call to the police, was not disclosed to the jury at the time of the trial, it ended up being photocopied onto the reverse after the trial, onto the reverse of the original (4:02am) log from the scene. The log which has recently been posted by you, purports to be a copy of the original log from the scene details (4:02am) but there are omissions which make it clear that the details must have been re-written...

If the phone message log (3:26am) details are recorded on the reverse of the log from the scene (4:02am) the contents on both sides of that document are a forgery, in my opinion - especially if it is being suggested that the phone log details timed at 3:26am, refer or relate to the call made to the police by Jeremy...

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...

It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.

.......................

I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...

Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...

My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...

This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!

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

Hang on...

Stop speculating, I have said that if the contents of that phone log timed at 3:26am, relate to the call that was made to the police by Jeremy, I am saying that such a claim is a forgery - but if the contents relate to the call made to the police by RB, then it is not a forgery - it depends in which capacity you are trying to make the details fit? I am also saying that there has only ever been a photocopy of the phone message log contents (3:26am), and I am questioning the whereabouts of the originally version of that document?

Log (3:26am) RB - I think Ralph called the police

Log (3:26am) JB - No, I think the information contained in this is being misused to suggest something that simply did not happen...

[Kaldin]

Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.

 

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

Lets put things into perspective - phone message log (3:26am) which provides details of Ralph Bambers call to the police, was not disclosed to the jury at the time of the trial, it ended up being photocopied onto the reverse after the trial, onto the reverse of the original (4:02am) log from the scene. The log which has recently been posted by you, purports to be a copy of the original log from the scene details (4:02am) but there are omissions which make it clear that the details must have been re-written...

If the phone message log (3:26am) details are recorded on the reverse of the log from the scene (4:02am) the contents on both sides of that document are a forgery, in my opinion - especially if it is being suggested that the phone log details timed at 3:26am, refer or relate to the call made to the police by Jeremy...

It's you who is claiming that Malcolm Bonnet's log of PC West's call relates to a call from Jeremy, not me. Now you're claiming it's a forgery, so your whole claim that Nevill called the police is dead in the water ....

As for your claim that the log which I posted which starts at 4.02 is also a forgery, well please post the real document, otherwise your claim cannot be verified.

[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?

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

You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...

It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.

.......................

I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...

Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...

My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...

This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!

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

Hang on...

Stop speculating, I have said that if the contents of that phone log timed at 3:26am, relate to the call that was made to the police by Jeremy, I am saying that such a claim is a forgery - but if the contents relate to the call made to the police by RB, then it is not a forgery - it depends in which capacity you are trying to make the details fit? I am also saying that there has only ever been a photocopy of the phone message log contents (3:26am), and I am questioning the whereabouts of the originally version of that document?

Log (3:26am) RB - I think Ralph called the police

Log (3:26am) JB - No, I think the information contained in this is being misused to suggest something that simply did not happen...

So it's a forgery when it suits you, and it's also not a forgery when it suits you.

I think you need to make up your mind.

[Kaldin]

One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.