Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

Could it not be that to document shown in court simply never had the reverse copied? and so the original had both sides, and the court copy just the one.
Not the 'reverse' side has shown up, you're saying it was 'added' to the court version
could it not have been missing from the court version?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Just to make life simple for us dimwits, why not show the front and rear side by side (on here) then we can discuss with a little more clarity the events therein?

[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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.

Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).

There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.

[mike tesko]

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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

Could it not be that to document shown in court simply never had the reverse copied? and so the original had both sides, and the court copy just the one.
Not the 'reverse' side has shown up, you're saying it was 'added' to the court version
could it not have been missing from the court version?

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

possible...

[Kaldin]

Just to make life simple for us dimwits, why not show the front and rear side by side (on here) then we can discuss with a little more clarity the events therein?

And pigs might fly ...

[Kaldin]

So then, just to summarise:

Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call to PC West is a forgery?

The log from the scene is also a forgery?

According to Mike that is.

[mike tesko]

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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.

Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).

There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.

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

Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...

It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...

There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...

They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?

You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...

all you do is speculate...

[mike tesko]

So then, just to summarise:

Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call to PC West is a forgery?

The log from the scene is also a forgery?

According to Mike that is.

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

it depends upon which version you are talking about, and at what stage of the proceedings you are talking about...

[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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.

Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).

There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.

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

Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...

It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...

There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...

They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?

You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...

all you do is speculate...

But you just said the document which you claim proves that Nevill called the police is a FORGERY! You can't even stick to your own story.

[Kaldin]

Perhaps we could compile a list of all the documents which are forgeries according to Mike, just so we don't waste time discussing them!

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...

Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:

1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...

A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document 'as found'.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...

Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:

1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...

A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document as something it isn't.

[Kaldin]

I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...

Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:

1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...

A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document 'as found'.

I thought he said MB's log was NOT shown in court.

I just can't follow what he's on about, and I don't think I'm stupid - I think he keeps moving the goal posts and muddying the waters.

[mike tesko]

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.

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

You need to get your head seen to...

(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...

(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...

(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery

(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...

What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.

Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).

There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.

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

Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...

It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...

There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...

They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?

You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...

all you do is speculate...

But you just said the document which you claim proves that Nevill called the police is a FORGERY! You can't even stick to your own story.

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

its a forgery in the sense that the original was not exhibited at the trial, and somebody copied it onto the reverse of the other log. Now, somebody tried to pull a fast one here, by copying it onto the reverse of another document, whilst never intending for the original document to be disclosed - the reason for this can only be that on the reverse of the original (3:26am) log, must be other information which contradicts the claim that it purports to be a record of a call made to the police by JB at 3:26am...

In that context, its introduction is considered to be a forgery in my estimation...

But, the original document exists somewhere, and there is almost certainly something written on the reverse to prove that Ralph Bamber did make that call to the police, so in that sense, the contents of the original document is evidence that would tend to prove that Ralph made that call at 3:26am (3:16am) - thats what I am saying...