Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[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.

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

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...

You said the phone log was photocopied onto the reverse of an original log. nobody would do that. They might photocopy both logs onto one sheet of paper, but they wouldn't put a copy on the back of an original. That's just absurd.

None of this proves anything whatsoever.

So are you now saying that a photocopy of the phone log was exhibited at the trial?

[Kaldin]

Anyway, Mike thinks that Nevill called the police based on the theory that there was something on the other side of Malcolm Bonnet's log. That is what's called speculation.

[Kaldin]

Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?

According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?

[jon]

Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?

According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?

JB said  in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think

[Kaldin]

Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?

According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?

JB said  in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think

So the issue is really that some documents are photocopies. That doesn't necessarily mean that the originals were altered does it? They might have been, but I don't think anyone can state as a fact that they're "forgeries". I guess it depends on your definition of forgery.

[jon]

Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?

According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?

JB said  in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think

So the issue is really that some documents are photocopies. That doesn't necessarily mean that the originals were altered does it? They might have been, but I don't think anyone can state as a fact that they're "forgeries". I guess it depends on your definition of forgery.

Obviously would have to be sent to some kind of expert i would think

[Kaldin]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

[Reader]

. . . and supported by an entry in the major incident project document which was produced by EP...

entry (1) 03:45am, PC Myall sees unidentified male at whf

Would you please post an image of the relevant page in the major incident project document so that we can see the entry you're referring to in its original form and in its original context? Please also state what you know as to the date when the major incident project document was compiled?

[Roch]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?

[Reader]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

What evidence is there of this? The timing could easily have been discussed without the communications log being seen, and mike tesko insists that the communications log, although bearing the court stamp, was not in the bundles produced for the defence and the jury, and isn't recollected by the prosecution QC or the trial judge. He states it didn't come to light at all until much later.

[mb1]

Have just caught up with this thread...

Returning to itemised billing.

JB was a benefactor of Nevill and June's wills. Although charged with their murders, he remained a benefactor until found guilty and was entitled to all information regarding the estate and probate (granted Dec 85). As Executor, Mr Cock would have overseen the paying of all charges and the billing of all due monies.
The domestic WHF BT bill up to 07/08/85 would have been presented for payment.
JB was entitled to have sight of this.
As phone calls were so important in this case, wouldn't the defence have pursued this avenue?

The discharge of probate would have been delayed by the trial, but until that date JB was effectively the owner, and therefore the BT telephone line holder, of WHF. As such, he could have requested the phone records himself.

Likewise, if the line was 'owned' by a limited company he which JB held interest.

I cannot see how the defence did not have access to this billing, nor how the police had any more right to it than JB.

Re Logs

I think Mike's point is that the two logs should have been separately itemised in court and that the non-stamped log was 'sneaked in' and the defence therefore failed to give it due regard.
That does not mean either document is a forgery.
That does not mean either document was withheld from the defence.
Failure of the defence to use documents made available to them is not ground for an appeal.

[Kaldin]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

What evidence is there of this? The timing could easily have been discussed without the communications log being seen, and mike tesko insists that the communications log, although bearing the court stamp, was not in the bundles produced for the defence and the jury, and isn't recollected by the prosecution QC or the trial judge. He states it didn't come to light at all until much later.

Any defence worth their salt would not just take the word of a police officer that a call happened at a certain time. They would ask to see the log itself (even if it's a photocopy). If the defence did just take PC West's word for it, well ....

The issue was discussed at the original trial, and it was discussed again at the appeal in 2002. The issue of the timing of both logs was discussed.

Mike insists on a lot of things which are not backed up with proof ...

[Kaldin]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?

Yes he is saying that, and I'm saying that nobody would do that - it's illogical.

[Roch]

Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.

Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?

[Kaldin]

the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc. 

Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.

I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.